Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
why dose the universe need to have a beginning after all "mater can not be destroyed or created" so it is quiet possibly that the universe has always and will always exits
@ trevor123698123 first off homo sapiens A.K.A. humans are technically monkeys and the school system is a government entity staved by civil servants any brain washing is by telling only Americas side of the story in relation to history
Whatever v imagine, whatever v saw & the things that v realized by our eyes, ears & stimuli during our life tenure, is these happenings correlated with the things after one's life? Is this universe is same for all the living creatures or varies with the ability of different living beings? Another well known fact is the same universe can b viewed innumerable ways by innumerable persons provided one should not be restricted by any kind of knowledge or developments. Can anyone clarify this?
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.”
Bullshit, he was just on his new TV show telling us that there is no reason to believe that a God had anything to do with creating this universe. Ya anything is possible but for christ sake put your feet on the ground, look around, read a book and realize your a monkey.
@baxtar1963 We are not monkeys and you are a complete idiot for suggesting that. You are the one that needs to read a book. I'll bet anything the only books you have ever read in your life come from the education system of the United States which is a private corporation secretly enslaving you without you knowing. You desperately need to read rather than talk. Your statements make you sound legitimately retarded.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "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."
@MASTER105175 Roy Masters is a fraudulent thief. Stephen Hawking never tried to persuade you into thinking anything, he just gave his opinion. Oh, it also happens to be an opinion of one of the most intelligent people in the world. Plus, who cares about Roy Masters. He is a cult leader that no one knows and/or cares about.
I have no idea what point this is trying to make. Hawkings is one of two humanly-contrived, semantically differential categories. He states that he does not think a god is probable. Who gives a shit which western category this puts him under?
it isn't like he leaves the Christian god on the table. He leaves a GOD in general on the table. Maybe some kind of intellectual force made this universe? It could have been a being from another universe so advanced that it could have had something to do with this. But this shit about the Bible is completely false. We don't know anything about a God, so don't act like it. And where are the sources for these quotes?
the poster was wrong about dawkins, dawkins IS a agnostic u fool thats y on his scale he is only a 7 , he said i would b a fool to totaly rule god out which is sound thinking despite the posters foolish theory on dawkins wht a chimp he is
@pestmanpat sounds like your not really arguing me so meh. dawkins himself said 'i am a agnostic by definition" i say that every1 should be thats my opinion.
@pestmanpat yes i know what your getting at after all he has his personnel anti christian theme going all the time, however his own personnel equation of what he calls himself is technically an agnostic his words not mine, but i agree with his thinking because of his "scale" to which he acknowledges he's not 100% (he's about 98%on there not being a god, and that is sound thinking because know 1 knows for sure. all we do know is history's facts that have been b4 us. not some hopeful pienthsky
@ThePhil909 Personally i feel his stateing that he is not 100 percent atheist is so as not to appear unreasonable. He likes to liken God to the flying spagetti monster ect.By saying that he is mocking even the notion of a deity.From your last comment you seem more reasonable than him.
@pestmanpat hmm hes trying to sway the typical christian to see the bigger picture hes not trying to make them be like him, that is his point he hates parents who drive there kids to their way of thinking, to a christian faith, instead of letting them( the kids) make up their own mind. i like that alot and agree with that.(he goes hard at the faith based person because they have had such a 1sided debate for so long, and hes not the only1 either. all hes basically doing isputting thefactsoutthere
We are not merely biological entities, we are spiritual creatures, made as the image of God and designed to receive and display his life. these arguments do not provide the kind of absolute proof that will overwhelm a person who chooses to reject God . but they can help a nonmilitant agnostic recognize the reasonableness of faith in God.
They can also make him aware of the danger of straddling the fence between rejecting and accepting God.
brilliant? well.. is it hard to believe in one god or its harder to believe in 11 dimensions ... we didnt solve 0.00001 % of the 3 dimensions that we live in TO JUMP INTO the others .. i dont know who is idiots or brilliants in this world.. even if its true, i mean the other dimensions but why we left god? is it hard for someone create 3 dimensions to create more? whats makes the universe without beginning and no end, itself , really universe create itself? you really think that?
quote mine... again. Also, why do people assume that having some sense of order in the universe proves the existence of God? There are 100's of "Gods" that are recognized even today. Watch "betting on infinity" there are too many options for religious philosophies for someone to be so one-sided on the subject. Science is God or at least as close as you will come to proving the existence of one.
@annaiahramesh I think its possible to look at the designs in the universe,the fine tuning and conclude that intelligence has been at work.This does nothing to explain the origin of that intelligence it is only an explanation of what we observe.
@pestmanpat The truth of who you are and the nature of this moment /reality can never be written down, spoken ,formulated or even conceptualised by the thinking mind for it can only be experienced in the total stillnessof the mind, then you will know, not believe that you and God and creation are one and the same.
Now, I am 41.... I don't know how long I am here.... but still 50/60/70yrs are too less to tackle the events which was happened 5000 millions of years ago.... If I find any clue, definitely I will keep it with me without hurting others because who knows other living beings might have already realized about this origin of universe. That is why except humans, all other living creatures became themselves as cool and calm.
People get so excited when someone smart talks about the possibility of there being a god; when, in fact, any god that this person is surmising is so skewed from any literally interpreted religious text that it makes it invalid to invoke his opinion on any such matter.
Strange how there are many spiritual concepts that say the same about how your mind energy can see the whole universe without going out the room, yet he doesn't believe in all that.
Tao te Ching:
Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven.
Science doesn't disprove GOD , it just MAKEs him(GOD) Unnecessary .
As we evolve as a "unified" race the lack of enthusiasm to know and discover more of the truth about our Universe gets vanished , by means more Religions are created , Religions are a SHIELD for the weak , and ignorant. Jesus is our own CREATION ,if it wasnt for us humans , he wouldnt even EXIST. THink about it!! SCIENCE is the EVOLUTION of RELIGION , but it its self evolves through time..making it more accurate and LOGICAL.
Depending on what definition you use, he can very well be called an athiest. An athiest doesn't mean someone who asserts there is no god, it is someone who doesn't believe in one. Technically, Steven Hawking doesn't belief in a God, but he isn't sure if one exists. I'm not sure if he's agnostic, cus that means you think the knowledge is unknowable.He said when the scientific account is complete, theology is unnecessary. So he's athiest, or agnostic atheist.
Einstein was agnostic as well. As am I. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a God. It's when people get together and share those concepts is where we get into trouble. In my experience the group mentality is far less reliable than that of the individual.
the devil that is in the terrestrial planet, before becoming the devil, has been in charge with responsibility for the lower universe where we are and which we do not know where it ends .. After this universe is a different universe, the separation between two universes called Heaven our universe is grand floor....
god made the doctors and the science,,,for us people dont undestand ,,that everything goes togheter,,,,religious people say i dont need doctors ,put dey dooo,science say i dont need god put dey dooo,it goes together,,
i know there is a spiritual world, i sometimes go out of my body,,,and seee,,and wen i cume back i feel more alive,,and i cume back with a beter understanding,,,of people ,and the world,,there is a world that is hiddin from us ,a spiritual world ,have you ever fellt nature ,awake,,open ur mind,,and see,,take the veil from ur eyes ,,,and see,,,this physical orld is al you see,,,we hare more that this,,,,
I doubt that the world views of person whose IQ is very likely over 180 can be defined according to definitions from people whose IQ are well below that. This is where a bit of humility on our part seems appropriate.
