The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has tackled describing blackholes and the history of the universe. Now it seems he wants to explain the very nature of existence. In his latest book, The Grand Design written with Caltech’s Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking sets out to answer three very fundamental questions: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do we exist? Why does this particular set of laws govern our universe and not some other set? Most would consider the answers to these questions to be under the purview of theologians and philosophers. Yet, rather than relying on metaphysical or religious answers, Hawking and Mlodinow seek to find a firm and scientific explanation for why we are here. Hawking’s ‘God-not-required’ approach to the question of our existence has sparked controversy and debate, watch his recent interview with Diane Sawyer in the video below to catch some of his juicier comments on the subject.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)
It’s no exaggeration to say that Stephen Hawking is one of the most, if not the most, prominent name in physics in our time. His attempt to explain what many consider to be the mysteries of life, and his pinning those answers on ‘spontaneous creation’ not God, is a notable step in the ongoing debate between faith and reason. Essentially he is saying that there is little, or nothing, that science cannot attempt to explain.
Even if those scientific explanations turn out to be much more fantastical than the religious ones. The Grand Design proposes that “every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously.” Humans are alive, in essence, because we live in a universe, out of one of the infinite number of universes, where the laws of physics allowed life to evolve on Earth. We are a natural occurrence of our universe’s starting conditions and laws, and the fact that we exist in this universe is simply due to chance. Or, to view it in another way, our existence only seems destined/designed because if the universe didn’t happen to randomly support our existence we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.
With Isaac Newton physics attempted to explain forces we could see and feel. Later scientists explained increasingly ephemeral phenomenon from electricity to heat. In the last one hundred or so years we’ve had to tackle concepts like relativity and quantum mechanics, which take astronomical observations or elaborate super colliders to probe properly. Modern physicists, with string theory, M-theory, and multiple universes, are trying to explain things that may be literally impossible to test. In this grand journey towards the intangible are scientists having to ask readers to take more on faith, to be more ‘religious-like’ in their explanations? Even if the end results seem similar to us, Hawking sees it differently:
“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
[screen capture and video credit: ABC News]
[source: ABC News, Reuters]
Comments
i wont accept with Stephen hawking words
Gravity is a property of matter, therefore it cannot create matter. WHO/WHAT created the initial matter?
In the comment I communicated, the year of publication of my article has been wrongly typed as 1906 instead of 2006. Regret for the same and request the readers to kindly note the correction.
To The GOOGLE,
I have gone through the articles entitled ‘ The Grand Design(book)’ and ‘ Stephen Hawking says God is unnecessary’. As the technical details are not availabe in brief even the details of analysis couldnot be understood. I wrote a book entitled ‘ The similarities between Indian Philosophy and Atomic science ‘in telugu in the year 1906 with brief review on both aspects and proved that there is no personal God and it is in the form of a characterless primary matter from which the universe manifested.
If you can let me know the address of Google in Hyderabad or any place in India I shall send you copy of the same for necessary action.
you all dipshits he is saying right you all cry god god motherfuckers but you ever tried to help peoples or do something good works for world ?
He is not design for that…
I believe the most frustrating thing about this argument is overlooking the obvious.
This idea of nothingness or what the people of Babylonia, Greece and other ancient civilizations deemed “zero” is all but relative.
Zero is no different from other measurements in that it derives meaning only by comparison and reference. Therefore, zero exists in a relative way only, not an absolute way as Stephen Hawking would lead you to believe.
The idea of zero, nothing or the covenant “M Theory” requires the existence of something in order for it to have meaning. Simply stated, to perceive nothing, someone must perceive it. Therefore it cannot be absolute. The observer (Hawking) and that which is observed (M Theory, zero or nothing) are not separate, so if “nothing” is observed and the conclusion is that “nothing” exists, the observer (Hawking) is attempting to exclude himself from the set referred to as “nothing.”
