Stephen Hawking: the Anti-Philosopher "Philosopher"

[TheAndyChandy]

Stephen Hawking is an ass for dismissing philosophy. I'M NO CRAIG FAN but I do believe he is absolutely right in this subject. And he is clearly philosophically knowledgable. RESPECT

[machinedean100]

according to this view if god exists in our world view and we exist in there world view. Of course you cant escape reality you look at me see me. Well then that means god exists in all world views. Lol anti realism is ridiculous and stupid just plan stupid.

[TatoSugiarto]

GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.

The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”

[dejesusluisx]

It is true that we all construct our own reality, that is a fact, but different from any reality we can construct in our brain, there is an absolute reality, a truth that we might choose to perceive or not. So, in that sense, Hawking isn't wrong and Craig isn't wrong either. In order to find that truth, people need to let go their bias, because we all have them. Hawking has the bias of naturalism and Craig has the bias of biblical inerrancy. The truth is somewhere in the middle. God Bless.

[GospelHouseKat]

Craig is brilliant but he misreads Kant as almost everyone does. Kant never denied "reality" or said it is an "illusion." He just very wisely pointed out that we can't prove what things are "in themselves" because our senses bind us to dealing with "mere" appearance. "Appearance" is not "illusion." He cringed when critics accused him of saying the "real" doesn't exist, or that we "create" our own reality. It may be that our senses have the capacity to give us truth -- it just cannot be proven.

[dashan091]

"So give me the evidence" Consider: p1 the universe consists only of matter & energy.P2 Naturalism is the default explanation for the origin, existence & design of the universe. P3 If science is defined as the study of the natural world it must ultimately be able to explain everything without recourse to a spiritual dimension. p4 there exists phenomena & questions that are metaphysical or philosophical in nature & hence beyond science Therefore If p4 is true then Naturalism or scientism FAIL

[TruthIsLife7]

@dashan091 You are making GIGANTIC error.Science simply does not have a default position. Neither does science exclude ANYTHING testable from science. If it can be testable, then it's scientific. PERIOD. This is where atheists have perverted science. They like to exclude their rivals from the scientific playing field APRIORI because they know they can't compete based on testable evidence..so they try to assume they are the default WITHOUT DOING ANY SCIENCE...SHOCKING laziness.

[iftheyonlynew]

thanks for posting

[JohananRaatz]

Of course Stephen Hawking forgot that according to Penrose's Orch-OR model, Phi (the wave-function of the universe) in his model would quite literally be a mind: watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q

Meaning he was almost right except for one tiny detail: Phi is God!

[cyberdems]

Dr. Craig's comment from 13:22 to 14:00 - WHAT A GENIUS! (In my model/view, at least) - He uses THEIR model to PROVE exactly what they want the model to DISPROVE. HAHAHAAAAAAAaa wow, keep trying atheists

[Xathos91]

This guy is full of shit. His blatant attempts at censorship of user's comments is simply disgusting.

Where's our FREEDOM OF SPEECH?!

And need I mention that he's an idiot? These religious types have no idea what they're talking about.

[Pursuitofwisdom]

@Xathos91 When you and others spew crap whenever you open your mouths, don't be surprised when your shit(comments)get removed. You also asserted that the universe came into existence and got it's complexity via evolution? That is just stupid. Evolution did not preced the big bang. CallIng Dr.Craig an idiot speaks volumes about your lack of understanding the arguments. You asked: If god evolved then Why would god be Necessary? You assume god evolved. Look up what a NECESSARY being actually means.

[Xathos91]

@Pursuitofwisdom Ok, I'll admit that I trimmed down my argument to save space.

What I meant was that the problem of infinite regression is a major problem for religion that cannot be answered; though I'll admit that it can't be answered by the Big bang theory either - which, I might add, is why it is insufficient. However, I do believe that science will one day answer the problem of the universe's creation, and evolution easily accounts for everything since then.

