Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe

[dominomask]

Using science as a tool to antagonize the religious is what is wrong. That is what I said. I said it because there is no faster way to close someones mind to a different way of thinking then attacking their beliefs. It happens all the time though.

Heya gang,

I realize I'm jumping into this late, and in the middle, as such I'll try to be brief and clear.

Brandon, I agree that antagonism is unproductive, and science and religion have been in an antagonistic relationship for a long time, but only substantively in a political sense.  And I would argue that  (irrelevant as it may be to right and wrong) religion did kinda fire the first salvos in that conflict.  I realize that that could blossom into a whole tangential debate, and that's not my aim, but it's important to recognize the amount of unnecessary trouble that can be had from interpreting simple dissent as antagonism.  The early scientists who were persecuted as heretics were never saying "God doesn't exist."  They were just saying "Hey, look what I noticed!  And it happens every time!" and religious leaders responded with "I don't understand/I feel threatened by knowledge I can't dictate, so God thinks you are wrong.  If you anger God, God will punish us, so I am justified in punishing you to make God happy."  When God is being used as a reason to kill you and your ideas, it becomes understandable (not necessarily right, but reasonable) to insist that God be proved.  So it goes back and forth, religous thought being biased by the antagonistic notion that reason is the enemy, scientific thought being biased by the idea that faith is harmful.  The best minds on both sides (and I count Hawking as one of those as relates to his life-long work on gravitation and time) don't participate in such pointless antagonism, but that doesn't stop the media from jumping on anything that might be controvertial and trying to start the fight up again, which is what is happening here.  Hawking is a scientist, and scientists are required, by definition, to state their findings, even if they may contradict previous assertions that that scientist had published.  Hawking famously published that he felt there might be a scientific reason to believe in a God-being.  He has since found evidence to make him doubt that conclusion, so he is honor-bound to say so.  Saying "I think I've found a logical scientific reason to believe in God." and then saying "Oh, wait, that's not conclusive, my bad." is not the same thing as saying "There is no God. Religion is stupid and no one should believe." 

Inventing antagonism from a neutral statement is the real antagonism, in this case.  Aggrivated by sensationalist headlines, certainly, but despite being understandable, your hostility is misdirected.

[Brandon]

Stuff

I think you should read this post because it delves into the behavoir more then I had previously mentioned. I do not compare the corralation to science and religion of the past because objectivly its meaningless beyond a history lesson or a lesson on how to teach people what not to do.

How scientists were treated in the past is a far cry from how they are treated today and has nothing to do with behavoir of those who use science to antagonize people in the present. It would be like if I took 1 incident out of history and applied it to all of that cultural group to prove they were bad, evil, no good, whatever you want to call it while forgetting everything else they have done throughout history (and people do do exactly that quite a bit around here)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

It seems to me that there is only perceived conflict between science and religion because some people want conflict. Generally speaking the behavoir of the two groups is often Aborrhent, instead of respecting each other and agreeing to disagree while admitting that neither side has concrete proof they breed animosity and hatred toward one another. To me this shows a relative immaturity between the two groups and desire to antagonize each other (Note: I was generalizing through that entire paragraph)

I think whats often overlooked is faith and religion is not just the belief in god or the supernatural. It is philosophy, it is history, it is culture, it is morales. It compliments science in every way by providing things that science can not and in turn science compliments faith with the one thing it doesnt do. You need both to form a successful society, when a society lacks one of them (either one of them) it is doomed to failure.

Oh and just in case anyone was wondering, why did I leave Albert Einstein's quote in there? Because its awesome 

[dominomask]

Tell me this, please.
How do you think the study of the expanding universe at the quantum level will benefit the world and improve our lives?
What are they searching to find and why?

Let me make an analogy, and hopefully stop myself before it goes too far.

The question was asked of Galileo what point there was in looking into the sky with a telescope.  What might he find that could possibly justify the risk of angering God?  What he found was evidence for a vastly simplified model of how the earth moves relative to its neigbors.  A similar question was asked about the point of studying things too small to see.  The point, ultimately, was cellular biology, virology, antibiotics...hell, just proving the importance of hand-washing has made more practical good of that abstract inquiry than can be easily measured.  Then it was asked, why look with x-rays, why look with electrons?  What was the "point" for that matter of creating a machine that required thousands of punch-cards just to do basic arithmetic? 

To put it another way, unless you're a Jehova's Witness, a fundamentalist Buddist, or a pessimistic Nihilist (all of which I'm pretty sure just walked into a bar together:) then your philosophy probably admits that there are wonderful and beautiful mysteries in the world.  Unless someone has convinced you that it's a sin, there's no reason not to look for an answer, and every reason to do so.  We live in a world so saturated by the benefits of scientific inquiry that we are more likely than not to forget that they are even there.  EVen if you believe that these are ultimately gifts from God, you have to admit that he delivered them to us in the package of science.  It would be silly to have a gift from God waiting on your doorstep and never bother to take off the wrapping paper.

[dominomask]

I think you should read this post because it delves into the behavoir more then I had previously mentioned. I do not compare the corralation to science and religion of the past because objectivly its meaningless beyond a history lesson or a lesson on how to teach people what not to do.

A lesson I really don't think you're getting. 

Oh well.  I've been on message boards long enough to know that when someone has dug their heels far enough into a premise "publicly", they're unlikely to give even the most justified inch.  Mr. Hawking has that integrity, which is the source of this whole mosh pit.

[Jude]

Einstein is a funny example to use as a scientist who eschews the conflict between faith and empiricism.  You see, his work on relativity led to an understanding that there was something very special about light.  When the basics of relativity are applied and at the same time there is a move to the subatomic level, quantum mechanics is essentially a direct result.  In that way, Einstein's own theories basically gave birth to Quantum Mechanics.  Yet when asked about the consequences he said this:  "God doesn't play with Dice."

Einstein's faith led to his rejection of Quantum Mechanics (which we know now without a reasonable doubt to be a physical law).  Therefore he's really a poster boy for the incompatibility of blind faith and empiricism, not the other way around.

[Brandon]

That doesnt mean his philosophical outlook on science and religion was wrong, only that his blind faith and possibly disgust with being forced to choose one over the other stopped him from continuing the search for answers. Had he not been forced to choose one or the other Einstein likely would have contributed far more to scientific pursuit

This goes back to what I said before, its the people who want conflicts, not the ideas.

[Will]

What exactly forced him to choose one or the other?

[Nyarly]

I would be careful with this quote. It often gets used outside of context and often wrong. Maybe it would be better if people would use the full quote instead.

[Will]

The full quote doesn't really change the context.  His faith led him to believe that quantum mechanics was wrong.

[Vekseid]

Einstein is a funny example to use as a scientist who eschews the conflict between faith and empiricism.  You see, his work on relativity led to an understanding that there was something very special about light.  When the basics of relativity are applied and at the same time there is a move to the subatomic level, quantum mechanics is essentially a direct result.  In that way, Einstein's own theories basically gave birth to Quantum Mechanics.  Yet when asked about the consequences he said this:  "God doesn't play with Dice."

Einstein's faith led to his rejection of Quantum Mechanics (which we know now without a reasonable doubt to be a physical law).  Therefore he's really a poster boy for the incompatibility of blind faith and empiricism, not the other way around.

Hardly.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

If you study quantum mechanics, the Universe it paints at the smallest scales defies our typical logical understanding of everything we know. Einstein was not shown to be wrong and Bohr not shown to be vindicated until after both of them were dead.

Einstein was perfectly capable of owning up to when he was wrong (see the Cosmological Constant).

What Einstein was rejecting was that the Universe at the smallest scales takes actions based on probability and not by cause. "God does not play dice with the Universe." being the original quote. If you're going to call Einstein's rejection solely faith based, at least endeavor to comprehend the context. I wouldn't fault anyone for feeling squeamish about that, and no doubt most of the people in this thread would be if they take the time to wrap their heads around it.

[Jude]

Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics because he didn't like the idea of things happening on a probabilistic fashion because it rejects design (his belief) and instead implies that things happen because they are what is most likely.  Some of that has been described on this thread, but the way light moves, how it reflects and cannot refract like sound, and the very fundamental instability of the universe.

If you're going to disagree with me by saying "hardly" please give an actual example and explain your logic.  I know what I'm talking about (at least I think I do, I'm open to being actually shown I'm wrong instead of being rejected in one word -- which I think is pretty offensive), I've taken classes on Quantum Mechanics and I don't feel that you've actually presented any evidence to contradict what I said.

EDIT:  The full quote is even more damning:

You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

There was nothing "instinctive" about the dice-players attitude, as he put it, because that's not how science is supposed to work.  Instinct is only utilized in formulating ideas that fit that data to test, but the moment that better ideas fit, you're supposed to be objective enough to switch your points of view to them.  Einstein's attitude denied evidence and the success of the quantum model because it didn't fit with his views on the nature of reality.  I don't see how you can take this as anything but an example of science failing to be properly executed due to the intrusion of faith exemplified in one of the most influence scientists of the 20th century.

EDIT2:  And actually, if Einstein had accepted the clearly better theory and helped work on it he would've contributed far more to science in his lifetime.  The last 20 years of his life were devoted to working against it, and he never got anywhere.

I don't think you understand the situation Brandon.  He was not being asked to choose between his faith and science; ideas were being proposed that he did not agree with on the basis of their conflicting with his theological viewpoints.  This was the first half of the twentieth century when even scientists were not atheistic in large numbers.  There's no evidence of anyone painting a conflict between science and religion, it's simply that religion didn't like what science was saying, so it made the conflict.

Just... as it did during the Heliocentric model controversy, evolution, and many other times throughout history.  As you can see, there isn't really a controversy being manufactured here as much as there is religion not being comfortable with getting facts wrong.

[Vekseid]

Einstein rejected Quantum Mechanics because he didn't like the idea of things happening on a probabilistic fashion because it rejects design (his belief) and instead implies that things happen because they are what is most likely.

When Einstein said "God does not play dice with the Universe", he was appealing to causality. I mentioned this in my prior post. He made no such appeal to design.

See here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html

QM was not vindicated until both of them were dead (tests of Bell's inequality). QM proposes a model of reality that is completely alien to classical understanding. Einstein did not want to accept that, did not want to accept that there can be limits on knowledge, and did not want to accept causality being trumped at small scales.

Again - proper tests of quantum mechanics were not done until after he was dead. In order to claim that faith blinded him, it would be necessary to show him an experiment and have him refuse to comprehend the result.

  Some of that has been described on this thread, but the way light moves, how it reflects and cannot refract like sound, and the very fundamental instability of the universe.

If you're going to disagree with me by saying "hardly" please give an actual example and explain your logic.  I know what I'm talking about (at least I think I do, I'm open to being actually shown I'm wrong instead of being rejected in one word -- which I think is pretty offensive), I've taken classes on Quantum Mechanics and I don't feel that you've actually presented any evidence to contradict what I said.

EDIT:  The full quote is even more damning:

You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

There was nothing "instinctive" about the dice-players attitude, as he put it, because that's not how science is supposed to work.  Instinct is only utilized in formulating ideas that fit that data to test, but the moment that better ideas fit, you're supposed to be objective enough to switch your points of view to them.  Einstein's attitude denied evidence and the success of the quantum model because it didn't fit with his views on the nature of reality.  I don't see how you can take this as anything but an example of science failing to be properly executed due to the intrusion of faith exemplified in one of the most influence scientists of the 20th century.

Again, over the parts Einstein was arguing about, he was dead before those tests were even carried out - how can he have ignored evidence he didn't even see?

That's like blaming Thomas Jefferson's belief in design of the Solar System even though our understanding of solar system formation couldn't even have a theoretical basis for another 150 years. If you criticize someone, it's important to do so based on their own perspective of the world, rather than your perspective of theirs, and judge them by mistakes they could not possibly have realized that they have made.

[Brandon]

Jude, stop falsifying the data. You said yourself that he was asked about the consequences of his findings then you later said there wasnt any data to suggest someone made him choose one or the other. That is a contradiction. The person who asked that question was the one to force a choice. If the data had really been so damning before the question was asked he would have never released it to the public

[Chevalier des Poissons]

Faith is also created by people. Despite what some fundies say, no one is born, "knowing" that there is a god.

So, I don't really see any noteworthy differences between blaming faith and blaming people.

