jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (311 posts)

Stephen Hawking has concluded....

  1. aguasilver profile image87
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    "The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe."

    What say you?

    1. 67
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      1.He is indulging in a field which does not belong to the field he has specialized in ie Physics.

      2.He should clarify what he understands from the word "God".

      1. CMHypno profile image89
        CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How the universe began is very much in the realms of physics, and, as you say, that is what Stephen Hawking specialises in.

        Everyone is free to speculate and hold their own beliefs about how things started, so nobody can say that Stephen Hawking 'does not belong' in this field. And as he has spent many years studying the origins of the universe and physics, he is more qualified than practically anyone else on the planet to state what he thinks.

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To say that the Creator- God Allah YHWH did not or could not cause a "big bang" is definitely out of the field of Physics, the field Stephen Hawking specialises in.

          God does not come under the study of Physics? To say anything about God makes him simply a layman in the field of knowing about God. It is just an ordinary opinion of him about God.

        2. skyfire profile image71
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Says who ?  wink

          Besides that definition of god always has to be quranic ?

          1. 67
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If Stephen Hawking means Jesus did not do the Bing Bang; that is another thing. Jesus was born 2010 years ago; he could not do that.

            1. skyfire profile image71
              skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Jesus was son of god, so christians planned escapism tactics there. But if you take objection on that as well then same applies to allah theory from islamics. Quran was written just 1400 years ago.

        3. thisisoli profile image65
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Stephen Hawkin is a specialist in physics and astrophysics.

          1. 67
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Out of his field, I meant religion.

      2. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have a t-shirt I've had for years; it's faded and tattered, but I still wear it sometimes.
        It says "Heard of the Big Bang?---It was just God getting started"!
        That's what I say.  ha

        Actually, I don't know if there was a "Bang" at all when He spoke heaven and earth into existence;  all I know is that HE did it, Amen!  big_smile

        1. ftclick profile image61
          ftclickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I like that t-shirt.   Yes, an act seems very plausible.

      3. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have never been an all or nothing kind of person.
          Did God say let it be and bang there it was?
          I can believe in a God whether he created the universe or not.

          And if he did?  Ok, he started it on one day
          And then, many years later he came by a second time, 2nd day
          And then, millions of years later he came on a  3rd day
          ETC. ETC,      JUST saying?

          If I go to a doctor does he have to have had a hand in building the hospital?

          If the God that I know did't create the universe,
          I bet he knows who that did.

      4. Bibowen profile image90
        Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But what "laws of physics" are in play at t=0? If we're talking about the beginning of all physical reality after that point, that would include the laws of physics. But the laws of physics can't exist until they come into being! Are you sure this is the way that Hawking put it? Do you have a quote?

        1. Bibowen profile image90
          Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you are referring to this quote...

          "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?" From Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 140-141.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ancient stuff.  Throughout that book, Stephen worries about gods.   I found the whole thing more interesting as an examination of a religiously tortured psyche than for any other value.

            1. Bibowen profile image90
              Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It isn't ancient. Is this a book critique? "Worries about gods"..."religiously tortured psyche"...Does this also apply to Brenda or do you have special denouncements for her (because she isn't rational and all she knows is that 'god done it').

              Can you state anything on the merits of the topic or is all that we're going to get is a sideshow?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Have you READ the book?

              2. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                1988.  It's ancient.  Poor Stephen has been trying to avoid this conclusion for years.

                1. Bibowen profile image90
                  Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Labeling the book as "ancient" and bashing Hawking's religious psyche... Another fine example of what passes for "atheistic analysis" these days...

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    1988 is ancient in the field of physics and if you had actually read Hawking you would realize that he plainly has great conflicts with regard to religion.

                    1. Bibowen profile image90
                      Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I'm sure this is great information, but it has little to do with refuting an argument.

                      Refutation. Do you know what that is? Labeling something "ancient history" isn't a refutation; it's a dismissal. Labeling a person's views as "religious" is not a refutation either; it's also a dismissal of the argument.

                    2. Bibowen profile image90
                      Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Just one other thing you're wrong on....but you guess which one....

                2. Ben Evans profile image75
                  Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  1988 is not ancient history in physics.  Most physics up to that date is very relevant.  Not much has changed.  Everything except the very fringe of physics which not many people understand.  There are very few people who understand GUFT or any of the esoteric physical theories out there.

      5. wilmiers77 profile image61
        wilmiers77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Before something God was and IS now. Stephen H. began his intellectual endeavors when there was something. He's running a little late.

      6. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Any theory which insists something exists, whether it be multiple universes, quantum foam, some 'previous' state is simply another hook on which to hang the question 'why?'. Nothing Hawking has said approaches that question, because it can't. Asking 'How?' is not the same as asking 'why?'

      7. 0
        cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        i admire Stephen Hawking very much.

        speaking only for myself, i think SOMEthing or someONE had to have created the very seeds of life, or matter or whatever, and i do believe in the Big Bang also.

        i know, it is complicated. i don't think "God" and "created" are like most humans think of. i mean, i don't think there was some "God" floating around upstairs mixing up Universe batter then when he saw what he had done, he sat around supervising everything. i just think of a profound spiritual force that is more beautiful and more benevolent than anyone can begin to understand and there are other spiritual forces on Earth in Nature and the elements that radiate comfort and positive (and dark) energies, which we perceive on a subconcious level and they are all unified and explained in mathematical formulas and in things like the symnetry of flower petals and seashells.

        it's impossible to explain. but i disagree with Mr. Hawking's comment that 'we didn't need God'.

      8. waynet profile image46
        waynetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is true..................God had one massive five knuckle shuffle and the big bang occured!!

      9. Bibowen profile image90
        Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I was not aware that Hawking was coming out with a new book; I thought you were responding to some earlier comments. For those interested, here is one story.

        http://abcnews.go.com/WN/stephen-hawkin … d=11542128

        I really can't comment on his reasons until I have a chance to look at the book. From what I have read, he is baldly asserting that we have to embrace a universe that came from nothing. I'm curious to read his rationale behind it. I hope it's better than Dawkin's rationale for rejecting the Design Hypothesis.

      10. goldenpath profile image81
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In the common words of atheists, "It can only be...", I'd say that the Big Bang can only be caused by a really big elephant who beforehand got overzealous in a massive patch of habeneros salsa! smile .....movement......big...BANG!!!!

      11. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Considering there are few if any believers here who would even remotely understand what Hawking is talking about, this is a pointless question. smile

        1. Bibowen profile image90
          Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          When I look at your image, I can't help but think of Albert Einstein, but when I read what you say, I can't help but think of Albert Gore...

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Couldn't come up with any fallacies so you had to attack me personally? Sad indeed.

    2. anonimuzz profile image83
      anonimuzzposted 6 years ago

      I say that Big Bang is a theory, creationism is a theory and one of them, both of them or neither one of them might be right.

