Famous Scientists who conclude the universe is created

[emprworm]

Here are quotes from a bunch of other scientists ( including nobel prize winners).

Arthur L. Schawlow (professor of physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious... I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."[3]

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."[4]

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."[5]

Robert Jastrow (American astronomer and physicist): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."[6]

Wernher von Braun (pioneer rocket engineer, developer of the Saturn V moon rocket concept): "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."[7]

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."[8]

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."[9]

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."[10]

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature

[emprworm]

this quote is my favorite: ;D

Robert Jastrow (American astronomer and physicist): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."[6]

he he. i can see it now, Acriku hurling himself over that last hill of scientific reasoning, and there's sneezer kickin' back with a tall lemonade basking in the sun reading some J Chick tracks. hehe. :D

[Miles]

it is also important to point out that perhaps the most brilliant physicist alive today, stephen hawking, himself has not ruled out creation and acknowledges that it indeed is a plausible possibility. Hawking has quite clearly stated we cannot rule out that the Universe is the result of divine creation, since the laws of physics that we understand do not apply to the moment of the Universe's origin. Even he allows for this possibility, and that one who believes in such is not an irrational position to hold, as Hawking himself has never clearly stated his true beliefs (he may indeed be a theist- he just wont tell us)

conclusion: creationism is uncontrovertibly a rational position.

I hope your not trying to make Hawking or any of these scientists into creationists. Creationism is a far cry from what these scientists are proposing. Go ask them if the universe was created in 6,000 years or if woman came from a rib of Adam. These are not Creationists.

A few problematic questions always come into this debate for Creationists though. First, is our universe the only one, or are their billions upon billions of universes each differing from each other in the way that their laws come about. If this is the case, then maybe the probability of a universe like ours is likely. Second, are these the only set of universal laws that can lead to matter, time, and life? Realize that we would have the appearance of "fine tuning" if our universe had evolved as a result of these "laws" How do you know that other possibilities don't exists?

There is not enough knowledge to make a determination on the origin of the universe. We simply don't know, so it is irrational to make any absolute claim. In other words, to say that the universe may have been created is a rational claim, but to say that the absolute truth is that God made the universe, is irrational.

Note: there is a very big difference in saying that the universe may have been created by a supreme being, and saying that the literal interperetation of Genesis is true. Creation may be a rational possibility, but creationism is not.

[emprworm]

you are confusing creationism with "young earth creationism".

The meaning of creationism is simply that the universe was created. don't read into it anymore than that.

these physicists are affirming the reasonable postulation that the universe was divinely created. they are making no mention of any particular religion or timeline. they are merely refuting atheism.

again, it doesn't matter how the universe created...whether by the Biblical God or a pink leprechaun, in 15 billion years, or 15 days.....atheism still falls.

[Miles]

you are confusing creationism with "young earth creationism".

The meaning of creationism is simply that the universe was created. don't read into it anymore than that.

Then we must make that absolutely clear because creationism carries the stigma of anti-evolution. These scientists are NOT saying anything anti-evolution, or pro creationism (those who believe in the literal translation of genesis).

Just so others reading these posts will know that.

these physicists are affirming the reasonable postulation that the universe was divinely created. they are making no mention of any particular religion or timeline. they are merely refuting atheism.

again, it doesn't matter how the universe created...whether by the Biblical God or a pink leprechaun, in 15 billion years, or 15 days.....atheism still falls.

As does theism. There are reasonable hypothesis about the origin of the universe given what we know of astro-physics and cosmology. Enough so, that the notion of the necessity of a supreme being is unfounded. Humans have always seen complexity that they did not understand and applied the explanation of god. There is a problem with applying the "goddidit" method to a mystery. It ends the search for truth. We may climb that mountain and find theism, but what we learn from the trip is what is important.

The evidence for the origin of the universe, balance of natural laws and so on are, at best, neutral. They could have come from naturalistic processes, or from intelligence. Nobody knows. That is why I position myself as an agnostic atheist.