Faith - for me - is merely the wish to have something to comfort us everytime. It doesn't even have to be a religion.

[Jude]

When Einstein said "God does not play dice with the Universe", he was appealing to causality. I mentioned this in my prior post. He made no such appeal to design.

See here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html

QM was not vindicated until both of them were dead (tests of Bell's inequality). QM proposes a model of reality that is completely alien to classical understanding. Einstein did not want to accept that, did not want to accept that there can be limits on knowledge, and did not want to accept causality being trumped at small scales.

Again - proper tests of quantum mechanics were not done until after he was dead. In order to claim that faith blinded him, it would be necessary to show him an experiment and have him refuse to comprehend the result.

Again, over the parts Einstein was arguing about, he was dead before those tests were even carried out - how can he have ignored evidence he didn't even see?

That's like blaming Thomas Jefferson's belief in design of the Solar System even though our understanding of solar system formation couldn't even have a theoretical basis for another 150 years. If you criticize someone, it's important to do so based on their own perspective of the world, rather than your perspective of theirs, and judge them by mistakes they could not possibly have realized that they have made.

If you read the quote I gave he admits that Quantum Mechanics is better supported within the very letter he's writing.  There were tests going on for quite some time that pointed to Quantum nature of light, and the rest is a direct result from that.  His own experiments on light being absorbed and then released were the basis of the theory of "units of light" which formed quantum mechanics.  Experimental verification wasn't done on the backend until after his death, but it was done on the initial premises which led to Quantum Mechanics before it was even formalized.

The fact that Einstein mentions god in his rejection of a particular theory seems to heavily imply that his faith played a role in the formulation of his ideas.  I really think you're being obtuse when it comes to the obviousness of that, and quoting some random webpage full of conclusions made by someone named " Rochelle Forrester" isn't exactly a good source when Einstein's own words mention god in the context of scientific concepts, which suggests a clearly unholy synergy going on (not literally).

Design as part of Einstein's theology wouldn't really make sense to begin with (which is an error that I made and you corrected me on; I was wrong there).  The man was a pantheist in that he believed in the universe as an entity of supreme order and law unto itself; a quantum universe conflicts with the black and white he expresses in many quotes:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein,The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

Jude, stop falsifying the data. You said yourself that he was asked about the consequences of his findings then you later said there wasnt any data to suggest someone made him choose one or the other. That is a contradiction. The person who asked that question was the one to force a choice. If the data had really been so damning before the question was asked he would have never released it to the public

I don't appreciate the accusation of falsification of data, but if I am guilty of it then I have no right to complain.  Please quote what I said in order to draw out this apparent contradiction that you have accused me of.  I believe that all I have said is, "no one has asked him to choose science versus religion," and I don't know where you're getting the rest from.  Einstein was criticizing scientific theories because they conflicted with his religious viewpoints; the question you're assuming is there doesn't have to be, he seems to be offering his viewpoints unsolicited to criticize the theory (you know, what young earth creationists do now every time a scientific find that strengthens evolution occurs).

[Will]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

    * Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7. This quote is commonly paraphrased "God does not play dice" or "God does not play dice with the universe", and other slight variants.

That sounds like a rejection to me, if not of substance, then of worth.  And an "inner voice" telling him that it wasn't worthwhile because it didn't help to understand God.

Regardless, this whole exchange just illustrates how counterproductive it is to use quotes in a debate.

[Vekseid]

If you read the quote I gave he admits that Quantum Mechanics is better supported within the very letter he's writing.

He makes no such assertion. He grants that it was initially successful. So was Newtonian mechanics. He claims it is incomplete.

There were tests going on for quite some time that pointed to Quantum nature of light, and the rest is a direct result from that.  His own experiments on light being absorbed and then released were the basis of the theory of "units of light" which formed quantum mechanics.  Experimental verification wasn't done on the backend until after his death, but it was done on the foreend before Quantum Mechanics was even formalized.

You are not addressing Einstein's argument, or mine, in the slightest. Einstein specifically attacked the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Entanglement and what they represented - a breakdown in local causality. Those aspects were not properly tested until after his death, and some people still argue that they still have not been properly tested.

