- Status
deletemach_kernel
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2010
- 16
- 0
- 18,560
Mans' very need to prove that is the most supreme being with utmost power has always led us to believe that we dont need this God creature. But let us assume for a second that he did create the universe, which means that he must have also created science to help us understand what we have inherited. Man still cant stop his death and never will. That is sort of the last laugh. In 100 years non of us will exist to argue about whether hawkins is right or wrong. In that time some other bloke will have come up with newer theories claiming that hawkins theories are wrong (just like there are scientist now cliaming Darwin's theory is flawed).
so in essence we need to understand that "if" God exists, he would not have been dumb enough to stop at life on one planet ... the universe is vast and we must explore it for newer life forms. especially since we have the great hindu habit of destroying our own surroundings.
he is right about finding a new planet to sustain life... face the fact . Sooner or later some idiot (american or not) will launch a nuke and kill us all...
ditto for save mother earth. what we are actually trying to say is, we must save ourselves from the destruction we are causing mother earth. Because when she has had enough she will wip us out with a variety of natural calamities. Man has never had the power to save mother earth nor will he ever. It is actually the other way around.
that is why we must find newer places in space to live. For someday Earth will still exist, but it wont welcome the ungrateful "Human" anymore.
so in essence we need to understand that "if" God exists, he would not have been dumb enough to stop at life on one planet ... the universe is vast and we must explore it for newer life forms. especially since we have the great hindu habit of destroying our own surroundings.
he is right about finding a new planet to sustain life... face the fact . Sooner or later some idiot (american or not) will launch a nuke and kill us all...
ditto for save mother earth. what we are actually trying to say is, we must save ourselves from the destruction we are causing mother earth. Because when she has had enough she will wip us out with a variety of natural calamities. Man has never had the power to save mother earth nor will he ever. It is actually the other way around.
that is why we must find newer places in space to live. For someday Earth will still exist, but it wont welcome the ungrateful "Human" anymore.
deletemach_kernel
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2010
- 16
- 0
- 18,560
pardon my spelling mistake, i meant hawkings not hawkins (accidentally referred to a former miss universe) [
]
]The only Space, is Cyber-Space. ET has landed & he's got a green card. Maybe if NASA use Nitrous Oxide for fuel instead, they'll start to wake up. Atheism won't save you from Idolatry, it won't cure death, turn back time, make Monkeys Human, teach your PC self consciousness, make better Societies, nor can it save you from yourselves. Communists erected statues & worshiped them, despite denying Religion, balsamized Lenin, studying the genius of his brain & found none, only to achieve going back in time as a result of dementia, even though the rest of the world didn't stand still. That being Human requires acting like one, only served to turn Humans into Monkeys, willing to accept that their PC was smarter then them, & that Hollywood offered something that wasn't fictional. So where is the enlightened Society in all this darkness?
liveonc where did you get those though provoking words from? you can't have written them all yourself.
"God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator."
Science can "measure" & come up with a "theory" of what it "measures". As for an explanation of this "theory", & if it is "accepted", as being "valid", I "hope" is a better way to explain.
"The scientific account is complete, theology is unnecessary."
As long as there's money in that account, that account is "complete". Theology offers something that doesn't require funding, but does encourage work to achieve money.
"We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot keep looking inward at ourselves on this small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded."
Self restraint requires looking inward, greed is a bi-product of this inability to look inward. The world is growing increasingly nationalistic & territorial, so imperialism will require genocide. This itself is inhumane, something that happens when we loose faith & Humanity.
"If we can get through the next few hundred years, we should have spread out into space. Then, an isolated disaster will not wipe out the entire human race."
It won't matter what happens in the next few hundred years, that's not our concern, nor the concern of our children, but maybe their children's, children's, children.
Science can "measure" & come up with a "theory" of what it "measures". As for an explanation of this "theory", & if it is "accepted", as being "valid", I "hope" is a better way to explain.
"The scientific account is complete, theology is unnecessary."
As long as there's money in that account, that account is "complete". Theology offers something that doesn't require funding, but does encourage work to achieve money.
"We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot keep looking inward at ourselves on this small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded."
Self restraint requires looking inward, greed is a bi-product of this inability to look inward. The world is growing increasingly nationalistic & territorial, so imperialism will require genocide. This itself is inhumane, something that happens when we loose faith & Humanity.
"If we can get through the next few hundred years, we should have spread out into space. Then, an isolated disaster will not wipe out the entire human race."
It won't matter what happens in the next few hundred years, that's not our concern, nor the concern of our children, but maybe their children's, children's, children.
georgec666
Distinguished
- Sep 20, 2010
- 13
- 0
- 18,560
Religion gives us answers that may never be questioned. Science provides answers that are continually improved by use of questions. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered and is a kind of "no man’s land" that separates science and theology.
So ask yourself… Are you afraid to ask the question? I’m not. And if you continually bring theology into the realm of science, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders!
So ask yourself… Are you afraid to ask the question? I’m not. And if you continually bring theology into the realm of science, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders!
triclops41
Distinguished
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
I agree with Hawking's conlcusion, but his premises are the same dumb bs I hear from other people who speak from their cornholes.
"We are so greedy, selfish and stupid! The Earth is overcrowded! The Earth is too polluted!"