The impression I get is that Hawking leaves the notion of a "divinity" an open question. He's not saying it is certain there is no "divinity". He's saying that all the evidence suggests that there was, in fact, no true moment of creation.
who cares what anyone, brilliant or not, thinks about on the matter, do your own interpreting and discovering instead of jumping on the ship with someone who you really know nothing about. think for yourself world
@M31n1k0v if you had a brain tumor would you operate on yourself or would you turn to an educated brain surgon? I am not jumping on hawkings ship.I was already on it.i simply find it of interest that one so intelligent and educated in the feild of physics and cosmology could consider God an option.
@pestmanpat I wasn't directly targeting my response to you, or anyone, in particular, but there's no hard science involved with the metaphysical realm or aspect in our lives. everyone has their own interpretations and they differ from person to person, what works/makes sense to hawking may not mean the same thing to another person, especially if they don't fully grasp the concept. sorry if that seems kinda jumbled and confusing, I wanted to reply before I left for work.
everybody knows that Hawking was a Deist in the 80s but has changed and now thinks it is possible that the universe created itself or that it only one out of indefinite others...
However, please do not mix up deism/pantheism with the belief in angesl/hell/souls...
agnostic atheist here, i don't rule out god, i just rule out god which is presented to us by most of todays religions, and i generally rule out everything about most of todays religions. I belive this is the case with majority of atheists.......
@ProbablyHuman I'll second that. I think there will always be a place for a sense of awe and deep mystery, which some would define as a sense of spirituality. Organized religion, however, is out and down for the count. It's just that it's still busy falling down to the floor at this point in time. Contact with the floor is imminent.
The music sucks as does this most dishonest video.
Just shows how desperate religionists are to find some credibility somehow. No matter where, no matter how. Honest or not they just couldn't care a damn.
This propoganda present in this video is taken from texts completely out of
context.
"There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking concludes in a new book."
Posting deceptive shit like this is just about the lowest deceit possible.
@dirtydonki This song is a bad cover of a song by Modest Mouse written by Isaac Brock who identifies himself as "pretty much" an atheist. Modest Mouse is an incredible band.
@Dawgtha Hey thanks for the heads up.I did not know that.I have now listened to the original and i must say i like it very much.I still live this version though.An atheist hey, ok.
Somehow I hate when ppl calling others "foolish", "stupid", "ignorant" and the likes just because those ppl don't agree with them.
Foolish is no way to call a man liek Dawkins. He just bring up his idea with lots of logic reasonings, proofs and explainations. It's just ppl are too sensitive and pissedoff when their God being left outa the table. If you want ppl to be open minded and accept the possibilities that God exist, you just too must be open and accept the possibilities that he doesn't
@uyenst I call Dawkins foolish because although a smart man he closes his mind to all every possibility.He seems to be driven by a need to validate his own position.
rather than a search for truth. This is reflected in the tone of his arguments.I agree with your last comment.
As one that has argued for years,with out benefit of Hawkings fame, that true science SUPPORTS both evolution and the Bible,but we are not yet informed enough to reconcile them, I give you mant thanks and wish I could give you many thumbs up.
This video has really challenged me as I used to lecture on certain subjects and found a lot of *intellectuals* had all their eggs in the brain basket and not a lot elsewhere. I hadn't really thought of Hawkins much for this reason - my fault. However I would add that the bible says there is a chasm between man and God and we are cut off - other than the way through Jesus - but I guess I'm going off on one. Sorry Stephen, I badly misjudged.
As terrestrial beings, evolved to use pattern recognition & causality in a tiny place for a very short time, we're ill-equipped to decipher the patterns & time of the Cosmos. We may never get the Big Picture.
Thats a fair comment.reminds me of these 2 quotes The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.Albert Einstein
To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. ...
No atheist leaves god "off the table". It would be intellectually dishonest as it is something we cannot disprove.
Agnosticism is about the ability to know whether a god exists or not. The agnostic says we cannot know or have any way of knowing so the question is moot.
I haven't heard him say so nor do I imagine Hawking saying it is a forever unknowable question.
Hawkings allows for a deist god as a possibility. As any intellectually honest atheist does as well.
@yankinCanada I have to say that although i believe Dawkins is wrong in his assesments i feel he is honest in his beliefs.He sometimes even embarresses other atheists in his honest comments regarding the evidence for intelligence even though it is not his intent.
@yankinCanada We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further " Richard Dawkins'' I think his opinion is a little stronger than you believe.
@yankinCanada RE:the means to do so have not been developed. Yes that is correct. So how should we view the God concept ?Since we are so limited in our ability to comprehend and also in our vantage point in space and time,why would we give any preference to atheism over theism.Why should we give so much
We have no good reason or compelling argument to use to give preference to theism.
That's why.
Of course atheism is just the lack of belief in theism so if we don't give preference to theism then of course atheism is the default position we take. Not because we prefer it but just because theism is not indicated as a logical point of view.
Any good scientist worth her salt has to be an agnostic. Atheism means that you're sure that God does not exist. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. OTOH, Hawking has also said:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
I've became extremely interested in space and such recently, not to mention I have a far reaching imagination... I think I plan on doing all that stuff, cosmology or w/e. I find it really interesting.
Or mabye it is just my imagination telling me that it's fun. He's doing a show on the Discovery Channel atm, he's quite the dreamer. :P
Excellent video and a very nice song as well - its nice to see an intelligent mind being open to all possibilities, it shows that one who suffers has a better understanding of life itself.
@pestmanpat There is no indication, however, that his concept of god is an intervening one which would have any bearing on his disbility. It is most likely that his (possible) god is a deist one.
@EdwardLittleWilly I would agree with that however he could be under the same kids of pressures that caused Newton to conceal much of his views from the public.
If he is a theist rather than a deist hes certainly not letting on.
I believe "the holy spirit" is all Christians or "people who stand for righteousness" put together. It is people that are smart enough to know that doing whatever you want has consequences. And those who are stupid will have to face "the holy spirit" or "God's wrath." If you have common sense and you know what metaphors and parables are, the bible is really a great book with a lot of meaning and truth.
And I believe to be "holy" means to be "righteous, selfless, and sinless(clean, pure behavior)" In other words, behavior that keeps you productive and helping society function properly. Theres a reason why people like "eminem" aren't in "public office." It is God's(holy spirt) righteousness at work.
Smart man doing a smart thing : Covering his ass on all debates by not catering to one or the other, but accepting the possibility of either being the answer.
We sure could use more of that attitude from all sides of the creation debate.
You could be right, or wrong, just don't go around being convinced that yours is the ONLY answer.
Well, if people know "truth" they know "truth." The thing is, it is pointless to get angry and say "Jesus" is God or "Krishna" is God, because there is no way to prove it. And the person making those claims "believes" it and doesn't "know" it. But yes, Jesus and Krisha are definately "enlightened" if not God.
And all he is doing is speaking truth, you don't need that much intelligence to do it. And yes, people who claim that there is not God are very stupid, and those who claim that there is God without any personal relationship where they actually met him, are very stupid as well. And I don't ever here anybody ever saying that they personally met God. I personally believe that God is in each of us. It is the holy spirit, or the spirit of being holy if you will.
nice song. the thing is. he leaves the possibility open. but the fact is, so far, there is only the gullyble humans that take the word of others as true despite the complete lack of evidence.
sure, it could be. but so far there is no evidence. except humans trying to control and gain money by using the god concept in their favour. even the american founding fathers new this would be a great way to steer its population into order. its an amazing tool, but that doesnt make it true.
could be, sure. but what does have to do with sayng "look a god told me to write this book and all of you should bow to me and give your money" not much right? big gap from one thing to the other.
speculating about interpratations of something is only that, speculation. not hard evidence that can be used to control peoples lives and used as excuse to wage wars and whatever. i´m really not in the mood to go deep into this but i think you get my point.
Because he has his own definition of god(not a deity), which he does believe in. It depends on how you define atheism- disbelief in a deity or disbelief in a god. If we use the latter he would not be considered an atheist.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER "A GOD". A LOT OF PEOPLE CONSIDER "A GOD" A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE!!!!!! EVEN IF IT IS "ENERGY". THE BIBLE EVEN BACKS THIS UP BY SAYING GOD IS LIGHT(ENERGY) AND "EVERYTHING". In other words everything is MADE UP OF ENERGY!!!!!! JESUS WAS IN TOUCH WITH THIS INTELLIGENCE(GOD). AND HE SPOKE METAPHORICALLY. SATAN IS A METAPHOR FOR THE "EGO." AND THE EGO SEPARATES US FROM GOD. SURRENDERING TO GOD MEANS GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THIS ENERGY AND LIVING THAT WAY.
Charles Darwin was a Christian before his findings caused his faith to dwindle.
Yes, Galileo was a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure about Copernicus.
Back in their time, however, Christianity WAS the Bible, and Catholics were rather detested by some other major Christian groups for their lax Biblical interpretations. A lot of famous scientists were Catholics because of this allowance of free thought (save for some thoughts)
Atheists were considered among the stock of the lowest humans as well
It would be difficult to find an openly atheist scientist from that time, because they were held in very low regard by public opinion, and would likely be denied the proper research materials to make such contributions. Some atheists (and members of other religions accused of atheism, as if it were a pejorative term) were even killed for their beliefs.
Concerning Stephen Hawking: I personally find that strong atheism (the absolute denial of the possibility of any creator entity)
to be rather silly, given that there's no such thing as absolute proof (100% likelihood) of anything, natural are otherwise. Agnostics tend to be far more intelligent than extremist religious members and fervent atheists alike.
Not to brag, but I personally am somewhere between agnosticism and gnosticism. I believe in the possibility of a god, but I also believe that there are methods of reducing or increasing the likelihood of any such being's existence, though never to absolute proof.
I was making a comparative statement. Catholicism was more open minded than many other Christian churches, even in Galileo's time.
"Peer pressure" only exists against intelligent design when it tries to weasel its way into establishments it has no right to be in, tax-funded public schools for example.
And I was not comparing the scientific method to religion.
I would question that catholics were open minded in Galeleos time.
tax-funded public schools
Im a tax payer. You telling me my child has to learn a world view contrary to the one i want her to learn and then i have to pay taxes to support it ?
At the moment evolution is taught as fact with no other theory or hypothesis considered.
All i want is students to be introduced to both world views with a stipulation that both views are debatable not fact.
Intelligent design is untestable by nature and is not science. It is not a theory. Furthermore, if intelligent design is to be taught in public schools, which religion's version should it be?
Let me tell you this, as something of a scientist-ish person myself, there is no debate surrounding the veracity of evolution. There are no other 'theories'.
okay so Hawkins pretty much says "we don't know"....and since it is impossible to prove that gods don't exist, I would say that his comments are all in line with: "we don't know".
"...opened minded and considers all options."
I am going to send YOU a video (featured on my channel) that YOU need to watch about being "opened minded".
Anyone that claims to be anything but agnostic is being dishonest. Even the foundation of science is agnostic. Both Dawkins and Hawkins claim they are agnostic in this sense. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Atheist and Theist is a statment of belief.
Gnostic and Agnostic is a statement of knowledge.
@tvontheradiohead: I really don't care if anyone says they are an atheist or not. No one is trying to 'trick' you. Agnostic is something we all are.. None of us has sufficient evidence as proof. Atheism however is not the belief that a god does not exist, it's the lack of a belief that a god exists. Your description of yourself is not of theism or atheism... it's just undecided in your belief. Nothing wrong with that.
Well I'm glad we can agree not to bash each others beliefs, or lack there of. However, all sources of refrence I have seen define atheism as the belief that god does not exist. I get my deffintions from dictionaries. So, that is what I call it. Though, a rose by another other name would still make me sneeze and smell like cheap soap.
Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
When Dawkins goes "one step further"
i believe he means he is atheist as to any form of a God whatsoever.
I think to then say that he rates himself a 6/7 is a bit dishonest.
Hawking for example claims to be agnostic
but still leaves God on the table even speaking of possible explanations for his existence .Dawkins on the other hand likens the notion of God to the flying spaghetti monster and gives the concept no consideration at all.
Cosmic evolution is merely the formation of stars and other such systems, which can and has been observed. As for the origin of creation, science can make no comment on that because it can not be observed. Also the problem in looking for evidence in ID is that we can not be sure on what exactly ID would look it. We can not tell the difference between created objects and natural objects that are not Human. The "big bang" theory is NOT the creation of matter, simply just the formation of matter.
Agreed.But just as biological evolutionary theory calls upon abiogenesis to account for origin "i say this because evolutionary text books devote chapters to abiogenesis but not ID".Cosmic evolution requires starting material.
Penrose and Hawking are now suggesting that this starting material was extremely complex and this begs the question did this to evolve or was it created. cont-
We can not be certain that the laws governing the universe even had an origin, for all we know they have simply always existed. Or perhaps there are not even any laws at all and the universe is entirely chaotic, we only think there are laws because general patterns emerge. See why science can not make comment on origin? It is simply to abstract and is completely relent on faith, science has no place for faith. As for abiogenesis, it is an extremely new theory and is very much in developmentcont
The thing about Abiogenesis is that it also makes no comment on origin, simply on how organic molecules form. Again it is a theory that explains the natural phenomenon of how organic molecules arise. We see amino acids on saturn's moon titan for example.
The problem with using Quotes to determine a professionals position on a subject is that you can not know, unless you have studied the person, the intended meaning of the quote. Richard dawkins for example, is most certainly agnostic when it comes to deistic god, he only claims to be atheist with the religious gods, as do I, Hawkings, and arguable Newton. Remember Newton lived about 400 years ago in a time where he would have been hung for just being an atheist.
Newton was afraid of the same peer review pressure theistic scientists face today.But you have raised an interesting point.You see Newton
had many ideas that would undo him had they been published particularly on religion and alchemy.He kept those ideas to himself.Had he had atheist views he would have recorded them privately and we would have known later as we did with the rest of his ideas.
Tell me why are you not an atheist.Why can you not rule out ID
For the same reason I can not rule out dragons, I can not rule out ID. For all we know, in the future humans go back into time and create the universe lol. See how abstract the idea of ID is? Stephen Hawkings said it best, do not even bother considering creation, science can not touch it and it is beyond our understanding as a human race.
I assure you, creationist are no more discriminated against than are astrologist, UFO conspiracies, or any other form of believe that can not be tested.
To tell the the truth, the entire argument between Evolution and ID is just silly. Evolution makes no comment on ID and does not disprove it in any way shape or form. Not only that but it is so elegant in its ability to explain life that it would make even more sense that if a god existed he would have used evolution as a mechanism. Evolution is a complex theory though, it takes years of academic discipline to fully understand what it is. Which I believe that is where the problem lays. cont
99% of the worlds population does not have a collage degree so it can be expected that a lot of people will have misunderstandings of scientific concepts. An example is that people seem to think evolution is atheistic and they often relate the big bang to it. There actually is no such thing as cosmic evolution because only biological system "change in allelic frequencies over time" which is the definition of evolution. Science will never scrap an idea if there is no evidence against it.
