Stephen Hawking's view on god and death
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
How dare you! That's my first wife, she's just a little hairy.
Over thinking things can make you overlook simple Physics.
If Stephen professes to give no creed a supreme being of supernatural scope as a creator of the Human Race due to a lack of credible facts not in evidence. I would guess he does not hold a real strong belief in magic as well. So tell me why Stephen believes that with his certainty that the Universe came into existence from nothingness.
POOF!!! BANG!!! ABRA CADABRA!!!
Isn't that the very definition of a magic trick.
It, to me, would clearly defy some very basic laws of physics as well.
Such a wide spread and accepted theory. Contradictory.
It seems to me........
Time and Space, in and of themselves have no physical properties.
as an astronomer I have still to overcome the staggering awe I feel when understanding the sheer magnitude of Galaxies as well as the uncountable numbers of stars and unseen planets. If there was such an incredible force that crushed ALL of what is into whatever single micro pre-atomic less than something dot. It is still something. Energy and Matter merely change in their structure. Neither created nor destroyed. Its simple physics.
Any theory can be described in such a way that it can be plausible.Tests used
can produce results that can be interpreted by another theoretical answer to support the original theory.But, don't tell me one thing can't be because of the same reason yours can. You are by no doubt one of the smartest thinkers of all time Stephen. But even smart people can miss the obvious.DUH!!
If Stephen professes to give no creed a supreme being of supernatural scope as a creator of the Human Race due to a lack of credible facts not in evidence. I would guess he does not hold a real strong belief in magic as well. So tell me why Stephen believes that with his certainty that the Universe came into existence from nothingness.
POOF!!! BANG!!! ABRA CADABRA!!!
Isn't that the very definition of a magic trick.
It, to me, would clearly defy some very basic laws of physics as well.
Such a wide spread and accepted theory. Contradictory.
It seems to me........
Time and Space, in and of themselves have no physical properties.
as an astronomer I have still to overcome the staggering awe I feel when understanding the sheer magnitude of Galaxies as well as the uncountable numbers of stars and unseen planets. If there was such an incredible force that crushed ALL of what is into whatever single micro pre-atomic less than something dot. It is still something. Energy and Matter merely change in their structure. Neither created nor destroyed. Its simple physics.
Any theory can be described in such a way that it can be plausible.Tests used
can produce results that can be interpreted by another theoretical answer to support the original theory.But, don't tell me one thing can't be because of the same reason yours can. You are by no doubt one of the smartest thinkers of all time Stephen. But even smart people can miss the obvious.DUH!!
Actually empty space does have physical properties. The universe was not a creator of energy, as the total energy of the universe is still approximately zero.
K
keith1
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Where has Stephen Hawking claimed that the universe came from nothing?
One thing that Dawkings fails to mention is that although the methods of science and science discovery are far more objective than many things in religion, science nevertheless plays a subservient role in the power structure of culture. Science needs money and resources and is therefore subservient to government, business and private donations.
Where religion differs from science is that religion is not subservient or obligated to the same higher powers as science. If we were to take away the religion checks and balance, but science remains the slave, then science also loses control over science. Instead of fighting cancer, we will make viagra. Instead of better plants for food, we will make better weapons, etc, since the slave has to do the masters bidding. The pay scale of science is good, but not at the top. This reflects its relative social position. Dawkins had to start his carnival side show, to boost his position as a leader of the slaves.
The separation of church and state, prevents the church from being too obliged to the state. If there was no separation, the church could become another tool in the toolbelt of power. There is no separation between state and science, making it a useful tool.
Throughout history, science, as the servant of higher powers, has kept the progression of war on the fast track. Science will not go on strike, since the master will beat the slave. Because there are so many mercenaries in science, nobody will sacrifice their career and prestige for the common good. It will do it for money.
During the concentration camps, science made the process very efficient. The master said jump and the slave said how high. It could have said no, but waited for religion to take the heat. If science ever grows a set, and will take a stand against an irrational master, like religion historically does, then maybe religion can allow science to pick up the slack. But as long as science is a mercenary, they have to take the heat.
What would happen if the master told the science slave to make it hard on those in religion who speak againts their master? Would they use logic to determine right and wrong, of just take the silver coins? I love science, but science is not suppose to be a slave. Learn from religion and start to grow a set.
Where religion differs from science is that religion is not subservient or obligated to the same higher powers as science. If we were to take away the religion checks and balance, but science remains the slave, then science also loses control over science. Instead of fighting cancer, we will make viagra. Instead of better plants for food, we will make better weapons, etc, since the slave has to do the masters bidding. The pay scale of science is good, but not at the top. This reflects its relative social position. Dawkins had to start his carnival side show, to boost his position as a leader of the slaves.
The separation of church and state, prevents the church from being too obliged to the state. If there was no separation, the church could become another tool in the toolbelt of power. There is no separation between state and science, making it a useful tool.
Throughout history, science, as the servant of higher powers, has kept the progression of war on the fast track. Science will not go on strike, since the master will beat the slave. Because there are so many mercenaries in science, nobody will sacrifice their career and prestige for the common good. It will do it for money.
During the concentration camps, science made the process very efficient. The master said jump and the slave said how high. It could have said no, but waited for religion to take the heat. If science ever grows a set, and will take a stand against an irrational master, like religion historically does, then maybe religion can allow science to pick up the slack. But as long as science is a mercenary, they have to take the heat.
