does it matter what hawking says?

1. 64

   pisean282311posted 12 years ago

   does it matter what hawking says?..suppose science actually proves that there is no god,do you think people would believe it?..

   replyreport
   1. 62

      tobey100posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Probably not.  Science has a way of changing, constantly.  First eggs were bad for you, then they were good for you, then bad, then good.  Most people's belief systems don't change.  I think that's why they call it 'faith'.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         you have a point...

         replyreport
         1. 44

            Mikeydoesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Science will never disprove God, all science will prove is that things get weirder and more complex the deeper you go.
            
            I am not relgiious one bit, but I do disagree with any scientist who is against the idea of God. Although the religious may not be exactly right on their religion, neither are the scientists on their science.
            
            It is very possible you can call God the driving force of life. At the beginning of everything something had to want to live, either it is 1 person or not who knows, I just don't think anyone should tell another person they are wrong when they don't even know if they are right.

            replyreport
            1. 64

               pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               nice thoughts...but when did hawking disapprove god..he just said god didnt create universe...no disapproval or approval in this..it is like mike didnt do this job..does that make mike non existing?..well it just means mike didnt do a particular job...hawking's statement is as simple as that..reason people are finding it odd with their set of belief is simply because they belief god created universe...hawking neither approved nor disapproved god's existence...
               
               now coming to current thread..my question was suppose science proves there is no god..would it be accepted or not?

               replyreport
               1. 44

                  Mikeydoesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  He can not prove that God is blowing up a balloon and we are inside it right now. Or what if God is everything? Dark Matter could be God creating new things all the time. So he can not say that God did not create us. With what little we know about science there is no proof that God doesn't exist. We know what electrons are, but what are they made of... and what are those things made of? Where does it stop? No one knows, not hawking. So saying God exist or doesn't exist should not come up. It is a life choice, some people need God to live stressfree and some people don't.
                  
                  I also do not believe in God at all.

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     without analyzing how can you say what he can say or cannot say?..as far as he cannot say is concerned...well he has already said that..why he said that?..what is logic behind it?..why and how he reached that conclusion..before reading ,evaluating that..wont it be to early to comment?...
                     
                     coming to some people need god to live stress free..i agree to that statement..infact most need that and if it works..why not..no issues with that...

                     replyreport
   2. 75

      Rishy Richposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think Yes. It matters. Probably it will take some time but people will eventually learn. Think of Aristotle & his fellow greek citizens who used to believe that Apollo is responsible for the movement of Sun because He takes it in his Chariot in every morning! The believe in Apollo is no longer there but Aristotle's teachings are still there & its still assisting us to formulate the next generation of philosophy! Think of Galileo who eventually had to sacrifice his life for revealing the truth. (Metaphorically) the Christians nailed him on a cross for going for the heliocentric view... but today earth is no longer the center of the universe!
      
      The truth in science stays forever! Yes it evolves in time & overtime it gets more smarter. What Hawking is saying is obviously going to impact the scientific community & will assist the future research of mankind...It just needs more time!

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         agreed..but i was limiting my question to next 50 years which i should have mentioned....in long run..yes..what you are saying is correct..

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Pisean:
            It only matters if mankind lasts that long...AND... and if man can unite and come together as a unit functioning for his benefit.
            Neither of those options has much of a chance of realization.

            replyreport
   3. 58

      Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What really matters is who actually understands what he says.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      cosetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      well, i think when someone like Stephen Hawking (or any great mind) speaks, we should listen to what he has to say.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Although I am and always have been an atheist, I don't think you need to attach any great importance to this.   Hawking doesn't know how the Universe works any more than you do.  He may have more knowledge of all the possibilities, but he hasn't tied it all together in a coherent way and until he or someone else does so, it remains conjecture.
         
         Aside from that, all those who find comfort in a sky fairy can always say that said fairy cleverly arranged things to hide his own existence so that the faithful would always need faith.
         