      1. andromida profile image76
        andromidaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Very good point.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hardly.  That isn't a point at all, it is a nonsense statement.

    3. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

      Of course the creationists disagree with Hawking! They are not educated in science enough to know any better!  Nothing new there!

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, what would Stephen Hawking know about science compared to the religionists here on hubpages!  lol lol lol

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Did Stephen Hawking create the universe?
          If you can prove to me that he did, I might listen to him.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think you would listen to him under any circumstances Brenda. Anyway, what would he know about life compared to someone so smart they have god? smile

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's not about being smart.  It's about having Faith in that "smart" God.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Which one?

                I've heard of hundreds.  Which one did the dirty deed, Brenda?

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There is only One who's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing.  That would be the One.  He is Alpha, Omega, Jehovah, Jealous, Love, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the One who sent His Son to die upon a Cross for you and me.....
                  Reckin I should go on?  Or are you through with asking questions you're not really ready to hear the answer to?

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, THAT one.

                    Fairly recent, you know, and the accompanying myths are all stolen from older, more creative religions.

                    It's main book is very confused and often contradictory because of that copying.  It would have been less of a target  if they's just left out everything after the first sentence.

                    1. wilmiers77 profile image61
                      wilmiers77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Pcunix, who says that previous myths are more creative? The Word Of God brings use to Jesus, the Living Word Of God who has God's Holy Spirit, who brings us to our destined life (our purpose)  if accept Jesus and Love God and Jesus.
                      The Word Of God appear to unbelievers as having contradictions in which once saved they become needed truths and free-ing truths. Who the Son sets free is free indeed.

        2. Bibowen profile image90
          Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The usual suspects have taken the question on the Big Bang and have used it as an attack on religious people, as usual. This is either because they can't answer the question or they hate religious people. I suspect it's both.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It's neither.
            There has never been a question posed to answer, and we believe it is a hate filled crock. smile

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise."  (1Cor.1:27)
              Stephen Hawking is very "wise".
              And I believe you consider yourself very wise, earnest?

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So now it is the wise who have it all wrong?

                What about the educated, or just plain not dumb and gullible? smile

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, it is the "wise" who have it all wrong;  the ones who are "wise" in human knowledge more than in Godly wisdom.
                  The people who built the Tower of Babel thought they were "wise".....
                  But true wisdom is realizing God's power, not our own.

                  1. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well thinking you are wise and being wise would be two different things I reckon. smile

                    We can measure IQ and EQ, we can even switch off that fear button that religionists can't keep their minds off, but we can't stop dumb asses from being dumb, or educate someone with a closed mind that tells em god dunnit. smile

                    1. 0
                      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      You are correct.  We cannot.  But God did.
                      In the Bible, He made a dumb donkey talk.

              2. Daniel Carter profile image89
                Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, I think Stephen Hawking is absolutely amazing. Being constricted and confined as he has all his life, and still be one of the brightest scientific thinkers of our age. Surely if God were unhappy with him, he would have done him in long ago.

                Still more evidence to me that God is not whom so many have presumed him to be. IF he exists, he is watching over all of us, including the hateful Christians.

                Yes, Mr. Hawking is wise. And if you could converse with him, I'm sure any human could learn a lot. He is a credit to the human race. Many others, I'm not so sure about.

              3. skyfire profile image71
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Just because it is written in bible doesn't make it true.

                But then again, it's Brenda for you wink

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  As I said, she has one answer for everything

              4. 0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Doesn't that make you foolish?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Just like those who believe in their ancient novel!  Scientific facts versus superstitious beliefs!  But let a believer get sick and they run to the doctor.  If science is so wrong, why not just rely on prayer instead of depending on scientifically produced medicines and medical techniques?  Where is the believer's faith in these instances?  Let me guess!  LOL!

            1. Bibowen profile image90
              Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The dichotomy between religion and science exists......in the minds of atheists. It's just another front to hide their religious bigotry and contempt for religious people. This is one example why atheists should never be allowed to lead in society (well, may be a discussion on Hubpages...).

              And, of course, your post is another example of how atheists cannot address the question, so they turn it into an attack on believers going to the doctor...

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Care to address how science is wrong about evolution, the earths age, etc. but how religionists still depend on science for medical needs?

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Even the Christian ScienceLess use dentists smile

                2. Bibowen profile image90
                  Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, no. I've got a better idea....how about the topic?

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't need poor Stephen to tell me that no gods are necessary.

                    I feel sorry for him.  He toadies up to the Catholic Church, seems to worry a great deal about about offending religious belief - he may be a brilliant physicist but he has serious psychological issues.  You can see it all through his popular writing.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL!  Didn't expect you to!  It's a sticky subject for believers because they have to admit they only trust science when it suits them!

                    1. Bibowen profile image90
                      Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      "...believers....have to admit they only trust science when it suits them!"

                      What does this mean!?

                      And this is the reason I choose to stay on the topic and you can't? I'm sure you have an explanation...

            2. wilmiers77 profile image61
              wilmiers77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Godwin, we all are living unto ever increasing faith in something. We, Christians, are unto faith in God thru Jesus. There is weak faith and strong faith. Most of all, there is faith without doubt which can move a physical mountain, heal the sick, and rise the dead. It can change time.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Move a mountain?

                But no limbs.  Raise up the (not) dead? But no limbs.


                Where does it say "no limbs" in your nonsense book?

                1. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The best that I can understand , If god created the earth, he also created the laws of physics at the same time.

                    OK that is a; which came first eggs or chickens thing.

                    According to my understanding he can take a broken person and change them into a beautiful and full person.  He takes dire circumstances and terns them around. If an arm was to grow back where one isn't , then why not a head or a leg?

                     We end prayer with;  But not my will but Thy will be done.
                     To expect "HIM" to break those laws that he established for "US" to keep  just to answer our wish request would be a childish expectation.
                     He does not break the laws of physics (which he established) in order to fulill his will; he uses them or manipulates them for his purpose.
                     Kinda like we do.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Growing limbs breaks no physics.  Every one of us grew what we have now.

                    Try again, Jerami.  Pray on it.

                    1. Jerami profile image78
                      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      If that is the case we then don't need him to do it.


                         All we gotta do is just do it then if it doesn't break the laws of DNA, which is a physical law last time I checked.

                        However?  your answer was funny.  Ha

              2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Give me a documented case of a mountain being moved by a believer!  Yeah, I know about Oral Roberts healing the sick.  I knew he was a fake when I was a child!  And the dead being raised?  There is no proof of this ever happening  either!  There was no man named Jesus, you know!

          3. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No hate.  We feel sad that you need this fantasy.

            We feel astounded that you ignore the plain evidence right in front of your eyes.  We do get angry when you use your fairy tales to retard progress or to justify persecution.

            1. Bibowen profile image90
              Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Another example that proves my point that atheists 1) can't address the topic and 2) they turn the topics into attacks on the faithful.