I did watch an presentation by Stephen Hawkings on BBC and he was asked if he believed in god. He replied "no" and said that we are just a thin layer of chemical scum and an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an infinite universe.
Richard Dawkins does not claim there is no God. On a scale of 1 to 7 (7 = there is no God) he gives himself a 6, i.e. God is very improbable. At the frontiers of science it is quite legitimate to speculate what is on the other side, even considering a god. But consideration is not belief.
Richard dawkins meant is that he is atheist to any form of religious god, as is Hawking. All scientist, including myself, are agnostic to the idea of a god in a deistic sense only because we have to. It would be going against science not to be agnostic about anything not known, this includes pink flying elephants. Intellectuals often use metaphors in language and literature, Dawkins himself often invokes the usage of the word "Divine" or "god". Hawkings most certainly is not religious.
"then by default you can not be firmly convinced of cosmic evolution. "
Science can not be certain about anything. Even the theory of gravity contains plenty of flaws and we know that the current model of the atom is wrong, we know it is wrong yet we still use it. We still use it because we have no other model that works better for what we need to do.
Science is wrong on a lot of concepts, not wrong on a degree that a lay person would consider, but wrong on the thousandth decimal.
It most certainly is not geared that why, the education system does not make any comment on religion. Actually it was only about 20years ago that religion WAS taught in public school, there was even mandatory prayer in class, but I guess most people forgot about that.
My major problem with the idea of god is that it does nothing at explaining anything. If you say the god created life, as we have for thousands of years, nothing is every accomplished. If you come up with an theory to explain life then you have a model responsible for most modern medicine. Evolution actually predicts how organism will behave, which is important. Think of it like this, thousands of years, accepted idea god, nothing accomplished. Evolution, 100 years later all of modern medicine.
I guess you are saying that Mendel,Copernicus,Boyle,Galileo,Magnus,Leibnitz,Lemaitre,etc...accomplished nothing.They all had a belief in God and that science was our way to better understand Him
Galileo was not religious at all, neither was Copernicus. Besides it really doesn't matter if they are or not because their scientific work is independent of their religion. Science and religion are two very different concepts and can not work together and I myself will never even entertain the notion. I am completely close minded to any religious thoughts, practices, traditions or whatever, non of it flows at all in any logical manner and evidence of that comes right from your comment.
Do a little research and you will see that they saw science as a gift from god and as a way to explain creation and thus draw closer to him.Their faith did not direct theor science-it was independent.Rather,it inspired it.
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
why dose the universe need to have a beginning after all "mater can not be destroyed or created" so it is quiet possibly that the universe has always and will always exits
tarataris087 2 months ago
@tarataris087 We could also say why does God need to have a beginning.
pestmanpat 2 months ago
@ trevor123698123 first off homo sapiens A.K.A. humans are technically monkeys and the school system is a government entity staved by civil servants any brain washing is by telling only Americas side of the story in relation to history
tarataris087 2 months ago
@tarataris087 ... primates, not monkeys.
KLRJUNE 1 month ago
The most telling statement is where he says his work "is on the borderline between science and religion".
trevor123698123 2 months ago
What's the song name?
swima94 3 months ago
@swima94 Gravity Rides by lenka
pestmanpat 3 months ago
Whatever v imagine, whatever v saw & the things that v realized by our eyes, ears & stimuli during our life tenure, is these happenings correlated with the things after one's life? Is this universe is same for all the living creatures or varies with the ability of different living beings? Another well known fact is the same universe can b viewed innumerable ways by innumerable persons provided one should not be restricted by any kind of knowledge or developments. Can anyone clarify this?
annaiahramesh 4 months ago
straw man
MonochromaticEarth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
Bullshit, he was just on his new TV show telling us that there is no reason to believe that a God had anything to do with creating this universe. Ya anything is possible but for christ sake put your feet on the ground, look around, read a book and realize your a monkey.
baxtar1963 6 months ago
@baxtar1963 We are not monkeys and you are a complete idiot for suggesting that. You are the one that needs to read a book. I'll bet anything the only books you have ever read in your life come from the education system of the United States which is a private corporation secretly enslaving you without you knowing. You desperately need to read rather than talk. Your statements make you sound legitimately retarded.
trevor123698123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing," the excerpt says. "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."
upgrade01a 7 months ago
July 14, 2011, ROY MASTERS knows more about GOD and the UNIVERSE than Stephen Hawking.
MASTER105175 7 months ago
@MASTER105175 Roy Masters is a fraudulent thief. Stephen Hawking never tried to persuade you into thinking anything, he just gave his opinion. Oh, it also happens to be an opinion of one of the most intelligent people in the world. Plus, who cares about Roy Masters. He is a cult leader that no one knows and/or cares about.
Thatsajack 6 months ago
In the end, it's what you think that truly matters.
freddyahs26 8 months ago
I have no idea what point this is trying to make. Hawkings is one of two humanly-contrived, semantically differential categories. He states that he does not think a god is probable. Who gives a shit which western category this puts him under?
mikejmeehan 8 months ago
it isn't like he leaves the Christian god on the table. He leaves a GOD in general on the table. Maybe some kind of intellectual force made this universe? It could have been a being from another universe so advanced that it could have had something to do with this. But this shit about the Bible is completely false. We don't know anything about a God, so don't act like it. And where are the sources for these quotes?
KellerDude4 8 months ago
@KellerDude4 RE: SOURCES Select a quote and google it.Then you can check authenicity.
Re: He leaves a GOD in general on the table. Maybe some kind of intellectual force made this universe?
Yep and thats all i am saying.As for the bible well thats another subject.
pestmanpat 8 months ago
the poster was wrong about dawkins, dawkins IS a agnostic u fool thats y on his scale he is only a 7 , he said i would b a fool to totaly rule god out which is sound thinking despite the posters foolish theory on dawkins wht a chimp he is
ThePhil909 8 months ago
@ThePhil909 We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further Richard Dawkins
pestmanpat 8 months ago
@ThePhil909 We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further " Richard Dawkins'
pestmanpat 8 months ago
@pestmanpat sounds like your not really arguing me so meh. dawkins himself said 'i am a agnostic by definition" i say that every1 should be thats my opinion.
ThePhil909 8 months ago
@pestmanpat ok now your confusing the thing just say he is agnostic and that wil b that
ThePhil909 8 months ago
@ThePhil909 An agnostic is to passive for Dawkins.He is more of an antitheist.
pestmanpat 8 months ago
@pestmanpat yes i know what your getting at after all he has his personnel anti christian theme going all the time, however his own personnel equation of what he calls himself is technically an agnostic his words not mine, but i agree with his thinking because of his "scale" to which he acknowledges he's not 100% (he's about 98%on there not being a god, and that is sound thinking because know 1 knows for sure. all we do know is history's facts that have been b4 us. not some hopeful pienthsky
ThePhil909 8 months ago
@ThePhil909 Personally i feel his stateing that he is not 100 percent atheist is so as not to appear unreasonable. He likes to liken God to the flying spagetti monster ect.By saying that he is mocking even the notion of a deity.From your last comment you seem more reasonable than him.
pestmanpat 8 months ago
@pestmanpat hmm hes trying to sway the typical christian to see the bigger picture hes not trying to make them be like him, that is his point he hates parents who drive there kids to their way of thinking, to a christian faith, instead of letting them( the kids) make up their own mind. i like that alot and agree with that.(he goes hard at the faith based person because they have had such a 1sided debate for so long, and hes not the only1 either. all hes basically doing isputting thefactsoutthere
ThePhil909 8 months ago
We are not merely biological entities, we are spiritual creatures, made as the image of God and designed to receive and display his life. these arguments do not provide the kind of absolute proof that will overwhelm a person who chooses to reject God . but they can help a nonmilitant agnostic recognize the reasonableness of faith in God.
