Stephen Hawking: Hey Stupid, Let's Go Into Space

[liveonc]

You must be that new breed of Extremist Atheist The Pope was talking about, & even before you try to go for that standard issue pop-media inspired bigoted generalization of all Catholics, I'd like to add that no one is forcing you to go to a Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. But that you've got a problem with other people doing it, goes to show that Religion isn't the problem, but that you've got a problem with Religion.

 

[kickice24]

If he's so smart, how come he hasn't figured a way to get out of that wheelchair?

 

[nforce4max]

[citation][nom]liveonc[/nom]Actually it feels liberating to have certain restraints. It's like a car with a brake, you can stop before you crash into something. As for being spiritually tied, well that's the point, why else would I pray if I didn't feel it was an obligation? That some people are more sure about where they're going after this, while others worry about not having done enough to be so certain, that's either great faith, or great ignorance. Either way, once you do die, it's too late. That death happens, but murder is still a sin, also is food for thought about that those destined to die would have done it anyways, but that killing someone won't look good on your own score, when it's time for you to die & get graded.[/citation]

You do make a point but I haven't been up to the task today as far as debate & trolling but I am a Christian but not your normal one thumping a NIV or some false doctrine. Most people just don't have the mind much less any thing else due to programing to believe in any thing greater than them selves and their idols.

 

[crusak]

arrogance has no place in science. since it is likely impossible through science to prove that a spiritual entity does not exist, the argument is futile and pointless.

I see no reason to insist on excluding the possibility that God exists in order to believe in science. I think the two can coexist.

Hawking is mixing his atheistic beliefs with his scientific ideas.

 

[LORD_ORION]

LOL, this post is covered i stupidity and I can see why Hawkings comes off as having a big chip on his shoulder this timer around.

Scientific Theory-> Does not break/contradict any known discoveries BEFORE YOU BEGIN putting it to the test.

You cant just say "I think X, prov me wrong" it's science!

This is the idiotic fallacy believers of religion don't get. If we put any "bible" to the test scientifically, it fails rather rapidly. Not just in "laws of the universe" physics, but in sociology, neuroscience, economics... pretty much every branch of scientific thinking.

Then it's "magic" and "god wills it" to cover the blatantly wrong things.

Be agnostic towards the concept of god? Good.
Believe in any religion? You are wrong.

 

[nforce4max]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Uh... You do realize in universities they are taught science and not creationism right?[/citation]

I am well aware of the programing that is in place of what education should have been then yes. Science as some paint in these universities is flawed knowing the practices and the origens of their "science" which is disappointing in it's quality. There are several leagues given their quality regardless of it's subject field. The first and worst flaw is human and most will agree to that. Second is politics are high up on the priority list rather than the purpose of science that being discovery regardless of school of thought. Third is that information is filtered to only support existing schools of though so that nothing new that is discovered does not contradict the accepted school of thought. It is these schools of thought hold mankind back than any religion that has ever existed except for the esoteric cults that are popular in high society to this very day. It is not what you crazed atheists believe but what they believe as what you believe is not of any consequence. It is these cults that keep man in bondage more than any doctrine or defect of reason. One can not be bright with out at least having some understanding of both science and theology as they both have their place and required to exist as an individual who does not subscribe to group think or any ideology. A man without such programing is truly free to be human. Any thing less isn't human and does not exist as an individual but as a group. In a group there is no such thing as freedom or a long term future for that matter. In a group there is no original thought or creative burst of imagination.

Group think: The dog returnith to it's vomit.

 

[redraider89]

I think he is getting too arrogant. Look at the irony of this. Basically what he is saying is that we know enough to solve all problems. All we have to do is apply what we already know and we can solve anything. He says, "God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator." Well, if he is so smart and knows SOOO MUCH!, why doesn't he tell the doctors how they can heal him and get him out of that chair and functioning normally. That is if he is so smart, that is what he ought to do. That makes his claims and what his reality is so ironic.

 

[liveonc]

[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]LOL, this post is covered i stupidity and I can see why Hawkings comes off as having a big chip on his shoulder this timer around. Scientific Theory-> Does not break/contradict any known discoveries BEFORE YOU BEGIN putting it to the test.You cant just say "I think X, prov me wrong" it's science!This is the idiotic fallacy believers of religion don't get. If we put any "bible" to the test scientifically, it fails rather rapidly. Not just in "laws of the universe" physics, but in sociology, neuroscience, economics... pretty much every branch of scientific thinking.Then it's "magic" and "god wills it" to cover the blatantly wrong things.Be agnostic towards the concept of god? Good.Believe in any religion? You are wrong.[/citation]

Clearly, it's pointless to argue with someone who's already made up their mind about something. It's like offering you coffee when you asked for tea. Fine, go with it! But what you're saying, is that just because you like tea, I'm stupid for liking coffee.

How can you even relate to more than 4 dimensions? Seriously, I ask you how you can experience more than 3 dimensions & the passing of time? That both The Bible & The Qur'an have many parables which explains in ways you can relate to, regardless of intellect, so that people don't get grouped into haves, & have nots. There are many people who don't come from families that can send them excessively to school. Should they have to suffer poverty & ignorance, just because God wanted you to spend your whole life trying to understand what He has to say about anything at all? Or rather explain a little bit, & let those who develop an interest, choose to do it, if they're not too busy just trying to make ends meet?

 

[liveonc]

I do beg to differ about the way you seek to oversimplify WWII. It just wasn't that simple. An economically ruined Germany struggled to contain this problem called Hitler, despite German pride, financial woes, & compensating wartime foes. That this monster was shouting, pointing fingers, using violent mobs, & forcing people to be with him, or with them.

That The Vatican also had their problems at home, & how everything got so messed up, so very fast. People do desperate things, in desperate times, & only those who live in another world can choose to ignore the fact that Europe was on fire.

It's these very simple answers to very complex issues that got everybody in the mood to gas people or shoot them. Even "if" the nazi's won, they wouldn't be able to ignore the fact that people can't live that way forever. But that it didn't go that way, meant that the future chose a different course. Only to forget that everybody swore, NEVER to let it happen again.

 

[redraider89]

[citation][nom]Redraider89[/nom]I think he is getting too arrogant. Look at the irony of this. Basically what he is saying is that we know enough to solve all problems. All we have to do is apply what we already know and we can solve anything. He says, "God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator." Well, if he is so smart and knows SOOO MUCH!, why doesn't he tell the doctors how they can heal him and get him out of that chair and functioning normally. That is if he is so smart, that is what he ought to do. That makes his claims and what his reality is so ironic.[/citation]

Some may not like this but he is the one making the claim that he knows enough to solve the secrets of the universe yet can't solve the problems with his own body that keeps him in that chair. I don't care if someone doesn't like it, but it's the truth. You have to have courage to face reality.

 

[el_samky]

God is the only one creator of all!!....the universe is unknow for us (scientific)....

 

[redraider89]

Meanwhile, the God, Jesus Christ, who he is dismissing, rose from the dead. Hawking may not believe that, but he cannot disprove it. It cannot be disproved except by actually going back in time and either witnessing what actually happened. Beyond that, you either decide to believe or not to believe.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[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]

I couldn't agree more. In fact when I was sent to a Christian school from 5th - 8th grade, they taught science apart from religion

I only wish I can see the day we can venture out into space much like Star Trek and explore the most interesting part of our existence. Space.

 

[back_by_demand]

Problem with religeon is that it created these ridiculous claims about how the Universe was created, without requiring a shred of proof, in an age when it was impossible to question the validity of the claims without being burnt as a heretic an dthe was no such thing as science.

Roll forward 2000 years and thankfully people are no longer burned at the stake and a lot of the teachings that were enforced as literal truths have now been conceeded by the Church as "abstract principles" when faced with incontravertable proof.
Such as the Earth is round, not flat.
No amount of "proof denies faith" will ever put that genie back in the bottle and even the Pope has to conceed they got that one wrong, even though his absolute faith should override any amount of proof.

The problem here is the inability of a religeous body to let go of their only remaining trump card in that it is impossible to disprove a negative, in that you cannot prove God does not exist. Until recently.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, try reading up Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spagetti Monster.

The idea of a Flying Spagetti Monster filling the role normally attributed to "God" would be utterly ridiculous to anyone unless it had the same kind of world encompassing organisation enforcing it's doctrine from birth to a billion people for the best part of 2000 years.

So, anyone fancy exploring the Universe?

 

[dallaswits]

The real question is this.

Can organized religion and peace co-exist?
Because you cant convince someone that what they believe it wrong.

I "think" the answer is yes, but "they" (people in organized religions) are doing a good job of proving me wrong.

 

[dallaswits]

"when will logical thought overcome superstitious egotism."

 

[back_by_demand]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets
himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[zachary k]

if only nerds ruled the world. Stephen Hawking for president!

 

[DT12]

This guy is not that smart. The "Scientific Account is complete"?
Not in anyway shape or form and that is pure ignorance.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Problem with religeon is that it created these ridiculous claims about how the Universe was created, without requiring a shred of proof, in an age when it was impossible to question the validity of the claims without being burnt as a heretic an dthe was no such thing as science.Roll forward 2000 years and thankfully people are no longer burned at the stake and a lot of the teachings that were enforced as literal truths have now been conceeded by the Church as "abstract principles" when faced with incontravertable proof.Such as the Earth is round, not flat.No amount of "proof denies faith" will ever put that genie back in the bottle and even the Pope has to conceed they got that one wrong, even though his absolute faith should override any amount of proof.The problem here is the inability of a religeous body to let go of their only remaining trump card in that it is impossible to disprove a negative, in that you cannot prove God does not exist. Until recently.For those who don't know what I am talking about, try reading up Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spagetti Monster.The idea of a Flying Spagetti Monster filling the role normally attributed to "God" would be utterly ridiculous to anyone unless it had the same kind of world encompassing organisation enforcing it's doctrine from birth to a billion people for the best part of 2000 years.So, anyone fancy exploring the Universe?[/citation]
You leave the FSM out of this or he shall smite you with his noodley appendage unbeliever!!