 |
|
|
|
|
September 8th, 2010
04:53 PM ET
Larry King to interview Stephen HawkingEditor's Note: Stephen Hawking will be Larry King's guest on Friday night. In his latest book Hawking claims God didn't create the universe and aims to banish a divine creator from physics. You can leave your comments on the LKL Blog here. You can see the Belief Blog's coverage here on Hawking's new book and the response by religious leaders here.
Next entry »How the military is preparing for Quran burning
« Previous entryLearn more about the developer of Islamic center
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
Ethiopia shall rise its arms to God.It should be enough evidence for Gods existence.
As I read these comments I can't help but notice the same old excuses being used for the existence of a (man-made) god.
News flash: the religious texts were written by MEN, very imaginative men at that.
First, This belief is solely based on writings done at a point in time when when there was limited knowledge about the world. What is baffling to me is the fact that that same limited, ignorant view is expressed today by seemingly intelligent people.
Secondly, the defenders of god seem to be fully convinced of something they have no proof of or have ever seen before, yet they have an uncanny understanding of what this being is and what he expects from all of us.
Thirdly, these scriptures were allegedly stories handed down through countless generations until they were finally compiled in some form of print. I don't need to go any further on this point.
I challenge anyone to state their case for the existence of this man-made god without going into the same old rhetoric about how science can't disprove his existence. The onus is on you to prove existence.
Keep in mind that the definition of faith is: believing in something that DOES NOT EXIST.
For if it did, you wouldn't need it in the first place.
Your editor is misquoting Hawking, either by not intellectually understanding science, Hawking, or by deliberately instigating error and ignorance. Saying that the Universes do not require the notion of a God, mathematically and scientifically is not the same as saying God does not exist. Learn to discern feeling from fact-please.
believing in god is a creation of your own thoughts
If you bring together the ingredients necessary to build a single cell or an atom of Hydrogen, there is a probability even though small but finite that a living cell or an atom can be created. Now, after an infinite time this small probability can happen. Therefor there should not be any surprise that the beautiful earth or humans can exist without a creator of Abrahamic sense. The least you can say is that all the creatures and things in our universe can come about by accident as long as you have the right elements around. Now, if you agree that materials and energy can appear and disappear from nothingness you do not even need an creator at all.
CFO
I would say that the biggest scientific question out there is not a challenge to faith,conceptions of God or wide and sweeping generalizations about the evolution and structure of the visible Universe but rather how individuals with supposedly the highest intellectual standards happen to display the lowest standards possible.
.If a humble person inquired as to why we need an extra daylight/darkness cycle on Feb 29th,the correct answer is that it represents the relationship between the amount of rotations in one orbital circuit,where 365 1/4 rotations is transfered to the calendar convenience of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.It is therefore not a case of arguing against what scientists believe in assigning an impossible and nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations each year but enjoying the reasoning which makes it 365 1/4 rotations.
If people can choose to believe a nonsensical physical conclusion such as 366 1/4 rotations,per year even though their bodies don't experience it, then how can they comment on matters of Christian faith or conceptions of God ?.If scientists have a mind to reject Christ and Christianity as an internal conduit between an individual life and the greater life that clearly encompasses it,like an individual drop of water in an ocean then so be it,people who can't be convinced of anything will find a way not to be convinced.
I see you look at Genesis in a way that suits this false idea that knowledge/science is one thing and faith is something else but a Christian,while accepting that some Christians wish to interpret the narrative at their own level,would look at Genesis with what Yeats called "the eye of the heart",going beyond the surface narrative to the flesh and blood experiences we know ourselves.In short,if you wish to believe the Christian writings,and some of these writings are more profound than others,are the work of superstition then you are entitled to that view,even the scientist Galileo used the comment of St Augustine to the effect that it is not what you impose on the Christian texts that matters but what becomes clear with age and experience and that is what faith engenders –
"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there." Augustine
Thank you,but, of course, those who are "imbedded" in a belief system from birth and culture can not comprehend that their perception is not the only, nor the total, and certainly not the "right" perception..
Interpretation is the important missing ingredient. I do not say "I believe." I say, "I think." With "belief" there is non-changeability. " With "think" there is flexibility and possibility.