What would happen if the master told the science slave to make it hard on those in religion who speak againts their master? Would they use logic to determine right and wrong, of just take the silver coins? I love science, but science is not suppose to be a slave. Learn from religion and start to grow a set.
Not exactly true.
Yeah?
Try reading history.
That isn't science.
Stupid claim based on a misunderstanding. Learn the difference between science and technology.
Leader? Whose "leader"?
Wow, how clueless are you, really?
Apart from the fact that you appear to be talking exclusively about the US, just ask yourself one question: if push comes to shove what laws will the church be able to avoid if the government really decided to "take over"?
Evidence please.
Oh boy.
Well? Would they?
Judging by this rant you may "love" science" but you're clueless as to what it is.
:roflmao:
Yes you drones!!! Grow a set! Listen to the guy with the book that's right because it says it's right! Don't listen to science that says "hey, if you don't believe me go check for yourself".
FFS, when did you have the lobotomy?
So wellwisher admits that religion is the opposite of science? I just want to make sure of that. But science is corrupt by it's funding sources? And churches aren't corrupted by the money they have to raise?
That (bolded) is not necessarily true, the Universe itself is filled with particular "Laws" that are posed as Natural. For something to come into being suggests the creation itself would follow set laws, spontaneity doesn't have laws other than being "Random" and even implying that law exists undermines that it truly is spontaneous since it's still confined to a law or rule.
One explaination for "Creation from nothing" is actually explained using "Paradoxes". For instance lets say I will eventually build a car from scratch. At this moment in time there is no car, over time I might eventually put the effort in and eventually the result might well be the existence of a car. This is a standard planar view of spacetime in regards to it's passage, but what if spacetime wasn't necessarily planar, what if in fact it was folded many times over like a Smale's Horseshoe, so the event of creating a car and making it exist actually occurs straight after thinking about building a car or even prior to even knowing you were going to build a car.
(In both cases this generates a paradox as why would I bother putting the effort in to building a car that suddenly exists as if by magic from just the pre-emption of plotting to build a car or if the car already pre-exists would you even both building a car and perhaps fall to entropy by doing something else instead?.)
In each instance to generate this paradigm shifts in spacetime it requires a manipulation of spacetime that is done intelligently (not chaotically as it might of first been assumed)
This has been one of my many considerations while looking into Recursive Composite Emulator Theory.
Incidentally this form of "Intelligent Design" is something that would be worked on by a collaboration of Scientists, Which is why I always point out that both Theism and Atheism and Dually right and wrong at the same time. Since the work of the Scientists is what a posed Mythical god figure is suggested to have the capacity to do, however it is a bunch of Scientists doing it.
A slightly selective view of events. Not to say there isn't some truth in your words.
Religion is out of the mainstream (politics/science) system because religion has increasingly less to offer.
There are many big-business scientific exploits going on. There are many government funded scientific exploits going on. The pressure to develop has to come from the consumer and the government that is accountable to said consumer. We in effect have to make the change. People have to prove to the system that they can be taken seriously. Governments and big business need to be held to account. Don't put down Science because the world is rigged up wrong/ in a transitional state.
To say Science needs to grow a pair is a massive over-simplification.
Last edited:
Could you post a link for this please Stryder?
The Universe isn't a car. The Universe is a system where it is possible for beings that can produce cars to evolve. Whether this is evidence for or against Intelligent Design is debatable.
The car is created through intelligent design (of humanoids); I can buy that
One first has to assume the Universe displays characteristics which can't arise through chance. That is a big assumption.
Though of course the ideas themeselves sound interesting.
The car is created through intelligent design (of humanoids); I can buy that
One first has to assume the Universe displays characteristics which can't arise through chance. That is a big assumption.
Though of course the ideas themeselves sound interesting.
Unfortunately It's Unpublished (and still being written) so currently there is no link, however when eventually it's done, I'll gladly provide a link.
Who's to say that it isn't an assumption to suggest characteristics arise through chance?
In either case we are dealing with Theory, a theory that obviously requires "Testing" to produce a Scientific outcome. One of the problems that however arises from this is defining what tests can be done and whether they are actually the right tests to equate the theory, after all it needs to be unbiased and not swing a result in either favour.
I nearly agree. Of course the lack of proof of god kind of sways it slightly away from god? The default being no god (if you see what I mean). Though of course no 'proof' either way is mentionable I suppose.
Assuming either way requires too much of an assumption for my liking.
Is this the idea that a simulation of a world/universe (that we create within a computer) could go on to create an internal simulation of another universe and so on ad infinitum?
I find that surprising. I guess the stereotype of them being staunch Catholics can end. I wonder if the priest rapes and the nun abuses coming to light have pushed the demise along.
No one took me up on my comment...
Since Hawking (or is it Dawking) is wrong about gravity- that is, since you can't prove you can make a universe out of nothing but gravity, then his conclusion that there is no God is invalid.
This isn't the first time I was let down by Hawking because he's falling right into Clarke's first law:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Hawking is old and knows he's going to die soon. So he- like Einstein- is chasing ghosts trying to "solve physics" before he dies, as he is approaching death. This leads to bad conclusions.