He never denied that it was -an- explanation for the Universe, he denied that it was a complete one within its realm. That he now seems to be wrong is a reflection of what came later - not what was known at the time.

The fact that Einstein mentions god in his rejection of a particular theory seems to heavily imply that his faith played a role in the formulation of his ideas.  I really think you're being obtuse when it comes to the obviousness of that, and quoting some random webpage full of conclusions made by someone named " Rochelle Forrester" isn't exactly a good source.

Einstein makes his views on what he thinks God is rather clear - it's not a God driven by faith - it's the culmination of Nature itself. That you see the word God and instinctively heap connotations on it is your problem, not Einstein's.

[Jude]

He makes no such assertion. He grants that it was initially successful. So was Newtonian mechanics. He claims it is incomplete.

Success and support is the same thing.  Newtonian Mechanics was better supported for a long time until the cracks started to show; I don't understand what your point is.

You are not addressing Einstein's argument, or mine, in the slightest. Einstein specifically attacked the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Entanglement and what they represented - a breakdown in local causality. Those aspects were not properly tested until after his death, and some people still argue that they still have not been properly tested.

He never denied that it was -an- explanation for the Universe, he denied that it was a complete one within its realm. That he now seems to be wrong is a reflection of what came later - not what was known at the time.

Einstein makes his views on what he thinks God is rather clear - it's not a God driven by faith - it's the culmination of Nature itself. That you see the word God and instinctively heap connotations on it is your problem, not Einstein's.

Einstein did have faith; he had faith in determinism and a world that was governed by concrete law.  His opposition to the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics stems directly from the fact that it eschews absolute determinism and law in favor of statistical law; he doesn't want to believe in a universe where induction comes into play, he wants absolutism.

I'll explain as briefly as I can how Einstein's own experiments led to Quantum Mechanics and the very thing he railed against:

It all began with experiments that measured the absorption of light and then its radiation from black bodies.  Einstein started work on the Photoelectric effect, which eventually ran to the realization that the energy given off seemed to follow a pattern of a particular underlying unit multiplied by a constant whole number.  This led to the realization that light is Quantized, i.e. it is made up of individual units called photons (this was suggested by Einstein himself).

This information allowed for examination of subatomic states using the properties of light, as well as models of electrons as quantized objects.  Doing so revealed a great deal of information about matter on quantum scales.  With the concept of matter and light both quantized, as well as observations of strange properties of both on quantum levels, particle/wave duality became a serious possibility.  Particle/wave duality was then experimentally verified throughout the 20s and 30s.  The double-slit experiment was used to establish similar concepts for light.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a direct consequence of particle wave duality, which was experimentally verified.  To say it had no data backing it up is completely incorrect (though I suppose you could say that as a theory it hasn't been directly test, but neither has the big bang which you spent the first half of the thread defending).  Rejecting Quantum Mechanics as he did, was no more logical than the rejections of the Big Bang you've refuted throughout this thread.  Far less, I'd say, the claim is not as fantastical.

[Vekseid]

Success and support at the same thing.  Newtonian Mechanics was better supported for a long time until the cracks started to show; I don't understand what your point is.

Einstein was arguing that quantum mechanics was incomplete in its own realm. He had no better alternative to propose (which is a sin) except to say that physics should overall obey a consistent set of laws (which might not be).

Einstein did have faith; he had faith in determinism and a world that was governed by concrete law.

You initially accused him of having faith in design. Design wasn't his argument.

His opposition to the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics stems directly from the fact that it eschews absolute determinism and law in favor of statistical law; he doesn't want to believe in a universe where induction comes into play, he wants absolutism.

He's dead, ignoring attributing to him actual modern wants...

*snip*

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a direct consequence of particle wave duality, which was experimentally verified.  To say it had no data backing it up is completely incorrect (though I suppose you could say that as a theory it hasn't been directly test, but neither has the big bang which you spent the first half of the thread defending).  Rejecting Quantum Mechanics as he did, was no more logical than the rejections of the Big Bang you've refuted throughout this thread.  Far less, I'd say, the claim is not as fantastical.

Einstein's claim was not that Heisenberg uncertainty wasn't real, his claim was that it was the result of some currently unknown property of reality, rather than a fundamental limit on what can be known, as Bohr argued.

