http://notashamedofthegospel.com/apologetics/stephen-hawking-wrong-about-god/ http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God So we can talk about it and the opposite the entire day long or must wait until anyone found another way to deny or confirm such things. My point is that I agree with Hawking because his point makes sense to me but I also understand the opposite. For me it's wasting time to philosophy about such complex theories since it's just an theory and nothing more. The point is the heart, if you want + accept em or if you never wanted him and think you're on your own anyway. Since I believe in math, I only can confirm one theory but that doesn't automatically means that we're currently all right/wrong as long nobody can definitely confirm.
The opposing views can be used to condemn both Hawking and any religious person from your first link. For example: 1) Stephen Hawking Doesn’t Have Absolute Knowledge, which is true and it also applies to the religious leaders as well. Point is don't be a sheep and follow people. 2. A God is Necessary to Explain the Law of Gravity. Incredibly stupid point, if we go by this thinking then we would still believe the World is on the back of a turtle and other stupid things like that which have been questioned and found to be wrong. Also believing that something came from nothing assumes that the Big Bang even happened which is a very questionable theory. Apparently having an eternal God is fine but having an eternal Universe isn't ? Flaw in human thinking, things are finite. Points 3,4 and 5 amounts to the same nonsense. My problem is not with the idea of God, my issue is with Religion, it isn't needed and is incredibly divisive and stupid. Here are some things to think about. 1) If the <insert religious text here> is the word of God then why is it so flawed, would a God be flawed ? 2) In the Bible or in any concept of an omnipotent God, God and the Devil would have to be the same ! 3) In the Bible if God created Adam and Eve to be perfect, then why did they sin ? I have brought this issue up with religious people since i was around 10 years old and none of them can give a proper answer, they always beat around the bush. If there is a problem with one part of something in a theory then the whole theory is questionable !
@R29k: God isn't religious, man is. The good thing is humans have free will. The bad thing is the humans have free will. The sheep is atheistic and religious in nature. One sheep follows one shepherd, the other sheep follows another. The funny thing is the one sheep calling the other sheep a...sheep S. Hawking is just another sheep.
So you assert it's fake. On what grounds do you do so? See a pattern? I mean the video clearly shows it and he claims God did it. Edit: You would want some proof, like a scale on stage, right? Now acknowledge that your attitude towards them is the same as an atheist's is to you. You shake your head at them, we do at you, as long as you keep claiming stuff without evidence. And these people are even in the same religion. Edit2: Oh look, they even had a scale on stage! She claimed 97kg before and they weighed her at 85kg. So clearly it must be true, right? Why would she lie if she suffers from weight?
A person who is not aware of an illusionary character of something perceives it as real. This applies actually to anything. How must be reality that it is real to anybody? As soon as one defines reality step by step the probability that is is still real to anybody approaches zero. Not to forget that the observer 'belongs' to reality itself, it cannot be separated. People who are using the term reality do not mean reality itself, they mean their own relative reality. The same applies to science. The agreement to relate to the same definitions and theories does not make them real. Would they be real science would determinate its own end. Reality is described by humans. By including more and more actions/response observations gained by experiments the description of the reality becomes more and more complex. The verbalized laws are a product of discursive thinking, the models are extended to include more and more cause/effect observations. Once it had been sufficient to describe light as ray, later the wave and particle (photon) model had to be added. Gravity can be described as curvature of space. The reality itself remains indeterminable, though. Most pseudo scientists who are glorifying science are doing it because of the impressive achievements they have gained because of excessive discursive thinking. In the aspect of reality they should also mention that science has also created weapons, the a bomb and exploitation/pollution of the nature. Furthermore nowadays science acts as accelerator of ego related capitalistic interests. If they would have approached 'reality' in that way they use to claim, they would not have created that much suffering.
David Blane/Chris Angel with different outfit and different speech. For that kind of people, I'd tell them to watch very close the movie Joshua. They might learn a thing or two about how God works, even though I highly doubt it. There's even a joke about this kind of people. One preacher goes on a cruise and the ship hits a rock and the preacher is the only survivor. He starts praying to God and within the hour a boat comes by and the men tell him to jump in, but the preacher says God will save him, so the boat goes away. The preacher keeps praying and after a couple of hours a yacht goes by and the men on board tell him to come in, but he refuses again. The preacher keeps praying and a 3 boat comes around and the story repeats itself. Eventually the preacher dies, goes to Heaven and demands to see God for an explanation. God listens to the preacher and in the end God said: -I've sent you 3 boats, haven't I?