         No matter what science proves, needy people are going to cling to their beliefs.   It's sad, but it is reality.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            good point...

            replyreport
         2. 60

            hanging outposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            its not sad.. It's joy unspeakable and full of glory! happiness, rest, peace, love and a whole lot of other positive things! hallelujah!
            
            far from sad, really

            replyreport
            1. 84

               earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No. Pc got it right. It is sad.

               replyreport
      2. 58

         Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely, there are few that know more about how the universe works than he does. Unfortunately, there are those who have little to no understanding at all and always attempt to besmirch those who do to cover their own shortcomings.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Beelyboy! What's shakin?!

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I got hired last week to replace the lead guitar player in a classic rock dance band. I've got about 40-50 songs to learn before mid-October. I'm stoked!

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  define classic rock dance band??? That doesn't sound right! I'm confused... although happy for you, I think? Please elaborate?

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Classic - recognized excellence.
                     Rock - genre of music, a blend of R&B with C&W.
                     Dance - moving in a pattern usually to musical accompaniment.
                     Band - a group of musicians.
                     
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        lol Silly! I know what each word means! I'm just not sure why you'd refer to the classic rock band as a dance band. You can only dance to southern rock but they'll break the beer bottle on your head if you call Skinner a "dance band" LOL
                        Anyways, ROCK ON!!!! Play me some FREEBIRD while you're at it!!! lol lol lol

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           We don't do Freebird, but we'll be doing Sweet Home Alabama. There's plenty of classic rock tunes that are danceable that aren't southern rock.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I've seen the drunks at Scully's move. That's NOT dancing! lol

                              replyreport
   5. 82

      Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      <sigh> Hawking has not said there is no god. He has said that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is zero. Why?  Because gravity can have negative energy. So the negative energy of gravity balances the positive energy of matter. A universe with total energy of zero can begin from nothing, i.e. no energy required at its beginning. So Hawking is saying that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have started from nothing.
      
      However, close attention should be paid to the word 'nothing' and 'zero' in this context. In this context 'nothing' actually means a vacuum state, and 'zero' means the lowest possible energy a quantum system can have (it's zero-point energy). According to quantum mechanics within the vacuum state virtual particles pop in and out of existence. It is said that these quantum 'fluctuations' could have begun the inflation of the universe.
      
      So in this context 'nothing' is not the same as no thing,  an important distinction. Saying the universe could have begun from 'nothing' without making that distinction is therefore misleading. What's being suggested is that the universe could have begun from quantum fluctuations.
      
      What is not being addressed is why quantum fluctuations? Why one-dimensional oscillating lines ('strings')? Why anything? Why not simply nothing, literally no thing? These are meta-level questions which are addressed by metaphysics, not physics.
      
      So does it matter what hawking says? No, in the sense that what he says won't change what is true and what isn't, whatever that may be. Yes, in the sense that lots of people less clever than himself will draw conclusions from his comments which can't logically be drawn from them. It is noticeable that Hawking does not make any claims about the existence (or not) of a deity. He is clever enough to know such a claim cannot be defended. Unfortunately some will believe his comments 'prove' something and will argue from authority on that basis, making it even harder to have sensible conversations on the subject.

      replyreport
   6. 52

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Science deals only whith the things physical and material; it has not been designed for ascertaining the things attributive; so it cannot reach or find the Creator-God Allah YHWH. It is beyond science:
      
      [6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
      [6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
      
      http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=103
      
      Hawking has in fact confirmed his own failure by stepping out side his field and issuing a meaningless statement about God which was not related to his research.

      replyreport
2. 85

   CMHypnoposted 12 years ago

   It only matters what Stephen Hawking says if someone lets it matter to them personally.  He is a scientist putting forth his scientific theory, which he has every right to do. He is a brilliant scientist and it is a thought provoking premise.
   
   Doesn't mean that anyone has to take what he says as the absolute definitive answer on the subject, or even entertain his theories at all if they don't want to.
   