SKBNVACAVILLE, an average person cannot even begin to understand what is meant by 'nothing' nor the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothingness'...therefore an average person does not even qualify to argue on this subject. Science is a far more dependable source than Genisis 1, Bible, and the like...Bible cannot proove science and science does not need to proove the Bible.
The book by Hawking is based on wrong science as the theory of everything has been published and this theory has in clear cut terms proved the science Hawking knows to be absolutey wrong and baseless. The theory is theistic and proves that the planet earth is possible to be created only in the manner as described in the Quran & the Bible. If divinity exists there has to be plateform where science and theology could exist in the symbiotic state. The theory of everything proves that mankind was deceived and made to pursue wrong science.
Gerald, you are trying to proove a point by linking two independent areas...yours is a question of simple mathematics. And what makes you so sure that all scientist believe the 366.25 orbital circuit?? Sometimes they explain things in a way that are easier to understand. I m not suggesting you re wrong in your calculations...but if a guy like you can figure it out, it is highly unlikely that scientists far more intelligent cannot...it does not take rocket science to do that. Plus you cannot discard all science based on your orbital circuit calculations.
Ummm, Kary? The man has ALS (look it up). Sometimes, you have brilliant mind and a withered body, and sometimes it's the other way around. It's obvious which one you have.
@Susan for teh win!
I watched the entire interview on Hawkings. I am baffled at how a man who can't speak, can't express any emotion, can't type, can 't even wipe his own backside but he can "write" a book. I did not hear one word uttered from this Hawkings fella. All I heard was a automated voice. How do we know what he really thinks or how he really feels if he can't communicat without some silly fabricated voice. It makes me wonder if Hawkings even exists. Hawkings mind is even more twisted than his physical body. God is a jealous God. It is written in Revelations, The End is near.
Ray Comfort said it best: "If something came from nothing ( as Hawking claims. Parenthesis, mine) , then it was not 'nothing' to begin with, it had to be SOMETHING."
Eric (above comment), Hawking was proven wrong in Genesis 1 !
And furthermore, Hawking mentions Einstein who said that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I always say that the Bible proves science, science doesn't ever prove the Bible"!
Take a good look at the list of scientists who believe(d) in God:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html (OH, and in case you missed it: Einstein just called Stephen Hawking LAME! I don't mean that literally for, indeed, Hawking is lame. That would be cruel. Personally?– I believe Stephen Hawking is extremely angry at God and needs to do some real spiritual reflection within himself. To Stephen, I would like to say...."I'd like to introduce you to a Friend. Meet Jesus! ")
Try this outlook. We are as a whole "god" or call it what you want."It" is not a separate entity.
Since we are the all powerful "It", we can create anything we want in our imagination, nothing actually exists.
This particular adventure of the universe, etc. some have chosen to experience requires a little accepted "mass hypnosis" so we have to experience this with certain "accepted"rules, like you cannot walk through walls or ever fully understand the god concept or "no time" concept until you are so called "dead" again. You are always "dead" you just choose to forget about it for awhile.
So, the universe and everything else doesn't really exist in the first place. That's a good enough explanation for me.
I'm sure there is a scientific answer to the questions, but it just doesn't matter.
To the moderator.
What you are looking at is the core error which began the speculative predictions/modelling agendas now known as the 'scientific method' and despite the fact that readers here could actually grasp why there are 365 1/4 rotation for each orbital circuit and consequently the need for a leap day on Feb 29th,it is impossible to enjoy those reasons when the major institutions insist there are 366 1/4 rotation per circuit.
In short,the 'scientific method' ideology is that if you repeat a false conclusion often enough and loud enough,people will eventually accept it but that is and always will be indoctrination and not education.
I am afraid there is no such as " orbital cycles of the Sun",there is such a thing as the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun which takes 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes or takes 365 1/4 rotations,people know this because they will experience 365 daylight/darkness cycles between January 1st and December 31st this year.The 5 hour 49 minutes is set aside as it represents a small fraction of the orbital circumference so that when Feb 29th comes around,the extra rotation of the Earth makes up for the orbital distance lost through omitting it for the 3 previous cycles of 365 days.
The same scientists say that the moon rotates,but people look out at the moon every day and every week and see that it keeps the same face to observers and they conclude that it doesn't rotate.They can walk around a chair keeping the same side to the chair imitating the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth and simply conclude that there is no intrinsic rotation.The Earth has an intrinsic rotation but the moon does not,in the 19th century there was a huge controversy over this –
'THE "EARTH'S" ROTATION ON ITS AXIS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ASTRONOMICAL REGISTER.
