Founder of Big-Bang Theory dies an atheist..

[anatolian]

Stephen Hawking, the founder of bigbang theory dies aged 76, most probably as an atheist. He had openly revealed his disblief in God in his recent speeches. However his discovery of bigbang was regarded as a proof for the creation of universe by God as it is described in Torah and Quran by the religious enviroment. All the universe came from almost nothing spontaneously. According to Quran when Allah decrees something to be He says to it “Be” and it is.

On the other hand, it seems that, this again proves that no scientific discovery proves or disproves the existance of God. It is all about conscience but not science.

 

[99sobi]

(Stephen Hawking wasn't the founder of the big bang theory)

 

[BurningHeart]

Truthfully speaking, the belief of a scientist should have no effect on the way we think about Islam. Been around with PhD's in Philosophy and even in the conference of Lord Martin Rees, had one professor who has done work with Stephen Hawking. I just remembered even had a professor who got offered job in NASA.

Be it that you are around any field of study, Islam is purely based upon faith alone. We really do not need 'logical' proofs to give us a head up to think our religion Islam is the truth, if that was the case then it would have been a 'logical' thing to not to abide by the treaty of Hudaibiya which Prophet (sallahu allay wa salam) approved of, but here the logic was defied because we as a human can not fully comprehend and understand the infinite wisdom of Allah rabul 'izza and the decisions Prophet (sallahua allay wa salam) [I really do not want to give a lecture on Seerah here]. There are many more examples that can be given.

We honestly really do not need any 'scientific proofs' to validate our belief system. The belief system is independent of what scientists conveys. If tomorrow or in future all the scientists gather up and give such speeches and publish such research that totally defies what Quran has told us, would you give up on Islam for that sake? Ofcourse no.

Our system of Imaan is basically just because the Prophet (sallahu allay wa salam) has told us, we follow it without need of evidence. We believe in God, angels, day of judgement, previous holy books, the previous prophets (allay salam), the pre-destination, the angels, the jinns and what not. And guess what is interesting to know? all of this is from the lens of Rasool Allah (sallahu allay wa salam), because he told us and we accept it. Our imaan is on the unseen not on the seen.

On the day of judgement some people will bring Imaan, but it will not be accepted because that Imaan will be based after seeing all the things that Rasool Allah (sallahu allay wa salam) told us in this life.

Just look upon the state of the Sahabah (radh) when they were in battle of Badr, they hardly had good weapons to fight with. The state was such that a person like you and me would say that the Mushrikeen would win the battle but in the lens of the Sahabah (radh) they would win because they had faith upon Allah rabul 'izza who will send the help. And so it happened through angels.

So let it go with these talks, and lets concentrate on building our imaan just like the Sahabah (radh). It will put us at ease.

 

[Misbah-Abd]

And so his humiliation and anguish begins....

 

[Ümit]

Stephen Hawking, the founder of bigbang theory dies aged 76, most probably as an atheist. He had openly revealed his disblief in God in his recent speeches. However his discovery of bigbang was regarded as a proof for the creation of universe by God as it is described in Torah and Quran by the religious enviroment. All the universe came from almost nothing spontaneously. According to Quran when Allah decrees something to be He says to it “Be” and it is.

On the other hand, it seems that, this again proves that no scientific discovery proves or disproves the existance of God. It is all about conscience but not science.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the founder of the big bang theory was not Stephen Hawking. It was the Belgian physicist George Lemaitre.
George was not an atheist at all. He was a catholic priest.
Big bang theory is the perfect example how science and religion can coexist.

 

[space]

he had a lot of time to read the holy books, but he was looking for a needle in a haystack instead. Being unbeliever he faced the frightening angels Malak Al-Mawt and Munkar Nakir (May Allah save us from this)

Allah Knows best

 

[anatolian]

(Stephen Hawking wasn't the founder of the big bang theory)

Oh my bad lol. I thought that he found it. Apologies..

 

[onnanoko]

you can't say that with certainty

 

[anatolian]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the founder of the big bang theory was not Stephen Hawking. It was the Belgian physicist George Lemaitre.
George was not an atheist at all. He was a catholic priest.
Big bang theory is the perfect example how science and religion can coexist.