              What "plain evidence" are you referring to?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The plain evidence that there is no supernatural being.  The evidence that prayer is powerless.

                THAT evidence.

                People may have once been gullible enough to believe some nutter stumbling off a mountain muttering about burning bushes, but today raving loonies like that end up in hospitals, don't they?

                It's incredible that some of you still cling to this nonsense.

                1. FranyaBlue profile image79
                  FranyaBlueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    We know that prayer doesn't work : you cannot pray back even a missing finger, nevrr mind anything else. 

                    That is evidence against your fantasy.

                    1. aguasilver profile image87
                      aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Praying back a missing finger is a bad example concerning prayer, feeling the 'jolt' as a prayer is said over a man with an enlarged heart, told he was probably going to die, and then told that his heart has returned to normal size after prayer, would suffice.

                      Or seeing an alcoholic, survivor of many rehab treatments, fall like an oak tree when prayed for, and awaken four hours later clean and sober, when he tells you that in rehab he has gone five days in cold turkey pain before he dried out, that's prayer.

                      To those blinded by Satan, these things mean nothing, except a threat that must be decried at all times, in some vain hope that if you utter your nonsense long enough, we will be silenced.

                      But those of us who have faith, and have seen God at work, will praise Him daily, no matter how loudly you screech.

                      Indeed the more you wriggle and squirm, the more we are encouraged to praise God and correct your inane remarks.

            2. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              pcunix: HERE, HERE! standing applause! Take a bow!  :-)

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I can't. The wig would fall off.

            3. wilmiers77 profile image61
              wilmiers77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Pcunix, things not seen framed the things seen. Thing not seen is eternal; things seen is temporary. The Infinite Potentiality is eternal.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Spaghetti is wheat.  Up is down.  Words are syllables. Forever is yesterday.

                Nonsense is nonsense.

      2. 67
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Physics is just one field of life; it is not the whole of it. To speculate on the whole while researching in one field is not a valid thing to do. Nothing new there!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The sciences are intertwined!  They support each other!  Can you say this for the many religions?  I seriously doubt it because these ignorant beliefs are constantly at odds with each other.  They all disagree with the adherents of the others!

    4. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      Pcunix wrote:
      No hate.  We feel sad that you need this fantasy.

      We feel astounded that you ignore the plain evidence right in front of your eyes.  We do get angry when you use your fairy tales to retard progress or to justify persecution.
      =================================

         Progress marches on regardless of what us little people think and do.

         The only thing that comes to mind right now is stem cell research.
         Where do we draw the line when it comes to killing one person to make others life more pleasant?
         
         Lets assume that a cure for all diseases can be found. Then what. People live forever?  Is stem cell research going to cure hunger. And even if it did;  Soon we would have to sleep standing up cause there is no placee to lay our heads.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, research and science can eventually solve these problems.

        No thanks to people like you who will always be trying to drag us backward.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not trying to drag anyone backwards or forward.
          I am trying to make their own progress.

            And it is a shame that you think little ole me can halt your progress.  Yes I say your progress because you make your own.

            For you to claim credit for the advancements in science is a bit False don't you think.

            You get credit for your own progress only.
            I take blame for my own lack there of. Only my own.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            People LIKE you, people with extreme religious belief, retard scientific progress.

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Please show me how I do that.  I haven't left the house yet today.
                show me how I am holding society back and MAYBE  I'll quit it.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are promoting your religion, spreading the lies, encouraging others.  You do it here frequently.

                You are part of the problem, whether you understand or not.

                1. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  By what I understand you to be saying ..  until everyone else in the world thinks like you do, "THEY" are causing a problem.   HUMmmmm
                     When YOU stop considering the potential validity of beliefs other than YOUr own Your brain is in danger of being closed.

                    That might bring science to its knees

                    I sometimes wish that I was as convinced as you are that I was right and everyone else was wrong.
                    Then I think  "NOT"  cause that much confidence must be too much of burden to carry.

                    If we were not on the internet, but walking the street and told everyone that has a diferent opinion than our own, that  they were stupid; We would be running as fast as we can for safety.

                     No one is going to agree with  EVERY THING that anyone else believes.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not EVERYONE, Jerami. Only the excessively religious, like you.

                2. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  And YOU are promoting your beliefs as well.

                     You are part of the problem, whether you understand or not.

                     There are two sides to every story.
                  Life would come to a standstill if there wasn't.

                  1. Bibowen profile image90
                    Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    But the religion bashers have made it clear that you are not to have a view point. You're not qualified because you're religious.

                    This is what is called "religious bigotry." They are comfortable bashing the Faithful even though there are laws that protect you. Imagine what they'd be like if you had no legal protections.

                    1. Pcunix profile image90
                      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      I will stand and defend religious freedom. I have done so all my life.  But i won't pretend there is any  truth in it

                    2. Jerami profile image78
                      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      That's right!  Yea, my beliefs are causing earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, crop failures, and starvation.
                           I'm  bad.

                         If I would just think like them all of these troubles would just go away.

                  2. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I do not stand in the way of science.  Atheists have no dogna that restricts research.  Atheists have no dogma about any subject.  Individuals might, but atheism implies nothing.  Your religion does.

      2. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually Jerami it is pretty solid that the earth's population is going the other way soon and will top out.
        .. and there is no need to kill or hurt anyone to obtain the cells anymore either.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know i that is a good thing or not.

            But think about it.  If death was extinguished.
            Wouldn't we have to prohibit new births??
           
            Imagine if that were to happen.  We lived for ever?

            We would want to find a way to take a time out away from that existence.
             Maybe  "create" life on another planet. 
            And then if we could temporarily inhabit physical form on that planet; Kinda like astral travel. When that body dies,we gotta go back to work where we came from.

            I think that would be the inevitable outcome if we were to eliminate death on this planet.

             Sorry
               I was having a SCI-FI moment.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We will eliminate death from old age soon enough.  I probably won't see it, but my children might (assuming that the Tea Party and religious crazies don't push us back into the dark ages again).

            There will still be death from accident, murder and suicide -  plenty enough for people who want to raise another set of children or their first.

    5. 67
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

      Truthful Religion encourages science to progress.

    6. aware profile image71
      awareposted 6 years ago

      did Stephen say  that there is no god? has he concluded that?

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If he did, he will probably change his mind tomorrow.  He has tried to avoid this conclusion for years.  No doubt he is lying awake looking for an excuse to come back with the opposite.

    7. aware profile image71
      awareposted 6 years ago

      Stephen  rules in my book  . i aint saying i believe in everything he says. and i like it that he changes his mind it shows that hes still thinking. and willing to question his own.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image61
        wilmiers77posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        aware, I love and admire Stephen H. but us Christians have the right to respond to anything that challenges our faith. Although, for H. to say that the universe ignited by the rules of physical laws and inspires and reinforces  people to not believe that God did it, we must respond and witness that God make the something in which Stephen is observing. God first and Stephen followed at a later date and observed the something that God created.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          May I ask what this "god thing" is you speak of so reverently?
          There is NO monotheistic scripture that describes "it" in terms other than conjecture and opinion!
          Religious faith is all I can determine as your basis for a belief in this "god thing."
          Pls! Be bluntly precise when answering me...that is if you can offer any CREDIBLE response...which I doubt.
          Qwark

          1. qwark profile image61
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm waiting for an answer from Wilmiers...?