They can also make him aware of the danger of straddling the fence between rejecting and accepting God.
matsebah 9 months ago
brilliant? well.. is it hard to believe in one god or its harder to believe in 11 dimensions ... we didnt solve 0.00001 % of the 3 dimensions that we live in TO JUMP INTO the others .. i dont know who is idiots or brilliants in this world.. even if its true, i mean the other dimensions but why we left god? is it hard for someone create 3 dimensions to create more? whats makes the universe without beginning and no end, itself , really universe create itself? you really think that?
aliii313 9 months ago
Comment removed
aliii313 9 months ago
quote mine... again. Also, why do people assume that having some sense of order in the universe proves the existence of God? There are 100's of "Gods" that are recognized even today. Watch "betting on infinity" there are too many options for religious philosophies for someone to be so one-sided on the subject. Science is God or at least as close as you will come to proving the existence of one.
therabbithole999 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have a platform but universe didn't. Then how can we able to unwind the secret of this universe?
annaiahramesh 9 months ago
We have a platform, but this Universe didn't. Then how can we able to know the truth about this universe?
annaiahramesh 9 months ago
@annaiahramesh I think its possible to look at the designs in the universe,the fine tuning and conclude that intelligence has been at work.This does nothing to explain the origin of that intelligence it is only an explanation of what we observe.
pestmanpat 9 months ago
@pestmanpat The truth of who you are and the nature of this moment /reality can never be written down, spoken ,formulated or even conceptualised by the thinking mind for it can only be experienced in the total stillnessof the mind, then you will know, not believe that you and God and creation are one and the same.
mmtot 9 months ago
Now, I am 41.... I don't know how long I am here.... but still 50/60/70yrs are too less to tackle the events which was happened 5000 millions of years ago.... If I find any clue, definitely I will keep it with me without hurting others because who knows other living beings might have already realized about this origin of universe. That is why except humans, all other living creatures became themselves as cool and calm.
annaiahramesh 9 months ago
Why do people always add an "s" to the name "Hawking?"
5jerry1 9 months ago
People get so excited when someone smart talks about the possibility of there being a god; when, in fact, any god that this person is surmising is so skewed from any literally interpreted religious text that it makes it invalid to invoke his opinion on any such matter.
purv989 10 months ago
Strange how there are many spiritual concepts that say the same about how your mind energy can see the whole universe without going out the room, yet he doesn't believe in all that.
Tao te Ching:
Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.
SuzLa1 10 months ago
Agnosticism and atheism are not about the same thing.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
Agnosticism is the belief that whether or not a god exists can not be truly known.
You can be an agnostic atheist, not thinking that there is one, but still thinking it is possible.
yerfdog1935 10 months ago
@yerfdog1935 i agree
pestmanpat 10 months ago
Science doesn't disprove GOD , it just MAKEs him(GOD) Unnecessary .
As we evolve as a "unified" race the lack of enthusiasm to know and discover more of the truth about our Universe gets vanished , by means more Religions are created , Religions are a SHIELD for the weak , and ignorant. Jesus is our own CREATION ,if it wasnt for us humans , he wouldnt even EXIST. THink about it!! SCIENCE is the EVOLUTION of RELIGION , but it its self evolves through time..making it more accurate and LOGICAL.
drrojas 10 months ago
Hawking's latest book is an explicit confirmation of his atheism.
BlueSpirals 10 months ago
@BlueSpirals I believe his latest book doesn't necessarily disprove god , but it makes him(god) Unnecessary.
drrojas 10 months ago
@drrojas I never ever said hawkings disproves god. read my quote again. I said hawking's book is an explicit confirmation of his atheism.
BlueSpirals 10 months ago
He's hot.
SinistedeTV 11 months ago
einstein and hawking are both agnostic atheists. they dont BELIEVE in gods, but they assume that this is factually UNKNOWABLE. simple enough.
sinprelic 11 months ago
Depending on what definition you use, he can very well be called an athiest. An athiest doesn't mean someone who asserts there is no god, it is someone who doesn't believe in one. Technically, Steven Hawking doesn't belief in a God, but he isn't sure if one exists. I'm not sure if he's agnostic, cus that means you think the knowledge is unknowable.He said when the scientific account is complete, theology is unnecessary. So he's athiest, or agnostic atheist.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
Einstein was agnostic as well. As am I. There's nothing wrong with the concept of a God. It's when people get together and share those concepts is where we get into trouble. In my experience the group mentality is far less reliable than that of the individual.
DeathBYDesign666 11 months ago
the devil that is in the terrestrial planet, before becoming the devil, has been in charge with responsibility for the lower universe where we are and which we do not know where it ends .. After this universe is a different universe, the separation between two universes called Heaven our universe is grand floor....
bradengels 1 year ago
god made the doctors and the science,,,for us people dont undestand ,,that everything goes togheter,,,,religious people say i dont need doctors ,put dey dooo,science say i dont need god put dey dooo,it goes together,,
33and4 1 year ago
i know there is a spiritual world, i sometimes go out of my body,,,and seee,,and wen i cume back i feel more alive,,and i cume back with a beter understanding,,,of people ,and the world,,there is a world that is hiddin from us ,a spiritual world ,have you ever fellt nature ,awake,,open ur mind,,and see,,take the veil from ur eyes ,,,and see,,,this physical orld is al you see,,,we hare more that this,,,,
33and4 1 year ago
Another irritating female vocalist!
JurassicPlank 1 year ago
I doubt that the world views of person whose IQ is very likely over 180 can be defined according to definitions from people whose IQ are well below that. This is where a bit of humility on our part seems appropriate.
The impression I get is that Hawking leaves the notion of a "divinity" an open question. He's not saying it is certain there is no "divinity". He's saying that all the evidence suggests that there was, in fact, no true moment of creation.
The universe apparently was always there.
GluttonForSex 1 year ago
who cares what anyone, brilliant or not, thinks about on the matter, do your own interpreting and discovering instead of jumping on the ship with someone who you really know nothing about. think for yourself world
M31n1k0v 1 year ago 7
@M31n1k0v if you had a brain tumor would you operate on yourself or would you turn to an educated brain surgon? I am not jumping on hawkings ship.I was already on it.i simply find it of interest that one so intelligent and educated in the feild of physics and cosmology could consider God an option.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
@pestmanpat I wasn't directly targeting my response to you, or anyone, in particular, but there's no hard science involved with the metaphysical realm or aspect in our lives. everyone has their own interpretations and they differ from person to person, what works/makes sense to hawking may not mean the same thing to another person, especially if they don't fully grasp the concept. sorry if that seems kinda jumbled and confusing, I wanted to reply before I left for work.
M31n1k0v 1 year ago
@M31n1k0v No worries thanks for your input.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
@pestmanpat I like having debates with people without it getting too out-of-hand, as they usually do.
M31n1k0v 1 year ago
@M31n1k0v AMEN TO THAT!!!
zLOSTNOMOREz 7 months ago
everybody knows that Hawking was a Deist in the 80s but has changed and now thinks it is possible that the universe created itself or that it only one out of indefinite others...
However, please do not mix up deism/pantheism with the belief in angesl/hell/souls...
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
agnostic atheist here, i don't rule out god, i just rule out god which is presented to us by most of todays religions, and i generally rule out everything about most of todays religions. I belive this is the case with majority of atheists.......
ProbablyHuman 1 year ago
@ProbablyHuman I'll second that. I think there will always be a place for a sense of awe and deep mystery, which some would define as a sense of spirituality. Organized religion, however, is out and down for the count. It's just that it's still busy falling down to the floor at this point in time. Contact with the floor is imminent.
GluttonForSex 1 year ago
Good Post shit song!!! thanks.
cupomash2 1 year ago
Thank You for this.Very interesting.I wish I could give more thumbs up also :)
MsLttle 1 year ago
@MsLttle Thank you Miss. You can always subscribe.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
The music sucks as does this most dishonest video.
Just shows how desperate religionists are to find some credibility somehow. No matter where, no matter how. Honest or not they just couldn't care a damn.
This propoganda present in this video is taken from texts completely out of
context.
"There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking concludes in a new book."
Posting deceptive shit like this is just about the lowest deceit possible.
dirtydonki 1 year ago
@dirtydonki This song is a bad cover of a song by Modest Mouse written by Isaac Brock who identifies himself as "pretty much" an atheist. Modest Mouse is an incredible band.
Dawgtha 1 year ago
@Dawgtha Hey thanks for the heads up.I did not know that.I have now listened to the original and i must say i like it very much.I still live this version though.An atheist hey, ok.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
was this guy ever right about anything?
kenny8331 1 year ago
Somehow I hate when ppl calling others "foolish", "stupid", "ignorant" and the likes just because those ppl don't agree with them.
Foolish is no way to call a man liek Dawkins. He just bring up his idea with lots of logic reasonings, proofs and explainations. It's just ppl are too sensitive and pissedoff when their God being left outa the table. If you want ppl to be open minded and accept the possibilities that God exist, you just too must be open and accept the possibilities that he doesn't
uyenst 1 year ago
@uyenst I call Dawkins foolish because although a smart man he closes his mind to all every possibility.He seems to be driven by a need to validate his own position.
rather than a search for truth. This is reflected in the tone of his arguments.I agree with your last comment.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
As one that has argued for years,with out benefit of Hawkings fame, that true science SUPPORTS both evolution and the Bible,but we are not yet informed enough to reconcile them, I give you mant thanks and wish I could give you many thumbs up.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Thank you
pestmanpat 1 year ago
This video has really challenged me as I used to lecture on certain subjects and found a lot of *intellectuals* had all their eggs in the brain basket and not a lot elsewhere. I hadn't really thought of Hawkins much for this reason - my fault. However I would add that the bible says there is a chasm between man and God and we are cut off - other than the way through Jesus - but I guess I'm going off on one. Sorry Stephen, I badly misjudged.
AndyWhite007 1 year ago
@AndyWhite007 I commend you for having an open mind.thanks for your comment.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
As terrestrial beings, evolved to use pattern recognition & causality in a tiny place for a very short time, we're ill-equipped to decipher the patterns & time of the Cosmos. We may never get the Big Picture.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@SIMKINETICS
Thats a fair comment.reminds me of these 2 quotes The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.Albert Einstein
To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. ...
Jeremiah 10:23
pestmanpat 1 year ago
@pestmanpat NIce insights! An elegant blend of agnosticism & scripture. Thanx a lot!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
No atheist leaves god "off the table". It would be intellectually dishonest as it is something we cannot disprove.
Agnosticism is about the ability to know whether a god exists or not. The agnostic says we cannot know or have any way of knowing so the question is moot.
I haven't heard him say so nor do I imagine Hawking saying it is a forever unknowable question.
Hawkings allows for a deist god as a possibility. As any intellectually honest atheist does as well.
yankinCanada 1 year ago 6
@yankinCanada The you mean Richard Dawkins is not intelectually honest.
raponte1955 9 months ago
@raponte1955
Richard Dawkins is intellectually honest when considering the reality of creator gods.
Stephen Hawking I believe is the same.
yankinCanada 9 months ago
@yankinCanada I have to say that although i believe Dawkins is wrong in his assesments i feel he is honest in his beliefs.He sometimes even embarresses other atheists in his honest comments regarding the evidence for intelligence even though it is not his intent.
pestmanpat 9 months ago
@pestmanpat
If you have paid attention, Dawkins has repeatedly said that he is an atheist.
An intelligent creator force is INDEED one of the possibilities to explain the origins of the universe.
As Dawkins always says, it is the most unlikely explanation.
yankinCanada 9 months ago
@yankinCanada We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further " Richard Dawkins'' I think his opinion is a little stronger than you believe.
pestmanpat 9 months ago
@pestmanpat
But he has never ruled out the possibility of a creator entity. Because the means to do so have not been developed.
So, the scientist must allow that the possibility exists no matter how unlikely he considers the chances.
yankinCanada 9 months ago
@yankinCanada RE:the means to do so have not been developed. Yes that is correct. So how should we view the God concept ?Since we are so limited in our ability to comprehend and also in our vantage point in space and time,why would we give any preference to atheism over theism.Why should we give so much
respect to ultra Darwinism.
pestmanpat 9 months ago
@pestmanpat
We have no good reason or compelling argument to use to give preference to theism.
That's why.
Of course atheism is just the lack of belief in theism so if we don't give preference to theism then of course atheism is the default position we take. Not because we prefer it but just because theism is not indicated as a logical point of view.
yankinCanada 9 months ago
Comment removed
TaeKenDo 1 year ago
Any good scientist worth her salt has to be an agnostic. Atheism means that you're sure that God does not exist. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. OTOH, Hawking has also said:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
pazomblez 1 year ago
I've became extremely interested in space and such recently, not to mention I have a far reaching imagination... I think I plan on doing all that stuff, cosmology or w/e. I find it really interesting.
Or mabye it is just my imagination telling me that it's fun. He's doing a show on the Discovery Channel atm, he's quite the dreamer. :P
Wolfcall2 1 year ago
he is a deist.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
he himself said he is an athiest however u spell it
ang9300 1 year ago
Excellent video and a very nice song as well - its nice to see an intelligent mind being open to all possibilities, it shows that one who suffers has a better understanding of life itself.
Apogee777 1 year ago
@Apogee777 thanks.The fact that he suffers such an affliction yet still considers God is also interesting.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
@pestmanpat There is no indication, however, that his concept of god is an intervening one which would have any bearing on his disbility. It is most likely that his (possible) god is a deist one.
EdwardLittleWilly 1 year ago
@EdwardLittleWilly I would agree with that however he could be under the same kids of pressures that caused Newton to conceal much of his views from the public.
If he is a theist rather than a deist hes certainly not letting on.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
Good one! Thanks.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
I believe "the holy spirit" is all Christians or "people who stand for righteousness" put together. It is people that are smart enough to know that doing whatever you want has consequences. And those who are stupid will have to face "the holy spirit" or "God's wrath." If you have common sense and you know what metaphors and parables are, the bible is really a great book with a lot of meaning and truth.
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
And I believe to be "holy" means to be "righteous, selfless, and sinless(clean, pure behavior)" In other words, behavior that keeps you productive and helping society function properly. Theres a reason why people like "eminem" aren't in "public office." It is God's(holy spirt) righteousness at work.
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
Smart man doing a smart thing : Covering his ass on all debates by not catering to one or the other, but accepting the possibility of either being the answer.
We sure could use more of that attitude from all sides of the creation debate.
You could be right, or wrong, just don't go around being convinced that yours is the ONLY answer.
socialgarbage2 2 years ago
Well, if people know "truth" they know "truth." The thing is, it is pointless to get angry and say "Jesus" is God or "Krishna" is God, because there is no way to prove it. And the person making those claims "believes" it and doesn't "know" it. But yes, Jesus and Krisha are definately "enlightened" if not God.
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
And all he is doing is speaking truth, you don't need that much intelligence to do it. And yes, people who claim that there is not God are very stupid, and those who claim that there is God without any personal relationship where they actually met him, are very stupid as well. And I don't ever here anybody ever saying that they personally met God. I personally believe that God is in each of us. It is the holy spirit, or the spirit of being holy if you will.
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
So Mohammed was the last prophet and Islam is the only religion acceptable to this god that the existence of the universe proves?
gulsbyjag 2 years ago
nice song. the thing is. he leaves the possibility open. but the fact is, so far, there is only the gullyble humans that take the word of others as true despite the complete lack of evidence.
wh173thad 2 years ago
It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a being responsible for all the laws of physics.
What did Hawking mean by "all we know "?
pestmanpat 2 years ago
sure, it could be. but so far there is no evidence. except humans trying to control and gain money by using the god concept in their favour. even the american founding fathers new this would be a great way to steer its population into order. its an amazing tool, but that doesnt make it true.
wh173thad 2 years ago
Your missing the point."All we know " means evidence.Knowledge is evidence.There is good evidence that could be interpreted as design.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
could be, sure. but what does have to do with sayng "look a god told me to write this book and all of you should bow to me and give your money" not much right? big gap from one thing to the other.
speculating about interpratations of something is only that, speculation. not hard evidence that can be used to control peoples lives and used as excuse to wage wars and whatever. i´m really not in the mood to go deep into this but i think you get my point.
wh173thad 2 years ago
Your right.scientific evidence for design has nothing to do with the bible or religion.
You will notice im not preaching religion here.
I believe to acknowledge the real possibility of a creator with scientific evidence is the first step.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
ATHEISTS!!! You lose AGAIN!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
Because he has his own definition of god(not a deity), which he does believe in. It depends on how you define atheism- disbelief in a deity or disbelief in a god. If we use the latter he would not be considered an atheist.
apot082 2 years ago
atheists is the disbelief in any God be it deist theist ect
If Hawking were leaning to any version of God he would probably be a deist.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER "A GOD". A LOT OF PEOPLE CONSIDER "A GOD" A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE!!!!!! EVEN IF IT IS "ENERGY". THE BIBLE EVEN BACKS THIS UP BY SAYING GOD IS LIGHT(ENERGY) AND "EVERYTHING". In other words everything is MADE UP OF ENERGY!!!!!! JESUS WAS IN TOUCH WITH THIS INTELLIGENCE(GOD). AND HE SPOKE METAPHORICALLY. SATAN IS A METAPHOR FOR THE "EGO." AND THE EGO SEPARATES US FROM GOD. SURRENDERING TO GOD MEANS GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THIS ENERGY AND LIVING THAT WAY.
HeyWakeUpPeople 2 years ago
agreed. :)
MrHarmonic33 2 years ago
@HeyWakeUpPeople Capital letters always make a statement more true. Well thought out.
EdwardLittleWilly 1 year ago
Atheism- the lack or absence of belief in a deity
Agnosticism- one who claims that they do not, and possibly cannot, know of the existence of deitie(s)
One can be both at once, as i believe mr. Hawking is, an agnostic atheist
apot082 2 years ago
yet i understand he denies he is an atheist.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Charles Darwin was a Christian before his findings caused his faith to dwindle.
Yes, Galileo was a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure about Copernicus.
Back in their time, however, Christianity WAS the Bible, and Catholics were rather detested by some other major Christian groups for their lax Biblical interpretations. A lot of famous scientists were Catholics because of this allowance of free thought (save for some thoughts)
Atheists were considered among the stock of the lowest humans as well
BlahKing101 2 years ago
It would be difficult to find an openly atheist scientist from that time, because they were held in very low regard by public opinion, and would likely be denied the proper research materials to make such contributions. Some atheists (and members of other religions accused of atheism, as if it were a pejorative term) were even killed for their beliefs.
Concerning Stephen Hawking: I personally find that strong atheism (the absolute denial of the possibility of any creator entity)
BlahKing101 2 years ago
to be rather silly, given that there's no such thing as absolute proof (100% likelihood) of anything, natural are otherwise. Agnostics tend to be far more intelligent than extremist religious members and fervent atheists alike.
Not to brag, but I personally am somewhere between agnosticism and gnosticism. I believe in the possibility of a god, but I also believe that there are methods of reducing or increasing the likelihood of any such being's existence, though never to absolute proof.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
That is is a reasonable position.Most today on all sides become blinded by defence of there position.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
That same peer pressure exists today against intelligent design.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
I was making a comparative statement. Catholicism was more open minded than many other Christian churches, even in Galileo's time.
"Peer pressure" only exists against intelligent design when it tries to weasel its way into establishments it has no right to be in, tax-funded public schools for example.
And I was not comparing the scientific method to religion.
BlahKing101 2 years ago
I would question that catholics were open minded in Galeleos time.
tax-funded public schools
Im a tax payer. You telling me my child has to learn a world view contrary to the one i want her to learn and then i have to pay taxes to support it ?
At the moment evolution is taught as fact with no other theory or hypothesis considered.
All i want is students to be introduced to both world views with a stipulation that both views are debatable not fact.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Intelligent design is untestable by nature and is not science. It is not a theory. Furthermore, if intelligent design is to be taught in public schools, which religion's version should it be?
Let me tell you this, as something of a scientist-ish person myself, there is no debate surrounding the veracity of evolution. There are no other 'theories'.
BlahKing101 2 years ago 2
what would you look for to support intelligent design ?
which religions version ?
no religious version should be taught. Only scientific evidence that suggests design should be taught.
And there is plenty of debate see the dissent from darwinism paper.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
also dramatic morphological change or "macro evolution is also untestable by nature.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
It was the death of his daughter that led him to become unsure of his faith.
today free thought is allowed in the catholic faith but not in galileos time.
His views led him to be under house arrest.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
okay so Hawkins pretty much says "we don't know"....and since it is impossible to prove that gods don't exist, I would say that his comments are all in line with: "we don't know".
"...opened minded and considers all options."
I am going to send YOU a video (featured on my channel) that YOU need to watch about being "opened minded".
1n354a 2 years ago
He says much more than that.
It would be perfectly consistant with all we
know to say that there was a being who was responsible for all the laws of physics.
The "all we know " he speaks of is the evidence suggesting design
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Pat, let's clear up some definitions:
Theist: belief in a deity.
Atheist: lack of a beief in a deity.
Gnostic: divine knowledge.
Agnostic: lack of divine knowledge.
Anyone that claims to be anything but agnostic is being dishonest. Even the foundation of science is agnostic. Both Dawkins and Hawkins claim they are agnostic in this sense. One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Atheist and Theist is a statment of belief.
Gnostic and Agnostic is a statement of knowledge.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
As some one who considers them selves agnostic, I'm tired of people saying this in order to trick me into saying I'm Atheist.
The Atheist believes God/gods do not exist.
I do not believe I have suffeciant data to have a belief towards or against the existisence of God/gods.
I have no problem with Atheists, but I am not one.
tvontheradiohead 2 years ago 2
@tvontheradiohead: I really don't care if anyone says they are an atheist or not. No one is trying to 'trick' you. Agnostic is something we all are.. None of us has sufficient evidence as proof. Atheism however is not the belief that a god does not exist, it's the lack of a belief that a god exists. Your description of yourself is not of theism or atheism... it's just undecided in your belief. Nothing wrong with that.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Well I'm glad we can agree not to bash each others beliefs, or lack there of. However, all sources of refrence I have seen define atheism as the belief that god does not exist. I get my deffintions from dictionaries. So, that is what I call it. Though, a rose by another other name would still make me sneeze and smell like cheap soap.
tvontheradiohead 2 years ago
Fair enough tvontheradiohead... I'm with ya'.
if you want to know where I'm comming from: watch?v=OozkaHxMvFA
RosieDesire 2 years ago
ROSIE I JUST SAW THIS POST.
look up ultra darwinism
pestmanpat 2 years ago
A wise person's knowledge is like a river that never runs dry, like an ever flowing stream of good advice.
-Sirach 21:13
makubx 2 years ago
Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
When Dawkins goes "one step further"
i believe he means he is atheist as to any form of a God whatsoever.
I think to then say that he rates himself a 6/7 is a bit dishonest.
Hawking for example claims to be agnostic
but still leaves God on the table even speaking of possible explanations for his existence .Dawkins on the other hand likens the notion of God to the flying spaghetti monster and gives the concept no consideration at all.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Cosmic evolution is merely the formation of stars and other such systems, which can and has been observed. As for the origin of creation, science can make no comment on that because it can not be observed. Also the problem in looking for evidence in ID is that we can not be sure on what exactly ID would look it. We can not tell the difference between created objects and natural objects that are not Human. The "big bang" theory is NOT the creation of matter, simply just the formation of matter.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
Agreed.But just as biological evolutionary theory calls upon abiogenesis to account for origin "i say this because evolutionary text books devote chapters to abiogenesis but not ID".Cosmic evolution requires starting material.
Penrose and Hawking are now suggesting that this starting material was extremely complex and this begs the question did this to evolve or was it created. cont-
pestmanpat 2 years ago
I would think that signs of intelligence would be organized structures,fine tuned laws
that would allow an oasis here and there where every factor is present for life.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. sir isac Newton
pestmanpat 2 years ago
We can not be certain that the laws governing the universe even had an origin, for all we know they have simply always existed. Or perhaps there are not even any laws at all and the universe is entirely chaotic, we only think there are laws because general patterns emerge. See why science can not make comment on origin? It is simply to abstract and is completely relent on faith, science has no place for faith. As for abiogenesis, it is an extremely new theory and is very much in developmentcont
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
Cont.
The thing about Abiogenesis is that it also makes no comment on origin, simply on how organic molecules form. Again it is a theory that explains the natural phenomenon of how organic molecules arise. We see amino acids on saturn's moon titan for example.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
The problem with using Quotes to determine a professionals position on a subject is that you can not know, unless you have studied the person, the intended meaning of the quote. Richard dawkins for example, is most certainly agnostic when it comes to deistic god, he only claims to be atheist with the religious gods, as do I, Hawkings, and arguable Newton. Remember Newton lived about 400 years ago in a time where he would have been hung for just being an atheist.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
Newton was afraid of the same peer review pressure theistic scientists face today.But you have raised an interesting point.You see Newton
had many ideas that would undo him had they been published particularly on religion and alchemy.He kept those ideas to himself.Had he had atheist views he would have recorded them privately and we would have known later as we did with the rest of his ideas.
Tell me why are you not an atheist.Why can you not rule out ID
pestmanpat 2 years ago
For the same reason I can not rule out dragons, I can not rule out ID. For all we know, in the future humans go back into time and create the universe lol. See how abstract the idea of ID is? Stephen Hawkings said it best, do not even bother considering creation, science can not touch it and it is beyond our understanding as a human race.
I assure you, creationist are no more discriminated against than are astrologist, UFO conspiracies, or any other form of believe that can not be tested.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
To tell the the truth, the entire argument between Evolution and ID is just silly. Evolution makes no comment on ID and does not disprove it in any way shape or form. Not only that but it is so elegant in its ability to explain life that it would make even more sense that if a god existed he would have used evolution as a mechanism. Evolution is a complex theory though, it takes years of academic discipline to fully understand what it is. Which I believe that is where the problem lays. cont
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
cont
99% of the worlds population does not have a collage degree so it can be expected that a lot of people will have misunderstandings of scientific concepts. An example is that people seem to think evolution is atheistic and they often relate the big bang to it. There actually is no such thing as cosmic evolution because only biological system "change in allelic frequencies over time" which is the definition of evolution. Science will never scrap an idea if there is no evidence against it.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
I did watch an presentation by Stephen Hawkings on BBC and he was asked if he believed in god. He replied "no" and said that we are just a thin layer of chemical scum and an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an infinite universe.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins does not claim there is no God. On a scale of 1 to 7 (7 = there is no God) he gives himself a 6, i.e. God is very improbable. At the frontiers of science it is quite legitimate to speculate what is on the other side, even considering a god. But consideration is not belief.
newalbion 3 years ago 2
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
pestmanpat 3 years ago
Richard dawkins meant is that he is atheist to any form of religious god, as is Hawking. All scientist, including myself, are agnostic to the idea of a god in a deistic sense only because we have to. It would be going against science not to be agnostic about anything not known, this includes pink flying elephants. Intellectuals often use metaphors in language and literature, Dawkins himself often invokes the usage of the word "Divine" or "god". Hawkings most certainly is not religious.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
If you and other scientists are agnostic to the idea of a God in a deistic sense then by default you can not be firmly convinced of cosmic evolution.
Science stops at the point of creation so we can not account for the origin of God or the original undirected starting material.
we can only look at forensic evidence to examine if intelligence were involved or simply chaotic processes
why is there not active research on both hypothesis.And how would you go about looking for evidence for ID
pestmanpat 2 years ago
"then by default you can not be firmly convinced of cosmic evolution. "
Science can not be certain about anything. Even the theory of gravity contains plenty of flaws and we know that the current model of the atom is wrong, we know it is wrong yet we still use it. We still use it because we have no other model that works better for what we need to do.
Science is wrong on a lot of concepts, not wrong on a degree that a lay person would consider, but wrong on the thousandth decimal.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
And yet the entire education system is geared to assume an atheist view and all research is based on it.Can you see the dilemma.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
It most certainly is not geared that why, the education system does not make any comment on religion. Actually it was only about 20years ago that religion WAS taught in public school, there was even mandatory prayer in class, but I guess most people forgot about that.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
My major problem with the idea of god is that it does nothing at explaining anything. If you say the god created life, as we have for thousands of years, nothing is every accomplished. If you come up with an theory to explain life then you have a model responsible for most modern medicine. Evolution actually predicts how organism will behave, which is important. Think of it like this, thousands of years, accepted idea god, nothing accomplished. Evolution, 100 years later all of modern medicine.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
I guess you are saying that Mendel,Copernicus,Boyle,Galileo,Magnus,Leibnitz,Lemaitre,etc...accomplished nothing.They all had a belief in God and that science was our way to better understand Him
kwil46 2 years ago
In fact science from a theistic premise worked quite well back then as many discoveries were made.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
@kwil46
Galileo was not religious at all, neither was Copernicus. Besides it really doesn't matter if they are or not because their scientific work is independent of their religion. Science and religion are two very different concepts and can not work together and I myself will never even entertain the notion. I am completely close minded to any religious thoughts, practices, traditions or whatever, non of it flows at all in any logical manner and evidence of that comes right from your comment.
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago
Do a little research and you will see that they saw science as a gift from god and as a way to explain creation and thus draw closer to him.Their faith did not direct theor science-it was independent.Rather,it inspired it.
kwil46 2 years ago
@kwil46
Wow...just wow that is all I have to say...
daiitokumyouou899 2 years ago