[Xathos91]

@Pursuitofwisdom

The difference between actual Science and Creationism, is that while Creationism is based off of holy texts ('divine revelation'), and hence cannot evolve, Science is constantly evolving, and will eventually, probably, come up with the real answer. I'll freely admit that I don't know everything about the universe and it's formation - but I prefer to follow science, which has many plausible theories (if not all), as opposed to blind faith, which I know to be false.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Xathos91 If your atheist journals or if any officially atheist state regime had valued regime, you could legitimately talk about that. But, they didn't and don't. They repress freedom of speech more than any other organizations in history. Some on youtube though have other jobs and many real life duties and no time to meet all the ignorant comments that some post. But, they don't want to let their channel be perverted into promoting falsehoods. To keep sane, some comments are deleted.

[Xathos91]

@TruthIsLife7 What 'atheist state regime'? As far as I know, there are none - unless you are of course referring to a totalitarian state (Soviet Union, China, etc.). However, there is a notable difference in that case: Stalin was an athiest, and denounced religion because of the threat that it posed to him; his actions were in the name of communism, not athiesm - there have NOT been any significant political leaders or nations that acted out of pure devotion to athiesm.... ever.

[Xathos91]

@TruthIsLife7 Furthermore, I actually DO value freedom of speech, and I was outraged when comments and ratings were simply blocked on a misleading video. I believe that said video did not actually address the issue against which it claimed to disprove (instead merely confounding the audience with an irrational tangent) - and I would like to set that straight; if you disagree with me, I believe that you should have the ability to publicly do so as well.

And no, I neither am nor have been high.

[LaleMitic]

Dr. Craig is extraordinary and excellent philosopher and apologist. God bless Him. Amen

[FIRSTGLADI8R]

I think it is about time Craig shuts up and puts pen to paper to actually do the work to prove all the assertions he makes. Just because WL Craig is vapid enough to assert something does not make it true. Do actual philosophical proofs in writing and submit them to be reviewed by your peers. That should not be to difficult for such a highly decorated philosopher as yourself. Post the actual proofs!

[SycrosD4]

@FIRSTGLADI8R

Perhaps you should read his books, then...

[FIRSTGLADI8R]

@SycrosD4 His blitherings on paper for the minions of the deluded are not scholarly proofs.

[SycrosD4]

@FIRSTGLADI8R

Obviously, you didn't read them...

[TruthIsLife7]

@FIRSTGLADI8R Yes, they are scholarly proofs..and quite a bit stronger than most other published material on worldviews. I have been listening to the best thinkers on both atheist and religious sides for ~2 decades. The atheist side doesn't have any significant evidence and it uses a flood of logical fallacies to try to dismiss the gigantic evidence that exists for Christianity. But, if their principles are followed consistently, we'd have to destroy huge sections of western science & history.

[Xathos91]

@TruthIsLife7 Proof God doesn't exist:

An omniscient creator CANNOT create himself - that would require another, greater creator to create him, and another to create the creator of the creator, and so on. Only scientific theory (eg. Big Bang Theory) is capable of (potentially) explaining the beginning of the universe, as it can create complexity from simplicity via evolution; not so with creationism.

And if God himself evolved via evolution (only possibility), why would God even be necessary?

[TruthIsLife7]

@Xathos91 Straw manning is not an intelligent argument. Infinite regress is a major straw man. Christianity never claims that God created himself. It claims that God always existed. Infinite regress is a problem for atheists far more than Christianity. What made the elements? What made the scientific laws that govern the universe? What made matter ? What made the maker of matter? and on and on. Christianity has a logical answer. Atheism has only untestable speculation.

[Oppositum]

@Xathos91 are you high?

[TruthIsLife7]

@FIRSTGLADI8R Craig has published many things. See his website for a list of many books and scholarly articles. Get informed.

[drcraigvideos]

@FIRSTGLADI8R Go to his website and read his books, you moron. You clearly have underestimated Dr. Craig and you don't even know what you're talking about.