    8. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago

      qwark wrote:
      May I ask what this "god thing" is you speak of so reverently?
      There is NO monotheistic scripture that describes "it" in terms other than conjecture and opinion!

      Qwark
      ==================================

        Jerami ......   I do not how to describe something while leaving out opinion .

          How could I describe you without using opinion and conjecture.  I can't.  And you can't do that with  me either.

    9. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 6 years ago

      AS you all know, by this time, I never respond to those who have nothing credible to offer.
      There is no doubt that rational "hubbers" know to whom I am referring.   :-)

    10. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      Spiritual force is assumption, there is no Proof for Soul.

      1. 67
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If there is no soul there is no life; simple mass of flesh but no life movement.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Then bacteria have souls?

          How wonderful!  Do they weigh the same as human souls?

        2. skyfire profile image71
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Prove what you claim, will ya ? wink

      2. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Nor any reason to posit such.

      3. 0
        cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this




        i feel that just because there is no proof doesn't mean something is invalid. the Big Bang itself is considered a theory, as is the Theory of Relativity and evolution, even. man, i would hate to think that we are all just masses of carbon-based flesh and water and that when we die, we die- that's it. neutral

        no soul? really? i think we have souls. i even think some creatures are very spiritual, like horses and whales, for example.




        omh haha big_smile

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There are mountains of evidence to support relativity and evolution but none to support souls.

          I do find it rather interesting the belief in that which has no evidence trumps that which does. smile

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Whether you hate to think it or not, that is truth.

          1. 0
            cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this







            i know, you guys. i know...there are things that make sense, which is why i believe in them...The Big Bang, evolution, etc.

            i don't know why i believe in the soul, even though there is no scientific proof of such things. i guess i am aware of it...our life force, which is, to me, more than just synapses firing. it is a spiritual energy, a cosmic blueprint of our individual spirit self, much like DNA is for each physical human body.

            crazy? maybe. but i believe anyway.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Sure.  If it comforts you and you aren't harming others, I have no problem.

              I like to believe that the good aspects of religion outweigh the bad.  I'm probably wrong, but I like to believe it.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There is a soul, everything has a soul, a field of energy that organizes and retains information. The problem is language. The concepts are fragmented into many different ways that we more often than not fail to see glaring connections. We are too steeped in the emotional association of words that we fail to see converging thought and disciplines.

              I find stephen hawkings findings have no contradiction to the assertions of the ancients, it is just the words used that causes the confusion. It's a fragmentation that requires we clarify the meaning of each archaic word. Then, then it unfolds. What we know now, we've known before but in a different way.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                A field of energy not able to be detected by any instruments.

                Balderdash.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  my dear, the thing is a field of energy. Everything is a field of energy. That is not balderdash. That is physics. I'm not talking about auras here. I am talking about things as energy stabilizing and organizing as matter. It s just a whole lot of nothing at the very minute level of existence.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope, he's right, that's balderdash. smile

                2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  a camera can detect it.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No it cannot.

                    Try checking this nonsense before you post it.

                    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      the camera detected your face because I see it, correct? you are an energy field at the very minute level of your existence. That is all you are, you organized in this way for whatever reason, but if I observe your very essence, the truth is, depending on how I look at you, you are both energy and matter. you are an energy field and at the very minute level of  observation, you  are no different from the chair you are sitting on, correct?

              2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
                prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hey Cecilia, how are you, kumusta?

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  eto, pinoy pa rin. ikaw?  (as always, still a pinoy, what about you?)

                  1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
                    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I am fine, Pinoy of course! Take care!

              3. skyfire profile image71
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL. Proof ? wink

              4. 0
                cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                hmm, interesting. i do think there are many things we revisit and examine from another new angle and bolstered with new knowledge. thanks!

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  true, we casually use words and are not aware of how a word became such.

                  I would expound but that that would be off topic.

        3. skyfire profile image71
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Big-bang, evolution has a lot of proof. Theory of relativity is in alpha-infancy. When things claimed have no proof then they become part of either hypothesis or religious philosophy.


          Sorry but that's your opposition towards facts.


          Okay, the problem is what you think without proof is wishful thinking.

    11. 0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago

      Yes, let's take the verdict of a bitter man, one with  neuro muscular dystrophy, one who is surely pissed off at God for not granting the one thing science hasn't been able to give him - GOOD HEALTH.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's offensive remark. I mean do you know contribution of hawkin to begin with ?

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Of course she doesn't.  None of them know anything except that they think this is meaningful.

          Listen up: it isn't.  It is just Stephen finally giving in to what he knew was true many years ago.  It is a yawner; we don't care.

          Now if the Pope said it, yeah, I would be excited.  Hawking, no. Big "duh".

          1. Bibowen profile image90
            Bibowenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            For a guy that doesn't care about the topic, you sure talk a lot about it....

        2. 0
          klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't mean to be mean... but if I had such health conditions I would also be extremely upset at God.

          1. skyfire profile image71
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Who told you that he's upset at god ? How come someone who's atheist get upset at god ?

            Hawkin's ain't Anti-theist. He's more of atheist-agnostic.

            1. 0
              klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hey, I feel bad for the poor guy! He's in bad shape! I'm not upset at him for saying that. I do understand his point of view. I'm just saying that some people who are about to die or go through a terrible illness get upset at God, or life itself. They find no logic in having faith or believing in a higher entity while coping with the unfairness of having to go through such challenging experiences. I do respect his work and I appologize if I sounded offensive. I've had a hard day... Sorry. It's not like me to talk like that. Now I feel terrible. sad

              1. skyfire profile image71
                skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It's alright klara.

                1. 0
                  klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Noooo... it's not alright... You made me cry skyfire! hmm

                  1. skyfire profile image71
                    skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Noo  sad

      2. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I doubt that he ever believed in that nonsense.  He is far too bright.  But he was afraid of saying it.

    12. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      Irony is hawkin's current good health is because of science. I wonder why god was so pissed off with him wink

    13. TruthDebater profile image61
      TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago

      I don't think Hawking is qualified to make the claim it's impossible the universe was created. If he or anyone else does, this is usually an assumption by faith. No one also is qualified to say the universe was created, this is also assumption by faith. Faithful assumptions and opinions are not "science", they are "philosophy". I think Hawking should first try to figure out a unifying theory to explain randomness in quantum physics along with figuring out how life began before making such assumptions.