Burst my bubble? What was my bubble? I too think that the theory of Big-Bang is very similiar to the Genesis of the heavens and earth as it is mentioned in Quran. What I tried to imply with this thread is that even though he had a deep knowledge of science and was atleast one of the improvers of the theory, he still had lack of faith. So the question, what is required to have faith? Science or conscience?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to burst your bubble but the founder of the big bang theory was not Stephen Hawking. It was the Belgian physicist George Lemaitre.
George was not an atheist at all. He was a catholic priest.
Big bang theory is the perfect example how science and religion can coexist.

Burst my bubble? What was my bubble? I too think that the theory of Big-Bang is very similiar to the Genesis of the heavens and earth as it is mentioned in Quran. What I tried to imply with this thread is that even though he had a deep knowledge of science and was atleast one of the improvers of the theory, he still had lack of faith. So the question, what is required to have faith? Science or conscience?

 

[ChosenTCO]

Ok ... This isnt meant to scold the OP for posting this or anything. But its mainly for those who claim to have been able to refute atheists and their belief (that this world doesnt give any proof of being created by God).

I find it very hypocritical of people who always say that we dont have the right to correct or analyse the rulings and statements of scholars, yet they so hastily judge and pass verdicts about these scientists and their analysis of their discovery without even having the slightest clue of what their talking about. To me, this just has hypocrisy written all over it (again im not talking about the OP as i dont remember to have seen any of his posts in the past). So to all those who talk about science and claim that these scientists are idiots for not knowing what their talking about without even having a bachelors degree in science, let alone a Masters or PhD. Like, please ... go teach yourself about hypocrisy first then come talking about science when you've learn a little bit about it.

First) There is no such thing as empty space or void, so yes ... a Big bang could have easily come out of no where.
Second) Just because we are learning more and more about how the universe works and its history doesnt mean that these discoveries are proof that the universe had a creator. Just like how explaining the mechanism of a car doesnt prove that it was created by someone. Its through logic that we can come to that conclusion ... not the actual evidence itself. Saying that just shows that the person doesnt even have the simplest of sound reasoning.
Thirdly) Enough talking about how atheism doesnt make any sense. I mean like ... people pretend to know what their talking about when it comes to science when in reality, they probably know less about it than they would know about their own future. Science doesn't shows any physical or mathematical proof of a need for a creator. It just explains how the universe works! THATS IT!
Fourthly) Many of us think that, with science, more proof will show the need for a creator and what not when in reality, science is not the tool to do that or reach such conclusion. Its through 2 things that one can reach such a conclusion,

1) Good understanding of how probability works.
2) A good set of reasoning skills and sound logic.
​

I say this because ive dived into this issue before ;D. And i saw how impenetrable their theory is. Its a self-reinforcing idea that you cannot get around! It makes perfect sense ones youve taken away the ability of reasoning probability and chance. But in order for me to explain what this means, it would take from me almost 3 days to get you on that level to be able to understand their language of thought and mentality.

So basically, what im trying to say is that atheism is a very convincing and logical idea if you look at it from different perspectives. And just because you havent seen it or doesnt make sense to you, it doesnt mean its stupid or illogical. Believe me, if there is anything that could come close to the sense of islam, it would be atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

PS. Lets all not through claims that he is in hell fire or not. We do not share in God's Judgement. Its up to Allah whether he will be in Jannah or Jahannam. May Allah not make us of those who will be in hellfire. Ameen ...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

First, rest in peace, Stephen Hawking. His name will be remembered among the greatest scientists of all time.

Be it that you are around any field of study, Islam is purely based upon faith alone. We really do not need 'logical' proofs to give us a head up to think our religion Islam is the truth

It is so refreshing to hear somebody say this. For years I have seen people post on the forum believing that they can use logic to make the case for Islam, or that they can present a proof that it is the truth. Whereas, of course, belief in Islam is principally dependent on faith above all. If there was a clear, logical case for Islam, then every logician would believe it just as strongly as they believe the expression "A = not A" is false.

I find it very hypocritical of people who always say that we dont have the right to correct or analyse the rulings and statements of scholars, yet they so hastily judge and pass verdicts about these scientists and their analysis of their discovery without even having the slightest clue of what their talking about.

Very true. Unfortunately it happens here all the time.

Peace

 

[Good brother]

Science doesn't shows any physical or mathematical proof of a need for a creator. It just explains how the universe works! THATS IT!

Creation is simply the proof of The Creator.

Those who think The Creator is within the reach of science/senses are arrogant just like Pharaoh when he said,
فَأَوْقِدْ لِي يَا هَامَانُ عَلَى الطِّينِ فَاجْعَل لِّي صَرْحًا لَّعَلِّي أَطَّلِعُ إِلَىٰ إِلَٰهِ مُوسَىٰ وَإِنِّي لَأَظُنُّهُ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ
".... O Haman,... make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars."

 

[azc]

Ok ... This isnt meant to scold the OP for posting this or anything. But its mainly for those who claim to have been able to refute atheists and their belief (that this world doesnt give any proof of being created by God).

I find it very hypocritical of people who always say that we dont have the right to correct or analyse the rulings and statements of scholars, yet they so hastily judge and pass verdicts about these scientists and their analysis of their discovery without even having the slightest clue of what their talking about. To me, this just has hypocrisy written all over it (again im not talking about the OP as i dont remember to have seen any of his posts in the past). So to all those who talk about science and claim that these scientists are idiots for not knowing what their talking about without even having a bachelors degree in science, let alone a Masters or PhD. Like, please ... go teach yourself about hypocrisy first then come talking about science when you've learn a little bit about it.

First) There is no such thing as empty space or void, so yes ... a Big bang could have easily come out of no where.
Second) Just because we are learning more and more about how the universe works and its history doesnt mean that these discoveries are proof that the universe had a creator. Just like how explaining the mechanism of a car doesnt prove that it was created by someone. Its through logic that we can come to that conclusion ... not the actual evidence itself. Saying that just shows that the person doesnt even have the simplest of sound reasoning.
Thirdly) Enough talking about how atheism doesnt make any sense. I mean like ... people pretend to know what their talking about when it comes to science when in reality, they probably know less about it than they would know about their own future. Science doesn't shows any physical or mathematical proof of a need for a creator. It just explains how the universe works! THATS IT!
Fourthly) Many of us think that, with science, more proof will show the need for a creator and what not when in reality, science is not the tool to do that or reach such conclusion. Its through 2 things that one can reach such a conclusion,

1) Good understanding of how probability works.
2) A good set of reasoning skills and sound logic.
​

I say this because ive dived into this issue before ;D. And i saw how impenetrable their theory is. Its a self-reinforcing idea that you cannot get around! It makes perfect sense ones youve taken away the ability of reasoning probability and chance. But in order for me to explain what this means, it would take from me almost 3 days to get you on that level to be able to understand their language of thought and mentality.

So basically, what im trying to say is that atheism is a very convincing and logical idea if you look at it from different perspectives. And just because you havent seen it or doesnt make sense to you, it doesnt mean its stupid or illogical. Believe me, if there is anything that could come close to the sense of islam, it would be atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

PS. Lets all not through claims that he is in hell fire or not. We do not share in God's Judgement. Its up to Allah whether he will be in Jannah or Jahannam. May Allah not make us of those who will be in hellfire. Ameen ...

Your views are shocking...!

 

[Scimitar]

Ok ... This isnt meant to scold the OP for posting this or anything. But its mainly for those who claim to have been able to refute atheists and their belief (that this world doesnt give any proof of being created by God).

I find it very hypocritical of people who always say that we dont have the right to correct or analyse the rulings and statements of scholars, yet they so hastily judge and pass verdicts about these scientists and their analysis of their discovery without even having the slightest clue of what their talking about. To me, this just has hypocrisy written all over it (again im not talking about the OP as i dont remember to have seen any of his posts in the past). So to all those who talk about science and claim that these scientists are idiots for not knowing what their talking about without even having a bachelors degree in science, let alone a Masters or PhD. Like, please ... go teach yourself about hypocrisy first then come talking about science when you've learn a little bit about it.

