Steven Hawking COMES OUT! I am an atheist, SCIENCE is more convincing than GOD!

Oh you try and bully me. What the hell do you think your quips about Satan and the teachings of Jesus are. Just bully tactics nothing more.

But is just cowardice. All bullies are pure cowards. I enjoy reminding them of that, akways have.

My mon likes to tell tge story of how a girl in first grade came up and huged and thanked me as my mom picked me up. My mom asked what that was all about, I had smashed some bully that was picking on her. The full story finishes when we were 16, wink. Girls have goid memories. I didn't remember her but she sure remembered me. Karma does exist.

I guess that is just my nature. Maybe god, vishnu etc. put me here to protect the weak from bullies like you.

 

I don't wish to discuss it. I don't like what happens when I do. People tend to get upset.

 

Which only goes to show you could have the highest IQ in the world and still be a complete idiot.

They won't have handicap rails and elevators in Hell there Stevie.

 

I don't why anyone would be surprised by this...I would've been stunned to hear if he was a lifelong christian...for a theoretical physicist/ cosmologist to be an atheist is to be expected....

 

Oh he doesn't have the highest IQ the myth of him being a great phycist is a media creation

 

and believing in the tooth fairy is such sure sign of intelligence right?

 

So he's an idiot because he doesn't believe in God? How exactly does that work?

Maybe it's precisely his condition that shifted him away from religion. Some people have a difficult time accepting that a loving almighty Devine being would allow something so awful to happen to someone.

 

Not really the point.
The point is complex mechanisms, like galaxies (and more immediately, automobiles) just don't happen by accident.

I've always been troubled by the notion that creatures became land based & air breathing just through a series of fortunate mutations as it effects a breeding population. At any rate why couldn't evolution be God's device by which he populates the world?

The point is complexities just don't arise by themselves. Something built the automobile. It didn't just assemble itself one day so why would we assume that something infinitely more complex than a car just sprang into existence with no cause whatsoever?

I would think that something as vast as a galaxy (or billions of galaxies) would automatically be assumed to be the result of God because what else but a God could create something so large and complex? Have you thought about the implications of what you post?
If God is an absurd proposition how much more absurd is it to state that the universe has no cause? Much, much more, I would certainly think.

"Random creation" is an oxymoron
like "accidental planning". Einstein, Hawking (before he decided he was an atheist) and others saw God expressed in the inner workings of the universe the more they came to understand the complexities of it all.
I'm not seeing "random"-ness as these geniuses understand the universe to be.

There is no third way. Either a creator
caused this all to be or nothing has and all we can see, hear, touch, know, etc. is due to nothing, came from nothing and is here for no reason at all.
I choose the less absurd of the two options. I don't know why others don't.

Again you are totally focusing on the wrong thing. I'm discussing pure probability...not whether living things are like mechanisms.
When I say "as probable as" that's a cue.

That remains to be seen and that so many think life is probable on other like planets tells me that if life is random it's due entirely to a certain set of friendly circumstances which would tend to convey that life isn't "random" at all but just dependent on the right base.
Once the proper base is located life is sure to follow.

I was under the impression that the singularity had been established.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

I would be fascinated to find other intelligent life just to discover their understanding of God, if any.

 

That "you're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus" thing really is part of the dark ages and it's stunning that people still believe that.

 

Think about it for a minute.......Windy thinks Stephen Hawking is an idiot.

How does that even happen?

I wonder if he thinks Carl Sagen is an idiot?...

I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks Sarah Palin is smarter than Hawking

 

Now, that's funny...LOL

 

This is hysterical when you really think about it.

"A cosmic occurrence without design"

"It just popped up out of nothing"

It would be statistically more probable by about

a jillion times that a tornado could go through a junkyard

and create a Stealth fighter and a space shuttle

sitting next to each other with both ready to take off.

 

I'm thinking Carl Sagan is dead and in the cosmos.

You spelled his name wrong.

Billions and billions, I loved the man.