      1. skyfire profile image71
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder what is qualification criteria other than being physicist. Or is that your as usual "i don't think so hence that is not fact" ?

        1. TruthDebater profile image61
          TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks. What is his main evidence for making this claim? If I think so or no, I usually try to figure out why I thought it. Unless he has scientific evidence that can be tested for his claim, it isn't science, it is philosophy and faith.

          1. skyfire profile image71
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It was not philosophy or faith when he thought about black holes, radiation and other particle physics stuff. His current claim could be assumption based on the empirical evidence for big-bang and order out of chaos but that doesn't make him out-of-qualification.

            But then again, person with this profile is not qualified for making assumptions on physics then i wonder since when people with no knowledge about biology start to give advice on condoms (pointing towards pope) or person who denies facts with stuff like "i don't think so hence it's not fact" starts to dismiss something with philosophy and faith ?

            1. TruthDebater profile image61
              TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks. I didn't know there was empirical evidence on those things you mentioned, where is his solution to dark matter? Many of the things you mentioned are still highly debated, even between scientists.
              I didn't say he wasn't qualified to pose scientific theories, I claimed his physics work has nothing to do with philosophy and faith for or against a creator unless he has specific scientific evidence for his claims. When did it become alright for scientists to make claims without evidence? I do not agree with pope or religion, so I obviously don't think they should debate things they contradict or disagree with without evidence.

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is exactly what it is.

          Religion has nothing to cling to but stubborn blindness.

    14. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      You can google if you wish to, there is plenty of evidence for the big-bang & order of chaos. LHC has confirmed the existence of dark matter. How come dark matter has related to trashing empirical evidence of these two ? Solution of dark matter ? Go on... tell me how solution of dark matter trashes the empirical evidence of big-bang ?



      Really ? Surprise me.


      How come physics has nothing to do with formation of universe ? Go on.. tell me.



      Ever heard of hypothesis ? Science works on the basis of "verification & falsification" which includes many hypothesis unlike "God did it" or " we need god" for which there is no evidence so far.


      That point comes from the word "qualification".

      1. TruthDebater profile image61
        TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. If the big bang was conclusive, there would be empirical evidence and less debate between scientists. How did LHC confirm dark matter and observe it?
        I don't know the solution of dark matter, maybe hawking should have studied this instead of atheist philosophy.
        The universe formed physics, physics didn't form the universe. If physics formed the universe, it should be able to form the answers to dark matter an randomness.
        Just because hawking is qualified and intelligent in physics doesn't mean he's qualified and intelligent in philosophy.
        I agree science works on evidence and testing, all the more reason scientists shouldn't try to be philosophers making faithful statements in order to cause controversy and up his book sales.

    15. me90 profile image59
      me90posted 6 years ago

      so what are you doing and haveing for supper and do you have 100 dollars becuase if you do email me ok lol and  call me 905-688-3292 ok so call me on fridays like not tommorw i'll call you and tell you when you can call me on mondays

    16. tritrain profile image78
      tritrainposted 6 years ago

      Well, being the omnipotent Being that I am, I say he's right. 

      But what do I know anyway...

    17. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      Debate is about inflation theory which follows big-bang and singularity in big-bang.


      I smell some frustration.



      Re-read physic books. Universe works on laws of physics.



      He didn't made assumption from philosophical point of view.



      Why? Book sales from pope, donald trump is allowed when they stirh controversy but not scientist ? Why you're so much prejudiced about scientists ?

      1. TruthDebater profile image61
        TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. I am not frustrated, I enjoy your comments. So you are admitting there is debate over big bang or inflation.
        I agree the universe follows physics laws and order, it also has unknown elements of randomness.
        Why are you assuming I don't disagree with religious assumptions and book sales? The difference is that I expect more from a scientist than a religionist, also the thread is about a scientist, not a pope.
        How is an assumption about a creator or no creator science and not philosophy?

        1. skyfire profile image71
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Debate is about inflation which follows after the big-bang and not about big-bang.

          If hawkins made remark wrt to philiophy and his book then your argument is valid but he made the remark when dawkins visited him so that was on scientific point of view.


          When a certain assumption discards all the possible empirical evidence and tries to state a concept which comes from emotion and self-bias then it has philosophical point of view. When someone states that there is a creator, then burden of proof lies on that person  for the proof. It's not philosophy department when it comes to proof/evidence.

          1. TruthDebater profile image61
            TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks. Do we know how dark matter works and drives inflation?
            If hawkings would only write a book about fractions and physics, it may not be a bestseller. I think it is obvious he would throw some controversial philosophy in to up book sales and promotion, what bookseller doesn't?
            What does dawkins visiting him mean? This only gives more evidence it was atheist controversial philosophy rather than science. Dawkins is well know for his controversial philosophy on youtube.
            Are you saying I am biased against hawkins and science? What emotional attachment is making me biased against them?
            Who stated there is a creator? We all know who stated there isn't one, so proof lies on hawking to support his claims.

            1. skyfire profile image71
              skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Q1-  Ans: No.
              Q2 - And: Controversy ? Come on, universe formation discussion always end up getting sting by religious people. Why you bother about that ?
              Q3- Ans: Dawkins had meeting with hawkins as usual like any other science person do. What you bringing up sounds like glenn beck and conservative way of bickering people.
              Q4- Ans- No, from your post it is clear that you're anti-atheist and agnostic who wants to sting science now and then to push creationism theories.
              Q5- Ans -It's not my interest what is your attachment.
              Q6- Ans- No. Burden of proof is always on the people who stated there is creator. That includes pseudo-agnostics, religious people.

              1. TruthDebater profile image61
                TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks. A2 - The point is science should be above controversy and stick to science, and leave philosophy to controversy. A3- A science meeting? lol Dawkins is a evolutionist, not a quantum physicist.
                A4- Please stop making false insulting assumptions. Science should want to be questioned and argued because it covers more variables. When science and atheists get mad at someone questioning their scientific belief, that belief becomes a religion.
                Q6 - Burden of proof is the one that makes the claims, for or against, agnostic doesn't pick either, so it doesn't have to proove anything when it hasn't made the assumption.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This IS science.  Your inability or unwillingness to understand that does not matter.

                  He is not philosophising.  He is saying he sees nothing in physics that needs a creator.

                  1. TruthDebater profile image61
                    TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks. Can he prove this with testable scientific evidence that would pass the scientific method or is this simply opinion based on his work in quantum physics? Science is making claims with evidence, not assumptions and faith. What is his evidence for this if you believe he is not philosophising to sell more books?

                    1. Pcunix profile image90
                      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Prove it?

                      You haven't bothered to read this whole thread, have you?

                      He may think he has proved something.  I wouldn't agree.  His pronouncement will probably make the cover of Time but it is unimportant. 

                      I don't need Hawking to know there are no gods and no matter what proof he had, you would find a way to keep believing in your sky fairy.  Neither of us cares what Hawking says.