First) There is no such thing as empty space or void, so yes ... a Big bang could have easily come out of no where.
Second) Just because we are learning more and more about how the universe works and its history doesnt mean that these discoveries are proof that the universe had a creator. Just like how explaining the mechanism of a car doesnt prove that it was created by someone. Its through logic that we can come to that conclusion ... not the actual evidence itself. Saying that just shows that the person doesnt even have the simplest of sound reasoning.
Thirdly) Enough talking about how atheism doesnt make any sense. I mean like ... people pretend to know what their talking about when it comes to science when in reality, they probably know less about it than they would know about their own future. Science doesn't shows any physical or mathematical proof of a need for a creator. It just explains how the universe works! THATS IT!
Fourthly) Many of us think that, with science, more proof will show the need for a creator and what not when in reality, science is not the tool to do that or reach such conclusion. Its through 2 things that one can reach such a conclusion,

1) Good understanding of how probability works.
2) A good set of reasoning skills and sound logic.
​

I say this because ive dived into this issue before ;D. And i saw how impenetrable their theory is. Its a self-reinforcing idea that you cannot get around! It makes perfect sense ones youve taken away the ability of reasoning probability and chance. But in order for me to explain what this means, it would take from me almost 3 days to get you on that level to be able to understand their language of thought and mentality.

So basically, what im trying to say is that atheism is a very convincing and logical idea if you look at it from different perspectives. And just because you havent seen it or doesnt make sense to you, it doesnt mean its stupid or illogical. Believe me, if there is anything that could come close to the sense of islam, it would be atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

PS. Lets all not through claims that he is in hell fire or not. We do not share in God's Judgement. Its up to Allah whether he will be in Jannah or Jahannam. May Allah not make us of those who will be in hellfire. Ameen ...

Fantastic Post!!!

Your views are shocking...!

His views are shockingly refreshing!!!

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Believe me, if there is anything that could come close to the sense of islam, it would be atheism.

- - - Updated - - -

The horror! The horror! Now thats a scary thought

RIP Mr Hawkings may Allah show you mercy.

 

[Zafran]

So basically, what im trying to say is that atheism is a very convincing and logical idea if you look at it from different perspectives. And just because you havent seen it or doesnt make sense to you, it doesnt mean its stupid or illogical. Believe me, if there is anything that could come close to the sense of islam, it would be atheism

I disagree with you here - Atheism doesn't make sense - it ultimately leads to a meaningless and random life. Other religions make more sense then Atheism. You just have to look at some atheistic thinkers like Nietzsche, Sophenhuer, Karl Marx, the logical positivist and just see that the Hindus and Buddhist had better grasp then atheist did and do. The New atheist are even worse. - Especially the whole scientism.

RIP doesn't make sense if an atheist says it anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Be it that you are around any field of study, Islam is purely based upon faith alone.

I disagree with this as well. That is blind faith - any other religious person can make the same argument. Islam is based on reasonable grounds for Tawhid, revelation and prophet hood.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[ChosenTCO]

Creation is simply the proof of The Creator.

This statement is based in reasoning and logic, a conclusion derived from our basic understandings and bounds of this world. Its not a direct proof of your claim.
Think about it like this. There are other people who use a similar thought-process to prove their ideology ... Example: Evolutionists ... These people think that just because we exist, that means that we had to come from one of the previous creatures that came before us. But we all know better ... It doesnt just work like that. Similarly, the universe ... It doesn't have had to be created for it to exist. There are other theories in cosmology which states that the origin of the universe might have been eternal and could have existed all along. So just because it exist does not prove of its creation

Like i said before, science is not a tool in which you can use to learn and confirm of the universe's origin. Rather, its a tool to learn how it works and all the mechanisms in it.
I honestly dont believe that God will ever give us the knowledge and opportunity to know how the skies and heavens above us were created. (Quran 18:51) [I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants.]

Those who think The Creator is within the reach of science/senses are arrogant just like Pharaoh when he said,

Thats why i clearly stated in my post "Many of us think that, with science, more proof will show the need for a creator and what not when in reality, science is not the tool to do that "

 

[Zafran]

It doesn't have had to be created for it to exist. There are other theories in cosmology which states that the origin of the universe might have been eternal and could have existed all along. So just because it exist does not prove of its creation

I disagree here because this can lead also sorts of problems one being infinite regress. Universe having a cause is a lot more reasonable then it always being here (which isn't an explanation).

