Om Namah Shivaya

Om Namah Shivaya

I'll be grateful if you...

Dec 3, 2011

TALKING POINT: "GOD does not EXIST" says Brilliant scientist Stephen Hawking

Recently, I came across a beautiful documentary by Discovery Channel hosted by Stephen Hawking asking a question that has remain unanswered since the beginning of mankind, “Does a "God" or a "Celestial Dictator" exist? In this documentary, as described in the write up, Stephen Hawking dissects the science of the universe in answering this very fundamental question.

I liked the documentary... (must see it as its beautifully crafted though its more than 42 minutes long) and enjoyed the simple explanation Stephen Hawking gave for Non-existence of GOD (Or the creator of Big Bang)... but I do not quite agree to it. His explanation refuting the existence of God on the basis of “Human perception of Cause and Effect" was not convincing enough for me. May be its because I am just a layman - not a scientist, as every one else is who are supporting this theory. But then what is human perception. Its just something that our senses keep our mind wondering and in constant chaos, decieving us all the time?

At the 37th minute into the documentary, Stephen Hawking says, “"The role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key for removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. You can't get back to the time before Big Bang, because there is no BEFORE" and then goes on to say, “We have finally found something that does not have cause because there is no time for cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no "time" for a creator to exist in"

But in my opinion, why there has to be a 'time', as perceived by scientist now, to create a cause?

Well personally I don't think so as
1)    The word "TIME" is not the Time, just like the word "Tree" is not the tree.
2)    Time is a concept created by man to understand the physical laws governing nature. And as the very nature of concepts is, that it can and will change over time by new discoveries, new insights and new human endeavours. So time per se cannot be a constant thing as constant as Mass, Energy and Space, in definition, and cannot be used as an argument to declare God's existence or not, just by declaring that TIME does not exist beyond Big Bang, as Stephen Hawkins has declared in this documentary.

I believe in the "Cyclic model” which means that Universe is constantly expanding and contracting. More recent work has suggested the problem (That Cosmological constant is not actually constant) may be indirect evidence of a cyclic universe possibility as allowed by string theory. With every cycle of the universe (Big Bang then eventually a Big Crunch) taking about a trillion years. Just like Einstein many scientists assume some things like Cosmological Constant (To which Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory as the "Biggest Blunder of his life". Well a very interesting read at Wikipedia – Click here to read) or let’s say, as Stephen Hawking say, Time = 0 at big bang.

My brother Animesh has shared an another beautiful documentary by Carl Sagan "Hindu Concept of the Beginning and End of Universe" where he says "Hindu religion is the only religion in the world dedicated to the idea that the cosmos itself goes under an immense infact infinite number of deaths and re-births" (Its a lovely short Video, must see if not to hear what he says, but to see one of the beautiful temple architecture from South India)

Yes, conclusive evidence is lacking but it does not mean that it’s cannot be true. Given all the best thoughts that this century’s genius scientist, Stephen Hawking could put forth and some little bit of instinctive understanding that I have, I believe in, is the fact that “we have not reached that state of scientific progress, where it can be proved scientifically and conclusively the Existence of GOD or His Non Existence”. So I will leave aside the question whether “GOD” or as Stephen Hawking says, “CELESTIAL DICTATOR” exist or Not. But I will continue to firmly believe that GOD exists and will do so, until its proven wrong.

Unlike Stephen Hawking declaring at the end of the documentary, 
“My view is that there is "No god", "No one created Universe" and "No one directs our fate"

I just have belief that
 – There is GOD - The supreme consciousness
- And some Universal Consciousness has created the Universe 
- and yes there is fate but only in this ‘now’, which is the result of Free Will governed by our 'present' Karma.
ॐ नमः शिवाय
Om Namah Shivaya

PREV                               HOME                                    NEXT
Nature of Reality – Einstein and Tagore


  1. Agreed. . Om Namah Shivaya!

  2. I believe you too...He may be a "brilliant" scientist but he is just a man, perhaps more tragic than us ~

  3. Thanks Trina for agreeing to this...

    Thanks Heaven for believing in my thought. Yes, Stephen Hawkins is a brilliant Scientist and an amazing personality. Personally I think he is more than a man... too. But then I am just not able to find the logic in this documentary convincing, probably, his book will be more convincing, as my brother suggested earlier, though I doubt it ;-)

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  4. I have been having a discussion with my friend from Childhood, who has settled in Australia now... at Face Book. As I am not a great frequenter of FB, had asked him to continue our discussion here... so below is his input from the FB and my reply....

