News Stephan Hawking Declares There is No God

It is but the Nicene creed was a political settlement made under the oversight of the Emperor Constantine who wanted to use Christianity to unite and reinvigorate the empire. He was tired of the arguing between the bishops and violence between their followers.

 

Timing probably is relevant scientifically. It is completely irrelevant theologically. If you had a frozen embryo and put it aside for 100 years it wouldn't change who the parents are. The parents are the parents and the amount of time it takes cannot change that fact.

Your second statement I also agree with. The existence of God is not a scientific statement. I have to admit I didn't read his latest book. I did read the Brief History of Time book and thought it was interesting.

Why? Because of my experience in life and with people. Morality is the idea that humans have laws governing their behavior. Inanimate objects also have laws but they cannot chose to ignore them. Human being can ignore the laws and usually that results in pain. You can see it in life on a daily basis.

 

This I also agree with. This is precisely why Hawking's position is so foolish. It's not a scientific question. Why is he even talking about it? I would have the same reaction if I went to the doctor and he started talking to me about God. I swear I hope I would interrupt him and remind him why I was there.

Doc: in all my years of practice I see no evidence of God.
Me: sorry to hear that Doc. Anyway, back to the subject, I feel dizzy in the mornings now. What does that mean?
Doc: and this whole Trinity thing...how can that be right, you know! It's like crazy talk!
Me: try to focus for a second...is it low blood pressure? Do you want to get out that air pump thing?
Doc: I think it's all superstition, personally.
Me: look, I took the day off to come down here and I have to pick up my car from the shop in an hour. We have to move on here. Would you please check my damn blood pressure! I get paranoid that I have a brain tumor or something. Could it be cancer? Did I overdo it back in college? Try to focus for a minute, please! You're a doctor for god's sake!


I have to ask, what is the scientific evidence for courage? Justice? Beauty? Love? Hate? Cruelty? You get the idea...

 

I guess I should try and summarize what I am saying.

Many scientists do not believe in God. I am aware of this already. Most theologians believe in God. Ok.

What is wrong with people that they ask scientists about God? Do they ask theologians about absolute zero?
It seems inappropriate. It's like asking women how old they are at a cocktail party. You have to be an idiot to do that shit, but I've seen it happen.

My theory is that it because scientists are famous now. Fame does weird things to people. They start spouting off opinions about everything. Angelina Jolie is some sort of UN spokeswoman now. Based on what qualifications? Because she is sexy? That is friggin stupid.

 

It may have had some political ramifications but it a theological statement to clarify our understanding of God. I wouldn't agree that it was a political settlement. And how do you know Constantine wanted to "use" Christianity. All evidence would suggest he was a Christian, or did I miss something?

 

According to you, if I find a doctor, judge or farmer that agrees with his assertion, it becomes correct?

 

No, the point is that his professional training as a scientist does not increase the value of assertion that there is no God. Scientists are supposed to deal with observable, verifiable facts. So when he makes a statement about God I get the impression people believe this must be a fact. (That there is no God)

A Doctor's opinion on God would probably be a more valuable one, in my opinion, but he could also be incorrect. How the hell could he know anymore than you or me?

It is not a verifiable fact, it's simply an assertion. That guy Oscar Prestorios (Spelling?) is a good example. He claims he thought his girlfriend was a burglar. So he shot the person in the bathroom.

No one on the planet can know what he really was thinking when he pulled the trigger. So they get a prosecutor and a defense attorney and hash it out. Then the judge or jury hands down the sentence. We make a decision based on evidence but no judge that I have ever heard of says they "know" what the defendant was thinking. It's unknowable without a confession that he was guilty of murder.

But we don't run around throwing up our hands and say we cannot decide because we don't "know". We make decisions based on evidence and Stephan Hawking has made his. I disagree with him obviously, but my main point is that his opinion on the existence of God lies outside his area of expertise. He is an amateur on the subject and so am I.

The people who really study the subject usually believe in God. Some lose their faith later. That would be an interesting debate, theologians for God and theologians against. I would buy a ticket for that.

 

If there was a trial on the existence of God Hawking would not be allowed to sit on the jury. His mind is already made up. Neither would I, my mind is made up as well.

You could listen to his testimony but my understanding of the way trials work is that the jury is free to disregard his testimony, are they not? Hawking would a expert witness against the existence of God, then the other lawyer gets an expert witness that disagrees with him.
Why would you listen to Hawking? Because he wrote a book? If he hadn't written a book what does that change?

I guess I just get tired of the deification of scientists....it's this constant appeal to authority. I remember hearing about a lawyer who holed out from the green in a golf tournament with the flagstick still in the hole. His playing partner told him that's a two stroke penalty. So the lawyer starts with the, "I'm an attorney" b.s. right away.
Who cares what he does for a living? That two shots, chief...

Anyway, I'm just rambling now cause I am bored. I'm out.