[KBrimstone]

@FIRSTGLADI8R Wow! Are you serious?

The man is an eminent philosopher. (amongst his peers)

He contributes to philosophical journals all the time and writes a ludicrous ( and I mean ludicrous) amount of academic articles and books.

He is the Evangelical Philosophical Society

He was the president of the Philosophy of Time Society.

He Lectures at Universities all over Europe and the U.S.

This is really just a ignorant and probably emotion filled statement.

[david52875]

@FIRSTGLADI8R Go to reasonable faith org, he publishes dozens of scholarly as well as popular articles. He has also authored or co authored around 30 books. Do some research next time.

[paulmarko]

I think when Hawking says a model "creates its own reality" I think he's referring to our NOTION of reality, which he already states is an illusion.

I think hawking is merely searching for some sort of objective criterion that can delineate two competing models. You can't say one model is "more real" because it's "realness" is a conclusion derived from other facts about it (repeatability, predictability, etc...)

He's just setting a measurable criteria, that being "usefulness."

[happysplinters]

what percentage of christians are creationists?

i doubt its a high percentage

[TruthIsLife7]

@happysplinters More and more are realizing that creation is the best scientific explanation of the evidence. It is not possible to reconcile evolution and the Bible without amputating massive portions of one or the other. See my 3 play lists on creation science, esp. the Genesis Conflict one.

[TheMirabillis]

This seriously is one of the best videos I have ever seen on YT. Craig is spot on : ) Laurence Krauss & Sam Harris are going to lose big time in their debates with Craig.

[1GodOnlyOne]

The atheist is expert at making convoluted attempts to hide from reality, and at nothing else.

I can easily understand why an unfortunate individual such as Hawking would be desperate to develop a type of philosophy that would allow him to escape from the harsh objective reality in which he finds himself, day in and day out. Sadly, it doesn't work.

His self-inflicted mental delusions are greater cause for pity than his other obvious problems, and we should pray for his eventual mental health.

[aaronski111]

@1GodOnlyOne The theist is expert at making convoluted attempts to hide from reality, and at nothing else.

I can easily understand why an unfortunate individual such as a theist would be desperate to develop a type of philosophy that would allow him to escape from the harsh objective reality in which he finds himself, day in and day out. Sadly, it doesn't work.

Dude, I understand where you are coming from, but the SAME EXACT STATEMENT could be made by nonbelievers. just sayin.

[TruthIsLife7]

@aaronski111 No, the atheist is the one expert at denying reality, denying evidence and consistently choosing the least evidence or no evidence instead of the weight of evidence and using innumerable streams of fallacies to do it. I'd be almost a millionaire if I got $100 for every fallacy I ALONE have seen by atheists.

[ubom2]

@1GodOnlyOne You. Make. Me. Sick.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@ubom2 I. Thought. You. Started. Out. That. Way.

[justoch]

@1GodOnlyOne Would be really helpful for the christian side if you all around the world pray God to cure Hawkins and get him up from his chair and start talking with his own voice, then we all hear God from sky taking credit for it. Now that would be a miracle, no contest.

[Zando24]

@1GodOnlyOne Stephen Hawking is likely the smartest individual on the planet. Questioning his mental power and his mental state is incredibly foolish. Just because you do not agree or cannot comprehend his advanced theories and discoveries, doesn't mean your correct with your insults towards him. Of course, I can see why you would need to do this, you must feel very threatened by his claims. Also, how does an atheist hide from reality? That's the only thing they believe in

[IloveYOUviruses]

This must be the reason for God to keep Hawking alive: to save him and destroy his anti-theism

[necr0sys]

Lol, Hawkins has really outdone himself this time.

[Godlesspanther]

Give me a fucking break. The scientific model is useful and the creationist model is a bunch of shit. Case closed. We do know which one is a more real model. Science. Religion is shit. Period.

