Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

[Ramadhan]

This is a perfect example how the brightest mind can also be the dumbest mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-a-fairy-story

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking recently explained his belief that there is no God and that humans should therefore seek to live the most valuable lives they can while on Earth.
Guardian writer Ian Sample asked Hawking if he feared death in a story published yesterday. This was his response:
I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
Hawking's 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" sold 9 million copies, and in it Hawking referenced God metaphorically as the force that could fully explain the creation of the universe.
But in 2010, Hawking told Diane Sawyer that "science will win" in a battle with religion "because it works."

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
Hawking's latest book, "The Grand Design," challenged Isaac Newton's theory that the solar system could not have been created without God. "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. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going," he writes.
Hawking was diagnosed with the degenerative Lou Gehrig's disease at the age of 21. He lost his power of speech and for decades has talked through an electronic speech synthesizer. The device has allowed him to continue his research and attain a top Cambridge research post, which was previously held by Newton. His most famous theory explains how black holes emit radiation, according to The Guardian.
So if everyone is destined to power-down like computers at the end of their lives, what should humans do to lend meaning to their experience?
"We should seek the greatest value of our action," Hawking told the paper.
(Hawking in China in 2006: Elizabeth Dalziel/AP)

[Ramadhan]

There are so many dumb things in that short interview, and if I hadn't known who Hawking is, I would have definitely thought an uneducated crack pot was the source.

But let's take this one:

"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Umm... Hawking.. not every religion in the world is christianity where they take a human being as God!
Unfortunately Hawking is not the only one, a vast increasing numbers of christians especially in western countries have become atheists or at least agnostics because they finally figure out that it is illogical, ridiculous and outright fairy tale that God is a human being.

Can some knowledgeable muslim in Britain gave this poor man some da'wah and explains Islam to him before he dies and finds out that afterlife is not a fairytale afterall?
I am 100% sure that Hawking will never be able to refute who we worship.

[Ramadhan]

This also shows how atheists and scientists follow blind faith:

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going,

ummm Hawking, there is nothing in the universe that support self-spontenous creation. no evidence whatsoever, let alone scientific evidence.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing"

Now I am truly convinced that Hawkings is all hyped. I still cannot believe the above quote came from the so-called "the greatest mind after einstein".
His argument is circular argument.
I don't even have to point out the obvious logical error in his statement.
so according to him, the universe spontaneously came into being because of gravity law that only appeared after the universe came into being.

[Mr.President]

if I were a fan boy of Hawkins then my plan would be starting a family and ill be de god father

luck me I aint a fan boy of him and I dow want to be 1

I like my life as a muslim its a relaxed life

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Assalaamu Alaaykum

I guess death is also a fairy tale for him, living in this dunya apparently for no reason and then all of a sudden death occurs one day, life must be a joke for such people then, you can see that very well from the world! Dumb people like so called 'leaders' cant even be proper leaders, killing innocents and for no reason is also a joke for these people, an innocent baby, are these people crazy, why do they get to commit such crimes and get away? indeed they will recieve what they earned and Allaah will not let them get away with nothing!

Indeed Allaah SWT is the most wise the most mercyful!

[جوري]

Hawking can't speak of something he hasn't experienced yet .. his own existence is a miracle in and of itself and he's so blind to that rather than using such a miracle to ponder the meaning of life. ALS is progressive and deadly, people don't last five years if we're completely optimistic even with heavy research, strides and medications like Riluzole.. yet here he's 20+ yrs after his diagnosis alive and well.. Sobhan Allah.. there is none so blind.. whatever the case it is his business what he believes-- everyone is entitled to their beliefs-- I am not sure why it is news-- or is it that everyone must follow the lead of a clearly embittered hasbeen?

:w:

[Trumble]

This also shows how atheists and scientists follow blind faith:

ummm Hawking, there is nothing in the universe that support self-spontenous creation. no evidence whatsoever, let alone scientific evidence.

That is what he believes his mathemathics implies and one of the points he argues in the book. I say 'argues', not 'proves' not least because cosmologists have never proved anything but 'blind faith' is not involved.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing"

Now I am truly convinced that Hawkings is all hyped. I still cannot believe the above quote came from the so-called "the greatest mind after einstein".

It's actually rather hard to be 'all hyped' when you are a theoretical physicist, particularly when you have been around as long as Hawking. The trouble is your peers and even your students are 'quite' bright, and would tend to catch on rather quickly. Of course, they might actually read Hawking's papers and books rather than one sentence quoted in a newspaper, not having the same genius as yourself that enables it's whole content to be deduced from a few words.

His argument is circular argument.
I don't even have to point out the obvious logical error in his statement.
so according to him, the universe spontaneously came into being because of gravity law that only appeared after the universe came into being.

Ah, the famous naidamar strawman. Firstly, you obviously don't have the slightest idea what his argument actually is. Secondly, that statement says nothing about a 'gravity law that only appeared after the universe came into being' it mentions only 'a law such as gravity'; it is therefore neither circular nor does it contain any logical error. Why don't you actually read the book and get some idea of what Hawking is talking about before critizing it on the basis of one sentence?

I have a distinct sense of deja vu here. Haven't we done this one before?

[Insecured soul]

This is a perfect example how the brightest mind can also be the dumbest mind.

And some will realise only when they are burning in hell, screaming that they had no intellect whatsoever since the very same intellect brought them towards fire........

may allah guide them to the truth

[Dagless]

I agree with naidamar on the gravity issue. It doesn't prove anything. Even IF what Hawking says is true (and that is a huge if), did the law of gravity pop out of nowhere? The law is a creation, unless he thinks the law just made the conditions needed and ordered itself out of nothing. In which case he should promote it from a force to a god.

I think it can be condensed in a simple way:

Does any of this show that God doesn't exist?
No. Not even close.

Does any of this even show that God did not create the universe?
The answer is, of course, no. Hawking presents a lot of things like they're 100% fact when they are not. All of these theories have changed so much over the last few decades that it's surprising he has so much faith in what he's saying. You can be sure it will be amended or even refuted over the next few decades. Btw these things only work on paper, there is no way to prove anything yet. Lots of opposing theories work on paper too so it's hardly exact.