[Egeides]

Sophism. The fact that many person believe in the creation by God does not demonstrate anything, only their arguments can. And their arguments are not all that creationism is true, but that God created universe (not necessarily by creation). You're right though that science often brings to conclude that God exists (because of the marvel that is this "machine"), but it is the only thing you can conclude with elements showing what people believe in science.

About Hawking, wouldn't I be right to say he's incredibly closed to ANY question regarding otherwise than his field of researches?... He also is someone, probably, who do not take conclusions in science except by a complete mathematical demonstration. Why? Because mathematics is the programmation code of things, so anything should be demonstrable by maths (but it's not necessarily easy). And I believe that some day it should be done if it is to become a "law" (which means something demonstrated in an exact manner, no? Only math do this in science).

And as a PS: You're letting go the other thread emprworm?

[Davidu]

I cannot comprehend how a scientist can believe in God.

The scientist tries to explain everithing, using procedures created by nature, and discovered by man... You can say that nature is God... but, then would you pray to nature? You would alredy know it won't listen to you.

I'm no scientist and already I consider religion to be only a mean of controlling the masses. It has many inconsesties. Maybe the only true religion would be buddhism, but that looks like a type of philosophy moe than a religion.

[Egeides]

I cannot comprehend how a scientist can believe in God.

The scientist tries to explain everithing, using procedures created by nature, and discovered by man... You can say that nature is God... but, then would you pray to nature? You would alredy know it won't listen to you.

I'm no scientist and already I consider religion to be only a mean of controlling the masses. It has many inconsesties. Maybe the only true religion would be buddhism, but that looks like a type of philosophy moe than a religion.

A scientist doesn't explain everything. He explains nature, he explains what he can test. Science doesn't even answer to where nature comes from. Science is king, but king only on fields in its reach.

[Davidu]

And science forever tries to extend its reach, and untill today science didn't confirm the existance of god... but it didn't denied it either 'cause of lack of proof. Mainly though it couldn't prove the existance.

[Acriku]

Empr - nice try, but I can safely say that 1) Some of those quotes are probably out of context, as creationists tried with scientists "saying" that evolution is faulty, when in fact they were taken out of an evolution book explaining the validity of evolution; 2) They prove nothing, opinions are opinions, but arguments are arguments; and 3) This thread is useless.

A scientist believing in something is different than a scientist knowing something, Egeides.

[Davidu]

Well said Acriku- ;)

[emprworm]

Empr - nice try, but I can safely say that 1) Some of those quotes are probably out of context, as creationists tried with scientists "saying" that evolution is faulty, when in fact they were taken out of an evolution book explaining the validity of evolution; 2) They prove nothing, opinions are opinions, but arguments are arguments; and 3) This thread is useless.

A scientist believing in something is different than a scientist knowing something, Egeides.

all of the quotes are genuine. if all you can do is accuse me of lying, then that shows your inability to accept facts when faced with them.

As does theism. There are reasonable hypothesis about the origin of the universe given what we know of astro-physics and cosmology. Enough so, that the notion of the necessity of a supreme being is unfounded.

If creation is true, theism does not fall, it stands. Creation means that a supernatural being created the universe; hence theism. Miles, you surprise me. First you attempt to define creationism as believing in Genesis (when that isn't what it is at all), and then try to say that creation does not equal theism....??? huh? Dude, you may be good in biology, but in philosophy you are failing.

There are reasonable hypothesis about the origin of the universe given what we know of astro-physics and cosmology. Enough so, that the notion of the necessity of a supreme being is unfounded.

and many of those quotes above are from astrophysicists who conclude that God is not such a far fetched idea. Even the great Stephen Hawking does not dismiss God. The notion of a supreme being unfounded? huh? Many physicists seem to disagree with you.

Question for Acriku, Miles: (do not dodge this please, answer it, even though I predict Acriku especially will dodge it. I predict this with 70% accuracy)

Many physicists, some nobel prize winners, have examined the evidence and conclude that God created the universe.

