Stephen Hawking "There is no heaven, it's a fairy story"

antiskeptic

In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."

With 'value' being defined any old way you yourself happen to like no doubt. "Said simplistically" would be more like it

:rolleyes:




http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

The Guardian wrote:

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.
In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.


Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21, shares his thoughts on death, human purpose and our chance existence in an exclusive interview with the Guardian today.


The incurable illness was expected to kill Hawking within a few years of its symptoms arising, an outlook that turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life more, he has said, despite the cloud hanging over his future.


"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first," he said.


"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.
Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, The Grand Design, in which he asserts there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe.


The book provoked a backlash from some religious leaders, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who accused Hawking of committing an "elementary fallacy" of logic.


The 69-year-old physicist fell seriously ill after a lecture tour in the US in 2009 and was taken to Addenbrookes Hospital in an episode that sparked grave concerns for his health. He has since returned to his Cambridge department as director of research.


The physicist's remarks draw a stark line between the use of God as a metaphor and the belief in an omniscient creator whose hands guide the workings of the cosmos.


In his bestselling 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking drew on the device so beloved of Einstein, when he described what it would mean for scientists to develop a "theory of everything" – a set of equations that described every particle and force in the entire universe. "It would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God," he wrote.


The book sold a reported 9 million copies and propelled the physicist to instant stardom. His fame has led to guest roles in The Simpsons, Star Trek: The Next Generation and Red Dwarf. One of his greatest achievements in physics is a theory that describes how black holes emit radiation.


In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."


In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.


Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader ahead of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: "Why are we here?"


In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life, emerged. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.


Hawking suggests that with modern space-based instruments, such as the European Space Agency's Planck mission, it may be possible to spot ancient fingerprints in the light left over from the earliest moments of the universe and work out how our own place in space came to be.
His talk will focus on M-theory, a broad mathematical framework that encompasses string theory, which is regarded by many physicists as the best hope yet of developing a theory of everything.


M-theory demands a universe with 11 dimensions, including a dimension of time and the three familiar spatial dimensions. The rest are curled up too small for us to see.


Evidence in support of M-theory might also come from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva.


One possibility predicted by M-theory is supersymmetry, an idea that says fundamental particles have heavy – and as yet undiscovered – twins, with curious names such as selectrons and squarks.


Confirmation of supersymmetry would be a shot in the arm for M-theory and help physicists explain how each forces at work in the universe arose from one super-force at the dawn of time.


Another potential discovery at the LHC, that of the elusive Higgs boson, which is thought to give mass to elementary particles, might be less welcome to Hawking, who has a long-standing bet that the long-sought entity will never be found at the laboratory.


Hawking will join other speakers at the London event, including the chancellor, George Osborne, and the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Owen

Never realised he was 69. Oddly, he looks younger. Bit ironic that the Rabbi's accusing him of a lack of logic, but there you go.

ArtSmart

maybe heaven is in the 12th dimension? (near the bowling alley)

SuperInfinity

A lot of Hawkings' answers on "why are we here?" is just as much nonsense as the evangelical answer.

Frankly, I think that a lot of theoretical physics is just another religion. What many people don't realize is that the vast majority of this stuff is just conjecture, none of the main stuff can be proven or disproven.

There is a lot of dissent about string theory and superstring theory, many serious scientists neither believe nor respect much of the "fundamentals" in it.

For me a lot of science is going this way unfortunately and just like religion there is a LOT of money on it (more than religion). Anything that can't be instantly proven or disproven is open to abuse.

Turtwig

SuperInfinity wrote: »

A lot of Hawkings' answers on "why are we here?" is just as much nonsense as the evangelical answer.

Frankly, I think that a lot of theoretical physics is just another religion. What many people don't realize is that the vast majority of this stuff is just conjecture, none of the main stuff can be proven or disproven.

There is a lot of dissent about string theory and superstring theory, many serious scientists neither believe nor respect much of the "fundamentals" in it.

For me a lot of science is going this way unfortunately and just like religion there is a LOT of money on it (more than religion). Anything that can't be instantly proven or disproven is open to abuse.