 

[ChosenTCO]

I disagree with you here - Atheism doesn't make sense - it ultimately leads to a meaningless and random life. Other religions make more sense then Atheism. You just have to look at some atheistic thinkers like Nietzsche, Sophenhuer, Karl Marx, the logical positivist and just see that the Hindus and Buddhist had better grasp then atheist did and do. The New atheist are even worse. - Especially the whole scientism.

Thats totally fine with me, you dont have to agree with me on anything. I personally have never, so much as touched Hinduism and Buddhism, so i wouldnt know how sound they are in logic or anything. The main reason why i say scientism is very logical is because its very factual and have a lot of solid proof to back up each claim it makes. And the main reason i believe in islam more than scientism is because i have found things in the Holy Quran that hints towards most of the major breakthroughs that science has brought fourth. Which is amazing considering the fact that the Holy Quran was revealed to the prophet about 1400 years ago while these major discoveries and breakthroughs happened only 100 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree with you here - Atheism doesn't make sense - it ultimately leads to a meaningless and random life. Other religions make more sense then Atheism. You just have to look at some atheistic thinkers like Nietzsche, Sophenhuer, Karl Marx, the logical positivist and just see that the Hindus and Buddhist had better grasp then atheist did and do. The New atheist are even worse. - Especially the whole scientism.

Thats totally fine with me, you dont have to agree with me on anything. I personally have never, so much as touched Hinduism and Buddhism, so i wouldnt know how sound they are in logic or anything. The main reason why i say scientism is very logical is because its very factual and have a lot of solid proof to back up each claim it makes. And the main reason i believe in islam more than scientism is because i have found things in the Holy Quran that hints towards most of the major breakthroughs that science has brought fourth. Which is amazing considering the fact that the Holy Quran was revealed to the prophet about 1400 years ago while these major discoveries and breakthroughs happened only 100 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree here because this can lead also sorts of problems one being infinite regress. Universe having a cause is a lot more reasonable then it always being here (which isn't an explanation).

Its more reasonable to you, but that sometimes doesnt go for all. Some might find it more reasonable that the universe was always here. It may make more sense to them. Point is, this is not something you can base your argument on and refute with. This is a subjective thing. So still ... you have no found solid proof (such as physical or mathematical to disprove the lack of need of a creator) for your argument.

 

[Zafran]

Thats totally fine with me, you dont have to agree with me on anything. I personally have never, so much as touched Hinduism and Buddhism, so i wouldnt know how sound they are in logic or anything. The main reason why i say scientism is very logical is because its very factual and have a lot of solid proof to back up each claim it makes. And the main reason i believe in islam more than scientism is because i have found things in the Holy Quran that hints towards most of the major breakthroughs that science has brought fourth. Which is amazing considering the fact that the Holy Quran was revealed to the prophet about 1400 years ago while these major discoveries and breakthroughs happened only 100 years ago.

you just said that science cant prove anything beyond empirical analysis. However then you state that "scientism is logical" which it isnt because its a philosophy that struggles with answering any question beyond its domain (empiricism). It can tell you the best explanation of the apparent universe based on the data at hand but its entirely contingent and can change due to paradigm shifts.

what is the solid proof that you have by the way? or is that circular reasoning?

I dont buy the Quran tells us about scientific theories at all - Instead its a revelation which calls to people to give them moral and existential meaning based on Tawhid, accountability and salvation.

- - - Updated - - -

Its more reasonable to you, but that sometimes doesnt go for all. Some might find it more reasonable that the universe was always here. It may make more sense to them. Point is, this is not something you can base your argument on and refute with. This is a subjective thing. So still ... you have no found solid proof (such as physical or mathematical to disprove the lack of need of a creator) for your argument.

what do you mean by physical proof? isn't it contingent? Mathematics is too abstract for moral, aesthetic, existential and political truth. Its still a debate if maths is discovered or invented.