Yeah, Mr. Hawking passed away, and...

[MBPrata]

...and the "eternal" debate on God's existence will probably be on fire for a while. Because, naturally, a good ammount of agenda-seizing atheists will take the chance to praise the Pope of Atheism, Mr. Stephen Hawking. (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wanted to be a pope for atheism, but that doesn't make them consider him less than that). And possibly an ammount of extremist Christians will also take the chance, but to spew their hate on Mr. Hawking, because they never liked him in the first place and it's much easier to bash people when they literally can't defend themselves (even if they wanted to).

That being said, his death reminds me of a couple of things, one of which is that the debate "Is there any hope for us after we die?" is probably the most important debate humans can possibly have (more important than how to end crime, for example). In so being, I came back here in order to brainstorm a little bit more on this extremely important debate. Now, this time, my question is: assuming that God created the universe AND wanted us humans to know that, what kind of sense does it make to create a universe that could - even if minimally - suggest that said universe could be explained with no obligation for a god? I suppose that could kind of be a way to test our faith, but...isn't the risk a little too high? I mean, even assuming Mr. Deem's optimistic statistic that 40% of scientist believe in God (which is now 20 years old, so maybe not as cheering as it once was...), that implies that 60% don't, and...honestly, don't you think it would be much less than that if scientists just kept reasearching and researching and found absolutely no way for the universe to be explained without a god? I mean, God probably could guess that humans would eventually test that hypothesis, so wouldn't it be safer - for the sake of His test to us - to just erradicate any possibility, albeit minimal, that the universe could be explained without the need for a creator?
And yes, I'm paraphrasing Mr. Hawking. His quote seems to have been God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator

And please, PLEASE, don't harass me and/or insult me like it has happened before on this forum. Please. I'm not here to point fingers at Christians; virtually every single question I ever posted here was a genuine doubt of mine, one that prevents me from being a Christian. (I don't loathe the idea of being a Christian, I actually think I would be happier if I were. But for the record, harassment doesn't help. Not me, at least...)

[Philip]

Hawking nor anyone else has anywhere remotely shown that the universe didn't require a Creator. And wild speculations with no proof are NOT doing so. Before the Big Bang, there was no physical universe - even physical matter did not yet exist. Science can only test the physical. It cannot test for what pre-existed the physical. Which means all of the assertions of how a Godless universe is possible are unproven and unprovable. But we do know of some key characteristics of what pre-existed the physical - ones which WHATEVER the source of the universe was, it must have those characteristics.

[MBPrata]

I know Mr. Hawking didn't exactly prove - as in, with testable evidence - that the universe did not require a creator. He believed it, though, and that should be quite considered. Sure, belief doesn't equal truth, but considering both Mr. Hawking's IQ and area of expertise, I would say he was one of the most important people in the world to consider when gathering testimonies concerning the existence of God. Not that one testimony alone is enough, I don't think it is; just one of the most important, if you ask me.

[Philip]

MBP: I know Mr. Hawking didn't exactly prove - as in, with testable evidence - that the universe did not require a creator.

Which is what reasonably considering his assertions require - evidences that work together as a testable proof. Again, what can science examine: The physical - which came into existence at the moment the Big Bang began. Before that, nothing physical yet existed - so the answer to what he speculates upon is from a realm pre-existing, that cannot be examined or tested.

MBP: He believed it, though, and that should be quite considered.

Irrelevant - it's the passing off the conjecture of an authority figure for real evidence. Einstein - a most brilliant fellow - had initially, and quite passionately, believed in the Steady State of the Universe. Know what he later called that? His "biggest blunder."

MBP: Sure, belief doesn't equal truth, but considering both Mr. Hawking's IQ and area of expertise, I would say he was one of the most important people in the world to consider when gathering testimonies concerning the existence of God.

As this is something he had no way of knowing, much less proving, why would his testimony be relevant? His testimony is only relevant to something he has knowledge of - in this case, he had ZERO knowledge to back up what he believed - not per examinable evidence - but per his own personal beliefs.

Ironically, Hawking affirms some eternal things of great organizing ability and power - but he asserts them to be eternal processes, laws - whether string theory, M-theory, chains of universes, whatever - he's asserting something capable of great order, precision, power, and eternalness that pre-existed this universe. Strange, but he doesn't believe such eternal things are impossible by themselves. But assert a God, with these same characteristics - and he finds such impossible. So, he's back to random, blind, eternal things producing immense, complex sophistication, designs - and also, governing laws of great precision.

[Storyteller]

Hey MBPrata
Been a while....

I don't really have any sure answers for you just some thoughts...

Okay science may not have proved God exists but it hasn't really proved He hasn't either, has it?

Science may explain the universe but still doesn't explain how it arose.


You mentioned Hawkings testimony as being one of the most important, I think yours is more important. Also, I think 40% of scientists believing in God is pretty high really, especially when you consider how seemingly incompatable the two are.

[Kurieuo]

Hawking prayed to God on his death bed. Didn't you hear?

[RickD]

Hawking prayed to God on his death bed. Didn't you hear?

I did hear. It was his computer voice.

[abelcainsbrother]

I hope Christians don't hate on Mr Hawking but still ....

I Feel The Earth Proves. For you.
https://youtu.be/s65IMX11vhI

[MBPrata]

As this is something he had no way of knowing, much less proving, why would his testimony be relevant? His testimony is only relevant to something he has knowledge of - in this case, he had ZERO knowledge to back up what he believed - not per examinable evidence - but per his own personal beliefs.

I don't really disagree, but since ZERO humans have been outside of our universe, we pretty much need to say the same about every single human, right? I mean, we haven't left our universe, so we can make no tests on what is outside the universe. In so being, Mr. Deem's testimony is not relevant either since he is in the exact same situation. But eh, that's what we humans do: we try to figure out what is outside the box by analyzing what is inside the box. Sounds weir, sure, but it's not like we have any other way of trying to fnd out something...

Ironically, Hawking affirms some eternal things of great organizing ability and power - but he asserts them to be eternal processes, laws - whether string theory, M-theory, chains of universes, whatever - he's asserting something capable of great order, precision, power, and eternalness that pre-existed this universe.

I am aware of that, ahem!, contradiction. But Mr. Hawking probably was too, and still thought that, among the contradictory reasonings concerning the beginning of everything - which are every single one of those reasonings, if you ask me - his was the most likely to be true...or at least the less likely to be wrong. Maybe the less contradictory of them all, who knows. But hey, we must take some human testimonies into consideration for this matter, right? Or else we have a problem, because the other way would be testing every single scientific theory ever tested, and most of us don't have a lab at home. Or a telescope. Or hundreds of years to conduct experiments...

[MBPrata]

Hey MBPrata
Been a while....

I know, right? I've been busy, I guess. You seem to be as friendly as I remember. Hope I'm not wrong...

Okay science may not have proved God exists but it hasn't really proved He hasn't either, has it?

Oh, sure, I agree. I am willing to believe both hypothesis, as long as they have the minimum of logic ad/or make the minimum of sense to me. Besides, God Himself is for the most part a metaphysic entity, right? And metaphysics can't be proved through physics, as far as I know...

Science may explain the universe but still doesn't explain how it arose.

Hmm, I don't know, I've read some theories that explain that. It's not like they have proof - which is normal, since some of them kind of demand metaphysics, which can't be proved by physics - but the theories are there. I tend to think that science doesn't explain why the universe exists, not how. And even then, I'm not sure...

You mentioned Hawkings testimony as being one of the most important, I think yours is more important.

Well, it is to me, sure. I have my reasons to believe what I believe (and a lot of doubts, ugh!) and I do think they pass the exam of logic. But, hey, that may as well be my ego talking. I usually don't take decisions without debating them with other people. A human's ego can be a very deceitful thing...