   I'm not sure why the religiously minded are getting all bent out of shape about it, because if they really have faith in what they believe then they wouldn't worry about what some scientist has to say on the subject.
   
   Personally, I don't understand the extreme polarisation between believers/non-believers that his statement has caused. Why can't there be science/evolution/Big Bang and a creator/deity? And if you are purely science or purely religious, why does it matter what the other side thinks? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.  Balanced debate should be just that, not a hard, and sometimes abusive, sell to try and convert others into believing exactly as you do.

   replyreport
3. 58

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   I've noticed that when we find a famous person that agrees with our concepts, we suddenly classify them as a genius.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      thats human..applies to all...it is sort of reassurance about what one believes...

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree  ...  that is why I said WE.   
         It always makes US feel validated when we read something that a "smart" person says that we had been thinking.

         replyreport
   2. 83

      Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Are you suggesting he is not a genius?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No I'm not saying that.  Some people are rightfully called Genius.  There is a calculation process that defines him as such.
            I respect him that way.  I also respect him for attempting to not over state his findings, (from what I understand)
         
            I was trying my hand at being light hearted.
         
            Some people consider Archie Bunker to be the wisest man that they know of.

         replyreport
      2. 52

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A genius in his own field and must be respected strictly in his field; and not outside of it.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            agreed ..and he is playing in his own field..who created universe is for physics to answer and not by writers...so he is stating from expertise of his own field...

            replyreport
            1. 52

               paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               I think Physics explains how the Universe came into existence not the "who" or "why" questions.
               
               Thanks

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  what,how ,who,why,when ...these as far as universe goes is ofcourse domain of science.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't agree with you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 64

                        pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        ofcourse you dont and i dont mind that...i am sure most believers of religion wont agree with me either on this and it is just fine...

                        replyreport
               2. 58

                  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Once physics does explain how the universe came into existence, those answers may very well lead to the answers of whether or not there was a 'who and why'.
                  
                  No one has those answers yet.

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     well religion has..god created it..period..who created god..no one..god was always there..from what was god made..nothing..god made everything...how? ..well using his command..rest is what science says ..big bang and all stuffs...

                     replyreport
4. 78

   BDazzlerposted 12 years ago

   It only matters to people who think it matters. If you don't think it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
   
   He writes on weighty matters, about matter and there are people who think what he thinks matters.
   
   But for one to treat him as the ultimate authority on all matters material would render all matters of immaterial matter, immaterial.
   
   Thus, for those whom matter is not the ultimate matter, really, what he says doesn't matter.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Catchy , cute  and correct.

      replyreport
5. 60

   stilljustwonderinposted 12 years ago

   No.  I really don't care what he says.  When it is my time to stand before the judgment seat,  Hawkings won't be standing there in my place.  I have to go with what my heart says.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Me too and right now my heart says I better get outa this chair and get something done around here.
      
         talk to ya latter

      replyreport
   2. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ya but suppose there is no judgment seat..would you live your life like you are living today or would you live your life in different way?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The question answers itself ... If one believes something different than what one believes, then one will behave differently than how one behaves.  What one believes impacts how one lives.
         
         Thus the belief in a final judgment impacts ones behavior, as does a lack of belief in a final judgment.
         
         As this is a hypothetical question, the only definitive answer one can give is "if things were different, they'd be different."

         replyreport
         1. 64

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            was wondering is judgment day only motivation for people to behave in certain way ?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well... that depends ... for me, I'd probably hurt a lot of people really bad except I believe that it would displease God.
               
               Now as I happen to like God, I think he's a great entity, I prefer not to displease him.
               
               But, if someone were to convince me that there was no God ... well, we'd just start with one particular person and see how far I got before someone stopped me.
               
