Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Have you read the book though? I have, and I think his drive is to demonstrate something else… perhaps even against a ‘Biblical’ God, BUT: You have to understand Quantum Physics, Relativity, String/M-Theory and Iqbal’s philosophy to understand what he has actually ended up saying (whether intentionally or inadvertently.)
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Have you read the book though? I have, and I think his drive is to demonstrate something else... perhaps even against a 'Biblical' God, BUT: You have to understand Quantum Physics, Relativity, String/M-Theory and Iqbal's philosophy to understand what he has actually ended up saying (whether intentionally or inadvertently.)
As I mentioned in a thread of similar topic in S&N, I have read the book and except for the last chapter, whole book actually convinces a reader that a creator is required for such a grand design. Last chapter is nothing but trying to force the reader to an opposite conclusion.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
I will read the last chapter again but I feel he is talking about the set of possible laws and how they exist, but not why they exist in the first place. To him, reality is the surface of the balloon... and that's it.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
I feel he is talking about the set of possible laws and how they exist, but not why they exist in the first place.
yes and that is what I also said in my posts in the other thread. He never mentioned why the laws exist.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Which is what I implied in my post... hence Iqbal's philosophy... :)
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
nothing like a cop out from an alleged rationalist ??
the One logical thing that opens the way for God ....he says ...now ...we dont need it ...meaning Spontaneous Creation ...sounds like an irrational occultist magical occurance NOT a scientific one ! Science say everything has a logical rational explanation !
SO then can we say the Prophet of Atheism an alleged pseudo-science is now officially dead !!
Hawkins hath killed Atheism ! single handedly at that too !
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
I will read the last chapter again but I feel he is talking about the set of possible laws and how they exist, but not why they exist in the first place. To him, reality is the surface of the balloon... and that's it.
Total agreement! I've been saying this for about 2 years after realising what it is that atheists get wrong. They explain the how and feel that it is the why. For them 'the how' is an explanation of the purpose of being.
A classic one is in the Qur'an about shooting stars. We are told 'why' we get them ... they fend off shaiyateen. However, the scientists say they are space rocks and ice that skim the surface of the Earth's atmosphere and glow resulting in the observed shooting star, hence (they conclude) that they do not fend off devils/jinn - they say their trajectories bring them to a collision and this 'how' seems to explain the 'why' to them. And they sit by satisfied.
The true answer to why can only be given by the designer, everything else is just guess work.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
All good people will pass and all evil will live in this world.. Because we’re approaching to an end… Stop reading BS and study Islam…
http://rasheedkokan.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-minor-signs-of-the-last-day/
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Peace K7420
We should try to keep our language and thoughts clean, being frustrated by people does not give us a licence to use cursory remarks … even if it is in abbreviated letters.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
religion = delusion
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
religion = delusion
false
religion = Actions governed by a set of principles - it is concerned with what is good and bad
delusion = Distraction from the truth - it is concerned with right and wrong
Some people's 'religion' is to follow 'science' as the basis for their actions.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
lol a man who cant even go to the washroom on his own feet is making sweeping statements regarding creation of universe..translates into epic failure
i would take him off of his life support system for a minute and then ask him how he feels
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
huh?
lol a man who cant even go to the washroom on his own feet is making sweeping statements regarding creation of universe..translates into epic failure
i would take him off of his life support system for a minute and then ask him how he feels
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
Can anyone prove if God is or isn't needed for creation... If cannot then leave this discussion as it is coz without that its nothing but lot of noise...
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
^ Peace mo293
The statement you have made is noise, since no one is going to listen to you and 'proof' is not the basis for any discussion. It's like saying we will only have a case when there is proof until then we will not entertain any circumstantial evidence and keep the suspect in custody. And even if we did have proof would we be able to explain it?
The reason for this discussion is the philosophical implication when someone claims that God is not needed for the Universe to exist ... it is not about taking on the topic of "whether God is or is not needed for creation of universe"
It is about showing the assumption in the statement, the thought processes and understandings of scientists. Reasoning to bring about not answers but ways to cast doubt or support on the said claim.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
very hard for "believers" to imagine god not being needed for the universe's creation but they don't have any issues believing a god's god wasn't necessary for god's creation. amazing...
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
very hard for "believers" to imagine god not being needed for the universe's creation but they don't have any issues believing a god's god wasn't necessary for god's creation. amazing...
Peace queer
Definitions of God is "The Self-Subsistent", "The Eternal", "The First - With no Beginning" ... To believe God needs no other god is taken from the fact that it is woven in the fabric of the definition of what God means. We can't say that for any other thing. No other thing is defined by those definitions. An entity with the traits above will be called God in English.
Verily, Stephen Hawking is NOT needed for Creation, but God is - we just can't measure that fact.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
mere semantics. God is an entity you are willing to concede as something that doesn't need an origin or creator. Hawkings is saying the same about the universe.
Re: Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation
mere semantics. God is an entity you are willing to concede as something that doesn't need an origin or creator. Hawkings is saying the same about the universe.
Peace queer
Nice try ... I mean it ... But as every Muslim will tell you ... Not only do we hold that God does not need a Creator, we say that God is The Creator, that He had no beginning, and shall have no end, that He is The Wise and that nothing is like Him. Now please try to equate the Hawkings unvierse with that concept of God and you shall find yourself stumped. We hold ALL of the Attributes and Titles of God to be harmoniously congruent and continually manifest when we think of God. It would be wrong to isolate any one of them and draw a comparison.
The critical blow that the Hawkings model is showing to atheists is the fact that he is arguing that the Universe DID have a start point, if so then before that start point it was not there, which is why it cannot be equal to God - Who Has NO start point.