We've already had that discussion before.
BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create UniverseThere is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.
He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.
The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.
'Planetary conditions'
In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos.
Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."
He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.
In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe.
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said.
We've already had that discussion before.It's kind of funny how the website that the image is taken from equates "freethinker" with some level of atheism/agnosticism.
That's a tautology. When you believe something you necessarily believe it to be true. I'm just saying what you're saying adds nothing to my definition.I'm saying that you have to believe that it's true first, before you "know" it.
You've got it backwards. Knowledge arises when beliefs are justified and their truth verified.As you've said, belief in its truth value is a necessary part of this. You can't say something like "it's true because it's knowledge, and it's knowledge because I believe it, and I can't believe something unless I think it's true."
There's a scale of belief.That's a tautology. When you believe something you necessarily believe it to be true. I'm just saying what you're saying adds nothing to my definition.
To believe a statement about reality is to believe in it's truth.
So just cut out the unnecessary qualifier and you have just belief.
I know, I was saying that you can't say that.You've got it backwards. Knowledge arises when beliefs are justified and their truth verified.
It's not true because it's knowledge, it's knowledge because it's true.
This ^^^^.The headline seems to be a b it misleading given Hawking's actual statements. Saying invoking God is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe is not the same thing as saying "God did not create the universe." Granted, I don't think Hawking believes God created the universe, but just because God is not necessary to invoke the creation does not mean that God cannot exist or couldn't have created the universe, it just means modern science rejects most creationist myths.