This idea is similar to the age old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Of course based on perception one would argue it does make a sound based on current knowledge, however that answer is solely based on assumption. Yes, I am sure you can show me numerous mathematical formulas that will prove it makes it sound, but once again, like Hawking, you are missing the obvious…
The sound can only exist if there is someone there to witness it. Yes, in theory it makes a sound and in theory “M Theory” hold merit, but that’s just theory.
“Nothing” cannot exist because a perceiver (something) must be present in order to verify and/or perceive nothing.
Therefore, everything stated by Hawking is only relative to his perception of the perceived idea of “nothing, zero and M Theory.” They only exist because Hawking perceived it.
So I ask then, who perceived the conception of universe? Certainly not Stephen Hawking. He didn’t exist yet.
This argument is another way of asking who created universe – and the answer is God. Now who created God? another God? who created him? Another God? ad infinitum…..
Which God of which religious text are we speaking of? What is the sanctity of that religious text or that God?
That GOD created the universe (all that exists in time and space, including time and space) is a truth of reason that cannot be denied without self contradiction as is evident in Hawking’s book. Its quite an embarassing confession of punishable ignorance for a human being who has not been able, and certainly will never be able, to exploit the laws of physics to cure his paralysis and prevent his eventual death, to voice his obsession with science in an erring conclusion that “God is unnecessary” instead of “God is supreme”. O GOD, I declare before this day, this day and after this day that I am NOT one of those who do not believe in your existence, your necessity and supremacy over creation.
Thanks! Mr hawking for your research. You are going to right way, because the big bang is very big evidence for the creating of universe and galaxy, these evidence are in our holy book, one more time Thanks to you!
First of all, Thanks Mr hawking for your research,because universe and other things were created by god, there is a logic back of curtain, We have an evidence about these things in our holy books,There is a truth, once a time human on fault but god is every time right,
areally a new dimensions………….
sahil
I’m not convinced by contemporary theories’ assertion that there must be a multiverse. If it turns out to be the only way to explain our universe, fine – but right now theories like string theory don’t explain much of anything. Rather, theories like quantum geometry seem to be making a lot more progress.
(that said, I’m looking forward to SphereWorld – I’d love to know how a 4th dimension would look to us)
an untestable, unfalsifiable ‘scientific’ hypothesis is nowhere near ‘based on observation and reason’. What science means is hypothesis which is testable by repeated experimentation and produces definite predictions acting as falsification criteria. An untestable ‘scientific’ (or pseudoscientific) ‘theory’ is fundementally no difference from the religion. Again, naturalism is itself based on faith but not reason, and hence is religious in nature, what in the world makes such ‘faith’ superior to the ‘religions’ they’re critizing?
If the smartest person is a classroom constantly advertises himself with a banner of “arrogance” above his head, others will view him as having no “significance”. On the other hand, if the smartest person in a classroom behaves a if his level of intelligence is interwined with the others, and that he’s just as human as the rest, then he will be looked at with a very HIGH degree of significance.
Significance is relative. If the Sears Tower was, at one point, THE most prominent building looming across the landscape, it doesn’t appear to be that way now because they are several other sky-crapers dotted across the entire planet. Similiarly, if it seems that we are insignificant compared to the size of the Universe, it doesn’t mean that we have no importance.
There are certain optical illusions that the nature of human vision has enabled and its not surprising that the nature of human awareness and relationships makes some illusions possible as well.
Object permanence is a necessary thing. It enables us to understand that a person who is not present still exists. Without it civilization would be impossible. Is the belief in an afterlife a side effect of this necessary trait? If so, object permanence is still worth its cost.
The Creator is the greatest scientist there ever was, is, and ever will be.
Thank you and God bless.
The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don’t know up from down (and these are the vast majority), “god” is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel .
(See discussion on “Is it possible that black holes do not exist? ” on Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=421491 for relevant citations.)