                2. skyfire profile image71
                  skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Ans 1: He's not publishing science book or journal or paper but a personal book.
                  Ans 2: So ? you mean to say biologist can't meet astrophysicist ? LMAO.
                  Ans 3: Insulting assumptions? Show me. When you question science you should come up with proof rather than your "i don't think so" arguments. Your assumption of scientist meeting for agenda and atheist philosophy isn't insulting assumption. I see.
                  Ans 4: Re-read burden of proof fallacy.

                  1. TruthDebater profile image61
                    TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks. 2- What does Dawkins know about physics, he hardly knows about evolution and he has studied it his entire life. Any scientist that makes assumptions isn't a very good scientist.
                    3-You have to give me his evidence for saying a creator is impossible for me to argue the point. I didn't make any claims there is a creator.
                    4-What is the burden of proof fallacy?

                    1. skyfire profile image71
                      skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      Ans 2: Dawkins hardly knows evolution ? LMAO. Thanks for laughs.

                      Ans 3: Why you need proof of creator for their meeting? just curious  big_smile

                      Ans 4: Burden of Proof: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie … proof.html


                      Thanks for this. LOL
                      big_smile big_smile

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          He is saying that he can see nothing that requires any external impetus.  That is not philosoohy.

          If I don't water my plants and find them dead, I may wonder why. 

          Apparently, over the course of time, we humans have come to understand thst plants need watering.   I was late to that understanding, but my wife patiently led me away from my theory that closet elves were sneaking out and poisoning them.  Once I grasped what we call her "water theory", the plants have done much better.

          Hawking has decided that no make believe sky fairy is needed to explain the universe.  Science, not philosophy.   Can I understand his logic?  No, but I don't need him to tell me what is obvious.

          Moreover, even if he had come to the opposite conclusion, that would only be a creator, not a god.  A third year advanced physics student in another universe could be a creator, so religion would still, as always, be pablum bunk for the masses.

          1. 67
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Who cares what he has decided? He can decide for himself, not for us.He is just a human being; apt to err as anybody could. Why should we follow his thoughts out of his field; he knows nothing of.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I have said exactly that several times here.  I am an atheist, but his pronouncement is meaningless.

    18. 0
      klarawieckposted 6 years ago

      And where are Mark and Beelzedad in all this?

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Mark may still be banned, unfortunately.  Beezledad is every bit as careless, so he could be aldo.

    19. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      Golden, I gotta know mate!
      Have you ever seen an elephant fart.
      I know it's pathetic but I just have to see that momentous event for myself.

      Off to utube! smile

      1. goldenpath profile image81
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        To be perfectly honest, no.  The closest thing to an elephant we have in Iowa are really, REALLY, big men and women who literally have to walk into a grocery store sideways just to get in.  However, my answer sounded appropriate though not doctrine or personal revelation.  I would gladly sit down with a root beer in hand right next to my good bud ernest and watch a good "movement" of air from an ailing elephant. smile

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          smile

        2. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But be careful you don't sit BEHIND said elephump! smile

    20. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

      Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God.

      But he does believe in extraterrestrials, spacemen if you will.

      So its ok to believe in martians but not ok to believe in God?

      You guys crack me up.

      The really funny thing is most of you will actually think that Hawking is right about little green men while laughing at a christian.

      I hear banjo music playing.

      You sher gots a purty mouth.

      roll

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Like any intelligent person, Hawking is aware that the odds of there NOT being life elsewhere in the universe are infinitesimably small.  There is no comparison to baseless religious belief.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perfect example.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I think it is.   As most of us are aware, the odds in favor of life elsewhere are staggeringly large - to the point where it is impossible for any intelligent person to not believe that it exists.    That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking, but it does mean that you have to be extraordinarily clueless or stubbornly religious (or both) to insist that life exists only here.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking"

              I never attributed that to Hawking.

              You falsely attributed that to me.

              Where is the evidence that there are beings from another planet?

              How can you believe with out any evidence of existence in ET's?

              This all seems so familiar.

              Watch out for the noodley appendage.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Falsely?

                I quote:

                Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God.

                But he does believe in extraterrestrials, spacemen if you will.

                So its ok to believe in martians but not ok to believe in God?

                You guys crack me up.

                The really funny thing is most of you will actually think that Hawking is right about little green men while laughing at a christian.


                Let me repeat myself again, Jim:  no intelligent person will think that extraterrestrial life is unlikely.   No INTELLIGENT person.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that extraterrestrial life (in the manner you're referring to) is highly unlikely.

                  On your measuring scale, I am indeed not intelligent at all.  LOL

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    On what basis do you hold such an opinion?  Do you know anything about the size of the universe, the number of stars, the probability of planetary systems, the presence of amino acids in space and on comets? 

                    Do you have any knowledge of these things?  Please do enlighten us with your analysis of the likelihood of non-earth life.

                    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      "Please do enlighten us with your analysis of the likelihood of non-earth life."

                      She believes in non-earth life.

                      Just not your version of non-earth life.

                      I know, it confuses you.

                    2. 0
                      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      What do you know of the size of the universe and such things?
                      Only things that other people have told you?

                2. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Falsely!

                  I quote:

                  "That doesn't mean that we'll ever converse with space traveling lizards as you falsely attribute to Hawking"

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, so typical Jim.

                    Because I didn't use your EXACT words, I'm lying about what you said.

                    Right, Jim. "little green men", "martians" and "spacemen" do not equate to  "space traveling lizards" and are completely unrelated and it was vile calumny on my part to say such a thing.

                    You are quite the word-weasel, Jim.

                    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      "little green men", "martians" and "spacemen" do not equate to  "space traveling lizards"

                      That is correct, they do not equate.

                      Let me see if I have it.

                      It is total insanity to believe in God because there is no evidence he exists?

                      But, intelligent people believe in the existence of "space traveling lizards" even though there is no proof that they exist?

                      And you don't see the problem, thats what really is typical.

      2. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is the post where Jim said he didn't do what he actually did, which is to falsely attribute beliefs in "spacemen" to Hawking.

    21. Rishy Rich profile image80
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago

      I admire Hawking not only as a scientist but also as a human. He is a symbol of struggle & is a perfect example of the power of our will. When you talk about faith & believe, you should take him as a prime example! If there is any good side of having faith then here it is! Its having faith in yourself not in an imaginary entity which you cant even define correctly!!


      Given his limited physical ability & health conditions, he has contributed so much to mankind that I doubt any other human with such limitation will be able to achieve such ever! Most of us here are middle edged hubbers who hardly researched in any significant labs for any significant period of time or achieved any significant award for contributing in science. Thus it should be clear that Hawking has an understanding of laws of physics,nature & life more than any of us. So before putting your judgment about Hawking think twice (preferebly 100 times) whether are you qualified enough to judge his words?