Hawking can't speak of something he hasn't experienced yet .. his own existence is a miracle in and of itself and he's so blind to that rather than using such a miracle to ponder the meaning of life. ALS is progressive and deadly, people don't last five years if we're completely optimistic even with heavy research, strides and medications like Riluzole.. yet here he's 20+ yrs after his diagnosis alive and well.. Sobhan Allah.. there is none so blind.. whatever the case it is his business what he believes-- everyone is entitled to their beliefs-- I am not sure why it is news-- or is it that everyone must follow the lead of a clearly embittered hasbeen?

:w:

So true. I was reading about that the other day. It's like a real life miracle has slapped him in the face, yet still he acts like it's nothing.

[siam]

"Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them"---Thomas Paine



if something can arise out of nothing---how come there is not a multiplying mountain of Gold in my living room--arising from "nothing"?

[Zafran]

salaam

Hawkings should stick to Physics and leave God and the afterlife to religion.

peace

[Trumble]

I think it can be condensed in a simple way:

What can? Have you actually read the book?

Does any of this show that God doesn't exist?
No. Not even close.

None of what? It isn't intended to show God doesn't exist, it's a book on cosmology not philosophy of religion.

Does any of this even show that God did not create the universe?
The answer is, of course, no.

Does any of what 'even' show it?. Again, that is not the argument being made, which is only that it is not necessary for God or gods to have done so. And that isn't the main theme of the book.

Hawking presents a lot of things like they're 100% fact when they are not.

Like what?

All of these theories have changed so much over the last few decades that it's surprising he has so much faith in what he's saying.

Not least because of Hawking himself. It has nothing to do with 'faith', it is confidence in his own work which any professional at that level will and must have. He is also a scientist, and has no problem with adapting his own views in accordance with new work from both himself and others.

You can be sure it will be amended or even refuted over the next few decades. Btw these things only work on paper, there is no way to prove anything yet. Lots of opposing theories work on paper too so it's hardly exact.

Something Hawking would be the last to deny.

[Dagless]

What can? Have you actually read the book?



None of what? It isn't intended to show God doesn't exist, it's a book on cosmology not philosophy of religion.




Does any of what 'even' show it?. Again, that is not the argument being made, which is only that it is not necessary for God or gods to have done so. And that isn't the main theme of the book.



Like what?



Not least because of Hawking himself. It has nothing to do with 'faith', it is confidence in his own work which any professional at that level will and must have. He is also a scientist, and has no problem with adapting his own views in accordance with new work from both himself and others.



Something Hawking would be the last to deny.

My responses are to the original post (as is usually the case in forum threads). When you learn to click links you can read the story in the original post and then try to see what my comments were in relation to. I know it's a lot to ask but at least try.
If you want to discuss any of his books then feel free to open a new thread.

[Trumble]

My responses are to the original post (as is usually the case in forum threads). When you learn to click links you can read the story in the original post and then try to see what my comments were in relation to. I know it's a lot to ask but at least try.
If you want to discuss any of his books then feel free to open a new thread.

Looks like the double-act has become the Three Stooges.

Your response actually began by saying you 'agreed with naidamar' about, well what I'm not sure.. what he thinks but that Hawking doesn't say, I guess. Please don't try and be a smarta$$ when you have so much trouble with the first part of that word. I read the links. My questions remain the same; how about answering them?

[جوري]

Looks like the double-act has become the Three Stooges. Your response actually began by saying you 'agreed with naidamar' about, well what I'm not sure.. what he thinks but that Hawking doesn't say, I guess. Please don't try and be a smarta$$ when you have so much trouble with the first part of that word. I read the links. My questions remain the same; how about answering them?

The two of them are commenting on an article and it is indeed cited above-- is there a law against that? have you personally read the book? if so we welcome your summary of it!

best,

[Dagless]

Looks like the double-act has become the Three Stooges.

Your response actually began by saying you 'agreed with naidamar' about, well what I'm not sure.. what he thinks but that Hawking doesn't say, I guess.

All you had to do was read one more word along and you would have been there! So close, don't worry with time and effort I'm sure you'll be able to read complete sentences soon. The word was "gravity". Hawking did indeed comment on gravity. Once again, if you open the link (hard as it is), you can read what he said. I'll paste it to make it easier for you:

"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. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going"

Please don't try and be a smarta$$ when you have so much trouble with the first part of that word.

I didn't realise stating simple facts about what a forum thread is was regarded as smart. You're easily impressed.

[Ramadhan]

That is what he believes his mathemathics implies and one of the points he argues in the book. I say 'argues', not 'proves' not least because cosmologists have never proved anything but 'blind faith' is not involved.

If you read the article and click the link to the longer interview article, surely you'd agree with me that Hawkings base his belief on blind faith.
How is it not blind faith when:

1. He said there is no afterlife when it just his pure speculation.
2. He theorizes that the universe popped out of nothing when everything in this universe is against that theory.

It's actually rather hard to be 'all hyped' when you are a theoretical physicist, particularly when you have been around as long as Hawking. The trouble is your peers and even your students are 'quite' bright, and would tend to catch on rather quickly. Of course, they might actually read Hawking's papers and books rather than one sentence quoted in a newspaper, not having the same genius as yourself that enables it's whole content to be deduced from a few words.

I never said he is not good in mathematics or theoretical physics, hence I said initially that one can be the brightest mind and yet the dumbest one at that.

Ah, the famous naidamar strawman. Firstly, you obviously don't have the slightest idea what his argument actually is. Secondly, that statement says nothing about a 'gravity law that only appeared after the universe came into being' it mentions only 'a law such as gravity'; it is therefore neither circular nor does it contain any logical error. Why don't you actually read the book and get some idea of what Hawking is talking about before critizing it on the basis of one sentence?

When postulating his "the universe popped out of nothingness by itself", Hawkings made A LOT of assumptions, assumptions which are not even acceptable.

By the way, I'd like him to learn about Islam, and see if he could argue against concept of God in Islam.

It's not fair to refer to christians god as The God, because any 5 yo child would see that it is ridikkulus.

[Trumble]

The two of them are commenting on an article and it is indeed cited above-- is there a law against that? have you personally read the book? if so we welcome your summary of it!

I won't draw the obvious parallel between such 'commenting' and, say, a hypothetical inference of the contents of the Qur'an from a one page article about - not to mention the insults directed at its author!

Yes I have. After a review of historical views and theories about how the universe was created and works (which I suspect is very much the co-author's work) it argues, as I said, that God or gods was/were not necessary to create it. It does so in a 'popular' way, which as with a Brief History of Time I will happily concede leaves me uncertain as to whether I actually understand it correctly or not - one would need a real familiarity and competence with the math for that, I think as at the heart is really is all math. The bulk of the book explains how this 'spontaneous creation' could come about in terms of something called M-theory which I understand is an off-shoot of string theory. Obviously that isn't exactly easy to explain to the layman, either, but it does make clear enough that naidamar's strawman is just that.

[Ramadhan]

"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. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going"

Exactly.
Hawkings assumed that gravity already existed prior to the creation of the universe.

This begs the question: how did gravity existed in the first place?

[Ramadhan]

Yes I have. After a review of historical views and theories about how the universe was created and works (which I suspect is very much the co-author's work) it argues, as I said, that God or gods was/were not necessary to create it. It does so in a 'popular' way, which as with a Brief History of Time I will happily concede leaves me uncertain as to whether I actually understand it correctly or not - one would need a real familiarity and competence with the math for that, I think as at the heart is really is all math. The bulk of the book explains how this 'spontaneous creation' could come about in terms of something called M-theory which I understand is an off-shoot of string theory. Obviously that isn't exactly easy to explain to the layman, either, but it does make clear enough that naidamar's strawman is just that.

I've heard about this "I understand the theory but it is not so simple to explain it, and if you understand it surely you will believe it too".

Oh yeah, now I remember, it is when a christian tries to explain the trinity.

[Trumble]

All you had to do was read one more word along and you would have been there! So close, don't worry with time and effort I'm sure you'll be able to read complete sentences soon. The word was "gravity". Hawking did indeed comment on gravity. Once again, if you open the link (hard as it is), you can read what he said. I'll paste it to make it easier for you:

"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. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going"

Are your comprehension skills really that abysmal? I never said he didn't comment on gravity. But where does Hawking say anything about gravity 'ONLY APPEARING AFTER THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING' ??!!! I can only repeat my previous requuest as you clearly don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

I didn't realise stating simple facts about what a forum thread is was regarded as smart. You're easily impressed.

Oh, do shut up.

[Trumble]

Exactly.
Hawkings assumed that gravity already existed prior to the creation of the universe.

This begs the question: how did gravity existed in the first place?

The 'question' (and please learn what the phrase 'begs the question' actually means' is answered in the book. Try reading it. I'm sorry I can't summarize; I'm old fashioned enough to believe you should actually be able to understand something fully before attempting to teach it to others. I am not even a good mathematician let alone a theoretical physicist.

Anyway, if our resident trio of geniuses will forgive me, I'm clearly wasting my time. Should any of you actually read the book please pull up this thread to talk about it.

[جوري]

I won't draw the obvious parallel between such 'commenting' and, say, a hypothetical inference of the contents of the Qur'an from a one page article about - not to mention the insults directed at its author!

Yes I have. After a review of historical views and theories about how the universe was created and works (which I suspect is very much the co-author's work) it argues, as I said, that God or gods was/were not necessary to create it. It does so in a 'popular' way, which as with a Brief History of Time I will happily concede leaves me uncertain as to whether I actually understand it correctly or not - one would need a real familiarity and competence with the math for that, I think as at the heart is really is all math. The bulk of the book explains how this 'spontaneous creation' could come about in terms of something called M-theory which I understand is an off-shoot of string theory. Obviously that isn't exactly easy to explain to the layman, either, but it does make clear enough that naidamar's strawman is just that.

That is exactly why I invite you to correct those inferences by summarizing the book and show us the grave errors of our ways..
String theory was explained adequately on an episode of the Simpsons for the lay man :). I doubt that is the issue here..

best,

[Dagless]

Are your comprehension skills really that abysmal? I never said he didn't comment on gravity. But where does Hawking say anything about gravity 'ONLY APPEARING AFTER THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING' ??!!! I can only repeat my previous requuest as you clearly don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

But where does Hawking say anything about THE 1986 WINNER OF WIMBLEDON?! Sorry I thought we were just saying random stuff. Honestly, what are you talking about? When did I say anything about WHEN gravity appeared?

Oh, do shut up.

After you.

[Trumble]

But where does Hawking say anything about THE 1986 WINNER OF WIMBLEDON?! Sorry I thought we were just saying random stuff. Honestly, what are you talking about? When did I say anything about WHEN gravity appeared?

Let me refresh your memory.

I don't even have to point out the obvious logical error in his statement.
so according to him, the universe spontaneously came into being because of gravity law that only appeared after the universe came into being.

I agree with naidamar on the gravity issue.

[Dagless]

Let me refresh your memory.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I agreed in the aspect that it was a flawed argument. In fact I said "it doesn't prove anything" immediately after. This is clear since I mentioned my main arguments in the rest of my long post and did not ever refer to when gravity came about. In fact according to the article (which is what I was replying to) it implies the opposite - which is why I commented on gravity being promoted to creator.

[Trumble]

That is exactly why I invite you to correct those inferences by summarizing the book and show us the grave errors of our ways..
String theory was explained adequately on an episode of the Simpsons for the lay man :). I doubt that is the issue here..

I'm afraid it is. Still, maybe that's why I don't write scripts for The Simpsons. I'm glad an episode has given you an 'adequate' understanding of string theory; I wish I had one. 'Adequate' for what, exactly?

Of course, everyone could just read the book. It's quite a short one.

[جوري]

I'm afraid it is. Still, maybe that's why I don't write scripts for The Simpsons. I'm glad an episode has given you an 'adequate' understanding of string theory; I wish I had one. 'Adequate' for what, exactly? Of course, everyone could just read the book. It's quite a short one.

and your quite welcome to summarize it for us if you desire to carry this discussion further and show everyone the error of their ways..

best,

[Trumble]

I wasn't aware you had an interest; I thought your contribution was limited to abuse of Hawking for not suitably appreciating the 'gift' of 20 more years of life with a most unpleasant disease from the entity responsible for both creating that disease and inflicting it on him in the first place. I just don't get that either. Maybe, sadly deluded as he is, it seems from the wheelchair a bit like being handed a band-aid by the guy who knifed you in the back? I think I might just ponder along those lines.

Anyway, all that aside, among intellectual giants capable of extrapolating all of Hawking's physics from a few sentences and obtaining 'adequate' knowledge of string theory from a few minutes of the Simpsons, I don't really think my humble efforts could possibly be of value?

[جوري]

I wasn't aware you had an interest; I thought your contribution was limited to abuse of Hawking for not suitably appreciating the 'gift' of 20 more years of life with a most unpleasant disease from the entity responsible for both creating that disease and inflicting it on him in the first place. I just don't get that either. Maybe, sadly deluded as he is, it seems from the wheelchair a bit like being handed a band-aid by the guy who knifed you in the back? I think I might just ponder along those lines.

No to the contrary I am quite interested in string theory and I know it has very little to do with this thread and that is why I can't wait for you to tie it all nicely for us....
but yeah he's gifted in many ways.. we all have unpleasing things about our lives, our beings, our circumstance we'd like to change (it is life) we can ***** about it, or we can look at the alternative.. when most people are 6 feet under by now, there he is married, world renowned a living miracle and very much ungrateful to that fact.
I also happen to subscribe to the notion that to every malady there is a cure, it is our job to learn, to discover but that doesn't detract from our mortality.. question is what are we doing with our time here however brief or pained it maybe? Do we have a grateful heart? He doesn't seem to have a grateful heart and sadly neither do you and it is unfortunate because ALS or not life is too short to live embittered and abusive of ones gifts!

Anyway, all that aside, among intellectual giants capable of extrapolating all of Hawking's physics from a few sentences and obtaining 'adequate' knowledge of string theory from a few minutes of the Simpsons, I don't really think my humble efforts could possibly be of value?

Your humble effort will be appreciated when you tie for us the book with the comments made on page 1 which I'd think is an opportunity you'd be too glad to jump on.. I mean after all that is what anyone here would do when someone mocks the Quran and the author as you've said so yourself?

best,

[Ramadhan]

The 'question' (and please learn what the phrase 'begs the question' actually means' is answered in the book. Try reading it. I'm sorry I can't summarize; I'm old fashioned enough to believe you should actually be able to understand something fully before attempting to teach it to others. I am not even a good mathematician let alone a theoretical physicist. Anyway, if our resident trio of geniuses will forgive me, I'm clearly wasting my time. Should any of you actually read the book please pull up this thread to talk about it.

My undergrad is in engineering and I have read a few books on string theories, M theory, the theory of everything and all candidate theories on quantum gravity, so don't worry about your concern that the subject would be too difficult for me to understand.

So could you please tell us how gravity existed in the first place to cause the universe to pop out of the absolute, eternal nothingness?

[selsebil]

Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,


With respect to a problem subject to discussion in science or art, those who stand outside that science or art cannot speak authoritatively, however great, learned and accomplished they may be, nor can their judgements be accepted as decisive. They cannot form part of the learned consensus of the science.
For example, the judgement of a great engineer on the diagnosis and cure of a disease does not have the same value as that of the lowliest physician. In particular, the words of denial of a philosopher who is absorbed in the material sphere, who becomes continually more remote from the non-material or spiritual and cruder and more insensitive to light, whose intelligence is restricted to what his eye beholds - the words of such a one are unworthy of consideration and valueless with respect to non-material and spiritual matters.
On matters sacred and spiritual and concerning the Divine unity, there is total accord among the hundreds of thousands of the People of Truth, such as Shaykh Gilani (May his mystery be sanctified), who beheld Allah’s Sublime Throne while still on the earth, who spent ninety years ad-vancing in spiritual work, and who unveiled the truths of belief in all three stations of certainty. This being the case what value have the words of philosophers, who through their absorption in the most diffuse details of the material realm and the most minute aspects of multiplicity are choking and dazed? Are not their denials and objections drowned out like the buzzing of a mosquito by the roaring of thunder?
The essence of the unbelief that opposes the truths of Islam and struggles against them is denial, ignorance, and negation. Even though it may appear to be an affirmation of some kind and a manifestation of being, it is in reality negation and non-being. Whereas belief is knowledge and a manifestation of being; it is affirmation and judgement. Every negating aspect of belief is the gate to a positive truth or the veil covering it. If the unbelievers who struggle against faith attempt, with the utmost difficulty, to affirm and accept their negative beliefs in the form of acceptance and admission of non-being, then their unbelief may be regarded in one respect as a form of mistaken knowledge or erroneous judgement. But as for non-accceptance, denial, and non-admission -something more easily done- it is absolute ignorance and total absence of judgement.

Risale-i Nur proves the existence of afterlife just like the sunrise after the darkness of the night in the articles:

http://www.lightofquran.info/10word.htm

http://www.lightofquran.info/29word.htm

[Gator]

So could you please tell us how gravity existed in the first place to cause the universe to pop out of the absolute, eternal nothingness?

To split hairs, he did not say gravity existed prior to the universe coming into being. He could be saying that gravity could be a result (and therefore indirect evidence of) a universe coming out of nothing.

[aamirsaab]

Regarding Mr Hawking's perspective:
I see his point, I respect his point, but I disagree.

Generally speaking, I think spirituality is not given the same attention nor respect that science, often deservedly, receives. Until it does, you're going to continue to have this divide between science and religion - when really, they need to merge.

At the same time, it's difficult to show the benefits of spirituality though, as it's often a personal thing i.e. reflection, meditation etc.

I guess we all just need to keep an open mind about things.

[Ramadhan]

To split hairs, he did not say gravity existed prior to the universe coming into being. He could be saying that gravity could be a result (and therefore indirect evidence of) a universe coming out of nothing.

Care to explain how gravity is a result of a universe coming out of absolute, eternal nothingness?

[Pygoscelis]

Looks like the double-act has become the Three Stooges.

Please don't try and be a smarta$$ when you have so much trouble with the first part of that word.

Trumble, please try to reign yourself in. You are becoming Lily.

[Gator]

Care to explain how gravity is a result of a universe coming out of absolute, eternal nothingness?

No, because its off topic.

I was just pointing out the fact that he might not have been saying it was before the event that created the universe.

Could you recognize the fact that what you were stating (that he said gravity was around prior to the big bang) was incorrect.

[جوري]

Trumble, please try to reign yourself in. You are becoming Lily.

It must be an interesting job electing yourself front line infantry for atheists as you seem to have nil to impart by way of anything else..:)
I would be flattered that I occupy that much of your time and almost on every thread you partake that is borders upon obsession.. except well it is you :eek:

best,

[Ramadhan]

No, because its off topic.

Can you please open a new thread to explain it, maybe in the health and science section? I am truly interested. You see, I'm a science buff so this kind of things interests me.

I was just pointing out the fact that he might not have been saying it was before the event that created the universe.

I didn't see that in the article. He said this:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Did you not read the part "will create itself from nothing"?
so that means gravity must exist first in order for the universe to create itself from nothing.
I guess it's just a basic reading comprehension, no? where did go wrong?

Could you recognize the fact that what you were stating (that he said gravity was around prior to the big bang) was incorrect.

Umm.. no, because of the reason above, it is safe to conclude that he meant what I asked. Unless you provide me with more details which are not covered in the article.

[Ramadhan]

Also, can the esteemed atheist members of this forum here explain how it is not blind faith when Hawkings said that there is no such thing as afterlife?

CZgibson, you can come out too, instead of mocking me through rep message.

[جوري]

CZgibson, you can come out too, instead of mocking me through rep message.

yeah he's apt at doing that, one instigates fights on threads, one mocks on CP's the other taunts your intellect after reading an article that being an atheist affords you a >06% higher IQ than his average christian counterpart and changes his way of life from agnostic to atheist for that upward mobility then comes in sporadically to tinkle pearls, then there are those prune to their own brands of fairy tales and well I guess those are the most amusing.

I actually find trumble the least obnoxious of them if you can believe it .. he goes into zen 'screen saver mode' often it affords him some time to reflect!

:w:

[Perseveranze]

Something cannot come out of nothing (in reality) and there is no such thing as "infinite". I don't know why anyone would even want to debate it.

[Gator]

Did you not read the part "will create itself from nothing"?
so that means gravity must exist first in order for the universe to create itself from nothing.
I guess it's just a basic reading comprehension, no? where did go wrong?

Again he is not explicitly stating gravity was around (though he may be), its a conditional (the "LAW" of gravity, which again may exist prior to the beginning).

Given that the basic components are in place, he's saying the universe can and will create itself from "nothing".

What you should really do is track it down in one of his papers where he says that in a more detailed and explicit way instead of going of a remark in an interview.

Thanks.

[Zafran]

I wasn't aware you had an interest; I thought your contribution was limited to abuse of Hawking for not suitably appreciating the 'gift' of 20 more years of life with a most unpleasant disease from the entity responsible for both creating that disease and inflicting it on him in the first place. I just don't get that either. Maybe, sadly deluded as he is, it seems from the wheelchair a bit like being handed a band-aid by the guy who knifed you in the back? I think I might just ponder along those lines.

Anyway, all that aside, among intellectual giants capable of extrapolating all of Hawking's physics from a few sentences and obtaining 'adequate' knowledge of string theory from a few minutes of the Simpsons, I don't really think my humble efforts could possibly be of value?

Or it maybe because he was a bad person in his previous life so his bad Karma has made him disabled in this life - why dont you ponder on those lines instead.

[جوري]

What you should really do is track it down in one of his papers where he says that in a more detailed and explicit way instead of going of a remark in an interview. Thanks.

Does florid wording detract from a basic fundamental universal truths?
Many of you here are upset that an article is being discussed yet none of you can do more to defend your beliefs or his save to reference us to some vague paper which is meant to explain all? If you don't like the topic either skip it or bring more substance to the table than a vague un-cited reference, leave comments on CP or rant about members by proxy..

best,

[Dagless]

Again he is not explicitly stating gravity was around (though he may be), its a conditional (the "LAW" of gravity, which again may exist prior to the beginning).

It's the same thing otherwise it doesn't make sense. The law of gravity by definition is a description of gravity.

[Pygoscelis]

"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

Umm... Hawking.. not every religion in the world is christianity where they take a human being as God!

Are you sure that is what he meant? I read what he wrote as them (the religious believers) having created a human-like being, an anthropomorphized God that behaves very much like a human, with desires, demands, jealousy, rage, etc that can communicate with man. I take from the above quote that "Man made God in his image". I have not read his book or article so I may be wrong, but your conclusion that this is about God making himself a man in the form of Jesus does not clearly follow from what you quoted.

To believe that the creator of the universe built it primarily with humanity in mind and that we are of central or important concern to him/her/it is a very self centred, self serving and notable concept that exists just as much in Islam as in Christianity. And it is one that his area of research erodes and makes more and more unlikely as we discover just how small and isignificant we truly are to the universe.

Before Galileo people believed that the universe revoloved around us. The discovery that our planet actually is not central and is just one of billions is what I think Hawkins may be getting at in his book? Just a guess. I haven't read it. I don't think you have either.

[Trumble]

My undergrad is in engineering and I have read a few books on string theories, M theory, the theory of everything and all candidate theories on quantum gravity, so don't worry about your concern that the subject would be too difficult for me to understand.

I neither expressed nor have a concern that the subject would be too difficult for you to understand. I expressed the concern it is too difficult for me to explain adequately.

.. he goes into zen 'screen saver mode' often it affords him some time to reflect!

I wish. I'm afraid 'zen screen saver mode' is better known by the term 'work'. :hmm:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

CZgibson, you can come out too, instead of mocking me through rep message.

I thought you must have been joking with your attacks on Hawking. Whatever you really think, you are hilarious.

Please do carry on.

Peace

[Ramadhan]

To believe that the creator of the universe built it primarily with humanity in mind and that we are of central or important concern to him/her/it is a very self centred, self serving and notable concept that exists just as much in Islam as in Christianity. And it is one that his area of research erodes and makes more and more unlikely as we discover just how small and isignificant we truly are to the universe.

Not true.
Allah did not build the universe primarily for humanity. Please show me any ayat or hadith that support your argument.

Also, there is nothing in the Qur'an or ahadeeth that even remotely hints that we are important/concern to Allah SWT.

Again, you are speaking about christianity, NOT Islam.

So, I should also assumed that Hawkings was speaking about christianity.

[Ramadhan]

I thought you must have been joking with your attacks on Hawking. Whatever you really think, you are hilarious. Please do carry on. Peace

We are not worthy enough of the chance to hear your articulation as to why my "attacks" on Hawking is hilarious?

[Ramadhan]

Given that the basic components are in place

What are these basic components?
And how did the basic components come into place?

[Zafran]

Are you sure that is what he meant? I read what he wrote as them (the religious believers) having created a human-like being, an anthropomorphized God that behaves very much like a human, with desires, demands, jealousy, rage, etc that can communicate with man. I take from the above quote that "Man made God in his image". I have not read his book or article so I may be wrong, but your conclusion that this is about God making himself a man in the form of Jesus does not clearly follow from what you quoted.

To believe that the creator of the universe built it primarily with humanity in mind and that we are of central or important concern to him/her/it is a very self centred, self serving and notable concept that exists just as much in Islam as in Christianity. And it is one that his area of research erodes and makes more and more unlikely as we discover just how small and isignificant we truly are to the universe.

Before Galileo people believed that the universe revoloved around us. The discovery that our planet actually is not central and is just one of billions is what I think Hawkins may be getting at in his book? Just a guess. I haven't read it. I don't think you have either.

This reminds me of a Quranic verse actually

"040.057
PICKTHAL: Assuredly the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind; but most of mankind know not."

Intresting
peace

[Ramadhan]

And it is one that his area of research erodes and makes more and more unlikely as we discover just how small and isignificant we truly are to the universe.

Call me thick, but please explain how the vastness of the universe is a proof that this universe is not created?

[ProudMuslimSis]

Can the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, be a proof that afterlife exists and that Stephen Hawking's idea of humans just being discarded objects after death is a fallacy?

Computers do not have souls...so, I did not agree with the comparison that he made in the interview.

But, I did agree with his comment about living life to the fullest.

[Trumble]

Can the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, be a proof that afterlife exists and that Stephen Hawking's idea of humans just being discarded objects after death is a fallacy?

I don't see how. Energy connected with the body can't be relevant, else anything alive would have an 'afterlife' as well. So would computers, come to that, if they were ever considered 'alive'! So that only leaves the soul, but surely that must be immaterial so even if it had some form of 'energy', laws relating to the material world would not apply to it? At best you would have no way of knowing if they applied to it or not.

[Pygoscelis]

Call me thick, but please explain how the vastness of the universe is a proof that this universe is not created?

It doesn't. It is evidence that we are not central to all being though (which is what I was saying in the post you quoted).

[Gator]

Can the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, be a proof that afterlife exists and that Stephen Hawking's idea of humans just being discarded objects after death is a fallacy?

Not really.





----------------------------------------

[Gator]

It's the same thing otherwise it doesn't make sense. The law of gravity by definition is a description of gravity.

No. Just because I have a recipe for Vichyssoise, doesn't mean I have Vichyssoise.

[Ramadhan]

It doesn't. It is evidence that we are not central to all being though (which is what I was saying in the post you quoted).

oh ok. Then this Hawking point is already moot, from Islamic point of view.
So again, he is still reacting against christianity, it seems.

[Pygoscelis]

Well sure, he probably is reacting primarily to Christianity. That makes sense, as it is the religion that permeates our culture over here. Islam is probably rather irrelevant to him, as it is to most non-religious folks here. Some of us are interested in Islam and other religions, but that is probably the exception to the rule. I doubt Mr. Hawking was thinking particularly of Sikhism or Hinduism as he wrote that either.

[Dagless]

No. Just because I have a recipe for Vichyssoise, doesn't mean I have Vichyssoise.

The recipe isn't a valid example because a recipe for vichyssoise is itself a thing; it is a piece of paper with writing or a computer file or a memory in someones brain (which Hawking sees as no different from the paper or computer). Then the vichyssoise is another thing. The real example would be just because you have vichyssoise doesn't mean you have vichyssoise.

A law doesn't make the thing. It is only a description of the thing, and is based upon the thing. If gravity was different then the law would be different. If there was no gravity then there would be no law of gravity. If you think some abstract idea of something from this universe which does not exist on it's own can somehow transcend space, time, and matter then I say why only the idea of gravity? Maybe it's actually the recipe of vichyssoise which will materialise the next universe.

[FS123]

I've read some of the Hawkings works, and you won't get proper responses for the critique of Hawkings idea is because critique has a valid point. Here is a little background where Hawking is coming from. Before the Big Bang (whatever maybe the correct term) was known, physicists used to believe that the Universe always existed. After the Big Bang was known, we now know that this Universe had an starting point. So that brings creation, God, etc... into the equation. So Hawking thought if he removes God from it, it would be better for scientific advancement (not his exact words, but google you will find he said something like this in an interview). So he throws back the all ways existed argument before this Universe (lets say mother Universe) which always existed, and in it child universes keeps popping up randomly. So he is trying to bring pre-big bang beliefs again in a different form that ok this Universe started at a point but the mother Universe (for the lack of better term) always existed. He doesn't call it Mother Universe, but I'm trying to translate into something that summarizes his point of view. He describes it in imaginary time and some sort of gravity that existed pre big bang in the parent universe which has all the ingredients for universes popping up randomly. Correct me, if I mis-paraphrased him, but thats what I understood from his work.