[circusOFprecision]

@Godlesspanther

Case closed, because you made one ignorant and frustrated comment. Yep, I guess that's how your precious "scientific model" works/fails. Actually it isn't a scientific model, but it is your ignorant philosophy that you are defending here, how ironic.

[drcraigvideos]

@Godlesspanther You haven't been listening to this video, have you? Look in the description area where Hawking is quoted. He admitted you can't say YEC is any more realistic than Big Bang Cosmology. Dude, open your ears. Better yet, open your mind.

[flotopo]

@drcraigvideos,

I honestly and sadly think sometimes talking to people like Godlesspanther and so on, is useless. I mean I am all FOR discussing, but as the Bible says, there will be people who'll be "ignorant on purpose", endorsing "science so falsely called". Yes, they are morons and yes they are haters and u can tell from the content of their posts they're all about being condescending and full of hatred, and yes, they do need God, but sometimes you just know u'r wasting ur time with them.

[flotopo]

Wow..if the theory Hawking presents has even a remote chance to be true and if the model creates its own reality, then MY model is the following: I am married to Catherine Zeta Jones, who may I say loves me more than she loves her life, I have all the money Bill Gates has and more, I never get old and/or die, I stay healthy and sexy forever, everybody in the whole world is my friend and they all love me and..best of all, I am ALWAYS right about everything! Aren't u just jealous at MY model?:)))

[JohananRaatz]

@drcraigvideos I think Hawking's mind has somehow been riddled with the fallacy of scientism. This is what you get when you take positivism to its logical conclusion. You get really smart people who say things which are bluntly idiotic because they choose to ignore that not all questions can be investigated by science.

This pragmatic approach to science is precisely opposite to what science is about. Science aims at TRUTH not "usefulness." This just goes to show that pragmatism is nonsense.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Godlesspanther If even biogenesis&natural selection alone are scientific concepts, then creation is scientific because both of these are major pillars of creation science. Creation has far more solid scientific support than evolution does AND it has observable&testable things while Darwin's hypothesis that differs from prior published creation doesn't have anything observable. Btw,it was Creationists that pioneered the scientific method&most scientific branches.See my Genesis Conflict playlist.

[ultimategoobah]

@TruthIsLife7 no it's not. sorry, that's not how science works. Biogenesis and natural selection both happen. they are observed. This is what makes me laugh about christians and their silly arguments. This is why Craig fails, and will always fail.

Special creation has never been observed. No supernatural event has ever been observed. And any attempt to prove observation through "history" is childish. If that's your tactic, then be prepared to admit validity to a host of other beliefs

[TruthIsLife7]

@ultimategoobah

Some were observed by angels and supernatural beings who told people what they observed. Some were observed by people who reported them and some supernatural events have left physical results on our planet that can be checked. Almost nothing in any form of atheism is observable or testable and thus it's not scientific or rational. Creation has far better proof than evolution does and that's a fact. See "The Genesis Conflict" playlist on my channel by former atheist Dr. Veith.

[validric]

@TruthIsLife7 Prof Walter Veith also has a dvd series "The Final Onslaught" Good information for all. Just for interest sake.

[TruthIsLife7]

@validric Yes, I know. My friend produces his videos :). Dr. Veith has an enormous amount of good material and does very good research. No one is infallible of course (and I have a couple small disagreements with him on a couple things..esp. his views on translations since I have done ~17 years work with translations and to some degree music)...but very good work he has done and a great blessing and help to Christians.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ultimategoobah Explain why you think science doesn't work that way.I suggest you read Dr. Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" or at least a survey of it, such as on Wikipedia before you start, since this is the basis for what I say about how science works and he gives MANY examples proving what he said. Yes, biogenesis and creationist natural selection both happen and are observed. Creation is a form of biogenesis and it was observed as other supernatural events have been.

[shootermacgavin1]

@Godlesspanther Thank you for your insightful comment, your stunning intellect shines through. I bask in the glow of your immense wisdom. Thank you once again.......