      Neither Aristotle nor his fellow greek citizens were 100% correct about life & creation but point to be noted that Aristotle was more correct. Same thing applies to Galileo, Keplar, Ibn Sena & the others. Humans are prone to mistake & unfortunately those scientists were deprived from the privilege  of being son of God...rather they were pure humans who contributed to our knowledge more than any sons of Gods! Yes, none of them were 100% correct but all of them were much much more correct than the fellow citizens, religious groups & the masses of people of their time. So theres high possibility that if anyones right here its Hawkings & it will be realized a one day for sure!   

      Remember, most of us will be forgotten over time but Hawking will be alive in history as long as mankind & its intellect survives.

      Cheers!

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We are in the internet archives - we'll survive with him :-)

        1. Rishy Rich profile image80
          Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good luck with that! smile ...btw what if your sites crash?

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do you understand what the Archives are?

            Here's a hoot from my past:  http://web.archive.org/web/199902030101 … rence.com/

    22. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

      http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/fsm-google-doodle.jpg

    23. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

      I can't be bothered by this, still like the rest - majority of scientists they don't believe in GOD.

      Still he didn't disprove the existence of GOD  -- only that GOD is not that omnipotent-- still God exists hehe

    24. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

      By the way, Hawkings does believe in the existence of space aliens.

      He even thinks we should fear them.

      Be vewy,vewy afwaid.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/ … d=10478157

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Believing that something is likely is not believing in them Jim.

        It's much like the difference between a Deist and a Born Again.   A person who thinks alien life is likely is intelligent.  A person who thinks our leaders are shape changing reptiles is a fruitcake.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Believing that something is likely is not believing in them Jim."

          Yes it is.

          Especially considering he is warning us of their possible actions.

          What else would a REASONABLE person conclude?

          Sorry, never mind.

          1. Dave Barnett profile image61
            Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            God was the "Bang", God was the singularity, God was the event, the cause, the effect, the action which caused the reaction. You are not where you THINK you are. You perceive from a bacterial veiw, that which is WAY beyond the scope of your thoughts on the subject. You all think SO SMALL!

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Am I good bacteria or bad?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I sure wouldn't want you infecting me.

            2. Dave Barnett profile image61
              Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Stephen was caught contradicting himself.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Which will make him go blind according to Leviticus.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  And its illegal in several states.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Mandatory in some.

            3. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, sure.

              Give us ALL of your wisdom.

              Oh, you probably just did.  Sorry.

      2. Dave Barnett profile image61
        Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        SSSSHHHH! That is the sound which trumpeted our arrival in this vacuum. That sound has persisted since that moment. before that. complete silence. Black holes and singularity. Life is of the universe, and we do not know how massive life can get to be, nor do we know how much of what we call "ourselves" survives beyond this mortal plane. We contain impressive amounts of pure energy locked inside each and every atom. We are on the verge of impressive things. All the evidence that SETI has produced suggests that we are alone. No technology has been detected, though we have searched for decades. The only thing we have to fear is fear, itself. EVERYTHING recycles. Our dust falls to the earth, our water returns to the eco-system, but we are more than dust and water. Thought exists, therefore, it doesn't simply cease to exist. Nothing ever simply begins to exist, nor does it end. Energy is eternal. it existed before the bang, for it to be existant AT the bang. The first law of motion dictates that there was existance and "movement" before the bang, and that motion is highly unlikely to cease. The galaxies on our outer edge recede at a speed beyond the speed of light. Galactic  time travel? Can't change or stop. Just hold on.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You obviously know nothing about SETI or the chances that it ever will detect anything.

          Too much Universe.   Far too little time spent and so very much more time needed.

          1. Dave Barnett profile image61
            Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            EXCUSE ME? I was a contributor to SETI and the L-5 Society. SETI when they lost their government funding, and L-5 cause the plan sounded cool. Never met Stephen, but follow his work. Don't make such bold statements about people you don't know.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm going by your statements only.   If you understand, you would know that your previous claim is foolish.

              1. Dave Barnett profile image61
                Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The only foolishness in understanding is believing that mankind is in possession of the absolute knowledge. Depending on science alone leads to a technocracy that detests the human spirit, and if you believe that spirit doesn't exist, then you have never seen it crushed. There is more in heaven and earth... Met Sagan, (religious, astro-physicist and astronomer, met Asimov, writer and philosopher (atheist) And Rod Serling, writer. Me, I tend to walk in places more related to Serling.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sagan was not religious.   Plainly you never read much he wrote.

                  But so what?  Argument from authority.  Meaningless.  Believing in "spirits" - nothing I can respect.

      3. 67
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He believes in space aliens; so alongside being a Scientist; his other side is superstious; a human being expert only in his own field, layman in others.

    25. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

      http://blog.securitymonks.com/images/Herding%20Cats.jpg

      1. Dave Barnett profile image61
        Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cool picture!

    26. aguasilver profile image87
      aguasilverposted 6 years ago

      Found this in the Daily Telegraph, good article...

      "No religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations, but this happens to most scientific theories, at least in the long run. Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting theoretical ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful a theoretical idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology."

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … ebate.html

      So like Hawkins's History of Time, where he spend the first third of the book explaining why all the previous theory's were redundant and wrong, his new book will also be discarded on the scrapheap of scientific 'facts'.

      But I guess he will sell a few copies.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image80
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Religion has been more pathetic throughout the course of history. Its simply because of their pursuance of the law called 'My way or high way'. Overtime they also evolve like science does but they simply refuse to accept it! 5000 years ago, your ancestors probably worshipped many gods or natural objects like Sun, moon all at the same time. Now you dont worship Sun anymore... because science has explained what Sun really is! Soon your descendants will not follow what you are so proud of!

        Let me provide a short list of those religions which performed pretty bad in the course of history & doesnt exist anymore:

        SUMERIAN RELIGION
        BABYLONIAN RELIGION
        ASSYRIAN RELIGION
        EGYPTIAN RELIGION
        GREEK RELIGION
        MITHRAISM AND ROMAN RELIGION
        GERMANIC AND NORSE RELIGION
        MAYA RELIGION
        CELTIC

        Point to be noted: Sumerian, Egyptian or Greek scientific knowledge still exists today & still plays important part in our understanding but their religion doesnt!

    27. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago

      oh, i'm not religious.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Fine.  But I see nothing wrong with irrational beliefs that harm no one and comfort the believer, religious or not.  I might still make fun of them just the same smile

        Now Cagsil, on the other hand, detests that sort of thing.  Shrug..

    28. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago

      you're right, it is 'irrational' - it is something that hasn't been rationalized away by computers and numbers-crunching etc.

      i don't think Man has ALL the answers.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Give us time.  That's the value science brings that religion cannot.

        1. 0
          cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          wow.

          that sounds just a touch arrogant, if you don't mind my saying so. many great thinkers like Newton and Einstein believed in God, just so you know. the world and the Universe reveal new secrets every day. a bunch of carbon-based life forms on one little blue planet couldn't possibly ever have all the answers to all of the mysteries of Life and the Universe.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Einstein didn't believe in any active god.