There is one huge difference between theoretical science and religion. Religion preaches itself as a fact or truth, science on the other hand requires every theory,every fact, no matter the extent of its verification, to be approached with a rational skeptical eye.

In defense of theoretical physics, string theory is just a theory, but there are subtle experiments that can be carried out to test various aspects of it. Some within our reach in the next few years, some currently ongoing. One thing people always forget is that even though experiments thus far verify Einstein's general relativity, there are still experiments planned and ongoing testing it. For example, perhaps a nice analogy to string theory would be General Relativity, one key prediction of that theory is the presence of Gravitational Waves. Indirect Evidence suggesting they existed wasn't found until the late 1970s and further suggested in the 2000s. Amazing isn't it that one central predictions of GR has yet to be verified directly?:D

I'm not saying there aren't dangers with relying heavily on maths and theory only, but comparing that level of faith/hope to a religion is just silly. The key difference is one group is constantly looking for an empirical way to test their claims and refinement; the other isn't.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

With 'value' being defined any old way you yourself happen to like no doubt

lol. You say that as if religious people do it any differently :pac:

Donatello

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim. Could it be he wants to sell more books by causing a stir?

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.
In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

How can he know this? He can't.

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

CerebralCortex

Donatello wrote: »

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

You do realise Pascal's wager is useless?

Dades

Stephen Hawking wrote:

We should seek the greatest value of our action.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With 'value' being defined any old way you yourself happen to like no doubt.

I cringed reading this. Is that really the stand-out comment in that article?

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim. Could it be he wants to sell more books by causing a stir?



How can he know this? He can't.

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

Are you serious? Stephen Hawking is one of the most sincere and respected scientists of our time. M-Theory is more of a hypothesis, and he doesn't try to claim otherwise; it's difficult to gather experimental evidence for string theories because they deal with the most fundamental attributes of quantum mechanics.

His comment on life after death is quite solidly based in what we currently know about the human brain. All evidence points to the brain being the seat of consciousness, and there is no reason to think that any kind of afterlife exists.

thirtythirty

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim. Could it be he wants to sell more books by causing a stir?



How can he know this? He can't.

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

lol at the "no evidence for a claim" argument. Reminds me of another group of people who seem to ignore this requirement...

oldrnwisr

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim. Could it be he wants to sell more books by causing a stir?

How can he know this? He can't.

Maybe, Donatello, you should re-read the article. I have highlighted the important parts of your quote:

The Guardian wrote:

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.
In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

Hawking is rejecting the theistic claim that there is an afterlife. The rejection of a claim is not in itself a positive claim to knowledge. Then again, given your poor understanding of atheism this confusion is understandable.

Donatello wrote: »

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

As CC has already pointed out this is a redundant argument. Here are its flaws explained summarily:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaMjUeuaJ0k

POINTBREAK

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you serious? Stephen Hawking is one of the most sincere and respected scientists of our time. M-Theory is more of a hypothesis, and he doesn't try to claim otherwise; it's difficult to gather experimental evidence for string theories because they deal with the most fundamental attributes of quantum mechanics.

His comment on life after death is quite solidly based in what we currently know about the human brain. All evidence points to the brain being the seat of consciousness, and there is no reason to think that any kind of afterlife exists.

-
I was just going to say something similar. There is a lot of confusion among non scientists about what a scientific theory is and the vast difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
In my limited knowledge a Theory is when all available evidence points in that direction. A Hypothesis is more just an idea of what might be?
Is that correct?

xflyer

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim.

I'm not sure if you really understand science. There is no evidence for heaven, not least because it is a made up story. Like so much of religion.

If he'd said "There is no Narnia, it's a fantasy story". What would you say then? Unless you believe in Narnia.


Both the Bible and The Chronicles of Narnia are books written by people.

Mark200

Donatello wrote: »

How can he know this? He can't.

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

I cringe every time a religious person mentions pascals wager, thinking that it supports their belief.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Frankly, I think that a lot of theoretical physics is just another religion. What many people don't realize is that the vast majority of this stuff is just conjecture, none of the main stuff can be proven or disproven.

