Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are actually like sheep led by any shepherd who might happen to come along with the irrelevant credentials.
Ironic that you should be talking about sheep and shepherds, don't you think? Of course, the post you referred back to baldly states the existence of Jesus and God as a 'given' as a basis for the argument. You must get past that or you are simply "preaching to the choir".
I agree with you concerning the use of celebrities as spokespeople for advertising, but that has little to do with with Stephen Hawking, since his understanding of the Universe is about as complete as anyone's, and that is not irrelevant to discussing how it all started and the existence/nonexistence of gods.
I am "afraid of the dark", not out of ignorance of what is there, like a child, but out of knowledge of what is there.
Charles Sands
37129
That's a very profound statement! Thanks for sharing!
Quote:
Eph 6:12
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places .
They are actually like sheep led by any shepherd who might happen to come along with the irrelevant credentials.
The religious have a lock on the sheep/flock analogy..
What Steven Hawing has to say on this subject is definitely not irrelevant.
Here is a timeline of some of Prof Hawking's key discoveries and works.
1966 - Completes doctorate and is awarded fellowship at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. He works on singularities in the theory of general relativity and applies ideas to the study of black holes.
1968 - Publishes Large Scale Structure of Space-Time
1970 - Discovers that by using quantum theory and general relativity he is able to show that black holes can emit radiation.
1973 - In the same year he joins the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge, he discovers that black holes could leak energy and particles into space, and could even explode. It is published in the journal Nature, a year later. The theory is known as Hawking radiation.
Theophane wrote: I know I'm not omniscient. You've drawn a false equivalency
Yep! That's a favorite tactic of theirs.
About Hawking, one would expect more from a scientist who is deeply familiar with his own limitations. Yet here we have the silly spectacle of a man who has all that knowledge at his disposal-is totally aware that he knows nothing about what lies beyond the detectable-and yet blusters about knowing for sure that there is no creator. Even funnier when we consider that he will readily admit to the possibility of unicorns, dragons, and an infinite number of Elvis Presleys all with different destinies in an infinite number of alternate universes. However, introduce the word "creator" into the mix and his faculties go into pause. That's petulantly childish and unworthy of one who is gifted with an otherwise sound intellect.
About Hawking, one would expect more from a scientist who is deeply familiar with his own limitations. Yet here we have the silly spectacle of a man who has all that knowledge at his disposal-is totally aware that he knows nothing about what lies beyond the detectable-and yet blusters about knowing for sure that there is no creator. Even funnier when we consider that he will readily admit to the possibility of unicorns, dragons, and an infinite number of Elvis Presleys all with different destinies in an infinite number of alternate universes. However, introduce the word "creator" into the mix and his faculties go into pause. That's petulantly childish and unworthy of one who is gifted with an otherwise sound intellect.
So are you saying that Hawking has no right to his opinion? I've never read about his belief in the possibilities of other myths...Did you just pull that out of your nether regions, or can you actually prove a citation?
Camppbell34 wrote Well I base my Christian faith on facts that non believers ignore. And in fact they try to explain my facts away with no facts of their own. Thus it is the non believers who base their belief on blind faith, and not the other way around. Reality! Epic fail on your part.
Very well put!
Many of their tongue-in-cheek statements, such as what happened prior to the Big Bang, are really tantamount to blind faith. In fact, their abiogenesis belief falls into that category since they cannot reproduce it in a laboratory. So they must assume it to be true and posture as if it is true in order to keep themselves from admitting that they are actually basing their certainty of faith.
Many of their tongue-in-cheek statements-such as what happened prior to the Big Bang, are really tantamount to blind faith. In fact, their abiogenesis belief falls into that category since they cannot reproduce it in a laboratory. So they must assume it to be true and posture as if it is true in order to keep themselves from admitting that they are actually basing their certainty of faith.
And exactly what do you base your "faith" on? All I ever see you doing is trying refute science, but you never offer anything at all to actually prop up your creationist beliefs... Why not show us some evidence that heaven exists if you have any.
Dr. Hawking oversteps his bounds. Science cannot give us answers to everything in life, and Hawking is essentially practing a type of Scientism, not SCIENCE.
It really is sad how so many think science and religion are at odds. It's not either/or. There are scores of brilliant scientists that also claim to be theists.
Good, reputable, trustworthy scientists too. But in their blind atheistic opposition to anything that has to do with an ID, they choose to attack credentials. After all, what else can they say when one of their own intellectuals contradicts their cherished beliefs?
Quote:
Something like this is just meant to stir the pot. He opens his book essentially stating philosophy is dead, and then goes on to write an entire book regarding the philosophy of science.
Agree 100%. This fellow definitely has an ax to grind.
Isn't it ironic how the very ones who accuse religionists of not providing proof can run around making claims without any proof to back them up? Talk about inconsistency and double standards!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