Second, mainly his argument are in the light of Christian understanding of God because thats the idea of God he is most familiar with.

[Ramadhan]

I've read some of the Hawkings works, and you won't get proper responses for the critique of Hawkings idea is because critique has a valid point. Here is a little background where Hawking is coming from. Before the Big Bang (whatever maybe the correct term) was known, physicists used to believe that the Universe always existed. After the Big Bang was known, we now know that this Universe had an starting point. So that brings creation, God, etc... into the equation. So Hawking thought if he removes God from it, it would be better for scientific advancement (not his exact words, but google you will find he said something like this in an interview). So he throws back the all ways existed argument before this Universe (lets say mother Universe) which always existed, and in it child universes keeps popping up randomly. So he is trying to bring pre-big bang beliefs again in a different form that ok this Universe started at a point but the mother Universe (for the lack of better term) always existed. He doesn't call it Mother Universe, but I'm trying to translate into something that summarizes his point of view. He describes it in imaginary time and some sort of gravity that existed pre big bang in the parent universe which has all the ingredients for universes popping up randomly. Correct me, if I mis-paraphrased him, but thats what I understood from his work.

Now, this makes more sense. What didn't make sense before was that the summary from the atheists here that Hawking explain the universe as self-spontaneously created out of absolute, eternal nothingness by gravity.

Second, mainly his argument are in the light of Christian understanding of God because thats the idea of God he is most familiar with.

Yep, that's also the sense I've got.
That's why I wish there's muslims who can give him da'wah and explain Allah and Islam, and see how he can argue against the concept of God in Islam.

[Trumble]

Or it maybe because he was a bad person in his previous life so his bad Karma has made him disabled in this life - why dont you ponder on those lines instead.

Not much need to 'ponder' really. The Buddhist conception of rebirth is rather less simplistic, but even your presentation is at least coherent, which is more than can be said for the 'God' version.

[Zafran]

Not much need to 'ponder' really. The Buddhist conception of rebirth is rather less simplistic, but even your presentation is at least coherent, which is more than can be said for the 'God' version.

thanks for that pity I cant say the same thing about your presentation of the 'God version' - its preety poor. For spending all that time here and you couldnt figure out that the 'God' version is also rather less simplistic:D

[Lynx]

"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."


Umm... Hawking.. not every religion in the world is christianity where they take a human being as God!

ummm I think he knows that. He obviously finds all personal Gods to be human-like (not literally humans as you seem to interpret his words to mean). I can see where he's coming from; a being that wants you to praise and worship him and punishes you if you don't and who is capable of feeling anger or love if he's obeyed or not and will grant requests if you ask nicely sounds surprisingly human. I wonder why. Christians will say because God has made humans into his image...

[CosmicPathos]

Regarding Mr Hawking's perspective:
I see his point, I respect his point, but I disagree.

Generally speaking, I think spirituality is not given the same attention nor respect that science, often deservedly, receives. Until it does, you're going to continue to have this divide between science and religion - when really, they need to merge.

At the same time, it's difficult to show the benefits of spirituality though, as it's often a personal thing i.e. reflection, meditation etc.

I guess we all just need to keep an open mind about things.

So you respect disbelief?

w salam

[CosmicPathos]

naidaamar: i think you gave too much credit to Hawkings when you said he is the brightest mind. Really? He is the brightest mind? What has he discovered which helped humanity? Any drugs? Any treatments for deadly diseases? Any thing which rids humanity of its pains and maladies?

There are far far more accomplished scientists than Hawkings. I am afraid Hawkings does not even stand a chance.

[Ramadhan]

ummm I think he knows that. He obviously finds all personal Gods to be human-like (not literally humans as you seem to interpret his words to mean). I can see where he's coming from; a being that wants you to praise and worship him and punishes you if you don't and who is capable of feeling anger or love if he's obeyed or not and will grant requests if you ask nicely sounds surprisingly human. I wonder why. Christians will say because God has made humans into his image...

Obviously he has not learned about Islam and Allah, and neither have you.

[Ramadhan]

naidaamar: i think you gave too much credit to Hawkings when you said he is the brightest mind. Really? He is the brightest mind? What has he discovered which helped humanity? Any drugs? Any treatments for deadly diseases? Any thing which rids humanity of its pains and maladies?

I think I was wording it the wrong way. In many publications, Hawking is considered the brightest mind or among the brightest minds since Einstein.
Therefore I made a rather sarcastic comment how someone considered the brightest mind can be that dumb.

[Trumble]

naidaamar: i think you gave too much credit to Hawkings when you said he is the brightest mind. Really? He is the brightest mind? What has he discovered which helped humanity? Any drugs? Any treatments for deadly diseases? Any thing which rids humanity of its pains and maladies?

There are far far more accomplished scientists than Hawkings. I am afraid Hawkings does not even stand a chance.

It's HAWKING.

I'm not sure since when developing treatments for deadly diseases became necessary to being 'bright', or a great scientist, as opposed to advancing other fields of knowledge? I guess that means Newton and Einstein can join Hawking in the big FAIL club. :rollseyes Hawking is a cosmologist, and that simply isn't what they do (amazingly enough).

[CosmicPathos]

It's HAWKING.

I'm not sure since when developing treatments for deadly diseases became necessary to being 'bright', or a great scientist, as opposed to advancing other fields of knowledge? I guess that means Newton and Einstein can join Hawking in the big FAIL club. :rollseyes Hawking is a cosmologist, and that simply isn't what they do (amazingly enough).