               See, without God, I KNOW I'm an serious a**hole.  Even WITH him, I can be a bit of a pill.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  got that..and you did make very important point

                  replyreport
               2. 85

                  CMHypnoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You see this is what I don't get - I'm not religious, but it would take a lot of provocation to make me be violent or abusive to another person. I don't need a deity in the sky monitoring my behaviour and threatening punishment for transgressions. It's my own sense of self-respect that urges me to behave well and courteously, and when I screw up (as being human I do frequently!) I am the one responsible.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Lucky you.  Well lucky ... for a lot of folks nobody's come close to convincing me otherwise. Because I am NOT a nice person and I AM prone to violence ... and if you think it's only my imagination keeping me in check ...
                     
                     Well it's lucky for certain people I have a good imagination.

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         stilljustwonderinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         It is hard to say how I would live my life if I didn't love God and want to please him.  I don't live my life in "fear" of God.  Jesus gave his life for me, so I do love him.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well said stilljustwonderin!

      replyreport
6. 57

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   Hi pisean, In my own opinion, we have choices but we have a society in which we live, whereby our family is the first socialization "factor" in our lives long before we will have the power to change the embedded values with what we think is right in our own opinion.
   
   So I think it doesn't matter what Hawking says, religion exist in our culture and social life in some sort of ways, and as social human beings we are affected by our culture, it is transferred to us, some will hold that belief until they die, while some may think otherwise. But there is always a point in time where one thinks about GOD etc, it is up to us now if we will hold on to our belief, then as always you need to defend it and it cause conflict, like law formation etc

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      i got that pretty..and how are you doing ?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am good, how about you?

         replyreport
         1. 64

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            i am fine..wow you rocke..989 followers..it is huge following...

            replyreport
            1. 57

               prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That's good. Yes I have to pay them that is why hehe,

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ...well i am one of your biggest fan..i didnt knew you paid for it...i made loss then by becoming fan for free

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     heheh, give me your paypal account then. Heh I am a fan of yours too!

                     replyreport
   2. 58

      Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What that shows is that those who don't care what people like Hawking have to say, who would much rather embrace ancient myths aren't interested in learning about the world around them.

      replyreport
7. 67

   Rod Marsdenposted 12 years ago

   It matters to Hawking what Hawking says. Outside of that, well, he could prove the big bang happened because all the elements were there for it to happen. Now if God put those elements there then you don't need God to have done more than that for there to be a God now do you? So proving the non-existence of God is just as problematical as proving the existence of God.

   replyreport
8. 67

   Rod Marsdenposted 12 years ago

   Mind you not having a God around might mean that more people will see reason and we will be able to save our beautiful planet from the ravages of things such as overpopulation.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Or the other way around, you can see reason because you are a believer, smile
      
      With regards to overpopulation, I think the European countries and some parts of the world are becoming an aging population -- birth rates are negative. Maybe the redistribution problem and city overcrowding is more part of the prob of population problem not overpopulation

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ya but asian countries are over populated and rod have a point out there..i personally know people who keep producing kids and say it is god's gift...they dont use any precautions because they believe if god wants kids would be born and if it doesnot want it wont be born..now how do one beat that?

         replyreport
         1. 57

            prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Asia, well 60 percent of the world pop reside in Asia, but Asia is big, China is relaxing its one child policy.
            
            Women now have options and based on how many children to have -- but they should be sensitized about how many children can they really have based on their capability to raise them with enough care, emotionally and financially.
            Both parents, men and women should be sensitized by the way.
            Whether a person believe in God or not, then that person should take into consideration welfare of children first,

            replyreport
      2. 67

         Rod Marsdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks pisean282311. Personally the idiots you are talking about I would put on an island like Haiti only smaller and make it so that they and their offspring never leave the Island. After three generations of not being able to have someone else carry the can for them they will no doubt perish and good riddance to them.
         
         My heart goes out to the Asians and other people trying to address an age old problem and making some progress no matter how small.
         
         What scared the hell out of me about you prettydarkhorse is that you are making it so that countries like Great Britain, the USA and Australia will forever be inundated with migrants even if we don't have the resources for this continuous invasion.
         
