Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

[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!

 

[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.