The reason why Stephen hawking was an atheist

[Someone here]

I always wondered how come an intelligent mind like Stephen hawking was an atheist even though he knows very well about the fine tuning of the universe 

Stephen hawking was atheist based on psychological reasons not scientific reasons. You can't just be that intelligent and knowledgeable and deny God with such superficiality.  On the other side you can't blame him.. Imagine that God created you to live life disabled in such a horrible way as him.. You would have every reason to believe that if God existed he would be the actual embodiment of the word cuck.

 

[Reciprocality]

The universe may be fine tuned for life, but give existence 1000 000 000 000 cycles to run trough and there you have it, humans.

Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, instead you are the designer of a system that happens to be precisely such that you could design it, the extra dimensional god is an absurd notion. A projection of oneself into sub systems in oneself.

We are made by brute force, we are the result of infinite possibilities, we are inevitable, the designer is a hoax unless it is intelligence itself as it renders time by intuition/synthesis.

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The universe may be fine tuned for life, but give existence 1000 000 000 000 cycles to run trough and there you have it, humans.

Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, instead you are the designer of a system that happens to be precisely such that you could design it, the extra dimensional god is an absurd notion. A projection of oneself into sub systems in oneself.

We are made by brute force, we are the result of infinite possibilities, we are inevitable, the designer is a hoax unless it is intelligence itself as it renders time by intuition/synthesis.

Seriously, are you an atheist? Do you believe this whole cosmos with all the laws of physics and the intelligence in it was just an accident? 

Fine tuning requires a fine tuner.

 according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages. It is not that it is a lucky coincidence which we have to accept as a primitive given; that it will be avoided by future best theories of fundamental physics.

the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions.

[Reciprocality]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Seriously, are you an atheist? Do you believe this whole cosmos with all the laws of physics and the intelligence in it was just an accident? 

I literally said the opposite.

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

we are inevitable

 

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.

That is correct, as I said, it is fine tuned.

And again, nothing beyond it is required.

 

Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, you are projecting yourself into your own ideas and then you make a distinction between the self you project and the self you do not, but this is a dogmatic distinction.

Most atheists would not call me atheist, I do not consider the dichotomy useful in categorizing my understanding of existence. You have to be far more particular, and give an intelligible theory on something, to which I may be atheistic, but prior to this we are putting the cart in front of the horse.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Someone here]

14 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I literally said the opposite.

 

That is correct, as I said, it is fine tuned.

And again, nothing beyond it is required.

 

Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design, you are projecting yourself into your own ideas and then you make a distinction between the self you project and the self you do not, but this is a dogmatic distinction.

Most atheists would not call me atheist, I do not consider the dichotomy useful in categorizing my understanding of existence. You have to be far more particular, and give an intelligible theory on something, to which I may be atheistic, but prior to this we are putting the cart in front of the horse.

Fine tuning does imply an intelligent designer.  We have two choices ..either all these cosmological constants are perfectly established to produce life by mere accident and chance .or some intelligent designer put it that way. 

The values of the constants, and boundary conditions of the universe are fine-tuned for life in general, not merely human life. a universe with s slightly different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would almost certainly not give rise to any form of life.  according to the fine-tuning considerations, universes with different laws, constants, and boundary conditions would typically give rise to much less structure and complexity, which would see

[Reciprocality]

You have no idea what you talk about.

[Someone here]

Yeah it must be me ?

[Reciprocality]

It is one thing to be wrong in ones conclusions, or ones theory, but totally another to misrepresent the possibility space of theories.

The reason it is not implied that there must be an intelligent designer on the evidence of fine tuning is that the opposite (non fine tuning) does not imply the opposite (unintelligent design non intelligent design), you have merely associated things with each other.

Consider this, It is very possible that the universe has no beginning and cycles, or that there is instead a million million million of them, both these scenarios undermines the intelligence behind our unlikely universe.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Someone here]

24 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

 

Consider this, It is very possible that the universe has no beginning and cycles, or that there is instead a million million million of them, both these scenarios undermines the intelligence behind our unlikely universe.

Aren't you aware of the big bang ? The universe does have a beginning and this is an unquestionable fact today. We know it all started 14 billion years ago .

As for the multiverse theories. It doesn't “explain” why the initial conditions that prevailed at the Big Bang origin of our universe, and the physical constants and laws which shaped its subsequent evolution, appear so exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life. The idea is that there’s nothing particularly special about our universe: it is simply one of a (possibly infinite) number of universes, all with different initial conditions, constants, and laws. Most will be inhospitable, but it should come as no surprise to find ourselves in a universe which isn’t.

Multiverse theory is still just a hypothesis. Not a scientific fact. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Someone here

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Benton said:

Infinity is intelligence. I mean we are speaking rn

Yup 

[Reciprocality]

amazing

[Blackhawk]

Fine tuning does not imply intelligent design.

A multiverse would automatically make this universe fine tuned. Because there's many universes which doesn't allow life, but some universes would allow life, simply by chance, and of course we find ourselves in such a universe.

If you randomly arrange letters in infinite many ways, then simply by accident for example the Bible is created. And all other books that has ever been written and will get written. No intelligence needed.

22 hours ago, Someone here said:

the universe was created by some divine designer who established life-friendly conditions.

That's anthropomorphism. In the same way like God would be a white bearded man sitting on a cloud.

The difference is just that you give God human mental attributes, instead of physical attributes. But maybe you give "him" physical human attributes too.

It's really childish.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Blackhawk

[Someone here]

@Blackhawk I agree that it's either God or a multiverse.

modern cosmology force us to choose. Is it the case that the apparent fine-tuning of constants and forces to make the universe just right for life means there is either a need for a "tuner" or else a cosmos in which every possible variation of these constants and forces exists somewhere?
If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse.
Even strongly atheistic physicists seem to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."

I decided that the idea of a creator God is much easier to digest than an endless multiverse.

[Someone here]

@Knowledge Hoarder

 

A few years before his death, he has publicly admitted to being an atheist.

But it’s funny how the most learned of people can miss the obvious. According to cosmologists, there was nothing before the big bang. How can something so beautiful and so well organised as our universe come out of nothing and without any ‘intervention’? This is hardly scientific thinking, and shows that some scientists are selective in applying the rules of science , and common sense is discarded under a maze of scientific jargons.

These scientists seem to lack the humility to say ‘ I don’t know if there is a God because we are not able to prove God scientifically yet’, that would have been nice and a true mark of an educated person.

PS: Before people misinterpret my musings above, I have only praise for Stephen Hawking as an individual, he was a great soul, a fighter and a superior intellectual, his contributions to science are priceless and may his soul rest in Peace. My note is more a digression on the related topic of how modern scientists in general view God .

[LSD-Rumi]

@Someone here It is hard to accept that a loving God would destroy your entire life and leave you paralyzed from head to toe. He did good actually coping with  his situation, many people would ended thier lives or become depressed and unfunctional if this happened to them. It is a tragedy but it seems God loves tragedies too. We all pay the price of existence, some of us pay it more than others. The price is suffering.

Edited May 28, 2022 by LSD-Rumi

[Someone here]

@LSD-Rumi

If anyone was capable of thinking through the likelihood that a God exists, you would think it must be Steven Hawking. Some Christians like to remark that you do not see atheists in foxholes but here you see a man long aware of his mortality and equally long convinced that God does not exist.

But I believe his atheism wasn't for mere scientific reasons .his disability made him angry at God. Why would an all loving god (if he even exists, ) let them suffer for the rest of his life from such a horrible situation.  That played a huge role on his rejection of God imo more than any scientific reason.