In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus. See Percy Byssh Shelley’s Mask of Anarchy for a pertinent depiction of the Duke of Clarence, the face behind Castlereagh. A simple google search for “(“magnetic union” OR “Magnetischer Verein”) AND (“Göttingen Seven” OR “Göttinger Sieben”) gauss weber” shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice.
We must assume therefore that the concurrent and congruent Augustin-Louis Cauchy scientific method of theft, assassination, plagiarize at leisure remains hegemonic. Chuck Stevens 571-252-0451 [email protected]
Well he thinks what he thinks and I think what I think and in the mean time, the Earth still spins while the Universe grows outward…
Screw it. Who wants pie?
Screw it. Who wants pie?
Spontaneous creation: “Something from nothing” is puzzling coming from a physicist.
No-thing means no physical reality, but all reality is logically the realization of possibility; ergo possibility is meta ta physika: beyond the physical.
If one considers Nature as 2 interdependent domains: the universe of physical reality, and the metaphysical realm of logical possibility, then some-thing does indeed arise from no-thing. Physical nature arising from metaphysical nature makes a supernatural explanation for reality entirely unnecessary. That doesn’t disprove the god hypothesis, of course, but it does offer arguably a more probable explanation for our existence.
Mathematics is a form of logic by which possibility is reduced by process of entertained argument to a hypothetical conclusion, which while logically consistent is not necessarily true. So M-theory, by which the metaphysics of logical possibility is used to argue an explanation for physical reality, without the hand of god, is only one of many possibilities. The only truly definitive conclusion arises when there is only one possibility left, the end of the current Universe and a new “big bang” Nature of possibility and reality.
John Stone
Spontaneous creation: “Something from nothing” is puzzling coming from a physicist.
No-thing means no physical reality, but all reality is logically the realization of possibility; ergo possibility is meta ta physika: beyond the physical.
If one considers Nature as 2 interdependent domains: the universe of physical reality, and the metaphysical realm of logical possibility, then some-thing does indeed arise from no-thing. Physical nature arising from metaphysical nature makes a supernatural explanation for reality entirely unnecessary. That doesn’t disprove the god hypothesis, of course, but it does offer arguably a more probable explanation for our existence.
Mathematics is a form of logic by which possibility is reduced by process of entertained argument to a hypothetical conclusion, which while logically consistent is not necessarily true. So M-theory, by which the metaphysics of logical possibility is used to argue an explanation for physical reality, without the hand of god, is only one of many possibilities. The only truly definitive conclusion arises when there is only one possibility left, the end of the current Universe and a new “big bang” Nature of possibility and reality.
John Stone
For a religious people to think our world and the Universe was created for them, is like a bacteria in your body thinking you were created for them.
“..if the universe didn’t happen to randomly support our existence we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.”
I cannot understand how this last part is so hard for religious people to wrap their heads around.
For a religious people to think our world and the Universe was created for them, is like a bacteria in your body thinking you were created for them.
“..if the universe didn’t happen to randomly support our existence we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.”
I cannot understand how this last part is so hard for religious people to wrap their heads around.
In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.
@Joe: You’re just picking apart semantics. To say “create itself from nothing” is only crazy talk if one logically means that “it” consciously decided to create itself before its creation. But that’s of course not what Hawking means, it’s just a simple way to put it. “Spontaneous creation” is a more neutral term. And to be pre-emptive: If you mean that creation needs a creator, it’s still semantics. The essence is that the universe may have just happened. If you then ask what sparked this, remember that the rules of causality may also have been “created” at the “creation” of the universe, so that before this, something could happen without a reason. E.g. the happening of the universe.
@Danny: You seem to think that “evolution” implifies creation by pure chance alone. A common misconception among those who doesn’t really know the theory of evolution. That’s not the way it works. Your cells didn’t happen by chance alone. You have to add selection to the equation: Randomness + selection = The best stuff hangs around, the rest dies. E.g: Throw a thousand dice over and over until you get all sixes. How long will that take? Probably longer than the life of the universe. Now add selection: After every dice throw, put aside all sixes, throw the rest once more, put aside the sixes again. Keep doing this, and you’ll have all sixes in no time. It’s not a perfect analogy to natural selection, but grasp this: In a population there will be random differences. The ones whose differences is better suited for the environment, will live and the others die. So evolution is not chance alone, it’s chance + selection.
