Hawking Comes Clean

So, what can one do when made redundant but drink in the pub all day and attempt to justify one's existence? Jesus and MoEdited by bluegenes, : added link

Yep, he can almost explain it as well as me Good to see that others still appreciate their Ward & Wells (light green book on left shoulder) - learnt my sheaf theory from that.

quote:

---

What tests did Hawking do to check what he says is true? All the science documentaries I watch tell us about the practical tests they do. They reproduce it in real life. Check the documentaries. They talk about controlled test. What control did Hawking use?

---

you know what would be awesome? If, to prove the theory that there is no god, somebody actually went and built a machine that created a universe....and then claimed there was no god.divide by zero! oh shi-Edited by greyseal, : fixed a quote

If you are proposing to do a survey here and claim no agenda, maybe, just maybe you should not be posting to threads that would possibly expose your OLV(or whatever the hell acronym you used.)

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Come on theodoric be honest, I am quite sure you (and everyone else here)would not have any objections to anyone who does a survey, if that person happens to have an evolutionists OLV.Its not the bias you object to, its your perception of his particular bias. You would never ever mind an evolutionists bias.

In a well done study you would not be able to tell the position of the surveyor.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If the subject is cosmology, as is discussed in this thread, then I would question what an evolutionary biologist had to say.Or are you just lumping in anyone who favors science over fairy tales into the "evolutionist" camp?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well, I was going to continue this discussion in the "Is the criticism justifiable thread", but I see it is closed now, so nevermind.

So you also see the bias.That is the issue. A person doing a survery should show no bias. You also agree that you see a bias. The survey is biased by the fact the people being surveyed know the bias of the person doing the survey.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.''
-Stephen Hawking
"THE Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded."
-Article

​

Sounds to me like Mr. Hawking has grown tired of trying to stay politically correct and pander to the religious in his public views on the beginnings of the universe.

​

This is all from his new book "The Grand Design".

​

Truth on his views?
Or simply advertising propaganda?

​

What do you think?

​

I think that, sure, it's just his say-so. But, when that "some guy" is, arguably, the smartest guy on the planet... it tends to carry a little weight

---

It sounds like Hawking (like LaPlace) is arguing against a "God of the gaps." But he must assume that "there is a law such as gravity." This is the "elephant in the room." Why is there "a law such as gravity?" Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the law of gravity (or any physical law) keep working consistently? Why does the universe behave according to these laws? Are physical laws really "inevitable" as Hawking believes? Are physical laws logical prior to the universe's existence (as his statement implies), or is their existence contingent on the universe? These questions are all metaphysical, not scientific. Science can tell us how these laws work (in a mechanistic sense), but not why they work or exist (in an ontological sense).As Donald MacKay wrote in his excellent booklet, "The Clockwork Image:" Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

The earth does not go its own way.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question.It's turtles all the way down.

My friend John Lennox explained this more clearly than I did: from the Daily Mail Online, Sept 3, 2010, Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail OnlineEdited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

Showing that he really has no understanding of what has been said... No, not in the way we are talking about "laws". Confusing I know, but the "laws" are the Universe. Does he? Where?ABE:Reading his article, I'm afraid it is obvious that your friend has some serious delusions:

quote:

---

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

---

quote:

---

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

---

Come on GDR, you know the serious problems with these statements without blinking - you shouldn't be letting a friend make such an arse of himself in the press! His theological and scientific credibity has just fallen out of sight...Read more: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail OnlineEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

(emphasis mine)In what possible sense is supposing a superbeing exists behind the scenes proding the universe to make it work metaphysically simpler than supposing the mechanistic laws of the universe exist?