Same old nonsense. Anytime someone says the above things, they are about to start bossing you around. Hawking happens to have a good idea there (spread out to avoid extinction due to a catastrophe), but the way he got there is through the same convoluted thinking as dim Gaia worshipers.
It is very disappointing to hear Hawking talk politics or human history. I guess no one can be a genius in everything.
I still love his books and recommend them to anyone the least bit interested.
"We are so greedy, selfish and stupid! The Earth is overcrowded! The Earth is too polluted!"
Same old nonsense. Anytime someone says the above things, they are about to start bossing you around. Hawking happens to have a good idea there (spread out to avoid extinction due to a catastrophe), but the way he got there is through the same convoluted thinking as dim Gaia worshipers.
It is very disappointing to hear Hawking talk politics or human history. I guess no one can be a genius in everything.
I still love his books and recommend them to anyone the least bit interested.
@george666 How can you measure if you don't make observations? Asking Religious questions aren't forbidden, it's accepting something as valid & trying to understand what it actually means, & what it doesn't mean. That's why even within the same Religion people can interpret this differently. So how does this make Science, Philosophy, & Religion so different, when the approach requires observing something, based on something accepted, & using that knowledge to develop an understanding?
triclops41
Distinguished
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3
- 0
- 18,510
Hawking seems to be convinced of his ideas. But what is the evidence to support his claims. It seems that a lot of people are prepared to accept the "scientific view" without critically evaluating the evidence for this view for themselves. The views that get media time are not always the most factual but the controversial. What is the evidence that has convinced Hawking?
chronicbint
Distinguished
- Dec 5, 2007
- 205
- 0
- 18,830
[citation][nom]gdilord[/nom]Earth 2150, anyone?[/citation]
A theory is a theory is a theory.
I've got a book, that's evidence. What you're saying is that a Science Fiction novel is better evidence, just because Hollywood makes good movies, they make tonnes of money, & as long as you can be a Nation at War & get a Peace Prize, that it means you're right.
But okay, you need funding for your Science Project, but just because you got funding doesn't mean that those who didn't are wrong, but that you're right. But please do understand, that my sympathies go to those who have a good heart, more than those with big pockets.
A theory is a theory is a theory.
I've got a book, that's evidence. What you're saying is that a Science Fiction novel is better evidence, just because Hollywood makes good movies, they make tonnes of money, & as long as you can be a Nation at War & get a Peace Prize, that it means you're right.
But okay, you need funding for your Science Project, but just because you got funding doesn't mean that those who didn't are wrong, but that you're right. But please do understand, that my sympathies go to those who have a good heart, more than those with big pockets.
[citation][nom]gdilord[/nom]Earth 2150, anyone?[/citation]
Oops, wrong quote.
[citation][nom]safcmanfr[/nom][/citation]
A theory is a theory is a theory.
I've got a book, that's evidence. What you're saying is that a Science Fiction novel is better evidence, just because Hollywood makes good movies, they make tonnes of money, & as long as you can be a Nation at War & get a Peace Prize, that it means you're right.
But okay, you need funding for your Science Project, but just because you got funding doesn't mean that those who didn't are wrong, but that you're right. But please do understand, that my sympathies go to those who have a good heart, more than those with big pockets.
Oops, wrong quote.
[citation][nom]safcmanfr[/nom][/citation]
A theory is a theory is a theory.
I've got a book, that's evidence. What you're saying is that a Science Fiction novel is better evidence, just because Hollywood makes good movies, they make tonnes of money, & as long as you can be a Nation at War & get a Peace Prize, that it means you're right.
But okay, you need funding for your Science Project, but just because you got funding doesn't mean that those who didn't are wrong, but that you're right. But please do understand, that my sympathies go to those who have a good heart, more than those with big pockets.
BTW, is Hawking even saying anything anymore? Can anyone tell the difference between a guy in a wheel chair with something in his mouth saying what he's saying or the PC saying something else? As long as Hawking is a trademark, & everybody else also depends on the funding that generates, is that the future he can look forward to, if it's not already happening?
It's not even Religious talk, when people speak of the Evil that men do. Atheists do that too & they don't believe in anything. So if you're a Scientist & you don't get funding, does that make you a bad Scientist?
It's not even Religious talk, when people speak of the Evil that men do. Atheists do that too & they don't believe in anything. So if you're a Scientist & you don't get funding, does that make you a bad Scientist?
brendano257
Distinguished
- Apr 18, 2008
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]When Hawking says, "God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator", he is actually quite consistent with Christian theology. If God created the universe and with it all physical laws and science to go with it, it would be a rather imperfect creation if it couldn't explain its own existence. It is also a common understanding among religious thinkers that God intended for his existence to be unprovable by science (otherwise it would eliminate the need for faith). If the universe could not be explained without the invoking the existence of a divine being, then this could serve as a sort of proof of God's existence.On a further note, I'd like to point out that so many people like to pit science against religion, when in fact a person of faith realizes that science is just another part of creation and is serving the purpose for which it was intended.[/citation]
Well put, I also appreciate the well thought out and intelligent answer, it's a nice change
Well put, I also appreciate the well thought out and intelligent answer, it's a nice change
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter