Stephen Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

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.

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.

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

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

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?

"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"?

format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless

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?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Dagless

"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?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

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.