            6% of Australia is okay for agriculture. The rest is not. Yet you have these fools who see the size of Australia and think heaps more people can live there. Already we are in a drought we cannot get out of. Thanks to unprecedented increases in population we need to build desalination plants for more drinking water. Once we grew all our own food. Now a lot of the food we eat comes from overseas. This is a tragedy and a continuing tragedy.
         
               NO, WE DO NOT NEED MORE PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA and the people of Great Britain and the USA , or the ones with common sense would agree.
         
                As for the aging population  business, what you are calling upon me and all the people who can consider themselves to be baby-boomers to do is sacrifice the well being of our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews just so that we can have a better retirement. There must be a better way than sacrificing their future and also the well being of  country and planet. 
              Look up what Dick smith had to say about overpopulation. He could make a fortune off of it but he wants to save what can still be saved for his children. I see his point.
         
         Religion makes people blind, even stupid, especially to overpopulation and their part in it.
         
         Also prettydarkhorse if you really cared about the welfare of children then you would know that the fewer children a couple has the better educated and the better prepared for life those children can become. Even with the man and the woman both working income is finite just as the resources of any country are finite. The people of Great Britain, China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam,  Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA understand these truths or a good portion of their respective populations do. As for other people...other nationalities...well let us hope they learn in time to save themselves and possibly the rest of us.

         replyreport
   2. 78

      BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, without God, I know how I'd take care of the over population problem.  Anybody who didn't agree with my brand of despotism ... KA POW!
      
      I'd be the only one left to enjoy this beautiful planet! Mwahahahahah!!!!
      
      That is your plan, right? Get rid of everyone who doesn't agree with your particular brand of world view?  Fix the overpopulation problem by eliminating population?
      
      From a "survival of the fittest" view point, It's only one animal killing another animal for territory, after all, right?

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That would be nice, but I'm not up to the "wet" work.  Could we possibly get all you believers to just voluntarily take an early trip to heaven?  Yeah, it would be lonely down here, but SO peaceful..

         replyreport
      2. 67

         Rod Marsdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         BDazzler recognizing the problem as a problem is a good start. Closing boarders to save what can still be saved in terms of the environment of certain countries may well be a must. You want to kill people BDazzler? Not me. Educate the ones in need of educating maybe. Putting the question of overpopulation as something to be addressed when it comes to how best to preserve what can be preserved of our natural resources.
         
         It would really be a good idea if we could step up aid and knowledge to the countries people are leaving. A lot of them would stay if they could see a future where they grew up. We just have to be careful how we go about doing it. Often throwing money and expecting a solution results in no money for those who need it and no real solution.
         
         As for survival of the fittest, well, it is more a case of survival of the more intelligent. Everyone can play and everyone can survive.
         
         Get the Bronze Age holier-than-thous to take an early trip to heaven Pcunix? Well I suppose if they want to go that would be okay.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I dunno, Rod, that sounds suspiciously like "Love thy neighbor" and "do good to strangers" ... that almost sounds like it would require some kind of moral imperative ... where would we get one of those?

            replyreport
9. 73

   thisisoliposted 12 years ago

   If you start ignoring what the smartest people in the world say, then you are definitely heading for an upset.  However, I am not saying all religious people should simply abandon their face, instead they should look at what he has said, and THINK about how it applies to their religion.
   
   People should think for themselves, not just blindly follow what others say, however if you start thinking about what is said, you will soon be able to find truth in a wide range of subjects.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If you all read something, it actually explains something, but people cringe when they see it, and make inane statements "interprteting" to fit their own beleifs. YOU ARE ALL GODS (non-possessive) Jesus said it. And no, Stephen is neither here nor there, but proof cannot be found, and if one beleives it has, then one is thinking way too SMALL!

      replyreport
   2. 78

      BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. What most religious people and non-religious people that I know don't understand is that most of physics and science as we know it is based on the writings of Newton and Pascal who wrote more about theology than science. They didn't distinguish ... truth was truth no matter where it led.
      
