Professor Stephen Hawking says no God created Universe
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf9ac/bf9acf676c401f2b84dc38dc71d8c898ffe0fad3" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
He found a way to cheat on his first wife, Jane Hawking, at least. I wouldn't call that entertainment as much as treachery though.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf9ac/bf9acf676c401f2b84dc38dc71d8c898ffe0fad3" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
He found a way to cheat on his first wife, Jane Hawking, at least. I wouldn't call that entertainment as much as treachery though.
And then he divorced her for the other woman. Too bad, Jane Hawking actually cared about him while I heard in the newspapers that there were allegations that the other woman was an abuser. So Hawking divorced her as well.
_________________
.
Again. What has any of this got to do with the topic of this thread?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf9ac/bf9acf676c401f2b84dc38dc71d8c898ffe0fad3" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
No argument about that. Of course humans are mammals, as per the criteria of classification we fit it just fine.
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
He found a way to cheat on his first wife, Jane Hawking, at least. I wouldn't call that entertainment as much as treachery though.
And then he divorced her for the other woman. Too bad, Jane Hawking actually cared about him while I heard in the newspapers that there were allegations that the other woman was an abuser. So Hawking divorced her as well.
It seems that, since Hawking's theoretical cosmology is impervious to attack, in true McCarthyite strategy, character assassination is next on the menu.
Well, we've already ignored Hawking's actual words in order to attribute our own fears to him - why not go ahead and make insinuations about his personal life as well?
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
Just because Stephen Hawking says something is true doesn't make it so.
I don't think so. I think he identifies himself as an agnostic, but a lack of belief in God would technically make him an atheist. He could be a Buddhist, though.
Perhaps I am over impressed with Hawking but I prefer to take his judgment over any ignorant idiot on this site.
Science has "proven" a lot of things that have turned out not to be true. Science has previously believed the sun revolved around the Earth, that mice could spontaneously generate from soiled cloth and wheat, that base metals could be converted into gold, as well as dozens of other beliefs and theories that were later debunked.
I believe that "disproving" the existence of God will one day become one such obsolete theory.
_________________
Well, I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I suddenly thought, "Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish. I think I'll kill the Fuhrer." Who's with me?
Watch Doctor Who!
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf9ac/bf9acf676c401f2b84dc38dc71d8c898ffe0fad3" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
He found a way to cheat on his first wife, Jane Hawking, at least. I wouldn't call that entertainment as much as treachery though.
And then he divorced her for the other woman. Too bad, Jane Hawking actually cared about him while I heard in the newspapers that there were allegations that the other woman was an abuser. So Hawking divorced her as well.
It seems that, since Hawking's theoretical cosmology is impervious to attack, in true McCarthyite strategy, character assassination is next on the menu.
Not what I was doing but, bleh, you people do that to scientists who are creationists all the time.
Just because Stephen Hawking says something is true doesn't make it so.
I don't think so. I think he identifies himself as an agnostic, but a lack of belief in God would technically make him an atheist. He could be a Buddhist, though.
Perhaps I am over impressed with Hawking but I prefer to take his judgment over any ignorant idiot on this site.
Science has "proven" a lot of things that have turned out not to be true. Science has previously believed the sun revolved around the Earth, that mice could spontaneously generate from soiled cloth and wheat, that base metals could be converted into gold, as well as dozens of other beliefs and theories that were later debunked.
I believe that "disproving" the existence of God will one day become one such obsolete theory.
As pointed out, Hawking did not deny God, he merely computed that the creation of the universe did not require God. The advance of science is dependent upon new information and concepts replacing older faulty ones. That is the nature of science. There is absolutely no currently observable data indicating either the existence or non-existence of God. God does not, at present, enter into any scientific concepts. If and when that data appears I am sure science will acknowledge it.
Further, I submit that the discipline of science, being young and still seemingly difficult for many to understand, has never held any of the rather silly positions attributed by ChrisVulcan.
The Sun revolving around the Earth was, like the concept of spontaneous generation, the result of spotty observation and poor logic on the part of observers, resulting in "folk wisdom". Scientific observation was what proved the curvature of the Earth, and its approximate size, around the time of Aristotle; there were no instruments capable of determining which was the satellite and which the primary until shortly before Galileo's pioneering work.
As for transmutation, that was never "scientific"; alchemy resulted from superstitious Europeans seeing early chemical experiments being conducted by Muslim scientists before the Crusades, and decreeing that such things were sorcery. And since sorcery can do many inexplicable things, like cause crop failures, why couldn't these mysterious liquids be used to turn lead into gold?
The scientific process involves repeated observations, accompanied by experiments wherever possible; said experiments must be reproducible by other scientists in other labs, in order to rule out erroneous equipment. (For instance, the recently reported apparent variation in certain radioactive decay rates has thus far been reported by only one laboratory; until it can be reproduced elsewhere, the simplest explanation is that the observational equipment is insufficiently insulated from, say, seasonal temperature variations, or local electromagnetic fields, causing erroneous data to be observed.) Experiments which result in repeated failure result in a line of inquiry being abandoned by a scientist - not a trait alchemists were known for.
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
I've tried to explain this to people at the local newspaper's website, and there's another thread on here about this already, but:
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAWKING SAID!! !
That's how the authors of various news articles want to frame the discussion - but what Dr. Hawking said was that the existence of God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. Given the concept of vacuum fluctuation, it is indeed inevitable that the singularity would eventually no longer be singular, leading to the Big Bang.
Similarly, given seismic activity and erosion, it's inevitable that eventually, a pebble on the lip of the Grand Canyon will fall in, meaning that it is not necessary for a person to come along and kick it in - but this does not then mean that there is no person who might have kicked said pebble.
Dr. Hawking is not yet senile, and is far too careful a scientist to make such an extraordinary claim as to rule out the existence of an entity existing outside the natural universe. He merely points out, correctly, that the universe would look the same whether or not such an entity existed. And contrary to what some self-proclaimed "religious leaders" want you to believe, noting this is NOT identical to declaring that "there is no God". Is it really so hard to find and read his actual words?
Exactly.
It's arrogant for these pseudo-intellectuals to try to reduce everything someone in a high position says to match their own viewpoints.
The same thing happened around the religions and scientific community when Einstein mentioned God and didn't specify his views.
But saying God isn't necessary surely must disturb some religious people.
Just as religious people saying God and creationism is necessary and factual disturbs scientists.
When you're outside these circles of black and white, things seem much more insignificant and relative.
Even then, just as we're saying how disturbed we are at both, we're disturbing to them and others too.
What I'm getting at is I just think people are missing the interpretive freedom/will to Hawking's point and all this agenda pushing really seems to go against the wills of the Einstein's, the Sagan's, and the Hawking's. It also detracts from the acceptance of atheists and agnostics in our society and adds towards that negative image of the crazy Jesus freaks rather than the rational open minded religious person.
In other words Hawking was merely playing with publicity and didn't mean what he said. How do you come by the secret thoughts of Hawking?
Maybe it's a bit hard to come by entertainment when you live in a wheelchair.
He found a way to cheat on his first wife, Jane Hawking, at least. I wouldn't call that entertainment as much as treachery though.
And then he divorced her for the other woman. Too bad, Jane Hawking actually cared about him while I heard in the newspapers that there were allegations that the other woman was an abuser. So Hawking divorced her as well.
It seems that, since Hawking's theoretical cosmology is impervious to attack, in true McCarthyite strategy, character assassination is next on the menu.
Nobody wants character assassinate anyone. I actually admire Hawking for the work he has done. I read that information in newspaper articles. How many wives he's had has got nothing to do with, anything really.
Hawking is someone I'd love to meet.