Fact is, these types seem to be light on the street smarts.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that Sarah Palin could run a

Country better than both of them put together.

There's no doubt Sarah Palin has her share of good old fashion common sense.

 

If one needs proof to understand God then one is pursuing the wrong god.

 

I hold that we are all atheists but for the fact that I believe in one less god than you do. Once you understand why you reject other people's gods, you will come closer to understanding why I reject yours also.

 

Either I can't write clearly or you have misinterpreted my meaning.

 

Uhhhh, have you assumed that I have a belief in God, or reject other people's gawdz? If you believe in one less god, are you saying atheism is your god?

And finally, whether or not you reject anything about what I think is not meant to be a concern of mine.

 

He said neither of these things

 

Uhhhh, I used "you" inclusively, don't get your panties all wadded up. Unless you just want to fight about something.

Then go for it.

 

Hawkings isn't any more intelligent than Einstein and the other founders of quantum physics, quantum mechanics. The founders were not atheists, although they didn't believe in an old man sitting on a throne somewhere who gets angry at his creation and smites them.

Anyways, a strict materialist cannot by definition think that a creator exists, for their reality is matter, and that is all there is, to their limited knowledge.

There are plenty of scientists who think the idea of a creator is credible, but they generally are hush hush about it, as it can ruin careers in academia. Yet some do speak out, but mostly after they leave the university that employs them.

Atheism is as much of a religion as deism, in that both are making some helluva assumptions. Materialism itself began as an assumption, i.e. that matter and the laws that govern it is the only thing there is in this universe, or outside this universe.

The only honest opinion, IMO, is that we simply do not know. For how can one know? That humans demand to know, when they cannot, is the problem. So, there are two lines of idiots, one which believes in a creator, and one that does not. I am in a 3rd line that says this issue if unknowable, in the conventional sense. Yet if you take DMT in the right environment, you will see the absurdity of these arguments pro and con on the god issue.

Hawkings and Dawkins need to be held down and given some DMT. It would probably solve their personal problems about what they think they know about reality.

 

There comes a point in hypothesis where the complete lack of supporting data forces one to abandon it as a futile pursuit. Though this is obviously not the same as "Proving" the hypothesis as incorrect, it has the same effect in reality and science.

 

Its not exactly the same kind of thing. The argument so far seems to be moving towards the value of openness when it comes to unknowns vs the value of observable facts.

They are not incompatible, a person can believe in spiritual values or have a sense of god and still believe in the material world.

Oddly that seems to be what some are trying to prove. Or conversely trying to prove that the "other" side is trying to prove it.

Proving that there might be some concept like god in existence is similar to proving that there is a quantifiable value in human existence. The value of our existence in the end is subjective and ultimately unprovable. According to your argument that effectively proves that our existence has no value.

 

I do not see it this way...proving the value of human existence is an arbitrary equation with no definitive ending. Proving the existence of an individual God entity can easily be defined based on the religious texts used to create it.
As far as the concept of a God...there has never been useful data to support it.
We can note human value daily in world affairs and personal observation, as well as tangible experience.

 

Many brilliant scientists have. The deeper they go the more a guiding hand seems evident.

We can infer God, however, from all of creation (excuse the word) all around us. An uncaused universe is an absurdity that
requires the real leap of faith.

 

I agree mostly. Each religion defines their own god and that can, at least in a purely materialistic sense, be definitively disproved. As you say using religious text etc... The concept of magical or supernatural causes is more of a primitive need for simple answers. I stand firmly with science when it comes to that side of it.

The concept of god as I see it is a purely philosophical pursuit. Its not so much about physical data as it is about human psychology and emotion. We simply look at how people cope with living and the relation that has with a trust of powers unknown. We do not know why we came to exist or if it matters, this relates not at all to physical science which is only concerned with how.

Human value as I have stated is subjective. Any reason we can come up with devolves down into something not unlike faith. We can see lots of things that people have done and we can say they are wonderful or horrible, but they only relate to us in our own experience. In other words it creates a logic loop of self justification, normally a sign of objective fallacy.