Also, I think 40% of scientists believing in God is pretty high really, especially when you consider how seemingly incompatable the two are.

I agree, I was quite surprised when I read that for the first time. I just mentioned that number to explain why I thought it was a risk.

[1over137]

Ironically, Hawking affirms some eternal things of great organizing ability and power - but he asserts them to be eternal processes, laws - whether string theory, M-theory, chains of universes, whatever - he's asserting something capable of great order, precision, power, and eternalness that pre-existed this universe.

I am aware of that, ahem!, contradiction. But Mr. Hawking probably was too, and still thought that, among the contradictory reasonings concerning the beginning of everything - which are every single one of those reasonings, if you ask me - his was the most likely to be true...or at least the less likely to be wrong. Maybe the less contradictory of them all, who knows. But hey, we must take some human testimonies into consideration for this matter, right? Or else we have a problem, because the other way would be testing every single scientific theory ever tested, and most of us don't have a lab at home. Or a telescope. Or hundreds of years to conduct experiments...

MBPrata,
Do you bekieve physical laws were always here?

And among contradictory reasonigs - is there also reasoning that universe was created by God?
If yes, why is it contradictory?

[Blessed]

Didn't know he was dead until now. Not sure why everyone thinks he's an atheist.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzkm1E5RqJo

Atheists promoted Hawking being atheist. But I've never seen him explicitly say God does not exist.

The guy was uncomfortable to look at though. Just being honest. But um .. Regardless, humankind loses whenever someone like this dies. Humankind spends trillions on waste greed corruption and war. I would rather see millions wasted on proving a space time distortion around a black hole than on war.

When I think of where people could be vs. where they are .. I can't help but feel most human beings are really, just, innately inferior creatures of some sort, when thinking in this specific context. If you really look at the collosol waste, and imagine where humanity could be, and it still can't get there. It's mired. Slavery and people killing themselves to get ahead .. so they can spend 40 years paying off a house.

People could be working 20 hours per week. living at a very high standard, in happiness and peace, content, with little to no crime, if humanity wasn't mired in such muck and waste.

[RickD]

Blessed wrote:
Atheists promoted Hawking being atheist. But I've never seen him explicitly say God does not exist.

Here you go, doing a simple google search, I found this quote from Hawking:

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5199149/ste ... od-atheist

[bippy123]

I know Mr. Hawking didn't exactly prove - as in, with testable evidence - that the universe did not require a creator. He believed it, though, and that should be quite considered. Sure, belief doesn't equal truth, but considering both Mr. Hawking's IQ and area of expertise, I would say he was one of the most important people in the world to consider when gathering testimonies concerning the existence of God. Not that one testimony alone is enough, I don't think it is; just one of the most important, if you ask me.

Isn't it funny that , although hawking claimed to be an atheist towards the last years of his that both of his wives were Christian
Evidently he knows good women when he sees them.
It did seem though that the older he got the more extreme his views were.

[Blessed]

Blessed wrote:
Atheists promoted Hawking being atheist. But I've never seen him explicitly say God does not exist.

Here you go, doing a simple google search, I found this quote from Hawking:

“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5199149/ste ... od-atheist

I didn't know this. Guess I didn't do my research again. I only remembered this clip:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzkm1E5RqJo





I had hope for him ... I thought he was an agnostic or monotheist ...


I didn't understand how someone bestowed with such intelligence by God .. .could not believe in God. I was either unable ... or didn't want to grasp this.


Watching Hawking videos on Youtube invariably leads to Neil de Grasse Tyson videos. Just so everyone from outside the U.S. knows ... Neil de Grasse Tyson is an unqualified fraud. He is selectively promoted by the U.S. media because he is black.

Astrophysics affirmative action. The man is not qualified for his position. At least Hawking and Carl Sagan were qualified.