Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

[vjlaw]

I'd go a step further and say Hawkings worships himself.

I agree totally. Every person whether they are believers of man or of God, have to put their 'faith' in things that cannot be seen or proven.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I agree totally. Every person whether they are believers of man or of God, have to put their 'faith' in things that cannot be seen or proven.

Exactly. Here is a very interesting video along those lines.

http://wimp.com/beyondmatter/

 

[Dr.Fessel]

To each his own. mo

Missing you at the radio show.

 

[Nova]

Just happen to be reading 'The Grand Design' now. I may or may not disagree with him, don't know yet until I find out what he really thinks rather than basing an opinion on a newspaper blurb.. I don't think science and religion have to be exclusive of one another.

I don't think so either. I hope you'll report back as you read deeper into the book...

 

[vjlaw]

Exactly. Here is a very interesting video along those lines.

http://wimp.com/beyondmatter/

Thanks for that video. I have never seen it before.

 

[Nova]

I agree totally. Every person whether they are believers of man or of God, have to put their 'faith' in things that cannot be seen or proven.

Well, Hawking certainly has no problem with things that can't be seen, since such things are the primary concern of theoretical physics. But physics still works in a realm of proof, where phenomena--even theoretical phenomena--can be subjected to tests and those tests can be replicated by others.

And that's a very different realm than the realm of faith and religion.

 

[Nova]

My apologies, you've posted so many times I must have missed your schizophrenic question, lol. Sorry about that. And yes, we can differentiate between real and not real on a day to day basis, with no other symptoms of schizophrenia, etc. And the visions or mystical experiences that are typically recognized as real are also from people who have no other symptoms of a medical issue, and, most importantly, they're (and our) experiences are consistent with church teaching for 2,000 years. Those who are mentally ill and rant tend to say things that are well outside of scripture or basic theology, hence them being called "raving." It's just random thoughts that are popping into their heads and then being expressed, usually combined with paranoia such as "the world is about to end."

As to why would someone make that leap of faith? Well, the consequences are great enough that I think it is worth the effort to not only make that leap by reading scripture, praying, and expressing our love and belief in the Lord, but also to compare various churches. What's a couple years of your life compared to eternity? Simply start by saying to God and Jesus that this IS a leap of faith, that you have doubts, but that you want Them to be in your life and to to please help you be closer to Them. If you don't feel any different about things after some time, what did you really lose? But if you DO feel differently, what have you gained? A lot! After all, we explore much lesser things all the time, compared to this.

The biggest mistake that people make is using their ONE experience with a church to color their belief in the ENTIRE faith. Maybe they had a very fundamentalist upbringing, or maybe something well outside of the mainstream, such as Christian Scientists, so they think that is the Christian faith in a nutshell. But that is not true, which is why I said above that it should include checking out numerous churches, so that one bad apple doesn't spoil the entire faith.

I apologize if I posted too often. I think posters have been very generous and respectful with one another here and I wanted to acknowledge a lot of differing views before the thread gets locked.

Defending your faith (or mine) with an appeal to ecclesiastical longevity is an appeal to conventionalism rather than truth, don't you think? Just because something is believed for a long time doesn't make it true. I'm sure you can think of as many examples as I of beliefs discarded by human beings and even by the Church and other religious authorities. (I'm not listing any for fear of appearing to take pot shots.) The same may be said of science, of course, and central premises of the sciences have also turned out to be false.

 

[vjlaw]

Well, Hawking certainly has no problem with things that can't be seen, since such things are the primary concern of theoretical physics. But physics still works in a realm of proof, where phenomena--even theoretical phenomena--can be subjected to tests and those tests can be replicated by others.

And that's a very different realm than the realm of faith and religion.

Physics is still defined by man. Man is limited. Man is not capable of finding or proving what may go against what is accepted in physics. jmo

 

[Quiche]

Missing you at the radio show.

OT: Can't get there from here, miss you guys like crazy! :heartbeat:

 

[Nova]

Physics is still defined by man. Man is limited. Man is not capable of finding or proving what may go against what is accepted in physics. jmo

But aren't man's ideas of God also defined by man and, per your terms, limited?

FWIW, I don't think physics can disprove the existence of God any more than it can prove it.

 

[Dark Knight]

I apologize if I posted too often. I think posters have been very generous and respectful with one another here and I wanted to acknowledge a lot of differing views before the thread gets locked.

Defending your faith (or mine) with an appeal to ecclesiastical longevity is an appeal to conventionalism rather than truth, don't you think? Just because something is believed for a long time doesn't make it true. I'm sure you can think of as many examples as I of beliefs discarded by human beings and even by the Church and other religious authorities. (I'm not listing any for fear of appearing to take pot shots.) The same may be said of science, of course, and central premises of the sciences have also turned out to be false.

You didn't necessarily post too often, I just couldn't keep up, is all, lol. Never said I was the fastest guy in the world, hehe.

The longevity portion was only a small part of my explanation, but I think it stands to reason that if someone suddenly comes out and says God told them that murder was acceptable, it is safe to say that it did not come from God, as it contradicts God's teaching for the better part of 5,000 years. God said, "I, the Lord, do not change." So it is not believable that He suddenly changed His mind. He never changes because His Will was perfect from the beginning.

 

[Dark Knight]

But aren't man's ideas of God also defined by man and, per your terms, limited?

FWIW, I don't think physics can disprove the existence of God any more than it can prove it.

