Evidence for God from Science

Here's the link - its a pretty quick and simple read:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces

---

He made a few statements that seemed kind of silly (Religion based on authority; Science based on reason) to me. The main thing that caught me in the article was his view that heaven is a "fairy story for those afraid of the dark". I wonder how much time the man has spent contemplating just how 'dark' the darkness will be, or how eternal, cold, lifeless, and meaningless it is. He seems kind of pompous about it... which makes me think he hasn't really thought about it.

Anyway, I just wanted to get other people's thoughts on it. Thanks!

I'd like to know what motivates such people to do what they do. He contributed to science, but why? Why write books, do research? It's not like you could change anything. According to atheism, you can feed the entire Africa single-handedly, it makes no difference because we're all going to disappear. I think that they either do believe in something, or they think in such a short-term manner that they don't even completely understand the implications of their worldview...

Plus, I wonder what it's like when someone who denied the existence of God for the entire life, finally meets this "imaginary" Being...

Here is what RTB, Hugh Ross and company have to say about this...

http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20110516hr.mp3

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Here's the link - its a pretty quick and simple read:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/ ... test=faces

---

He made a few statements that seemed kind of silly (Religion based on authority; Science based on reason) to me. The main thing that caught me in the article was his view that heaven is a "fairy story for those afraid of the dark". I wonder how much time the man has spent contemplating just how 'dark' the darkness will be, or how eternal, cold, lifeless, and meaningless it is. He seems kind of pompous about it... which makes me think he hasn't really thought about it.

Anyway, I just wanted to get other people's thoughts on it. Thanks!

I don't know how far Hawking wants to bury his head in the sand but this guy is proving himself not to be an intellectual. As far as a fairy tail, evolution without God is a fairy tail too. Why? Because NO ONE knows or can demonstrate how life began. Ideas yes, concrete evidence no... It's just as much as fairy tail to believe that "chance" by itself created everything. That is just stupid! Chance intrinsically has no value. It's nothing.. Like magic. You have to be a real *blank* to belief that..

As for his assertion about being afraid of death, Christianity actually is more concerned ABOUT THE HEAR AND NOW. HOW you are living, NOT just what you believe in. In order to be a Christian you have to give up many many things... Drunkenness, sexual immorality, pride, lust for materialism, love of money, etc... It's the HARD road, not the easy road as many think. The truth is that Hawking is the scardy cat. He is extremely fearful to call himself a sinner. God forbid that ever happens.

Sorry for the rant but it just erks me every time I see someone make these assertions. Either they can't read or have blinded themselves to basic principles.. Holy cow.

I know some 6th graders that could debate this guy easily..

After that last book of his, I've given up any hope of him making sense anymore...

After reading the grand design, I think he has made some very absurd remarks, like philosophy is dead, that there is no free will, that gravity alone can start entire cosmos. I think it shows that even the most brilliant physicists can be disastrously wrong.

He's just like Richard Dawkins, they are both great in their SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC FIELD, but when they both try to make philosophical statements they fall flat on their face.

The Oxford mathematician John Lennox has a new book coming out in September regarding Stephen Hawking. It's titled:

God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?

This is the product description from Amazon:

'The Grand Design', by eminent scientist Stephen Hawking, is the latest blockbusting contribution to the so-called New Atheist debate, and claims that the laws of physics themselves brought the Universe into being, rather than God. In this swift and forthright reply, John Lennox, Oxford mathematician and author of 'God's Undertaker', exposes the flaws in Hawking's logic. In lively, layman's terms, Lennox guides us through the key points in Hawking's arguments - with clear explanations of the latest scientific and philosophical methods and theories - and demonstrates that far from disproving a Creator God, they make his existence seem all the more probable.

I get tired of people assuming that a Hawking or Dawkins have great points just because they are brilliant in their own fields. Hawking himself, he assumes that he understands philosophy simply because he's had success as someone who popularizes science. When you look at his their actual arguments and compare them to what top apologists have refuted and debunked, it's incredibly easy to see that they (meaning Dawkins, Hawking, etc.) don't know what's happening in the field and what is and what is not worthy of a response. Dawkins is all too happy to debate "lightweights" when it comes to philosophy and apologetics, but he won't take on people who are on top of their game. It's tiring and humorous to hear these guys get held up as these brilliant philosophers, then listen to them and realize that the points they're bringing up have been debunked by apologists years ago.

Sorry, I just can't take Hawking seriously, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

narnia4 wrote:I get tired of people assuming that a Hawking or Dawkins have great points just because they are brilliant in their own fields. Hawking himself, he assumes that he understands philosophy simply because he's had success as someone who popularizes science. When you look at his their actual arguments and compare them to what top apologists have refuted and debunked, it's incredibly easy to see that they (meaning Dawkins, Hawking, etc.) don't know what's happening in the field and what is and what is not worthy of a response. Dawkins is all too happy to debate "lightweights" when it comes to philosophy and apologetics, but he won't take on people who are on top of their game. It's tiring and humorous to hear these guys get held up as these brilliant philosophers, then listen to them and realize that the points they're bringing up have been debunked by apologists years ago.

Sorry, I just can't take Hawking seriously, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's sad that atheism doesn't have its philosophers, so it "borrows" them from the scientific field. But on the other hand, it seems to me that militant atheists don't care much about the truth and reality, more about their own reality in which they live. They must be champions of denial if they think that supressing creationism in schools or advertising their ideology on buses will get rid of God - it reminds me of little children who close their eyes in front of what they don't like, hoping that it will go away.

Back on topic, the article mentioned in this thread was published in one of the newspapers in my country, and my impression was, "Who cares?" Is this news, someone's opinion about whether there is Heaven? Sadly, the media these days will publish anything antitheistic, masqueraded as "science" (they won't publish rebuttals though), although there is nothing scientific about stating an opinion about whether there is Heaven.