Yes, but if at any time, nothing existed, then nothing could happen, at all, ever. There would be no reality and the universe could not even acidentally come about.
So in this “nothing exists” realm of yours, apparently logic exists. LOL If nothing exists — well, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that state. It is a self-negating concept. Nothing is not a thing that you can point at. It is the absence of something.
Maybe what Hawking ment to say is that the Universe created from something that does not existing in this universe but is part of “dimensions” that the laws of physics keep concealed from us. This is the forefront of current research. Try to read something about string theory…
@Joe: You’re just picking apart semantics. To say “create itself from nothing” is only crazy talk if one logically means that “it” consciously decided to create itself before its creation. But that’s of course not what Hawking means, it’s just a simple way to put it. “Spontaneous creation” is a more neutral term. And to be pre-emptive: If you mean that creation needs a creator, it’s still semantics. The essence is that the universe may have just happened. If you then ask what sparked this, remember that the rules of causality may also have been “created” at the “creation” of the universe, so that before this, something could happen without a reason. E.g. the happening of the universe.
@Danny: You seem to think that “evolution” implifies creation by pure chance alone. A common misconception among those who doesn’t really know the theory of evolution. That’s not the way it works. Your cells didn’t happen by chance alone. You have to add selection to the equation: Randomness + selection = The best stuff hangs around, the rest dies. E.g: Throw a thousand dice over and over until you get all sixes. How long will that take? Probably longer than the life of the universe. Now add selection: After every dice throw, put aside all sixes, throw the rest once more, put aside the sixes again. Keep doing this, and you’ll have all sixes in no time. It’s not a perfect analogy to natural selection, but grasp this: In a population there will be random differences. The ones whose differences is better suited for the environment, will live and the others die. So evolution is not chance alone, it’s chance + selection.
Yes, but if at any time, nothing existed, then nothing could happen, at all, ever. There would be no reality and the universe could not even acidentally come about.
So in this “nothing exists” realm of yours, apparently logic exists. LOL If nothing exists — well, I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that state. It is a self-negating concept. Nothing is not a thing that you can point at. It is the absence of something.
Maybe what Hawking ment to say is that the Universe created from something that does not existing in this universe but is part of “dimensions” that the laws of physics keep concealed from us. This is the forefront of current research. Try to read something about string theory…
Okay, so then the question still stands. Where did those laws come from?
Where did the dimensions come from, or the strings for that matter?
Just the usual cheap shot at publicity. The books very title is contradictory to his claims. Grand design. You can’t have design without a designer.
Shouldn’t it be grand fluke as thats the angle the atheist scientists take these days that things just happen from the sheer multitude of possibilities.
But then that requires something to work with in the first place.
The very essence of evolution is that natural selection creates the appearance of design by weeding out less effective versions of organisms over very long periods of time, leaving only the best ‘designed’ ones to reproduce. That’s why today we have a world populated with very successful and ‘well designed’ life.
As humans we often talk about intention in things that are inanimate. We give our cars names and attribute personalities to them or plead with a broken computer to start. It’s called Anthropomorphism. That’s why even seasoned biologists and physicists talk about the ‘design’ of an animals feet or a sub-atomic particle ‘choosing’ it’s position on a probability wave. This same instinct of attributing intention is also responsible for the thousands of very human like gods mankind has worshiped throughout the ages.
Darren just as the computer you use now to type this is far superior to the one you might have used ten years ago it did not itself evolve to this state. It has required massive study and efforts to improve computation.
And even so called genetic algorithms and evolving software still require human intervention in the process whether it be manually or automated in software.
They all require designers.