Yes, and? If we knew everything, we wouldn't have to practice science. Science lives by overthrowing old knowledge and discovering new stuff. Scientists don't sit back and fill the gaps in their knowledge with superstition. You keep on writing and writing and writing about some kind of reality which no one can ever truly see, while at the same time somehow bashing science which tries to describe reality. So what are you actually arguing for? Not to do science? To sit back and pretend reality is something you think up in your brain? What is a pseudo scientist? You must mean those guys who try to prove the existence of a god with quack logic and flawed reasoning. Science tries to describe reality. In reality, if you smash certain atoms together they split up and energy is released. It's a completely neutral process that can be used in nuclear reactors but also in nuclear bombs. Scientists didn't order to drop bombs on people. Scientists described reality, engineers built the bomb and petty humans fighting over land and resources ordered the use of the bomb. If you despise ego related capitalisitc interests, which I do as well, then try to change the society in which those interests are actively pushed forward. What has science got to do with it? Should we stop gaining knowledge about the reality we live in, because some humans still live in caves and practice their hunter/gatherer instincts? Remember why most wars are even fought in the first place. It's about land, resources or religion. It's never about one scientist claiming to know a different reality than another. You can't blame science for the faults of human nature that it actively tries to describe and overcome. Science is one of the main endeavours of humanity where nations truly work together based on a common principle and a common goal. A scientist in Japan or Europe works on the same principles as a scientist in Russia or America. I don't see scientists shooting down each other's space stations, do you? In your constant barrage of drivel I completely lost your point by now, because you keep using language in creative ways, you keep using definitions in creative ways and it all doesn't really make sense. So could you describe in one or two sentences what you think humanity should do to progress? Do you think there is a god in the sense of a powerful being with a mind? Do you think your conscience lives beyond your physical death? Do you think science is the wrong way to approach reality?
...and FAILS miserably. Reality has to be lived in order to be understood, but most...fail at living. Wars are about control. Land, resources, religion are just pretexts. I don't see to many space stations either. And guess who's to blame... the same people who fight for control. Do I have to remind you that Werner von Braun (which WAS A REAL SCIENTIST!!!) resigned from NASA because the politicians (those men who create the WARS!!! under various pretexts like religion) said there's no need to continue the space program, saying that "general public is not interested anymore". Yeah, RIGHT! I can tell you what: apply in real life ALL Tesla's inventions and you'll see a JUMP in technology and FREEDOM, but you see the politicians don't want that. Tesla managed to fool JP Morgan to fund his 1st tower for free electricity, but when JP found out he demolished it. Why? Tesla unveiled in 1925 an electric car which...disapeared along with the blueprints. Who took them? Not me, nor Yen... A limited mind cannot understand let alone describe what's...
So the computer in front of you works with magic by your invisible friend? Feels like handing a caveman a modern weapon and he kills you for sorcery with it, then praises the weapon as a gift from god. The idiocy is very strong here.
The computer in front of me doesn't try to describe anything. It's just a tool I use. It seems you have trouble understand your own affirmations. Please review. Geez...again with a worthless comparison when you lack real arguments. Please review your...knowledge.
You don't even understand the basic point. If science didn't successfully describe reality, you wouldn't have a computer to blabber your nonsense into the world. You discredit science when science is the only reason you have a tool to do so in the first place. Seems kind of idiotic. Edit: You still haven't explained why the fat-melting guy is fake. Because that would require you to admit that you used basic reasoning that you intentionally throw away when you spread _your_ nonsense. You are not any different than that guy.
You don't seem to understand what is reality and what's a tool. There's your problem. I don't discredit science. I discredit morons who claim to be scientists and are using other morons to infect the mases. It's a TV trick. Just like the "aliens" in Star Trek or Star Wars. P.S. Let me tell you why you or me or other humans cannot understand God "logically": your brain is a 4D tool (if you include time) while God is an nD "entity" (n goes to infinity). I hope your scientific background can understand the "equation" described above.
Me: "...science which tries to describe reality." You: "...and FAILS miserably." Actually, I think they just moved in their bellies. Your explanation is a lot more sophisticated, so I'd like to hear how you determined it's a TV trick. And the evidence is... where?
Do you have a generated computer model to describe that? Nope. Thus... It's called special effects. From your statement it seem you have no idea what a movie is. Do you really think that all actors played in a western movie die? In the nth dimension. How do you get there? I have no idea. Would any of us understand what's going on there? Definitely not.
A 5 year old when lacks arguments does exactly the same thing. Now...rush to kindergarten. You might learn a thing or two.
You claim science fails. I say it can't fail since you have a computer to spread your claim, which wouldn't exist if science had failed. You: blablablabla. ("Do you have a generated computer model to describe that? Nope. Thus...") If you can't follow basic logic and form a single coherent thought in your head, that's not the failure of anyone else other than yourself.