Do you think your rational processes & abilities are more accurate than ANY theist's rational processes who concludes that the universe was created by a supernatural being?

(any as in all theists...scientists, philosophers, laypeople....it doesn't matter....all we know about them is that they concluded in theism)

[Egeides]

Empr - nice try, but I can safely say that 1) Some of those quotes are probably out of context, as creationists tried with scientists "saying" that evolution is faulty, when in fact they were taken out of an evolution book explaining the validity of evolution; 2) They prove nothing, opinions are opinions, but arguments are arguments; and 3) This thread is useless.

A scientist believing in something is different than a scientist knowing something, Egeides.

Yes I know... In fact I just do not believe in the possibility of knowing anyway... But what I was saying is that science is the realm of physical world. Scientists, like all others (theologians, and so on) do not know: they believe.

[emprworm]

i merely point out that some the worlds top scientists, physicists, astronomers and astrophysicists believe that God created the universe.

and many of them conclude that based on their life long study of the universe.

And even the most brilliant physicist in the world STephen Hawking acknowledges that the universe may have indeed been created. Though he doesn't admit he believes that, he does not see the postulation as irrational.

And i'll take hawkings word over a high school/college atheist any day. at the very least I can say this with certainty: these brilliant nobel-prize winning life long scientists who conclude that God created the universe are certainly not irrational.

[Acriku]

Empr I did not say you were lying, I just said you most likely took them out of context. Please post where the quotes came from, and then I can decide whether or not they were taking out of context.

Also, people say many things. We don't know the situation or topic at hand that had them say this, if they really did say it, and above all else what does this prove? One word, two syllables. First letter n. Nothing! If I showed you quotes (hypothetical situation) that the top level (in the church heirarchy) christians talk about how the christian god might not exist, and it's hard to believe that it does, would you suddenly disbelieve your god? No, because it doesn't prove anything. You make out these scientists as gods, but in fact they are human. Also, quotes do not suggest what conclusion these scientists have personally made. People say stuff. It happens.

[Warlord Ripskar]

The list seems rather biased towards Physicists.

No Biochemists, Biologists or Paleologists yet most creationists harp on about the complexities of life.

Usually in vague general terms with no reference to the fosil record.

I studied Biology for 4 years when I went to Uni and what creations trawl out wouldn't pass a first year multiple answer paper.

I'm not an expert on quantum physics but you seem to be claiming that for example Hawking knows all the details of biochemistry regarding what will and won't work. In my experience biochemistry is extremely adaptable and mathematical explanations rarely if ever work when applied to biology.

A common saying amongst biologists when confronted by mathematicians is,

"In Physics 1+1 = 2, In Biology 1+1 = 3 or more."

[Davidu]

LOL, good one.

Well, in biology 1+1= an infinity of options.

Don't you think?

[emprworm]

Empr I did not say you were lying, I just said you most likely took them out of context. Please post where the quotes came from, and then I can decide whether or not they were taking out of context.

well, I know its sooo hard to think that a nobel prize winning physicist could believe in God, Acriku. Wow, that is just flat out amazing since you have proven that God doesn't exist! ::)

if you want to just blindly assume these scientists are not actually saying what I quoted them as saying...then you go look them up yourself. I am presenting the facts: many top physicsts in the world believe in God as a result of the evidence. You can deny it if you wish...that is fine. But there is no way I'm going to start doing research for you. If you doubt the quotes, then look up the scientists. Did you think that theistic scientists were just some fringe group of cast=outs or out-of-touch freaks? My young atheist friend, you have much to learn about the world of physics. Lol. It is wrought with theists. And we are talking about some of the top scientists in the world. Sure, there are atheists as well, but also many theists. As hard as that is to believe, you are just going to have to accept it, because denying it would not be an honest thing to do.

