Oh that holy spirit. The supposition. The claim.
Why should that be taken into account?
Assumption on your part.
No he isn't.
Bull.
Hence my question
How are these laws embodied?
Are you having a "stupid day" today?
Stephen Hawking's view on god and death
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
Why should that be taken into account?
How are these laws embodied?
Are you having a "stupid day" today?
because that's how god interacts with people, and i'm referring to it. it's part of my arguement.
actually, it's my opinion.
yes he is, whether you or he realize it or not.
hawking believes in spirits?
Hence my question
How are these laws embodied?
Are you having a "stupid day" today?
no more than usual.
they are embodied in a collection that i call "god".
are you having a stupid day today?
Supposition. No scientific foundation, there invalid.
Um, no it's an assumption that ignoring this "holy spirit" make shim incorrect.
Nope. This is an opinion based on YOUR point of view.
Oh, I see you arehaving a stupid day. I'll explain: your claim "that's because the father and the holy spirit are not the same thing. they're 2 parts of a whole" is bull.hawking believes in spirits?
Got it. Greeblies are greebly because they're greeblies. See? I can do meaningless but grammatically correct rubbish, too.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Newton wasn't talking about the creation of the universe, was he? He was talking about the creation of the solar system. Newton thought that the solar system was evidence of design, while modern astrophysics explains it naturalistically, by a modern version of the old nebular hypothesis.
Hawking obviously knows that, so I'm guessing that a journalist might have misinterpreted what Hawking said. (That often happens in popular science writing.)
I don't believe that Stephen Hawking has the faintest clue why and how "there is something rather than nothing". If he believes that he does, then he's just expressing his own personal faith.
it is your supposition that anything without a scientific foundation is invalid.
um, no, it's my opinion based on my experience with the holy spirit.
well that's your opinion.
it's not bull; it's common knowledge.
actually i fucked that up. they are embodied in a collection that i call "the father", add to that the holy spirit and jesus, and you have "god". sorry.
I'm sure the guy that sold your dad the tartan told him that, yeah.
And you're missing the point. Hawking provided a scientific viewpoint and explanation. Anything non-scientific is thus irrelevant.
You're assuming that "holy spirit" actually means anything.
On the contrary, it's a demonstrable fact.
Nope. It may, however, be a common belief. This still doesn't prevent it being bull though.
Still meaningless.
And he would be correct.
"Emulation" not Simulation.
Unfortunately your written passage and my current statements on it really do not do the theory justice, I will try to write something up very soon to cover it in full unfortunately my plane trip is currently interfering in attempting to write it up sooner, but hopefully after the weekend I'll be able to get started on it properly while I am away.
that is also your supposition, and a poor one at that.
I have an accurate tree actually. A non-direct line, but a link nonetheless. I wouldn't be so quick to jump to assumptions.
Ok, sounds cool. I would love to be in the loop. Sounds intriguing.
Yeah, they sell family trees too. You were suckered.
I have never been to Scotland. I have however researched DEEPLY my family's roots.
Sure.
Yeah but where does GRAVITY and POTENTIAL SPACETIME come from?
(Mindless British nonsense blah blah blah...)Are you serious?
"Going to die soon"?
He was informed forty-eight years ago that his disease would probably kill him in 2-3 years.
I hardly think he's in some sort of last-minute rush to make his name.
Hawking realizes he has lived a human lifetime and is trying to sum up his knowledge into one theory. But this is at odds with Clarke's first law.
Get it
No, the fatal flaw is he didn't address Baal. Or perhaps Thor. Or maybe the Invisible Pink Unicorns. That's the fatal flaw, not this 'holy spirit'. What a laughable concept, its obvious Hawking should have addressed The Noodley One!
Hopefully that satire will get across the point of how daft your comment is in the eyes of someone who doesn't believe in your particular religion.
You fail to grasp his point, in that its daft to think any deity/deities/trinities/celestial creator/whatever would be in any way fathomable by the human mind, given how small our minds are and how vast and complex the universe is. And that's granting the unjustified assumption such a being or beings exist. How you divide up your deity, be it 'god' or 'god and the holy spirit' or them and Jesus is irrelevant.
Your comments smack of someone who can't view the world other than through the opaque lens of their religion.
An opinion can be an assumption, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's your opinion to use the assumption the deity of the bible exists, be that 'god' or the trinity. It's an assumption to believe any deity or deities exist.
Are you trolling or are you really that poor at basic reading comprehension?
If something cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape or form then claiming it has any physical validity is dubious. To claim the physical validity of something which by definition is never scientifically examinable is delusional as you're basically saying "I believe in something which cannot ever be examined or demonstrated or justified.".
It's common knowledge some Christians believe that. It is not common knowledge in the sense people know it to be true. It is not even a common belief.
The fact some people believe it doesn't make it true. You need to separate what people believe and what people can demonstrate. If you can't do that then tautologically you have a poor grip on reality.
No, you have 'god'. Many people would disagree with you. Non-Christian theists would disagree with your notion of god. Atheists would disagree with your claim you have anything at all. Even some Christians would disagree with you, not all of them believe in the notion of the trinity.
Throughout this thread you've been telling us what you believe and stating it as if it were fact. Even your views on the relationship and role of Jesus, 'the father' and the holy spirit are not unanimously agreed upon within your own religion, so they certainly not are demonstrated justified facts.
If something cannot, no matter the circumstances or technology, be scientifically examined then why should anyone believe it exists? How do you distinguish such a thing existing from such a thing not existing? If we were talking about Vishnu you'd dismiss it as false due to lack of evidence. Yet if you're willing to accept things which cannot be scientifically examined (and that, by definition, means it does not manifest in any way, shape or form in the real world) then you're believing things with zero reason or evidence. Why believe that and not in Vishnu? Or Thor? Or Jupiter (the god)? Or Dave, the sky pixie who created the universe 4 seconds ago in its present state?
You're making a special case for your belief. It's a logical fallacy known as special pleading. You make rules to dismiss all the other religions but if you stuck by those rules you'd have to dismiss your own so you make excuses as to why yours is special. It's not an argument which leads to a conclusion, it's a conclusion you've tried to fashion an argument for. And you failed utterly to do so.