Heaven is a fairy tale, says physicist Hawking

Tell that fucking handicapped, diseased Stephen Hawking to watch his ass for pissing of the Gods or he could be killed by the Gods.


Quote from bigarrow:

No, when you die there is nothing more, he will be no more, and since he will no longer be he will not find out.
More...
 
Quote from fanews:

Tell that fucking handicapped, diseased Stephen Hawking to watch his ass for pissing of the Gods or he could be killed by the Gods.
More...
What they've already taken from him is much worse than death. I guess they could still take away his ability for in-depth thought, though.
 
Quote from jem:

I find it odd that people keep saying there is no evidence for a creator when these are just some of the people who suggest there is evidence (not necessarily proof but evidence) ...

Its like going to a beach in CA facing east and saying I see no evidence of an ocean...

You have to investigate to have an useful opinion.


“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

--


The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”

- Albert Einstein
---



Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.

---

It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”

“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

-Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

---
There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter—not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown, exist as thoughts.”

- Sir James Jeans knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer who helped develop our understanding of the evolution of stars, wrote this in his book The Mysterious Universe (Cambridge, 1931).

--

16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

- Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16
(for more of these coincidences click here)

---

“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

- Christian de Duve. “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell” (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)

--

http://www.simpletoremember.com/art...science-quotes/

Nobel prize winners vs. Stu. I choose science.
More...

Have you read Hawking's book? It's premise is a direct argument against our universe being "special" based on recent developments in theoretical physics, more recent than many of these quotes.

How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? Over twenty years ago I wrote A Brief History of Time, to try to explain where the universe came from, and where it is going. But that book left some important questions unanswered. Why is there a universe--why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why are the laws of nature what they are? Did the universe need a designer and creator?

It was Einstein’s dream to discover the grand design of the universe, a single theory that explains everything. However, physicists in Einstein’s day hadn’t made enough progress in understanding the forces of nature for that to be a realistic goal. And by the time I had begun writing A Brief History of Time, there were still several key advances that had not yet been made that would prevent us from fulfilling Einstein’s dream. But in recent years the development of M-theory, the top-down approach to cosmology, and new observations such as those made by satellites like NASA’s COBE and WMAP, have brought us closer than ever to that single theory, and to being able to answer those deepest of questions. And so Leonard Mlodinow and I set out to write a sequel to A Brief History of Time to attempt to answer the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. The result is The Grand Design, the product of our four-year effort.

In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, "42."
 
Quote from Debaser82:

Please, only comment when your IQ is bigger then that of Hawking.
More...

that would be a form of "appeal to experts", an invalid philosophical thingy...
 
Quote from elon:

I've never heard an argument on the side of God that doesn't end with:
A. "because its in the bible"
B. "because God said so"
C. "You can't prove its not true so therefore it must be true."

I am not convinced. I like Hawking's:

"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."
More...

Yes a computer can break down, but if you take precautions before the computer dies, the information that was on the computer will still be there in the "clouds" (cloud computing for those that didnt get that)

You dont need the bible to get evidence of God. The evidence is all around you. Creation is evidence of a creator. Its hard to understand why so many are blind to that fact. How did an appleseed get programmed that when its in the ground and water gets to it, it will sprout and search for the light so it can grow? And when it grows, how does it know to use its energy to get out of the ground to find the light to get more energy? How did the leaves figure out how to harvest energy from the sun? and how do the seeds in the apples that are mostly water know not to grow while they are in the fruit? This is just one tiny example of the evidence that everything was created.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xjBIsp8mS-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
More...


I know I just took this discussion to another level, but here you go.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a8nDJaH-fVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
No God? Maybe not.......but.........
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bXQAgzfwuNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from jem:

how many times do I have to explain to you... the fine tunings are evidence.

but we even have evidence of the fact that life did not happen on earth by chance... ..

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for “a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.” DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention.

Here he gives a golf-analogy:

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=156910

and another nobel prize winner... showing that we do not even know how life appeared on earth...


http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05


Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.


finally... as donendone ... ardent athiests are not thinking.


Caught Hitchens on 60 Minutes the other week ...


he left open the possible existence of God, saying something to the effect of "Never say never."


ardent atheists are idiots ... there are obviously valid criticisms of religion, but to insist "God" doesn't exist, is just stupid
More...

jems evidence boiled down. it sounds complicated so that means it had to be biblegod who created the world.
a thinking person without a need to believe could come up with many other possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top