Mr Editor,—Would yon oblige me by putting the following question in your biggest types :—
" How many times does the Earth turn on its axis in the course of a year ? "
It was asked me by an individual powerful in argument against the Moon's rotation, and I answered unguardedly " Why, 365^ times." "Then," said he, triumphantly, "the moon does not rotate, for the earth turns to its centre, the sun, 365$ times in the course of a year, or one revolution round it, while the moon, in one revolution round iU centre, the earth, does not turn to it at all!" Being staggered at this, I ventured to observe, timidly, that the rotation of the earth might perhaps be referred to the stars, in which case it would be 366^ times. "In that case," he replied, "the earth does not go round the sun! * This astonishing assertion caused me to retire from the contest for the time, resolving, in order to be prepared for the next attack of my friend, to put the above question by means of your periodical. I am, Mr Editor, London: . Yours to command,
December, 1865. A VICTIM TO THE MOON CONTROVERSY.'
Astronomical Register 1865
So,scientists believe the Earth rotates 366 1/4 in an orbital circuit which can only contain 365 1/4 rotations and believe the moon rotates when people with a pair of eyes and some common sense can determine that it does not.Next thing you know you will argue against the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours or 15 degrees of rotation per hour !.
You do know that Scientists don't just look at the orbital cycles of the sun right? They also count how many times the moon circulates the Earth as well. This is called a Lunisolar cycle which is what the Hebrew Calendar is. This is why the Hebrew Calendar to this date is still the most accurate calendar to date and that's why even Christians use it to pin-point the exact time of Jesus' death because they still can't figure that out on a Gregorian Calendar...wow you're some genius aren't you?
My dear Luke
You didn't even express surprise that scientists try to fit 366 1/4 rotations of the Earth into an orbital cycle that can only contain 365 1/4 and that is how much these guys know about the Universe.As people well know,there are 365 daylight/darkness cycles from January 1st to December 31st last year,this year and next year while 2012 will contain 366 daylight/darkness cycles due to daily rotation,an intelligent person simply comprehends that the addition leap day rotation accounts for the 6 hour fraction that gets left behind each year with 365 days in it.
The 17 billion dollar a year NASA thinks otherwise –
"- What is the rotation period of the Earth?
The rotation period of the Earth is about 4 minutes (or about 1/365th
of the day) short of 24 hours. A full year contains about 365.25 days,
but 366.25 rotations of the Earth." NASA
When science reaches a stage where it can't count the number of daylight/darkness cycles between Mar 1st 2009 and Feb 29th 2012 and come up with a value of 1461 rotations corresponding to 365 1/4 rotations over 4 orbital circuits or the translation into the calendar convenience of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,then everyone is in serious trouble.
You do understand that daily rotation is responsible for daylight turning to darkness don;t you,if you can get that far you should have no problem counting the rotations across 4 years,use your fingers if you like.Few people know that this particular problem arose in the late 17th century through Royal Society empiricism and that brand of empiricism,although it is now dominant and takes the name of science,is not science.If anyone doubts this,the inability to count the rotations of the Earth during a calendar cycle or impose a nonsensical 366 11/4 rotations makes it a 100% certainty.
There is an old story of a group of Christian Fundamentalists who are said to have prayed, “ O God, don’t let this evolution be true, but if it is, don’t let it be generally known.” They would have hated Quenby and Macdonald-Smith’s book Intelligent Faith , but perhaps they might have discovered through it that faith is about opening one’s eyes to reality rather than shutting them when reality confounds our prejudices and preconceptions. Quenby is a cosmologist and Macdonald Smith is a scientist turned minister who argue for Darwin and faith and against intelligent design. The collection contains two articles by Christian experimental cosmologists which both supply much of the scientific background to the 'Hawkings' debate. There are also articles from a theological perspective which while accepting cosmic and biological evolution again find no displacement of God in the scheme of things, rather needing the 'Creator of the possibility of possibilities'. Have a read and see which side of the fence you land.
Scientists can't even figure out,and it is basic arithmetic,that there are 1461 daylight/darkness cycles between Mar 1st 2009 and Feb 29th 2012 corresponding to 4 complete orbital circuits of 365 1/4 rotations of the Earth,this is why we have a leap day on Feb 29th to make up for the quarter day omitted from the 365 daily rotations in non-leap years.
