spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No, not except God. God's effects or the absence thereof can be studied by science.
I didn't say it was proven, but it is compelling evidence.
Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
I didn't say it was proven, but it is compelling evidence.
what whaat what?
whos god? was god of the physical cosmos ever alive.
people we are god... were and have always been. created in image an image is not alive but we are.
and what are we standing on ourselves but ourselves in past time, pure energy,
Empathy (Love-Joy)
(∞/0)
whos god? was god of the physical cosmos ever alive.
people we are god... were and have always been. created in image an image is not alive but we are.
and what are we standing on ourselves but ourselves in past time, pure energy,
Empathy (Love-Joy)
(∞/0)
1. 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 probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-Arthur C. Clarke
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-Arthur C. Clarke
I have not read his book and none have explained his central premise how a finite realm can emerge from nothing, notwithstanding that ex nehilo is a premise introduced in Genesis. Namely, this does not mean NO CREATOR, but that the universe was 'created' - a technical term varied from formed and using something else because at one time there was nothing else. It is not even clarified whether Hawkins subscribes to a finite universe - whereby an infinite universe is usually a back door to rationalising the irrational.
WORSE THAN MAGIC: a finite realm emerged on its own. Here, not even a slight of hand rabbit in the hat is required.
Parmenides
Registered Senior Member
I would prefer to see Stephen Hawking's full book and its arguments and judge what he says there rather than on extracts. I think the ideas of a considerable thinker can be misunderstood and confused when they are quoted out of context by the press. Even so, it has been known for a while that Hawking is an atheist and his references to God in prior works seem to be rather perfunctory in nature rather than due to any form of religious belief.
Its nigh impossible to have a career in scence if one is not atheist or does not toe the ToE line.
Today's neo atheist scientists have joined the que in securing for themselves the most effective ways of 5 minutes of stardom. He does not fool me though.
Nonsense. Science doesn't care what your religious beliefs are. It's not relevant to the work of a scientist.
What are you talking about?
.
about the thread, that hawking said univerce don't nececerilly need a god that to be created. so i said to who maked the thread what i said, moslty atheist, always discussing about the existence of god, trying to prove that god don't exist, either to themselves, or others, anyway, what i said is a side post, u can ignore it
about the thread, that hawking said univerce don't nececerilly need a god that to be created. so i said to who maked the thread what i said, moslty atheist, always discussing about the existence of god, trying to prove that god don't exist, either to themselves, or others, anyway, what i said is a side post, u can ignore it
Firstly I called your logic stupid. Secondly the "Well how do you explain...." flawed reasoning is known as an argument from ignorance, I didn't decide to specifically call you ignorant. Thirdly I'm 26.
I have no idea how old you are and I don't care. Doesn't make the dubious reasoning you displayed any less dubious. And my qualifications are fine thanks.
Nonsense. You're try to make excuses about why all the creationists fail miserably in science, not willing to accept its because creationism isn't science. A creationist forms their world view by denial of the scientific method, so its hardly surprising they struggle to convince people to pay them to follow the scientific method. There's no 'religious test' when applying for PhDs or postdocs or lecturing positions, its done entirely on your publication history and your research proposals. People who follow creationism fail to have good publication histories because they put forth arguments without reason or evidence, even in contradiction to reason and evidence.
Of course if one was more cynical then one might make the argument that the reason there's so few militant religious people in academia is that there's a strong correlation between poor academic abilities and faith but that's a little too simplistic.....
Hawking got more than 5 minutes of fame because he worked hard and did things others didn't. Science, try it some time.
Hawking makes his claims based on the science he knows.
You can't see an atom, but we're very confident that atoms exist. Go figure.
Who said the universe created itself?
Who said the universe was created out of nothing?
It started everywhere at once.
There's no proof. All Hawking is saying is that he can't see any need for God to create the universe. Gravity is enough, according to him.
Hawking says nobody needed to.
What "finite realm"? There's no such thing.
Hawking is a scientist. I'm sure he subscribes to the current scientific understanding that the universe is infinite.
about the thread, that hawking said univerce don't nececerilly need a god that to be created. so i said to who maked the thread what i said, moslty atheist, always discussing about the existence of god, trying to prove that god don't exist, either to themselves, or others, anyway, what i said is a side post, u can ignore it
Ok.
Who told you we cannot see an atom? Today, powerful computers can make sufficient imaging scans - it's just as good as looking at one with the naked eye.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504095216.htm
the problem is he is arguing from the authority of empiricism ... which has no scope for the claims he is making
its only when there is a complete absence of doable claims on the table that it becomes non-different from hot air
Never trust anyone called Rusty, as my Uncle Rusty used to say.
What a fine hat you are wearing!