Hawking Comes Clean

As an atheist I have no problem with saying that Stephen is going overboard. I love the guy, but he is stating certainties that are at best speculations.Stevey would be much better of by discussing human curiousity. We WANT to know how universes come about. If we decide to settle on an answer just because it makes us comfortable then we have thrown human curiosity out the window. What we have to do is assume that we can find the answer, and the only tool we have for determing when we have found the right answer is science. If the answer to how universes are created is never found because it was a supernatural act then so what. The very journey of trying to find that answer was a very enjoyable and worthwhile effort. Just think of how little we would now know if Hubble (or anyone after him) never reported his findings on galactic redshift.

quote:

---

What? The "speculation" that physics suggests that the Universe exists independent of any divine prime mover?

---

"THE Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded."Althought this quote is second hand, I think it more than fair to point out that we don't even know what these inevitable laws are. I think we can both agree that supersymmetry is probably right, but I don't think we can state this with certainty. We know even less about how universes come about than we do about how universes develop in those very early time periods such as the era that witnessed supersymmetry (possibly).While I would wholeheartedly agree that we have no reason to think that a deity was involved I also disagree with stating that we are certain that no deity was involved.

By Big Bang, are we talking about inflation and the subsequent distribution of energy and matter, or are we talking about the interaction of Branes and string theory (or other theories)?