Nothing in science is ever proven, since it's all based on observation. But the reason why it's not even comparable to religion, is because science works. Science is the reason we have planes in the sky, had men on the moon, and the reason why I can talk to you right now. You try sitting in a piece of metal and pushing it off a cliff and pray that you'll fly.

opinion guy

Malty_T wrote: »

There is one huge difference between theoretical science and religion. Religion preaches itself as a fact or truth, science on the other hand requires every theory,every fact, no matter the extent of its verification, to be approached with a rational skeptical eye.

Equally - there is just as huge a difference between saying there probably is no afterlife, and there is no afterlife. One making such a statement is making the same error as one who says there is an afterlife.

In defense of theoretical physics, string theory is just a theory, but there are subtle experiments that can be carried out to test various aspects of it. Some within our reach in the next few years, some currently ongoing. One thing people always forget is that even though experiments thus far verify Einstein's general relativity, there are still experiments planned and ongoing testing it. For example, perhaps a nice analogy to string theory would be General Relativity, one key prediction of that theory is the presence of Gravitational Waves. Indirect Evidence suggesting they existed wasn't found until the late 1970s and further suggested in the 2000s. Amazing isn't it that one central predictions of GR has yet to be verified directly?:D

I'm not saying there aren't dangers with relying heavily on maths and theory only, but comparing that level of faith/hope to a religion is just silly. The key difference is one group is constantly looking for an empirical way to test their claims and refinement; the other isn't.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you serious? Stephen Hawking is one of the most sincere and respected scientists of our time. M-Theory is more of a hypothesis, and he doesn't try to claim otherwise; it's difficult to gather experimental evidence for string theories because they deal with the most fundamental attributes of quantum mechanics.

Sigh. Yes string theory can be just about tested in places like CERN and LHC. But M-theory is a theory built upon a theory. And as far as I remember there is some other theory built upon that. The advanced theories are way out of hand and way beyond testing.

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim. Could it be he wants to sell more books by causing a stir?

Lol... ony of my old physics lecturers used to hate hawking and claim he was a media whore (note this guy was physicist/chemist not active in anything relevant to hawkings theories)

Mark200

opinion guy wrote: »

Equally - there is just as huge a difference between saying there probably is no afterlife, and there is no afterlife. One making such a statement is making the same error as one who says there is an afterlife.

You can say with great certainty that the tooth fairy doesn't exist without having proof. I think it's safe to assume that Hawking was using the same reasoning. Obviously you can't prove that there's no afterlife, just like you can't prove there's no tooth fairy. But there would be nothing wrong with saying with great confidence that there is no tooth fairy.

Just like if someone came up to you on the street and said that they have the power to fly to the sun and back in half a second. You can't prove that they're lying, but you can say with great confidence that they are.

opinion guy

Mark200 wrote: »

You can say with great certainty that the tooth fairy doesn't exist without having proof. I think it's safe to assume that Hawking was using the same reasoning. Obviously you can't prove that there's no afterlife, just like you can't prove there's no tooth fairy. But there would be nothing wrong with saying with great confidence that there is no tooth fairy.

One huge flaw with that analogy. The tooth fairy is alledged to exist within our known universe. As such she would be subject to the physical laws we are familiar with. Thus we know she is impossible. God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

Mark200

opinion guy wrote: »

One huge flaw with that analogy. The tooth fairy is alledged to exist within our known universe. As such she would be subject to the physical laws we are familiar with. Thus we know she is impossible. God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

It's alleged that God can manipulate events on Earth....

Also, the point I was making was that there's nothing wrong with believing something ridiculous is not true, even if you can't prove it.

POINTBREAK

opinion guy wrote: »

One huge flaw with that analogy. The tooth fairy is alledged to exist within our known universe. As such she would be subject to the physical laws we are familiar with. Thus we know she is impossible. God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

-
The Tooth Fairy is a woman!!! Sh1t!

opinion guy

Mark200 wrote: »

It's alleged that God can manipulate events on Earth....

Also, the point I was making was that there's nothing wrong with believing something ridiculous is not true, even if you can't prove it.

And who knows what rules govern a being existing outside a universe ???

The point I'm making, which you apparently don't get is that believing something ridiculous is not true, even if you can't prove it is the logical equivalent to believing something ridiculous is true, even if you can't prove it.
Not being able to prove it is the point. Believing one thing or the other is simply a choice you make to simplify your world view. It has no bearing on reality either way.

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
The Tooth Fairy is a woman!!! Sh1t!

Dude, she could be hot !:P

Mark200

opinion guy wrote: »

And who knows what rules govern a being existing outside a universe ???

The point I'm making, which you apparently don't get is that believing something ridiculous is not true, even if you can't prove it is the logical equivalent to believing something ridiculous is true, even if you can't prove it.
Not being able to prove it is the point. Believing one thing or the other is simply a choice you make to simplify your world view. It has no bearing on reality either way.

Well I simply do not agree that believing the tooth fairy doesn't exist is equivalent to believing that it does exist.

Same applies to invisible unicorns, flying teapots, superheroes and a god.

MagicMarker

opinion guy wrote: »

One huge flaw with that analogy. The tooth fairy is alledged to exist within our known universe. As such she would be subject to the physical laws we are familiar with. Thus we know she is impossible. God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

Who says the tooth fairy exists within our own known universe? I don't believe that, WHY ARE YOU MOCKING MY BELIEFS!!!!

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

I laugh every time a christian mentions Pascal's wager. You do realise for it to work your beloved god needs to be a fcuking gullible retard don't you?

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote:

You do realise for it to work your beloved god needs to be a fcuking gullible retard don't you?

Well, now you put it that way, maybe Pascal's Wager actually does apply to the christian deity.

Myrddin

opinion guy wrote: »

God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

Which God? Becuase if there's only one, a lot of people on the planet are wasting their lives

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a scientist, he has no evidence for his claim.

Sure there is.

Granted it is not in an area Hawkins is an expert in (evolutionary psychology) so I certainly wouldn't take anything Hawkins says about this with a huge air of authority. But Hawkins is a pretty intelligent guy I imagine he has educated himself in these areas. His conclusion is not all that shocking as you make out, nor is it particularly unreasonable or unsupported by scientific evidence.

Donatello wrote: »

Pascal's Wager is good to keep in mind in this case.

If we all followed Pascal' Wager we should be atheists, as statistically there are far more religions that consider worshipping the wrong god to be worse than worshipping no god (including your own I might add)

smokingman

Thing is, it is a fairy tale but for those who see this as an affront to their beliefs, keep living the lie and convince yourself otherwise - sure ain't ya going to heaven after all eh

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure there is.

Granted it is not in an area Hawkins is an expert in (evolutionary psychology) so I certainly wouldn't take anything Hawkins says about this with a huge air of authority. But Hawkins is a pretty intelligent guy I imagine he has educated himself in these areas. His conclusion is not all that shocking as you make out, nor is it particularly unreasonable or unsupported by scientific evidence.



If we all followed Pascal' Wager we should be atheists, as statistically there are far more religions that consider worshipping the wrong god to be worse than worshipping no god (including your own I might add)

I am going to get a sign with "Hawking" on it and beat you with it...

opinion guy

Mark200 wrote: »

Well I simply do not agree that believing the tooth fairy doesn't exist is equivalent to believing that it does exist.

Same applies to invisible unicorns, flying teapots, superheroes and a god.

I didn't say those believes were equivalent. I said choosing to believe in absence of evidence either way is logically equivalent. Its a choice. Nothing more. So what you are trying to say and putting it badly is that there is evidence for one believe over another. Fair enough. But ultimately it all comes down to what you chose to believe. At one point or another you are making a leap of faith. Whether that leap of faith is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Brane theory is entirely up to you. Actually it mostly down to your psychoclogical make up and how you prefer to simplify things to your own consistent world view.

EnterNow wrote: »

Which God? Becuase if there's only one, a lot of people on the planet are wasting their lives

Meh

Myrddin

opinion guy wrote: »

Meh

Well that's me convinced

smokingman

Y'know, at least, from a humanist perspective, the religious won't ever realise their lives were wasted.....being dead and all.

Myrddin

smokingman wrote: »

Y'know, at least, from a humanist perspective, the religious won't ever realise their lives were wasted.....being dead and all.

True, maybe thats the good thing about faith. Wasted was the wrong choice of word on my part, maybe with faith no matter the belief, its ultimately self rewarding.

mcmoustache

opinion guy wrote: »

One huge flaw with that analogy. The tooth fairy is alledged to exist within our known universe. As such she would be subject to the physical laws we are familiar with. Thus we know she is impossible. God/the afterlife etc is not alledged to exist within the confines of our known universe but if he/she/it does exist it could conceivably be outside that universe.

I thought Heaven was in the sky... at least until we went there and checked. Then it was moved to another dimension....

smokingman

EnterNow wrote: »

True, maybe thats the good thing about faith. Wasted was the wrong choice of word on my part, maybe with faith no matter the belief, its ultimately self rewarding.

Ah but they do love their carrots though...dangle dangle...:pac:

A life spend waiting for a carrot ain't a life worth living in my eyes.

Myrddin

smokingman wrote: »

Ah but they do love their carrots though...dangle dangle...:pac:

A life spend waiting for a carrot ain't a life worth living in my eyes.

What is a life worth living though? Personally I don't believe in a God or any religion...but would I say my life is more rewarding to me than that of a faithful person? Not at all. In fact, on an individual level, to believe in something greater is surely more rewarding to oneself than beliving in nothing at all.

CerebralCortex

EnterNow wrote: »

What is a life worth living though? Personally I don't believe in a God or any religion...but would I say my life is more rewarding to me than that of a faithful person? Not at all. In fact, on an individual level, to believe in something greater is surely more rewarding to oneself than beliving in nothing at all.

How many people do you actually think believe in nothing at all? Atheist or otherwise.

Mark200

opinion guy wrote: »

I didn't say those believes were equivalent. I said choosing to believe in absence of evidence either way is logically equivalent. Its a choice. Nothing more. So what you are trying to say and putting it badly is that there is evidence for one believe over another. Fair enough. But ultimately it all comes down to what you chose to believe. At one point or another you are making a leap of faith. Whether that leap of faith is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Brane theory is entirely up to you. Actually it mostly down to your psychoclogical make up and how you prefer to simplify things to your own consistent world view.

Fine, let me re-phrase if you're going to be so pedantic:

Well I simply do not agree that believing the tooth fairy doesn't exist is logically equivalent to believing that it does exist.

Same applies to invisible unicorns, flying teapots, superheroes and a god.

Btw...


QUICK GET OUT OF YOUR HOUSE A METEOR IS GOING TO CRASH INTO IT WITHIN 20 SECONDS OF YOU READING THIS POST


Do you believe me? If not, why not?

Myrddin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How many people do you actually think believe in nothing at all? Atheist or otherwise.

I'm talking from a religious/spiritual point of view, if thats what you mean then I'd be one. I don't believe there's any grand scheme of things, no deity/deities out there judging how we live etc.

I wouldn't be someone who believes in nothing at all, for me, evolution & adaption is why we're here today.

smokingman

EnterNow wrote: »

What is a life worth living though? Personally I don't believe in a God or any religion...but would I say my life is more rewarding to me than that of a faithful person? Not at all. In fact, on an individual level, to believe in something greater is surely more rewarding to oneself than beliving in nothing at all.

Being an atheist isn't about believing in nothing. If anything, atheists have stronger beliefs than theists...belief in themselves, belief in being awesome, being a serious contributer to society without the need for reward, living a life where you experience the ebb and flow of those around you and enjoying every second without the thought that your actions are being monitored by a beardy bloke in the sky, being wholely responsible for everything you do and the satisfaction in not taking the easy "polyfilla" route when things go wrong.

I obviously can't speak for theists but I find that for me, my life is far more rewarding for not needing to wait on a carrot.

Galvasean

mcmoustache wrote: »

I thought Heaven was in the sky... at least until we went there and checked. Then it was moved to another dimension....

The Gods have been dodging us for eons. They used to live on top of a mountain. Then we climbed the mountains so they retreated to the sky. We invented flying machines to explore the sky and beyond so they fled once more.
Last I heard they were hiding among sub-atomic particles.

Myrddin

smokingman wrote: »

Being an atheist isn't about believing in nothing. If anything, atheists have stronger beliefs than theists...belief in themselves, belief in being awesome, being a serious contributer to society without the need for reward, living a life where you experience the ebb and flow of those around you and enjoying every second without the thought that your actions are being monitored by a beardy bloke in the sky, being wholely responsible for everything you do and the satisfaction in not taking the easy "polyfilla" route when things go wrong.

I obviously can't speak for theists but I find that for me, my life is far more rewarding for not needing to wait on a carrot.

Indeed, I'm with you on this but not everyone, believers or not see things in that way. Things happen, personal circumstances change, life generally gets in the way a lot of the time...having belief in a greater good is something I'd find comforting during those times, I just don't have it though.

careca11

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How many people do you actually think believe in nothing at all? Atheist or otherwise.

if there is such a thing as god , then there has to be such thing as the Devil , santa claus , tooth fairy , easter bunny , Lephracuans etc etc etc ,

but as someone previously stated , the bible , koran etc .....................there just books and nothing more

Yahew

God exists in some multi-verse somewhere.

smokingman

smokingman wrote: »

I obviously can't speak for theists but I find that for me, my life is far more rewarding for not needing to wait on a carrot.

Definitely. One of the strangest aspects of a theist's belief for me is the need to invoke a supernatural entity or realm to give their life meaning. Isn't the natural universe enough? If you can't find some, personal reason to give your life meaning in all that is natural, instead having to resort to the supernatural, then you're a strange individual indeed (not directed at you, of course).

smokingman

EnterNow wrote: »

Indeed, I'm with you on this but not everyone, believers or not see things in that way. Things happen, personal circumstances change, life generally gets in the way a lot of the time...having belief in a greater good is something I'd find comforting during those times, I just don't have it though.

I can understand (kinda) how it would be comforting alright. A lot of my day dreams would involve me having superpowers (thank you Marvel for stoking my young imagination on that one! ) but, while they are hugely enjoyable, I don't "hope" that one day I'll wake up with super powers...I just can't fathom how that would help my life in any way..(the "hoping" btw, not the superpowers - they'd be sweet!)

CerebralCortex

smokingman wrote: »

...I just can't fathom how that would help my life in any way.

Seriously? Not getting sick, could be really helpful, wouldn't you say? Wolverine like healing and longevity would be nice.

Myrddin

smokingman wrote: »

I can understand (kinda) how it would be comforting alright. A lot of my day dreams would involve me having superpowers (thank you Marvel for stoking my young imagination on that one! ) but, while they are hugely enjoyable, I don't "hope" that one day I'll wake up with super powers...I just can't fathom how that would help my life in any way..(the "hoping" btw, not the superpowers - they'd be sweet!)

I guess its more believing than hoping, once hoping comes into the equation it will innevitably lead to questioning of the whole thing.

seamus

The most important thing about Hawkings philisophical musings are how they're underpinned by his physical health.

A man with an incurable degenerative disease proclaiming that God and the afterlife is all nonsense. Now, granted he's had more time than most sufferers to dwell on it, but I imagine he swung from left to right a few times on the issue throughout his lifetime. Believing in an afterlife would be the easy road to take.

Of course there are no atheists in foxholes, right?

smokingman

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously? Not getting sick, could be really helpful, wouldn't you say? Wolverine like healing and longevity would be nice.

Got in there before my clarification edit..Who are you? The Flash??!! :pac::cool:

Spazdarn

As mentioned above I'd find comfort in believing there is a heaven. I just can't blindly believe any religion. While there is no proof that there is no heaven, at least science is attempting to find out the answers, Religion's viewpoint seems unwavering.