Steven Hawkings on "god"?

[graveyardofempires]

Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary' - YouTube

[Talib Jan]

Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary' - YouTube

SubhanAllah! The world's smartest man in such an unfortunate state. I wonder if his condition led him to reject the Creator. Allah (swt) asks a very powerful rhetorical question numerous times in the Qur'an: 'Do they not possess an intellect?' Here we have the 'world's smartest man' affirming that something came from NOTHING!

إِنَّ شَرَّ الدَّوَابَّ عِندَ اللّهِ الصُّمُّ الْبُكْمُ الَّذِينَ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ

Surely the worst of animals in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb who do not use their brains. (Quran 8:22)


Quran also records the following words of those thrown into the Hell:

وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ

They will say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!" (Quran 67:10)


Beh shaka chi khudai yo di, shirik na lari.

[sanman]

Look, I hate getting into religious debates with people, because then everybody always gets offended. I participate in numerous science forums online, and I especially like to discuss physics.

If you want to understand why a physicist might not believe in God, you have to understand Occam's Razor, the Law of Economy of Belief, which says that if an idea is not necessary for the picture to work, then it doesn't have to exist, and probably doesn't exist.

In ancient times, we simply didn't know what caused the rain to fall from the sky, what caused the Sun to rise in the morning, what caused the Moon to appear at night, what caused the grass to grow, or the flowers to bloom, etc. Because of the rational scientific approach, we have indeed learned how these things work, and none of it requires the notion of God to be driving it. Therefore many physicists don't believe that God exists, because they recognize that he's not necessary for the universe to work properly. Is that so hard for you to understand?

[Talib Jan]

Look, I hate getting into religious debates with people, because then everybody always gets offended. I participate in numerous science forums online, and I especially like to discuss physics.

If you want to understand why a physicist might not believe in God, you have to understand Occam's Razor, the Law of Economy of Belief, which says that if an idea is not necessary for the picture to work, then it doesn't have to exist, and probably doesn't exist.

In ancient times, we simply didn't know what caused the rain to fall from the sky, what caused the Sun to rise in the morning, what caused the Moon to appear at night, what caused the grass to grow, or the flowers to bloom, etc. Because of the rational scientific approach, we have indeed learned how these things work, and none of it requires the notion of God to be driving it. Therefore many physicists don't believe that God exists, because they recognize that he's not necessary for the universe to work properly. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Sorry but I'm not looking for a debate nor like getting involved in them. As a simple response, that's great that we know how the system works and all but as to who created and initiated it, I don't think we'll ever be able to explain it scientifically therefore leading many scientists to the 'something came from nothing' assumption. And Allah knows best.

[akbarkhan]

If you want to understand why a physicist might not believe in God, you have to understand Occam's Razor, the Law of Economy of Belief, which says that if an idea is not necessary for the picture to work, then it doesn't have to exist, and probably doesn't exist.

Apply the same theory to "soul" and enlighten us.

[sanman]

Well, it's not true that we won't ever be able to scientifically explain how the universe works, since we're capable of measuring, theorizing and modeling its behavioral laws.

As you know, there has been a lot of work going on to come up with a Grand Unification Theory that explains all known physical phenomena. And so we may see it come about - possibly even in our lifetimes.

But I feel it's important for people to at least try to understand the fundamentals of what we do already know. Usually, those who say the universe can't be scientifically explained or that it's not worth trying, are those who don't even know enough about our existing body of knowledge.

Yes, understanding physics takes effort, but it provides the benefit of knowing what's really going on, and a useful insight into how our world works. And from science comes technology - science is the study of how the universe works, and technology is the study of how to make it work for us. The more we learn scientifically, the more choices it gives us for solving the problems in our lives.

Look at medical science, for instance. Once upon a time, when a relative would get severely ill, we would say a prayer for them and just hope. Now, we can accurately diagnose the most severe problems and fix many of them.

I think it's good that religion can give us values, but it's important that we interpret religion in an enlightened way, because if we allow the most stupid and hateful people to claim themselves to be the exclusive interpreters of God, then they will just bring civilization down with their stupidity and hatred.

[sanman]

Apply the same theory to "soul" and enlighten us.

What issue do you have with "soul"? You're asking for a scientific explanation?

We have a brain, the brain thinks, and you call that a soul. What's the problem? Are you saying you want to know how to touch it and hold it in your hand? Well, look at what you are typing onscreen - how do you touch that or hold it in your hand? You are simply misconstruing an abstract pattern or display as a direct tangible physical object.

[khushal]

the man is just a physicist who was raised as a christian which teaches that god was a man. He does not know everything.

@ sanman,
we do not have a unifying theory so everything can not be explained and throughout history theories that explain how something works have changed. All these theories are not absolute truths on how something works, they are just the widely accepted explanations on how something works.

[sanman]

the man is just a physicist who was raised as a christian which teaches that god was a man. He does not know everything.

I don't think that Hawking is religious. I don't think his writings indicate that.

