Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

[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

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.