For the animal kingdom adaptability to climate and environment is a necesary design piece for survival. Something no designer would neglect to include in his functioning machine.
Man has changed the look and properties of beast and plant by various means throughtout the ages but there again a designer is required.
Evolution is still not a complete science and has many flaws. Call it survivalism and acknowledge it is an important part in the design of life and then it may be closer to the truth.
Just the usual cheap shot at publicity. The books very title is contradictory to his claims. Grand design. You can’t have design without a designer.
Shouldn’t it be grand fluke as thats the angle the atheist scientists take these days that things just happen from the sheer multitude of possibilities.
But then that requires something to work with in the first place.
The very essence of evolution is that natural selection creates the appearance of design by weeding out less effective versions of organisms over very long periods of time, leaving only the best ‘designed’ ones to reproduce. That’s why today we have a world populated with very successful and ‘well designed’ life.
As humans we often talk about intention in things that are inanimate. We give our cars names and attribute personalities to them or plead with a broken computer to start. It’s called Anthropomorphism. That’s why even seasoned biologists and physicists talk about the ‘design’ of an animals feet or a sub-atomic particle ‘choosing’ it’s position on a probability wave. This same instinct of attributing intention is also responsible for the thousands of very human like gods mankind has worshiped throughout the ages.
Darren just as the computer you use now to type this is far superior to the one you might have used ten years ago it did not itself evolve to this state. It has required massive study and efforts to improve computation.
And even so called genetic algorithms and evolving software still require human intervention in the process whether it be manually or automated in software.
They all require designers.
For the animal kingdom adaptability to climate and environment is a necesary design piece for survival. Something no designer would neglect to include in his functioning machine.
Man has changed the look and properties of beast and plant by various means throughtout the ages but there again a designer is required.
Evolution is still not a complete science and has many flaws. Call it survivalism and acknowledge it is an important part in the design of life and then it may be closer to the truth.
It’s already been proved that order can spontaneously arise from chaos, in fact it’s mathematically certain that it will. I highly recommend the BBC documentary “secret life of chaos” (its on youtube) which explains the process in greater & more fascinating detail than I have the time to here.
The largest & most obvious problem with your ‘design must have a designer’ argument is that it follows that the designer must have been also designed. Since god is a far more complex being than the humans he designed, then there must be an even more complex being that created him. Religion’s have always supplied some pretty mind-bending arguments to deal with such holes in their theory, but for any of them to be admissible in a debate I would have to share your faith in the supernatural.
I think it is best for both sides if faith stays out of the way of science when it is describing the universe, and science stays out of the personal relationship you have with your god.
Why not create something from nothing?
What gives you a God that creates any and all things?
It took you to create your God for otherwise, by your own contention, your God does not exist.
Your argument is circular. Endless. Pointless. Shall we move it along now?
If Mr Stephen is suggesting that a cell in my body who got more components than a boing plane is created by chance and happened to have DNA to reproduce itself million times with same accuracy then surely he needs to see a psychiatrist to get out of his inferiority complex.
This video uses common sense to explain why that’s possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak&feature=channel
So you’re saying that evolutionary biology is wrong? Exactly what part of evolution can you show to be wrong? If you tell us you could win a Nobel!
If Mr Stephen is suggesting that a cell in my body who got more components than a boing plane is created by chance and happened to have DNA to reproduce itself million times with same accuracy then surely he needs to see a psychiatrist to get out of his inferiority complex.
This video uses common sense to explain why that’s possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak&feature=channel
So you’re saying that evolutionary biology is wrong? Exactly what part of evolution can you show to be wrong? If you tell us you could win a Nobel!
It looks like one of his attempts to take revenge from God for his miserable life and suffering. Looks like all his life he couldn’t accept that there is someone who deprived him from blessings that normal people have. All his life he has been trying to prove his existence by denying the One Who gave existence to all. He needs spiritual and emotional treatment to cure his sick soul and over- intelligent mind.