No, man's ideas of God have been via divine revelation, from the Jews to the Christians.

 

[Reannan]

I believe the Bible verse about man being "created in the image of God" is talking about mankind's ability to THINK. Humans can "think" something into existence, - every great building in the world, every great institution or organization - they all began as the "thought" of someone. Just like God "thought" about creating the world. It seems to all be about ego. People seem to fall into three categories from my personal observations:

1) those who think they know everything (this includes religious people and atheist)

2) those who realize they don't know know anything at all, and open themselves to whatever the Universe/God has to teach them today

3) those who spend their lives in an humble nature of seeking to understand, and realizing that the ultimate truth should be sought, but will not really be understood until they stand on the other side.

:twocents:

 

[vjlaw]

But aren't man's ideas of God also defined by man and, per your terms, limited?

FWIW, I don't think physics can disprove the existence of God any more than it can prove it.

Mine are not defined by man. They are between God and me.

 

[Reannan]

But aren't man's ideas of God also defined by man and, per your terms, limited?

FWIW, I don't think physics can disprove the existence of God any more than it can prove it.

Nova, I believe that we are limited by what we "know" and "feel". If I placed a computer chip in the hands of a kindergarten student, they would look at it, and probably guess what it's purpose was. If I placed the same computer chip in the hands of a cave man, he would not be able to guess what it was because he would not have the frame of reference to the "possibilities" of the chip. As human beings, I think we are like the cave man, and there are realms to explore beyond our wildest imaginings. It is our nature to want to explore those realms..... and we have the CHOICE of how to use our inquisitive nature.

 

[sorrell skye]

I don't know that I agree with Hawking's assertion that the human brain is a computer. There are certainly similarities between the two, but there are also vast differences.

A computer is a machine, programmed to carry out operations based on mathematical code.

The human brain is an organ that processes, stores, and retrieves information. In this regard it is similar to a computer.

How does Hawking explain the unseen part of the brain - the mind?

Computers (at least @ this point in time) are incapable of independent thought (free will), or desire, or feeling & expressing emotions.

Years ago, I read a novel that was written by a computer program (I can't remember the title). It was grammatically perfect, and contained the basic plot elements required of a novel (conflict, crisis, resolution). But it was so boring that I didn't enjoy reading it. The book had no "soul", no "spirit".

Computers are capable of performing amazing tasks.

But they are incapable of feeling awe at the view from a mountaintop, or listening to the wind as it rises over the ridge, or looking forward to bluebells after a long gray winter.

They are incapable of weeping when leaving a beloved sacred place, or singing with joy upon returning. They do not celebrate a new life entering the world, nor do they bid farewell to a loved one as the final earthly breath is exhaled.

The organic human brain is much more than a "computer".

The experience of being human cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation.

 

[tiredblondy]

:clap:

Sorrell Skye, That was absolutely beautiful. Thank you!


................:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:..................

 

[tiredblondy]

I am always amazed when someone says something like Stephen Hawking's statement. Much like people who say there is no life on Mars. They seem to forget to add "life as we know it".

I can only speak for myself but I believe in Heaven and have never waivered in my faith. I'm as sure of Heaven and seeing my loved ones again as I am of my name. I have been at the bedside of family as their spirit departed their earthly body to reunite with their loved ones who had gone before them. I have no fear of what lies ahead.

Just as my faith and belief that Jesus died so I would be able to go to Heaven is illogical to some, others lack of faith, beliefs or non belief are illogical to me.

I am not articulate and quick witted. I can't always explain my meaning clearly. I wish I could say the wonderful things others have said on this thread.

I feel sorry for S. Hawking not for his disability but for his callousness on this subject that means so much to so many.

One of the Devil's most powerful weapons is planting doubt. He will use anyone and anyway he can. This is a prime example. The eternal conflict between good and evil. My faith stands no matter what.

 

[Nova]

You didn't necessarily post too often, I just couldn't keep up, is all, lol. Never said I was the fastest guy in the world, hehe.

The longevity portion was only a small part of my explanation, but I think it stands to reason that if someone suddenly comes out and says God told them that murder was acceptable, it is safe to say that it did not come from God, as it contradicts God's teaching for the better part of 5,000 years. God said, "I, the Lord, do not change." So it is not believable that He suddenly changed His mind. He never changes because His Will was perfect from the beginning.

Good example and I agree (except for the part about you not being quick witted).

As a matter of fact, that's basically how I reach my own metaphysical beliefs: I include those elements that seem consistent with my basic understanding of God and exclude all others--and I try to do both with a measure of humility.

Of course, my individual wrestling with theology doesn't have the imprimatur of Church dogma behind it and, believe you me, there are times I envy you that!

(I didn't mean to ignore the rest of your response. I'm just trying to be briefer, so I restricted my remarks to the part of your post I question.)

 

[Nova]

Nova, I believe that we are limited by what we "know" and "feel". If I placed a computer chip in the hands of a kindergarten student, they would look at it, and probably guess what it's purpose was. If I placed the same computer chip in the hands of a cave man, he would not be able to guess what it was because he would not have the frame of reference to the "possibilities" of the chip. As human beings, I think we are like the cave man, and there are realms to explore beyond our wildest imaginings. It is our nature to want to explore those realms..... and we have the CHOICE of how to use our inquisitive nature.

That's actually entirely consistent with what I meant. I think our knowledge is limited (like that of the cave man); but that doesn't mean it will always be so.

(As you know, we don't even use all of the brain matter given to us.)