@ sanman,
we do not have a unifying theory so everything can not be explained and throughout history theories that explain how something works have changed. All these theories are not absolute truths on how something works, they are just the widely accepted explanations on how something works.

Yes, but the scientific method is an interplay of theory and observation.
That's how science is done - you observe, you theorize and model, you observe some more. It's possible for observation to correct existing theory, and it's possibly for existing theory to overrule/correct observation. That recent neutrino experiment is an example of that.

But science is based on logic and reason, not blind faith.
Faith and reason are two different things.
Faith requires that you not question existing beliefs, because that could lead to disbelief, which is called a sin.
Science always invites challenge to existing beliefs.

[khushal]

I don't think that Hawking is religious. I don't think his writings indicate that.

No he is not religous, most people who grow up christian that teach god is a man usually reject the non sense.

Yes, but the scientific method is an interplay of theory and observation.
That's how science is done - you observe, you theorize and model, you observe some more. It's possible for observation to correct existing theory, and it's possibly for existing theory to overrule/correct observation. That recent neutrino experiment is an example of that.

But science is based on logic and reason, not blind faith.
Faith and reason are two different things.
Faith requires that you not question existing beliefs, because that could lead to disbelief, which is called a sin.
Science always invites challenge to existing beliefs.

Its blind faith that requires you not question existing beliefs. Science is just is a tool, a process on figuring out how something works with the evidence at hand. Faith can come from reason and logic. Hawkings has faith in science and not the bible because logic and reason has convinced him that the bible does not explain what has been observed. Science does not invite challenge to existing beliefs, new evidence forces people to reevaluate existing beliefs. The scientific process is what brings in the new evidence.
The recent neutrino experiment has not been widely accepted yet because scientists need more evidence to be convinced. It has forced the scientific community to reevaluate existing theories set forth by Einstein.

[ozymandias]

The recent neutrino experiment has not been widely accepted yet because scientists need more evidence to be convinced. It has forced the scientific community to reevaluate existing theories set forth by Einstein.

Interestingly enough, they think that they may have found the flaw in the study that resulted in the spectacular neutrino results. Interestingly enough it is possibly relativity itself that solved the mystery. You can read a nice summary here: Followup: FTL neutrinos explained? Not so fast, folks. | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

[sanman]

No he is not religous, most people who grow up christian that teach god is a man usually reject the non sense.

Then so neither of us think he believes in God, let alone whether God is a man. So I don't see why you are bringing up that point uselessly, other than to go out of your way to criticize his ancestry. What does it matter what his grandfather believed, when we are discussing his own beliefs?

Its blind faith that requires you not question existing beliefs. Science is just is a tool, a process on figuring out how something works with the evidence at hand. Faith can come from reason and logic. Hawkings has faith in science and not the bible because logic and reason has convinced him that the bible does not explain what has been observed. Science does not invite challenge to existing beliefs, new evidence forces people to reevaluate existing beliefs. The scientific process is what brings in the new evidence.

Sure science is a tool - what does that have to do with how robust it is?

How is faith based on reason and logic? Theology tries to unsuccessfully ape or imitate science, in the hope of boosting the credibility of faith. But faith in a religion requires you to absolutely believe in certain fundamental "truths" without adequate supporting evidence, and even in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

Just because religious "scholars" call themselves scholars, and pretend they are scholarly, doesn't mean their scholarship is robust enough to match that of modern sciences.

There are plenty of things in scripture which have been found to be false.
Obviously, that calls its reliability into question.

The recent neutrino experiment has not been widely accepted yet because scientists need more evidence to be convinced. It has forced the scientific community to reevaluate existing theories set forth by Einstein.

But that's my point - whether or not the results of an experiment are accepted is based on the scientific method and rationale. Things are not accepted or rejected based on blind dogma, as is the case with religion.

[khushal]

sanman, are you drunk? I never mentioned his grandfather.

you could have faith in anything even in the scientific process. There are many people that have faith in the US government without knowing what the government is actually doing.

[sanman]

khushal, it's a matter of have useful standards for credibility. You are just rambling philosophically, while ignoring all the tangible fruits and advances that science and technology have given us. Proof is in that pudding.

Religion may be useful for reinforcing ethical and moral values - provided that the religion is interpreted in such a spirit. But using religion to explain our physical universe? What sort of nonsense are you hoping to justify?

Why would religion from ages ago have better knowledge of our physical universe than we have today through modern methods?

So if your daughter is suffering from serious illness, will you get her treated by a modern trained physician, or will you hand her over to a preacher who's never been outside of his village? Talk sense, man.

Khushal, right now you are using computers, internet, and browser software which owe their existence to scientists and technologists. Are you telling me that religion is a viable substitute for such technical amenities?

Khushal: "Oh Great God, I need to send a message to my sister. Please deliver it for me, O Mighty One."
God: "Shut up and use email, you idiot. Stop bothering me over trivial things. Come to me when you have a moral or spiritual issue."

[khushal]

when did I say such things. I think you are drunk. stop drinking and get some help.