Hawking's Outrageous Claims

[MrAl]

Hi,

If you saw the program the other night about Hawking claiming that there is no God for various reasons, you may find it quite unusual like i did to see a scientist like him try to make theological claims.

What's your take on science suddenly mixing with theology like that? Are we back in the dark ages (in reverse) all of a sudden?

 

[DerStrom8]

I, personally, am a firm believer in the existence of God, and the more I study science, the more I realize how it actually proves it. There was a quote in a movie I saw recently, and actually in the book that the movie was based on as well. It was Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. It went something like, "Science and religion are not at odds. There are just some things that science is too young to understand."
This is almost exactly how I feel about the situation. I think that Science in, say, 500 years, will have actually proved more of religion to be true. If science wasn't corrupted by scientists thinking that something can't be true if they haven't proved it yet, Science would agree with Religion, and vise versa.

Just my opinion.
Der Strom

 

[ronsimpson]

I can find many examples of Preachers who say all scientist are lyres and immoral Godless fools. Sunday I had the misfortune to heat a preacher repeatedly say “You have to check your brine at the door to think……” then he would give an example of science thinks……… example “putting pressure on molecules cannot make them smaller”….proof;” Car tires could not work if….”

Theology has never taken (or passed) a 8th grade science class. This works both ways.

 

[DerStrom8]

I personally don't believe those preachers. I don't mean any disrespect, but I would say that type of preacher is an immoral Godless fool. If they were true to scripture and had a strong belief in God, I don't think they would say anything like that about science or about scientists.
Again, I mean no offense, but that is how I feel about this sort of thing.
Der Strom

 

[BrownOut]

The show in question was about the beginnings of the universe, and the natural phenomina that can be observed. This is what SH has studied all of his life. It was a great show, rich in intelligence from one of the world's most formost experts in the topic. to say it was all about disproving the existand of God is to radically mis-represent the program. In fact, SH only said that science has a more compelling explanation that the idea of creation, which, personally, I agree with.

 

[cr0sh]

I, personally, am a firm believer in the existence of God, and the more I study science, the more I realize how it actually proves it.

...citation needed...

You claim to have knowledge of the existence of a god; how is it that you came by this knowledge? Please provide evidence that doesn't involve circular reasoning, appeals to emotion, or appeals to "authority". If you have such knowledge, and can provide such evidence, you would be remiss in not sharing it with us. So - please do.

There was a quote in a movie I saw recently, and actually in the book that the movie was based on as well. It was Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. It went something like, "Science and religion are not at odds. There are just some things that science is too young to understand."

Because Dan Brown is a scholar on such subjects, an intellect beyond reproach? I assume he was also a Lucasian Chair holder as well?

This is almost exactly how I feel about the situation. I think that Science in, say, 500 years, will have actually proved more of religion to be true. If science wasn't corrupted by scientists thinking that something can't be true if they haven't proved it yet, Science would agree with Religion, and vise versa.

It hasn't been proved that I don't have an invisible flying pink unicorn in my garage - so therefore - HERP DERP?

 

[Mikebits]

It hasn't been proved that I don't have an invisible flying pink unicorn in my garage - so therefore - HERP DERP?

If it is invisible, how do you know it is pink?

 

[Pommie]

Here in Australia we have just filled out census forms. On the question of religion I chose none along with an increasing number of fellow Australians. Unfortunately, the "none" answer has been jumped on by atheists as proof that there are a growing number of atheists. I find this disturbing as I have no wish to belong to the atheist (anti theist) "Religion" that tries to enlighten people to there way of thinking. Hawkings seems to belong to this group that tries to push their anti theist religion on people and, when I've heard him debate the subject, I find his arguments rather silly.

BTW, unicorns do exist but they are not pink. They are grey and we call them rhinoceroses.

Edit, anyone know the name of the program so I can try and download a copy?

Mike.

 

[cr0sh]

If it is invisible, how do you know it is pink?

Because I have a sacred book that tells me so...of course.

 

[cr0sh]

Here in Australia we have just filled out census forms. On the question of religion I chose none along with an increasing number of fellow Australians. Unfortunately, the "none" answer has been jumped on by atheists as proof that there are a growing number of atheists. I find this disturbing as I have no wish to belong to the atheist (anti theist) "Religion" that tries to enlighten people to there way of thinking. Hawkings seems to belong to this group that tries to push their anti theist religion on people and, when I've heard him debate the subject, I find his arguments rather silly.

Yeah - can't have people being rational and skeptical - they might not be as controllable, and they won't donate to your next pogrom against the Other...

BTW, unicorns do exist but they are not pink. They are grey and we call them rhinoceroses.

But my sacred book tells me they're pink; who are you to say they aren't? And rhinos aren't unicorns; those are the work of the Evil Ones who want you to listen what those foul beasts tell you - Don't Listen! The way of the invisible pink is the One True Way.

Edit, anyone know the name of the program so I can try and download a copy?

You have the entire internet at your disposal, Mike. Are you really telling you you are too lazy to search a bit with Google? There are also more than one atheist and/or science blog out there mentioning it as well, or are you afraid of visiting such sites, that they might cause cracks in your cognitive dissonance?

 

[Ratchit]

To the Ineffable All,

The existence of a Supreme Being is a legitimate question in science. It is natural question that comes up when when inquiring into the origin of the universe or beginning of life. It's OK discuss or propose a theological explanation, as long as the researchers don't get involved in religion. Specifically, doctrine, proselytizing for a religious belief, avocacy of worship, trying to determine the purpose or mind of a Creator, church dogma, etc., should be off limits to a scientist engaged in determining first causes. Arguments that try to prove whether something just happened on its own, or was made to happen by a Supreme Being are within the scope of consideration of the existence of a higher power.

I did not see the Steve H. program, but I would have some sharp questions on how he came to his conclusions of the nonexistence of a Deity.

Ratch

 

[cr0sh]

The existence of a Supreme Being is a legitimate question in science. It is natural question that comes up when when inquiring into the origin of the universe or beginning of life. It's OK discuss or propose a theological explanation, as long as the researchers don't get involved in religion. Specifically, doctrine, proselytizing for a religious belief, avocacy of worship, trying to determine the purpose or mind of a Creator, church dogma, etc., should be off limits to a scientist engaged in determining first causes. Arguments that try to prove whether something just happened on its own, or was made to happen by a Supreme Being are within the scope of consideration of the existence of a higher power.

"Hey, there's scientists in my theology"
"Hey, there's theologists in my science"

See, the thing is religion isn't science - its philosophy (and for most versions, a very, very poor philosophy). Really, all of this wouldn't be a problem if so many of those who are delusional (I so wish the DSM would get some guts on this subject, and classify religious belief properly, instead of giving it an escape clause) as to worship an imaginary being didn't feel like it was their duty and responsibility to drag science and the pursuit of knowledge back to the middle ages.

I did not see the Steve H. program, but I would have some sharp questions on how he came to his conclusions of the nonexistence of a Deity.

Epicurus and the problem of evil:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Not enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

What do you worship? GAWD or GWAR?:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/09/but-why-do-you-believe-in-gawd/

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Thread locked - these forums aren't for endless discussions about imaginary deities - there can't be any final result, and such threads just evolve in to bickering and fighting.

If you want to dicuss religion (of any kind), please find a religious forum to do so.

Moderator.