Well, he might be the brightest cosmologist, certainly not the brightest mind. I was referring to that. Regarding how can we objectively decide who has the brightest mind, I guess we can never. Hence, to use such terms is inappropriate and deceptive. I just wanted to make sure that people really are not believing that HAWKING is the smartest person alive. Ironic, the brightest mind couldnt find a cure for his malady. :p

Naida: jazaks, i got the sarcasm now :)

[Ramadhan]

Ironic, the brightest mind couldnt find a cure for his malady.

or to realize that his condition is a miracle.
Many doctors have voiced their suspicions and disbeliefs that he really has ALS because there's no way someone can have ALS and yet still be alive after all these time.
Does Hawking not believe that medicine is a branch of science?

[ProudMuslimSis]

It is surprising that Hawking has never won a Nobel Prize! I suppose he could after his work is supported and findings confirmed.

BTW, I read that he was largely influenced by his mother who was a member of the Communist Party in England, and then his wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, who was a practicing Christian. Also, during past interviews, he insisted that he was not an atheist and has been known to attend an Anglican church with his second wife.

[Ramadhan]

BTW, I read that he was largely influenced by his mother who was a member of the Communist Party in England, and then his wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, who was a practicing Christian. Also, during past interviews, he insisted that he was not an atheist and has been known to attend an Anglican church with his second wife.

Hawking refuses to tell outright that he is an atheist so that he can sell more books and book more appearances.
However, he has said that he does not believe in God. Did you not read the article I posted in the beginning of this thread?
Does NOT believe in God = Atheist.

Also, Jane wilde has publicly said that hawking is a steadfast atheist.

[Pygoscelis]

Hawking refuses to tell outright that he is an atheist so that he can sell more books and book more appearances.

This is probably true and a sad testament to the discrimnation atheists face in the west. It is actually something atheists and muslims have in common - bigotry, discriminatino and demonization from conservative christians.

[FS123]

Hawking refuses to tell outright that he is an atheist so that he can sell more books and book more appearances.
However, he has said that he does not believe in God. Did you not read the article I posted in the beginning of this thread?
Does NOT believe in God = Atheist.

Also, Jane wilde has publicly said that hawking is a steadfast atheist.

Perhaps he is not an atheist thats why? In interviews, the views he has expressed seems to indicate that he is somewhere between agnostic and deist. Maybe changing his opinion between those two time to time. Even in the article he isn't clearly going against God, but he is talking about afterlife. His reasoning even in this article and in interviews before that our world is like a speck of dust in a desert (not his exact words), we are so small compared to the rest of the universe(s) that God couldn't be a personal God to us. So he is leaning more towards deist beliefs.

Reminds me of the aya:

The creation of the heavens and the earth is indeed greater than the creation of mankind, yet most of mankind know not. (Quran 40:57)

[جوري]

Perhaps he is not an atheist thats why? In interviews, the views he has expressed seems to indicate that he is somewhere between agnostic and deist. Maybe changing his opinion between those two time to time. Even in the article he isn't clearly going against God, but he is talking about afterlife. His reasoning even in this article and in interviews before that our world is like a speck of dust in a desert (not his exact words), we are so small compared to the rest of the universe(s) that God couldn't be a personal God to us. So he is leaning more towards deist beliefs.

Reminds me of the aya:

you know this all actually brings an interesting quote of Einstein to mind:

Albert Einstein once was asked what had led him to ponder some of the great mysteries of the universe. He responded, appropriately enough, that he really didn't know, nor did he have any expectation that he ever would. "After all," he quipped, "what does a fish know about the water in which it swims all its life?"

No human has all the answers no matter how advanced they're or how advanced they're thought of..

the quote that does come to mind from the Noble Quran is:

مَا أَشْهَدْتُهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنْتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}
[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation; nor choose I misleaders for (My) helpers.


And that is the truth of the matter!

:w:

[FS123]

you know this all actually brings an interesting quote of Einstein to mind:

Albert Einstein once was asked what had led him to ponder some of the great mysteries of the universe. He responded, appropriately enough, that he really didn't know, nor did he have any expectation that he ever would. "After all," he quipped, "what does a fish know about the water in which it swims all its life?"

No human has all the answers no matter how advanced they're or how advanced they're thought of..

the quote that does come to mind from the Noble Quran is:

مَا أَشْهَدْتُهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنْتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}
[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation; nor choose I misleaders for (My) helpers.


And that is the truth of the matter!

:w:

And this brings some other quotes from Quran to mind :)

let there be no doubt about it is [[the Quran] meant to be] a guidance for all the God- conscious [2:3]

(Here is) a Book which We have sent down unto thee, full of blessings, that they
may meditate on its Signs, and that men of understanding may receive admonition.
[Sad 38:29]

…This [revelation] is a means of insight from your Lord, and to provide guidance and, mercy unto people who will believe.” (Quran 7:203)

“And this (Quran) is a Book which We have bestowed from on high, a blessed one: follow it, then, and be conscious of God, so that you might be graced with His mercy.” (Quran 6:155)

Alif Lam Ra. A Book which We have revealed unto thee, in order that thou
mightest lead mankind out of the depths of darkness into light - by the leave of
their Lord - to the Way of (Him) the Exalted in Power, Worthy of all Praise!
[Ibrahim 14: 1]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad
tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not.
Sa Ba 34: 28

It (the Qur'an) is simply a reminder to all the worlds. (Surah Sad: 87)

"It is certainly a reminder to you and to your people, and you will be questioned" (Surat az-Zukhruf: 44)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember; then is there anyone that will receive admonition?" [Noble Quran 54:17]

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it from corruption." [Noble Quran 15:9]

[Trumble]

Hawking refuses to tell outright that he is an atheist so that he can sell more books and book more appearances.

Ah, a fascinating insight into his mind (or his accountant's) from, well, where exactly? You really think he has trouble getting 'bookings' (or indeed those of the type he gets pay that well?) Or that his audience gives a rat's a** whether he is an atheist or not? Or that he needs the money? What for, sports cars and yachts? Wine, women and rock n'roll?

Maybe what Hawking should be doing is striding around starting every lecture with a public declaration of his atheism, just like most atheists.:rollseyes Of course, then he would just get lumped in with the more popular atheistic boogie-men like Hitchens and Dawkins, wouldn't he?