toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[alwight]

Every time a non-believer has anything to say about God, I am reminded why they do:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

When a person hates someone, as the non-believer hates God, you should not be surprised to find them often discussing the object of their enmity.

AMR

Apparently then you are a "Biblebot" cyborg having no thoughts of your own, given that this is the sort of bilge that comes so naturally to your mind.

Just how can a non-believer hate God? :liberals:
A believer like you could hate your God sometimes presumably?:think:

 

[Selaphiel]

It is quite convenient that theology is so much simpler than a lot of science. Makes it much more accessible.

That is false. For some reason people tend to think they are experts on all humanistic disciplines and make bold statements about those topics all the time. Probably because it easier to get away with since you cannot show error as easily as you can in questions pertaining to the natural sciences.
If it truly were simple we would not see people make such gross misrepresentations of what theology is and what it states and make such glaring philosophical errors which would be embarrassing to first year theology students.

He's a highly educated man, so his opinion obviously isn't THAT arbitrary.

He is highly educated (an understatement) in physics. That does not mean he is very competent at questions of philosophy or theology.

What bothers me is not his atheism, it is the crude argumentation for his position and that he gets attention for those clumsy arguments just because he is Stephen Hawking.

 

[kmoney]

Sela, do not question Hawking!! :sibbie:

 

[Granite]

It has a great deal to do with it. He does not live a normal life. His body cannot take care of him. His body cannot bring him pleasure. He dwells in his intellect. While he is alive he has a spirit which is life.
Einstein believed in a higher power. He loved life.
Stephen Hawking doesn't love life.

Considering you're now a mind reader perhaps you should write a book.:think:

 

[bybee]

Considering you're now a mind reader perhaps you should write a book.:think:

Touche. I have surmised or drawn a conclusion based on the things I have read about and by Mr. Hawking. No doubt an impertinence on my part. But, Hey!:shut:

 

[Silent Hunter]

That is false. For some reason people tend to think they are experts on all humanistic disciplines and make bold statements about those topics all the time.

. . . everyone is an expert on being human . . . it's just part of life.

Probably because it easier to get away with since you cannot show error as easily as you can in questions pertaining to the natural sciences.

. . . if you can think and reason . . . you're a philosopher . . . :chuckle:

If it truly were simple we would not see people make such gross misrepresentations of what theology is and what it states and make such glaring philosophical errors which would be embarrassing to first year theology students.

:think:

:rotfl:

He is highly educated (an understatement) in physics. That does not mean he is very competent at questions of philosophy or theology.

. . . as competent as anyone.

What bothers me is not his atheism, it is the crude argumentation for his position and that he gets attention for those clumsy arguments just because he is Stephen Hawking.

. . . Jealous?

 

[Selaphiel]

. . . everyone is an expert on being human . . . it's just part of life.

If everyone is an expert, then no one is an expert. Not everyone are trained to systematically analyze the questions dealt with by the humanistic disciplines according to academic standards.

. . . if you can think and reason . . . you're a philosopher . . .

That is about as convincing as saying that if you can calculate the change when you are paying the cashier at the store, then you are a mathematician.

Bunch of emotes

Laughing is not an argument.

. . . as competent as anyone.

Afraid not. Competent people do not make statements that should be embarrassing to make as a sophomore.

. . . Jealous?

Of Hawking? Absolutely, the man is a genius of physics and science. However, that does not automatically qualify him as a philosopher or theologian.

 

[bybee]

. . . everyone is an expert on being human . . . it's just part of life.

. . . if you can think and reason . . . you're a philosopher . . . :chuckle:



:think:

:rotfl:

. . . as competent as anyone.

. . . Jealous?

You are charged with triteness and banality!

 

[Silent Hunter]

If everyone is an expert, then no one is an expert. Not everyone are trained to systematically analyze the questions dealt with by the humanistic disciplines according to academic standards.

. . . "academic standards" . . . I was unaware being human had an "academic" component.

That is about as convincing as saying that if you can calculate the change when you are paying the cashier at the store, then you are a mathematician.

. . . not really . . . but a good strawman anyway.

Laughing is not an argument.

. . . but effective.

Afraid not. Competent people do not make statements that should be embarrassing to make as a sophomore.

. . . because YOU don't like what Hawking had to say doesn't make him incompetent or his statements irrational.

Of Hawking? Absolutely, the man is a genius of physics and science.

. . . no . . . that he's getting attention . . . and you're not.

However, that does not automatically qualify him as a philosopher or theologian.

. . . according to . . . you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You are charged with triteness and banality!

:chuckle:

 

[nicholsmom]

It is quite convenient that theology is so much simpler than a lot of science. Makes it much more accessible.

How much theology have you studied that you can make this assertion with anything other than blind faith?

 

[rocketman]

. . . absolutely. Christians are so afraid of death they need the hope of a "heaven" to justify their otherwise worthless (and meaningless) existence.

That is where you are wrong SH, the Christian has no fear of death. Unlike Hawking and yourself the Christian has an endless hope not a hopeless end. Understanding what really has meaning (God, Christ) gives my existance worth, you and your ilk are still searching for it, I hope you find it some day.

 

[Selaphiel]

. . "academic standards" . . . I was unaware being human had an "academic" component.