      Where the problem came in was when the various political entities used the writings of science and/or theology to support or oppose their own interest.
      
      For example, the famous opposition to Galileo was not based on theology, but politics, the prince that funded his research was out of favor with the Vatican.
      
      His denunciation by the Inquisition was more because he had the wrong patron. 
      
      A fair treatment of the subject can be found at:
      http://www.galilean-library.org
      
      The problem is not science vs. region.  The problem is politics and funding. Always has been.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That isn't even the least bit true.
         
         
         
         Evidently, the problem is the misrepresentation of physics and science as well as religion and politics.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I will move you off of my  "people I think are intellectually honest" list. It's not like I didn't provide a non-religious link to support my position.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I saw nowhere in your link that stated "most of physics and science as we know it is based on the writings of Newton and Pascal..."

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, that one gives credit to Galilieo... If you're willing to pay my fees, I'll write the research paper for you.
                  
                  Here a rudimentary links:
                  
                  http://physics.wustl.edu/~alford/newton.html
                  
                  "Today, Newton is remembered as the founding figure of calculus, mechanics, and optics."
                  
                  i.e. Science as we know it.
                  
                  Do your own research.
                  
                  Anyone who has taken CS 101 knows Pascal's mathematical contributions are the foundation of computer science.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Again, I see nothing in that article that supports your claim. Newton was wrong about many things as was Pascal. The fact that they were first to do this or do that doesn't mean that "most of physics and science as we know it is based on the writings of Newton and Pascal..." That is a gross exaggeration.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        BDazzlerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        "Thus, the basic principles of investigation set down by Newton have persisted virtually without alteration until modern times. In the years since Newton's death, they have borne fruit far exceeding anything even Newton could have imagined. They form the foundation on which the technological civilization of today rests."
                        
                        http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html
                        
                        It would seem that the experts at wolfram would hardly call it a gross exaggeration.  I would say They form the foundation on which the technological civilization of today rests." was analogous to saying: "most of physics and science as we know it is based on the writings of Newton ...
                        
                        
                        Wolfram is not exactly a right wing Christian organization. The article was written (or edited) by Eric Weisstein, a former research scientist in the astronomy department at the University of Virginia.
                        
                        I will admit that I really like Pascal because of his invention of the adding machine and thus computers, so an argument could be made that personal bias may have cause me to mildly overstate Pascal's contribution in general.  However, his work in fluid dynamics are still the basis of most aviation and hydraulics which are huge. It was NOT a gross exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination.
                        
                        In fact, it's a gross exaggeration to call it a gross exaggeration.

                        replyreport
      2. 58

         Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Galileo and others including DaVinci didn't see HOW what they believed threatened the PAPACY, they just knew it did. Religionists of every age attempt to control the dissemination and/or interpretation to their own ends. Spiritual beleif is evolving. OOOps, Did I say evolving? There are some, then there are others, then there are the darkhorses. I am a dark horse.

         replyreport
10. 58

    zzronposted 12 years ago

    People are going to believe what they want to believe.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Rod Marsdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You bet zzron. So long as what they believe doesn't endanger the rest of us and doesn't make existence on this earth less precious I suppose that is okay.

       replyreport
11. 81

    LillyGrillzitposted 12 years ago

    What matters is that Hawking no longer denies another intelligence!

    replyreport
    1. 64

       pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       when did he..he never did deny anything..he is scientist..and science is about exploring..science cannot accept anything or reject anything without sufficient proof...isn't it?

       replyreport
12. 0

    Kathryn LJposted 12 years ago

    At least he doesn't knock on your front door to tell you about it, or yell at you whilst your trying to do your shopping.  You don't have to buy his books or watch his programmes on the TV.  He has as much right to publish and broadcast as the rest of us and he won't be losing any sleep if some of you are incensed by what he has to say.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       quiet right...

       replyreport