            But even if he did, that's just argument from authority and is meaningless.  Many great minds have insisted many foolish things - grand pronouncements about evolution, relativity, traveling faster than sound: great experts proved horribly wrong.

            Religious belief comes from an emotional need, not from rational thought.

            1. 0
              cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              now, see...that word 'religious' kinda bothers me. i used to be religious. Catholic. religion is like being handed a set of books and maps and tools and go out and apply what you have learned in the Bible and practice it.

              spirituality is just walking in the woods and looking at the stars and the Moon and hearing the wind rushing through the trees and the birds calling to each other and feeling it all move through you. or maybe going into a really old church you know one of those with stained glass and altars and it's all quiet and serene and even though it is bright and harsh outside, cars and buses rushing here and there, inside this sanctuary it is quiet and cool and dark. and then you feel safe.

              well, i guess you see me as lving in la la land or something but these things move me and touch my spirit - you know, that thing we aren't supposed to believe in wink

              well i have to go back to work now. it was fun discussing this with you! smile

      2. Dave Barnett profile image61
        Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We don't know everything about Earth (most of it) What makes anyone think we know everything about ANYTHING? I do know that WE are the strngest thing on this planet, probably in this solar system, likely, in the galaxy. Could we be the strangest in the universe? We may never know.

    29. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago

      wishful thinking? wink if you knew me you would know i have never been one to indulge in wishful thinking. i saw the world quite clearly from a very young age. and i don't know what it is that makes me believe in the soul. but if you need a label, that's your prerogative i guess. (and i do believe in the Big Bang and evolution and Einstein's theories, fyi.)

    30. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      "Appeal to popularity fallacy. "

      Thinkers are on both side of the fence. One can even quote steven weinberg, carl sagan and many other scientist being atheist. But that way we'll end in discussion with above said fallacy.

      1. 0
        cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        oh boy

        i was not trying to execute some form of fallacy or argument. i was simply pointing out that scienctific achievement can be accomplished by individuals who also believe in God, since Mr. Unix seemed to be saying that scientists are all clinical without a trace of spirituality.

    31. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      That's true. But that doesn't mean we should push hypothesis in reality department without empirical evidence.

    32. skyfire profile image71
      skyfireposted 6 years ago

      Lol.



      True.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image61
        Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Little raindrops, debating the existence of the ocean.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Mystical Dave, thinking he knows something he doesn't.

          1. Dave Barnett profile image61
            Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Pcunix, thinking she's some kind of psychic, and knows what I think. Do you know my wife? I base my beleifs on several personal proofs of the existence of something. I say personal, because no witnesses. Just a glimpse. I believe in fate, and destiny, because of cause and effect. I know that any trajectory can be accurately predicted, including our movement from point A (birth) to point B (death) if a person were to have the proper data in their possession to do so.

    33. Tom Cornett profile image56
      Tom Cornettposted 6 years ago

      I printed numbers and a name of a woman on a sticky note.  It is stuck on the bottom of my computer. What are your theories about the number and the name. That should be much easier than discovering how the universe began. Make a scientific guess.

      Get it right...I will bow to your genius.  smile

    34. Paradise7 profile image86
      Paradise7posted 6 years ago

      I think what Stephen Hawking was after wasn't to deny that God exists.  He was after the initial causes of the universe.  He looked at the whole thing from a science/physics point of view, looking for a physical explanation, and found one.

      That doesn't preclude a God.  God still remains unproven, and always will.  That doesn't mean there ISN'T one.  I've heard an awful lot of sloppy thinking on this topic.  Stephen Hawking would be the first person to say, "You can't prove a negative proposition."

    35. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

      e=mc squared and all that.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually it's E=mc^2 which is a short version of the actual formula. It means that energy and matter are equivalent.

    36. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago
    37. andromida profile image76
      andromidaposted 6 years ago

      That is just Hawking's personal opinion based on his mathematical intuition. In his book " A brief history of time" he claimed the  role of a god for the creation of this universe. But now he is saying that the creation of our universe does not need a god- it is a spontaneous phenomenon. But he never said that there is no God,he is just saying that the starting phase of creation does not need any intervention-it can happen spontaneously. What if in the coming years Hawking says that the was wrong.

      The moment of creation is being tried to recreate at CERN's massive Hydron collider( a particle accelerator), but  due to technical problems it still could not perform any experiment.I guess only, if this experiment is successful, then it might give some clues about moment of creation. And Hawking's research in theoretical & astro-physics might indicate many things possible outcomes,because a mathematical equation might have many possible answers. Such a complicated thing like  Bing Bang is entirely based on mathematical formula, but the theories and the practicals are not always the same, though theoretical physics can predict something with certain level of confidence or probability.But there are many variables that are overlooked,history of physics suggest so, so it may even take 100 more years to have a more comprehensive theory about the Bing Bang, or even after 100 years Bing Bang theory might be a totally obsolete theory, who knows.

    38. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago

      i still don't understand how the Uinverse could 'create itself from nothing'. i mean billions of years ago, the Universe sprouted from intense gravitational pressure, like in a black hole or something but where did that come from?

      i think God put the stuff out there and arranged everything in a precise mathematical way and then allowed everything to just progress on its own. the Universe is huge. what's beyond that? like, at the end? does it even have an end?

      and i am not arrogant enough to think humans, however brilliant, will prove whether souls exist, or God...we are just one race of people on one planet in a very vast Universe.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image80
        Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        & how did God create itself from nothing?


        God is our answer to everything we cant answer!

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Since our entire universe is all matter/energy and we know that matter/energy can be borrowed and sometimes returned and sometimes not, depending on what happens to it, we can conclude that all the matter/energy in the universe was borrowed and never returned from it's source. For example, the Hawking theory of a black hole is a good example of borrowed energy, some being returned to the BH and some being released.

          Hence it is the source of all the matter/energy in the universe that is in question.  smile

      2. waynet profile image46
        waynetposted 6 years ago

        God doesn't exist, because he told me he'd be on holiday for awhile!

      3. Greek One profile image81
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

        Stephen Hawking can't even get laid.. why should I listen to anything he says?

        1. 0
          klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's what I said! But then Skyfire made me take it back. He MADE me!!! sad

          1. Greek One profile image81
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I wouldnt think there was a God either if I didnt have an orgasm in the last 10 years

            1. 0
              klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Is that why you've been neglecting the church lately? Has it been that long?! lol

              1. Greek One profile image81
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Why would I need to go to Church every Sunday.. I live with an angel

                smile

                1. 0
                  klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Aw! Greek, you do have a sweet side! I bet your wife is a very happy woman!

                  1. Greek One profile image81
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course she is, I great her Iranian-style when i come home every night smile

                    1. 0
                      klarawieckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      LOL
                      Good night!!!

       
      working