We are not talking about being a human, we are talking about the the humanistic academic disciplines. The systematic analysis of human history, society, thinking (both religious and non-religious), art, individual and so forth is done according to academic standards. Being a human does not qualify you as an expert on these topics, because most people don't analyze these things with academic rigor.

. . . not really . . . but a good strawman anyway.

Everyone has the ability to think and to reason, that does not mean that they use it consistently or train those abilities to an academic standard. I can kick and punch, that does not make me a black belt martial artist.

. . . but effective.

For children maybe.

. . . because YOU don't like what Hawking had to say doesn't make him incompetent or his statements irrational.

A man who starts a book by declaring philosophy to be dead before embarking on book that deals with metaphysical questions does not exactly ooze with philosophical competence. Theologically he makes the fundamental error that God is thought of as a cause among other causes. No serious theologian ever suggested that what the universe needed was the law of gravity + God.

. . . no . . . that he's getting attention . . . and you're not.

No, try to read what I originally wrote. Hawking deserves attention when he speaks on matters of physics and science in virtue of being one of the greatest scientists alive today. What I criticized was his amateur philosophical and theological commentary being heard in virtue of being Hawking. No one would even bother with such crude philosophical argument if it weren't coming from him.

. . . according to . . . you.

Not only me, but also according to philosophers and theologians, many of whom are atheists. Sir Roger Penrose is one of those atheist critics of Hawking's book, correctly underlining the fact that M-theory (There is no such thing as THE M-theory either) is not a proper scientific theory due to a complete lack of observational basis and testability and is thus metaphysical speculation based on mathematics, at least for now.

 

[nicholsmom]

I feel sorry for Silent Hunter, but not so much that I'll take him off ignore :shut:

 

[Silent Hunter]

That is where you are wrong SH, the Christian has no fear of death.

BULL.

Unlike Hawking and yourself the Christian has an endless hope not a hopeless end.

. . . or so you hope.

Understanding what really has meaning (God, Christ) gives my existance worth, you and your ilk are still searching for it, I hope you find it some day.

. . . my life has plenty of meaning . . . I don't need wishful thinking (as in the case of Christianity) to make it so . . . .

 

[bybee]

BULL.

. . . or so you hope.

. . . my life has plenty of meaning . . . I don't need wishful thinking (as in the case of Christianity) to make it so . . . .

I've noticed you dwell on "fear" quite a bit. Apparently, you don't believe people when they say they aren't fearful. How are we to dialogue if you don't believe that I speak my truth?

 

[badp]

I smell a new book coming out soon.. or maybe Hawking is coming out ?

 

[Silent Hunter]

We are not talking about being a human, we are talking about the the humanistic academic disciplines. The systematic analysis of human history, society, thinking (both religious and non-religious), art, individual and so forth is done according to academic standards.

. . . academia is unnecessary to the individual's evaluation of his/her existence.

Being a human does not qualify you as an expert on these topics, because most people don't analyze these things with academic rigor.

. . . and don't need to . . . :idea:

Everyone has the ability to think and to reason, that does not mean that they use it consistently or train those abilities to an academic standard. I can kick and punch, that does not make me a black belt martial artist.

Strawman . . . keep 'em comin'.

For children maybe.

. . . who are often less encumbered by preconceived notions of religion . . . until indoctrinated . . . :chew:.

A man who starts a book by declaring philosophy to be dead before embarking on book that deals with metaphysical questions does not exactly ooze with philosophical competence.

. . . Hawking's book had little to do with metaphysics . . . except for you must have must have read that into it . . . :yawn:

Theologically he makes the fundamental error that God is thought of as a cause among other causes. No serious theologian ever suggested that what the universe needed was the law of gravity + God.

. . . "serious theologian" being defined as . . . whoever agrees with Selaphiel's point-of-view no doubt . . . :chuckle:.

No, try to read what I originally wrote. Hawking deserves attention when he speaks on matters of physics and science in virtue of being one of the greatest scientists alive today. What I criticized was his amateur philosophical and theological commentary being heard in virtue of being Hawking. No one would even bother with such crude philosophical argument if it weren't coming from him.

. . . were Hawking a theist (Christian in particular) I'm sure your oar would be on the other side of the boat.

Not only me, but also according to philosophers and theologians, many of whom are atheists. Sir Roger Penrose is one of those atheist critics of Hawking's book . . .

. . . it's interesting how you deride Hawking for lacking credentials for philosophical pronouncements but inject your own scientist as an authority . . . cleaver.

. . . correctly underlining the fact that M-theory (There is no such thing as THE M-theory either) is not a proper scientific theory due to a complete lack of observational basis and testability and is thus metaphysical speculation based on mathematics, at least for now.

. . . exactly . . . at least for NOW. Sounds vaguely familiar to General Relativity which was obviously "not a proper scientific theory due to a complete lack of observational basis and testability" and was "thus metaphysical speculation based on mathematics" . . . at least until 1919.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I feel sorry for Silent Hunter, but not so much that I'll take him off ignore :shut:

 

[GuySmiley]

Wow, so he's incredulous. That's all atheists have . . . incredulity.

Sent from my SGH-i917 using Board Express