    Daljeet Singh Sodhi I saw this documentary in TV few months back. Even I was little disappointed. May be title creates so much expectation and documentary does not fulfil it. I think it is easy to prove the existence and onus should be on religion.It may not be satisfactory to prove non existence by science. Another problem is the tool set. Religous people need to prove God existence using scientific tools to convince science and scientific people need to use religous tools to prove non existence. Right now both discards each other methodology. We will keep discussing thing without any result. One way I set this path for myself is to read different faiths. I have decided to read the actual books with translations. More I read, more I am inclined towards atheism. Forget about the science, even different religions are totally incompatible with each other. I think if we try to understand all the holy books, (at least for me) Concept of GOD vanishes without the help of science.
    5 hours ago · Like
    Shashidhar Sharma Dear Daljeet

    Its great to see your lovely comment here. I wanted to reply to it here but would have preferred to take this discussion to my blog as I am not very frequent on Face Book and not very happy with the kind of flooding it does with its automated wall postings and group messages as well as its security issues. You must get on to Google+, where I am having a lively discussion on this topic with Animesh

    But anyways here are my inputs on your thoughts...

    1) Why one needs to prove God's existence? When you see a beautiful Car zipping by the road, you do not think that all the atomic elements in the car suddenly decided to join hands together and become the car that it is. You know that some one has made it the way it is and you don't wonder about his existence as well as you don't even wonder about who made the guy who made the car. You just enjoy and live the moment while you admired its passing by.... that is what is all about living in life and go on creating beautiful moments, things and experiences that makes the life that you live....

    2) Onus on proving about existence or rather non existence of God lies with scientists, actually. Because that is why they are there... The concept of GOD, as Descartes long time back said at the time of proving, "I think Therefore I am" is a continuous thought process in all the parts of human development all across earth, independently, which basically means that instinctively, intuitively the human kind or the consciousness is hardwired into 'knowing' some Super consciousness is out there, deep within their own consciousness. Now science has a problem as I don't think the spiritual people need a proof to be sure of the existence of this Supreme Consciousness.

    3) Please note, I am not talking about various religions here as I personally believe, any religion is nothing but set of rules, Dogma's and patterns designed to make a group of like minded people, as man is basically a social animal and feels secure in groups... Religion is not GOD or Supreme Consciousness. As Buddha said, that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  5. I enjoyed reading your thoughts here. I also agree with you. I read a great book on proving the existence of God called A Highter Court by John Betcher. Although it is a fictitious novel,it highlights each side of this debate in a very real way. I highly recommend it.

  6. Even I think it is a futile exercise to prove GOD existence. It is for the sake of documentary that I try to put my point. The problem I have seen that both sides uses different techniques and cannot get convinced with each other. I am trying to use religion as it is one of the authority in case of GOD. To believe in GOD, one has to have some belief in religion. I understand that you may not believe in every bit of hindu religion but you must beleive in basic things like Krishna or Geeta. As in the case Muslims beleive in Mohammad as the last prophet send by GOD. I think the discussion is much better if different religous leader talk about creation and GOD according to their holy books rather than science. Also I think Buddhism can be consider as philosophy or GODLESS religion and not according to traditional definition of a religion.

  7. You make a fundamental mistake in your reasoning and declare Stephen Hawking to be wrong! You seem to think time a as separate entity from space but actually they are entwined together to form spcaetime continuum, you can't separate one from the other. For that matter, time or whatever you want to label it as is not a human construct. Time did exist before humans and it will after we are gone, our personal beliefs in this matter are meaningless, unless you can prove mathematically your concept that time is independent of space. FWIW, I fully support Hawking in his conclusion.

  8. Dear Shiela

    Good to see you here on this topic and enjoying the same and supporting me and my thoughts, just as you like my poetry. Thank you.

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  9. Dear Daljit

    Yes to believe in God, one has to have some belief in inner consciousness, (Will not like to call that as religion or soul) and not think that we are an accidental amalgamation of atoms.

    Thanks for your inputs.

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  10. Dear Debajyoti

    Thanks for your wonderful comment.

    Now to your points

    A)First about time - A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure"

    Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

    B) But I have not based my disagreement to Stephen Hawking's declaration that God Does not Exist, on the time per se but his saying that time cease to exist beyond Big Bang and hence there can be nothing beyond that, hence no Celestial Dictator or Creator or God. You yourself are saying that in your own comment above, that time exists forever... :-)

    C) If you view the video completely, then in the beginning you will come across his declaration that how one goes about creating Universe, and he says, you need Mass, Energy and Space. There was nothing about time then, but then in the end of the Documentary, he brings conveniently Time to declare that God does not exist.

    D)Finally, in the post above I have not declared Stephen Hawking wrong...I have said and I quote,

    "(What)I believe in, is the fact that “we have not reached that state of scientific progress, where it can be proved scientifically and conclusively the Existence of GOD or His Non Existence”. So I will leave aside the question whether “GOD” or as Stephen Hawking says, “CELESTIAL DICTATOR” exist or Not. But I will continue to firmly believe that GOD exists and will do so, until its proven wrong."

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  11. Regarding A, wikipedia ;) doesn't mention the present view of time, that it is intrinsically related with space there is no separate existence of these two. Newtonian time have been extended by Einstein to it's present form to include space. Kant or Leibniz didn't provide a proper explanation for time. Infact physicists don't regard Kant's time at all. Also note that the simple definition is a circular definition and hence not accurate. You are defining time in terms of an instrument that measures time itself!

    Regarding B, time did start at big bang as the space it self started from big bang. As it has been proved, space and time do not have separate existence hence there was a beginning of time.Also I didn't say that time lasted forever, I just said that time was there before humans to refute the notion that time is a human construct.

    Regarding C, whilst I can't speak for Stephen Hawking, I think he is correct in saying only about space as time doesn't have a separate existence from space.

    Regarding D, you can believe the existence of God but as a rational humans we must have reasons for our belief. Perhaps you have heard of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In the same one might say these exist.

  12. Dear Debajyoti

    Thanks for your interesting inputs.
    A)I gave that definition from Wikipedia so we are on the same page about time.
    Now, you yourself has said that time existed before humans... so considering the arguments that are being put, humans are nothing but just collections of atoms etc... so I can take it forward and say that it existed before mass / Energy ... right? ;-) Anyways, this discussion on what time is separate discussion... will start another post on this and take it forward there... :-)

    But jokes apart, I am at loss to understand how come suddenly the time disappears (As confidently stated by Stephen Hawking) where as even in the current scientific discussions there are many indirect proofs for cyclic universe and have not yet been proven wrong..?

    B)Now you are saying that not only time but Space itself started at Big Bang. Let me take this a little further, taking the argument of Stephen Hawking, that you need space, mass and energy to create Universe... right? So he was wrong in assuming that? Everything came out of nothing? well then why its not happening around us all the time.... or why only one universe? If there is nothing required, then we should be having Multi Universe popping out every moment... and if its not the case then, there is some design behind it all?

    C)No, if you see his video carefully, he actually equated Mass with energy... if space has any other dimension he should have pointed it out at that point rather than bringing it in the end, closing his main point with time that GOD does not Exist.

    D) Yes I have heard of Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.. but I am not the one saying that GOD does not exists. Those who are saying that should conclusively prove rather than trying to confuse people with their authoritative voice and from Holy Pedestals of science, by crying hoarse with their belief only, as Stephen Hawking says so... "Its my belief.... God does not exist"

    Finally, as I have already said, its my belief that God exists, as it comes from my inner consciousness and will stick to it, till its proves God does not exists conclusively and say here I am and I can prove that God does not exist and here is the proof (I was just wondering, where all the other great things Stephen Hawking has proven in science, has he used the word again, saying,"I believe that A+B=C or something like that.. :-)

    And I have more confidence on that inner consciousness because that is me... just like I know that a perfect circle exists, but has never seen it within my own eyes, infact no one has seen one perfect circle / Sphere - not you or even Stephen Hawking... but both of you and others for that matter, know that it exists because of a Mathematical definition (i.e all the equidistant points from another point in a plane is called circle or in case of sphere in space)...

    I believe that God exists,even for scientists, its just that they have not found the perfect equation / definition for it.... :-)

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  13. Just a few brief points -

    Regarding A, your idea is absolutely wrong, atoms and more generally matter were formed after Big Bang. Please do read up on Special and General relativity and "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology" By Sir Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking. They have conclusively shown that nothing existed beyond the Big Bang. In fact the statement "beyond Big Bang" is meaningless.

    Regarding B, this again is a lack of understanding on your part. You seem to think that space is a separate entity that was needed to create the Universe but it is not so. There is no separate existence of space outside the universe or of universe apart from space whatever it may be.
    As for whether something can come out of nothing, you clearly have no idea about virtual particles or the Casimir effect.

    You may believe in anything but that does not make it true. Also you seem to have a weird idea about burden of proof. When I say something exists the burden of proof is on me to prove that it does. It's not the duty of Stephen Hawking to prove that it does not.

    Last but not least, who created the creator?

  14. Shashiji, my understanding is very limited, almost a null as compared to many of you present here, but still am saying what I have always believed.

    I feel God was created to bring around a positiveness in the world, to bring around more hope and a prospect of a better future, to create a dread or fear amongst wrong doers so as to curb criminals as much as possible, and maintain a peaceful world, by us, HUMANS.

    I shall go on to even say, tomorrow's God will be someone amongst us, of all we know, even Mahatma Gandhi or mother Teresa. Who knows.

    As far as the creator is concerned, it is a natural occurrence, not created or crafted by anyone.

  15. Dear Debajyoti

    Thanks for your brief points... and here is what I think of them...

    A)You are quoting again Sir Penrose and Stephen Hawking, whose thoughts are in discussion here, hence don't think are right one to prove your point here. Why the Cyclic Universe is not the answer as others have suggested and there are indirect proofs of, as mentioned in the post, where I have mentioned Cosmological Constant being positive.

    How about Multiverse and many more such theories being discussed and worked upon.

    Virtual particles etc are present day mathematical Solutions in order to explain some happenings and some of them are proven over time to be wrong, just like the speed of light is being questioned now and before that many more..

    B) Its not me who is saying that the Space is needed to create Universe. Its Stephen Hawking who is saying that, I am just only quoting him. If you hear the Video attentively, you will find him saying so in the beginning itself.

    C)I am not questioning Stephen Hawking to prove God and I believe no one has asked him to Prove existence of God. He has gone ahead and declared that he "believes" God does not Exist, which actually fine with me as his belief. Same is with me...

    It would have been great, if he had said that its not my belief but its a fact that God does not exist... and this is the proof. You know this creates a doubt in me that he is not confident of what he is saying...

    Finally, when you see a beautiful car on the road, you know that its made by some people (you don't say that it got created on its own) but you don't question who created those people.... then why this question about the creator of the creator. First lets get to the creator... then the progress of mankind will find the creator of the creator too.. if there is a need..

    Yes I think I have some weird ideas about it all... but actually I am happy and at peace with those...

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  16. Dear Pooja

    I appreciate your comment here and like you I am also not a scientist or knowledgeable to discuss proof or proving the existence or non existence of God, like my friends here. What I have put here is one Discovery channel Episode called Curiosity, where Stephen Hawking has put forward his belief and I am just not going to go by his or any one's belief but mine... ;-)

    In fact the Word GOD is not actually the god as the finger pointing moon is not the moon... God as you say was created to bring about positiveness to the world and I agree to that absolutely.... but that is what is religion. And I am fine with it and I agree with you completely.

    Yes Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa can be one in that sense tomorrow... just like Buddha is now... and in case of Buddha it happened just in 2600 years...

    Yes, It can be a natural occurence too but then you see, in Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, patanjali has considered Purush and Prakriti in different sense than the present day scientists do... ;-)

    Frankly speaking I am glad that you are here and commented, I was getting into too serious a discussion about it all, scientifically... which I know is not going to yield any result.. :-) Thank you

    ॐ नमः शिवाय
    Om Namah Shivaya

  17. its all about individuals psychology,how he see the world around him,if u will think ur creator loves himalaya's and often visits amarnath,then yes its true FOR YOU...anyways that was nice...

  18. Pretty soon we will see one of the predictions of Mayan culture will be proved wrong about the end of the world. This is one of the very few cases where any belief or religion is specific about the date or concept. Mostly all of the holy books define things in verses which are too general and can be interpreted differently. Religous people are also evolving their interpretation based on new scientific facts. These interpretation can be fit to situtations. I think it is the mind of person (which keeps evlolving) who is trying to explain a verse and not verse itself. So far I am quite disappointed by reading different original holy books. It is an irony that as I am reading more holy books or religion, more and more I am becoming atheist or non religous.

  19. Science is a more practical concept, a logic of sorts. But it should never deter any believer for Science is limited and at best only answers what it is capable of! Basic notions and theories change with time, and newer shall adorn the court of problems.
    If it can state that God does not exist, so be it, but it cannot deny God's existence either.
    For me God is more of a spiritual being, cannot be seen, nor known, God is an answer to the puzzle of life, a remedy in darkness, positivism, and always righteous. A belief system, nothing more!

  20. I would like to believe that God is manifested in everything good in us and in everything positive around us. God is there in love, in a smile, in an act of compassion, in positive strength, in courage, in faith, in any good deed etc etc ..... at the same time if I do not believe in existence of The supreme consciousness I feel alone and orphaned. Hence I would like to believe there is God but not in human created idols but within man and within his mind.

  21. Just a brief counterpoint to Harish G. and Celestial Dreamz - To truly understand how specious your justifications are, just replace "God" with "Galactus" (Galactus is a comic book character) and see how it sounds -

    "I would like to believe that Galactus is manifested in everything good in us and in everything positive around us. Galactus is there in love, in a smile, in an act of compassion, in positive strength, in courage, in faith, in any good deed etc etc ..... at the same time if I do not believe in existence of The supreme consciousness I feel alone and orphaned. Hence I would like to believe there is Galactus but not in human created idols but within man and within his mind."


    "If it can state that Galactus does not exist, so be it, but it cannot deny Galactus's existence either.
    For me Galactus is more of a spiritual being, cannot be seen, nor known, Galactus is an answer to the puzzle of life, a remedy in darkness, positivism, and always righteous. A belief system, nothing more!"

    Of course this doesn't mean Galactus is real!

  22. Dear Mr Shashi wish you a happy and peaceful new year.


I appreciate your visit and it will be a great pleasure to know what you think of this post...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...