Religion is undoubtedly a psychological disease.
@ danny boy
Why would a god deprive someone from blessings?
Why would you attack a man that believes something other than what you believe?
Why do you believe what you believe has any significance at all?
H.L.Mencken
The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is
not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all
other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3
make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and
abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization,
has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body
and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the
habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad
social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist
for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
—H.L.Mencken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
So what’s your point?
Christian Atrocities throughout history
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
The H.L.Mencken comment said, Christian theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking.
That just aint so.
You are misquoting. It says “if you eat from this tree you will gain the knowledge of what is good and what is bad”. In other words “if you eat from this tree you will lose your innocence”.
By knowing what is good and what is bad man can then judge man and that is only for God to do.
It doesn’t mean “don’t eat from this tree because I don’t want you to understand calculus or gravity.”
There are all kinds of knowledge.
It looks like one of his attempts to take revenge from God for his miserable life and suffering. Looks like all his life he couldn’t accept that there is someone who deprived him from blessings that normal people have. All his life he has been trying to prove his existence by denying the One Who gave existence to all. He needs spiritual and emotional treatment to cure his sick soul and over- intelligent mind.
Religion is undoubtedly a psychological disease.
absolutely correct my man..
good quote.
@ danny boy
Why would a god deprive someone from blessings?
Why would you attack a man that believes something other than what you believe?
Why do you believe what you believe has any significance at all?
H.L.Mencken
The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is
not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all
other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3
make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and
abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization,
has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body
and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the
habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad
social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist
for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
—H.L.Mencken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
So what’s your point?
Christian Atrocities throughout history
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
Go tell it to Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, & Mao Zedong
The H.L.Mencken comment said, Christian theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking.
That just aint so.
You are misquoting. It says “if you eat from this tree you will gain the knowledge of what is good and what is bad”. In other words “if you eat from this tree you will lose your innocence”.
By knowing what is good and what is bad man can then judge man and that is only for God to do.
It doesn’t mean “don’t eat from this tree because I don’t want you to understand calculus or gravity.”
There are all kinds of knowledge.
Go tell it to Georges Lemaître
Also want to add that it was science the one that showed the idiots religious 500 + years ago that the earth was round and also it was science the one that showed them, the earth was circulating the sun and not the sun circulating the earth.
I mean, if it weren’t for science we wouldn’t live in a world with cell phones or inject fuel cars.
For the religious leaders is better to keep people ignorant, so that way they can play more with their minds and tell them what to do and how to live.
Thanks to science we can really be free from the slavery of Christianity and all the other crap religions.
I hate religion because is so freaking i logic and dumb.
Only little kids with no common sense at all would fall for the stupidities of the bible.
I like your idea but not the tough,might be the people acting crazy for praising but not God…cause there is no such standard way of praising God…
I know Stephen Hawking is supposed to be pretty smart, but this quote makes no sense at all.
If a thing doesn’t yet exist, it has no power to do anything, let alone create itself. That’s just crazy talk.
I mean the very law of gravity is part of this something, that at one time did not exist.
I know Stephen Hawking is supposed to be pretty smart, but this quote makes no sense at all.
If a thing doesn’t yet exist, it has no power to do anything, let alone create itself. That’s just crazy talk.
I mean the very law of gravity is part of this something, that at one time did not exist.
Well around 1823 Laplace already told so to Napoleon… It’s strange that this quote from Hawking creates such a buzz or is it just a sign of the rise of this crazy religious people in America and around the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Napoleon
Well perhaps it’s important because he’s so high rated and you just can’t spread enough reason against the unreasonable superstition of religion.
Well around 1823 Laplace already told so to Napoleon… It’s strange that this quote from Hawking creates such a buzz or is it just a sign of the rise of this crazy religious people in America and around the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Napoleon
Well perhaps it’s important because he’s so high rated and you just can’t spread enough reason against the unreasonable superstition of religion.