Scientists,up to including NASA,state an impossible 366 1/4 rotations in an orbital circuit of the Earth which flies against the arithmetic of the 365/366 day calendar system and what the body actually experiences.In other words,it is not a question of speculating about God or the Universe that the wider community should have to consider but how a bunch of numbskulls can't count the amount of rotations of the Earth from March 1st 2009 to Feb 29th 2012.
Christians said the sun orbits the earth...
And Jesus thought the earth was flat.
And Jesus thought he was going to return in glory, in the first century. He is 19 centuries late. LOL
Gerald Kelleher – so you're argument is this: A calendar, which is manmade and was not even consistent from culture to culture, is evidence that scientists are foolish? That is, we have a Hebrew calendar (it is Rosh Hashanah after all) and a Gregorian Calendar which has been updated a few times in history. And you think the universe and natural order of things has anything to do with our manmade calendar year? We need to sit you down in the science section of your library.
stephen hawking is the most foolish man in the world. Psalm 14:1
Why blame Prof. Hawking, because god doesn't exist? It isn't Prof. Hawking's fault.
Unicorns and Leprechauns don't exist either. Are you mad at him about that to?
"Hawking claims God didn't create the universe and aims to banish a divine creator from physics."
You gotta love him! His heart is in the right place. Cheers Prof. Hawking. I hope you live a thousand years!
Stephen Hawking's concept of G-d is entirely impossible because G-d is no physical form which is also what the Big Bang is. The Big Bang is theorized as a non-physical form of reaction that contains several pieces of matter that can't possibly be obtained through gravity. Gravity didn't exist until it reached a certain point in the time continum of the Universe. There was no matter, no mass, simply light and darkness. So how can a scientist like Stephen Hawking, who has been disproven several times even able to make a book that indicates that there can't be G-d in physics, when G-d isn't even a physical form at all based on only light and darkness.
When, exactally was Stephen Hawking "disproven"? Can you give examples and references? Do you have any verifiable evidence to support your theory of what manifestations your god does and does not have? Your retort was acceptable until the use of "entirely impossible". You are making a claim of infinite knowledge to claim something is entirely impossible. Science makes no such claims, and in fact, welcomes questioning of theories. It is under the strict scrutiny of others that theories are either proved or disproved. Lastly, even if you could provide verifiable evidence and sound research that Prof. Hawking's theory is incorrect, that still does not mean that your god was the cause of the universe. You still need to provide evidence of your god's existence, then provide verifiable evidence that your god created the universe. Mr. Hawking's theory and your god theory are separate concepts. Both require their own evidence to support their claims.
@David Johnson Foolish
Yuu said, "So how can a scientist like Stephen Hawking, who has been disproven several times even able to make a book that indicates that there can't be G-d in physics, when G-d isn't even a physical form at all based on only light and darkness."
You are critical of Prof. Hawking. You are not worthy to wash his underwear.
What proof do you have of your god? All branches of science are proving a god is not necessary.
I can see why you are mad. Your god is fiction. He is in a class with Zeus and all the other gods who are no longer worshipped.
Evolution has replaced the creation story. Evolution is false? Then why all the transitional fossils? These should not exist if god created all the creatures, in their present form, once.
God was not necessary to account for diversity of life we find on this planet.
If there was no creation, then there was no original sin, no original sin, then no need for a redeemer, no redeemer, then what of Christianity?
Jesus predicted he would be back in the 1st century. Jesus is 19 centuries late. Understandable, since he is dead, if he ever existed. I bet that is frustrating for you. Do you sit outside, staring up at the sky, waiting on Jesus? LOL
Your King James contains errors. If it contains even one error, then how can you trust it?
You have only a flawed book and a feeling in your heart, as evidence for your god.
The reason god is not in physics, is simple. He does not exist. If he does exist, prove it!
@David Johnson. With all respect to comment to your views on Larry King to Interview Stephen Hawking about the form of God?? The form of God in the Quran as says to of Light more like of the moon light since he says Alqamar Nora. God Allah has given his form in Sura 24:35 puzzle of which I challenge you Mr.Stephen Hawking or NASA to decode it and if they did they would not declare because the Quran is challenging science and I am sure if this guy is intelligent through understanding the Quran would decode many miracles to be found.