This is above and beyond the fact that in order to be useful, theories do need to be tested both theoretically and physically. Science is not about "Oh hey let's go this way" and running off a cliff.

[Brandon]

When the basics of relativity are applied and at the same time there is a move to the subatomic level, quantum mechanics is essentially a direct result.  In that way, Einstein's own theories basically gave birth to Quantum Mechanics.  Yet when asked about the consequences he said this:  "God doesn't play with Dice."

He was not being asked to choose between his faith and science; ideas were being proposed that he did not agree with on the basis of their conflicting with his theological viewpoints.  This was the first half of the twentieth century when even scientists were not atheistic in large numbers.  There's no evidence of anyone painting a conflict between science and religion, it's simply that religion didn't like what science was saying, so it made the conflict.

Contradiction right there.

To explain, you started out by saying that he was asked about the consequences of his research in the context that it disproved Einstein's belief in God's plan.

You go on to say that no one painted a conflict between science and religion but your previous statement contradicts that one. The question he was asked created the conflict between the religion he believed in and the scientific studies he pursued. The question forced him to pick one over the other rather then letting him maintain his belief that both could exist in a kind of symbiosis

[Vekseid]

The God Einstein was referring to in that quote is not the sort of God which is capable of planning. He viewed God as the raw majesty of Nature in all its glory, not as a goal-setting agent.

[Jude]

To explain, you started out by saying that he was asked about the consequences of his research in the context that it disproved Einstein's belief in God's plan.

No Brandon, the consequences I was referring to is scientific consequences, i.e. the end result of his changes to physics:  Quantum Mechanics (the very thing from the previous sentence -- you know, the way pronouns are supposed to work).  That is what Einstein said of Quantum Mechanics, not of the conflict between science and religion.  You're seeing what you want to believe; I did not say what you are attributing to me (which is something you often get very upset at people for, if I recall).

You go on to say that no one painted a conflict between science and religion but your previous statement contradicts that one. The question he was asked created the conflict between the religion he believed in and the scientific studies he pursued. The question forced him to pick one over the other rather then letting him maintain his belief that both could exist in a kind of symbiosis

You've completely misinterpreted things and filled in the blanks to suit your own agenda, while at the same time accusing me of falsification of data.  I don't know what to say.

[Caesar]

I think Forums like this matter not. Even in our understanding of space and science we have not even hit the tip of the iceberg of this beautiful and immeasurable space we call the Universe. There is still mysteries out their there are still mysteries here on earth and I can only conclude that we have not even found a fraction of the answers of this world called earth, let alone the entire universe. To say that there is no God and try to provide proof you are only showing the answer to the small portion of the entire problem, so in other words you have not given the correct answer. Believe in God or Don't it is your life and their are tell-tale signs of proofs on both sides of this debate, so make the decision yourself not on what else who may seem to understand more might say. In the Grand scheme of things Mister Hawking knows just as much about the entire universe as the average joe.

If you Believe in God good for you in your heart resides hope, love, peace. But be careful to not judge because in my understandings of the religious texts there is no teacher that preaches violence on another.
If you dislike those that believe in God your heart is sadly filled with angry, resentment, and with as much ignorance and bigotry as those you claim to be bigots. For you I ask that you understand the religion more before you base your ideas on just the followers.
If you believe in God but resent those that do not then shame on you! You do not understand the texts and the words that you try to base your life on.
If you do not Believe in God but do not resent others then you are an Honorable person!

We humans are small and ignorant things and we make mistakes all the time. All of us have our vices, or sins, our mistakes that we wish we could erase from history. One must take responsibility for ones own actions and understand that we live in a world that has it's faults because of the people that live in it. Is there a God? I for one do believe so, but then again I don't know even know a fraction of this universe.
 

[Oniya]

Um - if you don't think that forums like this matter (and I'm assuming that you mean the Politics and Religion forum, not Elliquiy in general), why bother posting here at all?  This area is set aside for debate on possibly controversial topics for the express reason that it makes it easier for those people who don't enjoy such debate (or who find that such debate makes them uncomfortable) can avoid those threads easily.

[Will]

In the Grand scheme of things Mister Hawking knows just as much about the entire universe as the average joe.

This is... painfully false.