Stephen Hawking: The Afterlife Is A Fairy Tale For People Who Are Afraid Of The Dark

[decadecadeca]

Please cite sources to support your opinion.

When he quoted Einstein, when he spoke of a creator, when he lectured about black holes, Hawking made no distinction between "a god" and "the God".

You see only what you want to see.

[Bouncer]

Please cite sources to support your opinion.

When he quoted Einstein, when he spoke of a creator, when he lectured about black holes, Hawking made no distinction between "a god" and "the God".

You see only what you want to see.

i know what hawking is talking about because i am familiar with him and his work. i am interested and have an understanding of science that you do not.

the only time you read anything related to science is when you are trying to prove a point on the side of religion.

the common theme in these threads is people from the south trying to defend religion because it is there way of life.

like hawking said, people like you and gods son defend it because... well... you are afraid of what happens next. you need to believe in fairy tails..

i cant explain reason and science to bible thumpers from the south because no matter what you will always believe in your fairy tails. you believe in them as strongly as the Greeks believed in Zeus, Athena, etc ....

[decadecadeca]

...the only time you read anything related to science is when you are trying to prove a point on the side of religion....

Care to guess what my master's degree is in?

I'll give you a hint, it's not theology.






And Zeus was a fag.

[Scrumhalf]

Lots of scientists refer to God or "the creator" but just as a metaphor rather than a literal interpretation of a "bearded robed guy sitting among the clouds counting the fall of every sparrow" (I think that's Carl Sagan's line).

[Bouncer]

Care to guess what my master's degree is in?

I'll give you a hint, it's not theology.






And Zeus was a fag.

sorry i just don't believe you. you have never said anything at all on this board relating to science or its benefits.

surely someone with a masters degree in science would have more to contribute then to defend your stupid fucken religion.

or maybe "science" means something different in southern university's. lol

[decadecadeca]

Lots of scientists refer to God or "the creator" but just as a metaphor rather than a literal interpretation of a "bearded robed guy sitting among the clouds counting the fall of every sparrow" (I think that's Carl Sagan's line).

"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

Quoted in "Stephen Hawking prepares for weightless flight", New Scientist (26 April 2007)


He's talking about religion and makes reference to the biblical "God". Nothing metaphorical about that statement.

He's gone back and forth on the subject several times, it's just a fact. He'll change his mind again and Bouncer will be left behind, nothing and no one to believe in.

Stick with me and you'll gain true knowledge kid.

[Bouncer]

Lots of scientists refer to God or "the creator" but just as a metaphor rather than a literal interpretation of a "bearded robed guy sitting among the clouds counting the fall of every sparrow" (I think that's Carl Sagan's line).

exactly. and sorry deca, anyone with a background in science would understand this.

[decadecadeca]

sorry i just don't believe you. you have never said anything at all on this board relating to science or its benefits.

surely someone with a masters degree in science would have more to contribute then to defend your stupid fucken religion.

or maybe "science" means something different in southern university's. lol

I come here to relax, laugh and have fun with the dipshits.

If you want me to author research on a subject you'll need to pay.

[decadecadeca]

exactly. and sorry deca, anyone with a background in science would understand this.

Playing PS3 in your headseat all day doesn't qualify as a "background in science".

[Bouncer]

He's gone back and forth on the subject several times, it's just a fact. He'll change his mind again

once again, he has never changed his mind.

he simply said there was room for a creator in the realm of science. he never said "there is a god" like you are trying so hard to convey.

he did not dismiss a creator because the science wasnt there yet to prove otherwise.

[decadecadeca]

Do you still have your Sega?

[Bouncer]

Playing PS3 in your headseat all day doesn't qualify as a "background in science".

i was talking about you. you seem blind to the fact that many great scientist have talked about a "god" as matter of speech describing laws that created everything.

[Bouncer]

I come here to relax, laugh and have fun with the dipshits.

If you want me to author research on a subject you'll need to pay.

sorry but someone with a masters in science would shine through a little stronger on science and religious threads then you do.

the only time you have ever said anything at all about science is when defending your religion. that is not the trait of someone with a masters in science.

[Chadd77]

I have a question. I have never read any of his books. Maybe I’ll pick one up someday to answer some of my questions. But what is his theory on how “everything” was created? Earth, water, man, woman, plants, animals, ect…

[Scrumhalf]

"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

Quoted in "Stephen Hawking prepares for weightless flight", New Scientist (26 April 2007)


He's talking about religion and makes reference to the biblical "God". Nothing metaphorical about that statement.

I have no issues with Hawking's statement but I read it a bit differently from how you do. I don't see anything "biblical" about what Hawking is saying. The universe is indeed governed by the laws of science. The key question is why are the universal constants what they are? Why is the speed of light 3x10^5 m/sec? Why not twice as much? A whole bunch of other constants would need to be different as well to make the laws of physics also hold up. Science is not equipped to answer this question and scientists would freely admit to that, but that does not necessarily require divine creation the way most people in mainstream religions conceive of it.