[Egeides]

Empr I did not say you were lying, I just said you most likely took them out of context. Please post where the quotes came from, and then I can decide whether or not they were taking out of context.

well, I know its sooo hard to think that a nobel prize winning physicist could believe in God, Acriku. Wow, that is just flat out amazing since you have proven that God doesn't exist! ::)

if you want to just blindly assume these scientists are not actually saying what I quoted them as saying...then you go look them up yourself. I am presenting the facts: many top physicsts in the world believe in God as a result of the evidence. You can deny it if you wish...that is fine. But there is no way I'm going to start doing research for you. If you doubt the quotes, then look up the scientists. Did you think that theistic scientists were just some fringe group of cast=outs or out-of-touch freaks? My young atheist friend, you have much to learn about the world of physics. Lol. It is wrought with theists. And we are talking about some of the top scientists in the world. Sure, there are atheists as well, but also many theists. As hard as that is to believe, you are just going to have to accept it, because denying it would not be an honest thing to do.

empr, you're assuming it's "too hard" for him to believe scientists believe in God. It doesn't show anything... He just said you may have taken them out of context, is this impossible? Why not... Anyway I don't know if Acriku is surprised or not that scientists may be theist. Personnally, I believe I'm pretty much of these guys and we probably often would have similar views on science and theology... But I won't say that because these or these persons believe in something it makes it true/false, I'll just say science doesn't bring to atheism.

OH... and one important thing. When you say that these scientists believe God created universe, you don't mean specifically by creationism eh? Because I do believe God created universe, but also in evolutionism.

[emprworm]

... and one important thing. When you say that these scientists believe God created universe, you don't mean specifically by creationism eh? Because I do believe God created universe, but also in evolutionism. Logged

then go look them up if you doubt them. i hope you start looking them up because if you doubt that theism is common among scientists, then your eyes will be opened.

OH... and one important thing. When you say that these scientists believe God created universe, you don't mean specifically by creationism eh? Because I do believe God created universe, but also in evolutionism

these quotes are not about evolution, but about creation- the belief that the universe was created by God.

[Egeides]

... and one important thing. When you say that these scientists believe God created universe, you don't mean specifically by creationism eh? Because I do believe God created universe, but also in evolutionism. Logged

then go look them up if you doubt them. i hope you start looking them up because if you doubt that theism is common among scientists, then your eyes will be opened.

OH... and one important thing. When you say that these scientists believe God created universe, you don't mean specifically by creationism eh? Because I do believe God created universe, but also in evolutionism

these quotes are not about evolution, but about creation- the belief that the universe was created by God.

These quotes aren't about creationism as seen in Bible but about God creating the universe and science, whattever the way.

[Acriku]

Scientists disagree on anything and everything. To think that some scientists say this has any conclusive evidence of any kind, is ludicrous. Some scientists still are debating against evolution, and they aren't getting anywhere. I don't find it surprising, I find it obvious because of such variance in scientists and their beliefs and theories.

And most of these quotes do not suggest the scientists' beliefs, so do not be so quick to conclude that they believe in creationism, or even christianity.

[emprworm]

well it doesn't matter what they PERSONALLY believe. all of them declare creationism as a rational explanation for the universe.

quit reading more into it than what it says.

especially you egeides. i'm sick you reading more into it than what it says. THEY ARE SIMPLY SAYING THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS WHERE THE EVIDENCE POINTS. so cut this bible stuff, ok? you change the subject and that is not tasteful.

[SurlyPIG]

How can it not matter what they personally believe? I wonder if most of the more outward supporters that claim, "GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS WHERE THE EVIDENCE POINTS" were brought up as Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus themselves.

[emprworm]

How can it not matter what they personally believe? I wonder if most of the more outward supporters that claim, "GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS WHERE THE EVIDENCE POINTS" were brought up as Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus themselves.

ace, you are exceedingly narrow minded. some of these are nobel prize winning physicists. obviously you have some issues to deal with when it comes to brutally judging some of the most brilliant scientists in the world simply because you don't like their conclusions. Is acelethal calling stephen hawking a fool? many scientists condlue only after being a scientist. i once presented a list of several physicists in this category.