• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Steven Hawking: "There is no heaven"

C

Chessic

New Member
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/16/physicist-stephen-hawking-says-heaven/?test=faces


If you'll indulge me in a brief rant...

Why is this man frequently called one of the greatest geniuses of all time? He doesn't seem quite so bright to me, and not just because I have faith and he doesn't. But because he has the gall to believe that what he thinks he sees or thinks he understands is any sort of evidence of what can or cannot exist in all the universe(s) that may exist. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to believe that our finite minds should be able to grasp anything at all about God without His direct revelation--that the sum total of human knowledge, infantesimal compared to all possible knowledge, is adequate to make any definite judgement about anything at all, much less those things we cannot see or understand. Idiocy, imho.

Einstein is another example of someone who is thought to be one of the greatest geniuses and who was critical of Christianity. What extra power does a chalkboard give you when it comes to direct knowledge of that which by definition is greater than you in every way?

Why do we so often single out physicists as examples of the most intelligent people on earth?

I understand the media's eagerness to present a story that will get a strong response. But it's frustrating that so many people use what these men have said as evidence against God or the claims of Christ, not only in personal beliefs, but in formal apologetic debates and in public discourse.

Being a great physicist should not give your opinion any greater weight in matters of spiritual truth than your average dentists, school teacher, janitor, politician, secretary, or barber.

God and only God can teach us His truth, and only He is qualified to teach us what is and what is not.

Ok, rant off... I feel a little better now. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jedi Knight

Jedi Knight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well I guess he will be signing up for the class "Shocked 101" AS SOON AS HE DEPARTS THIS WORLD! :tonofbricks:
 
preachinjesus

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Again this statement by Hawking exhibits the intellectual pomposity of some in contemporary science that believe they both can rationally explain all phenomenon and must explain all phenomenon.

The reality is that when Dr. Hawking speaks about matters like this he moves out of the realm of scientist and immediately assumes the mantle of theologian. A task which he is ill suited to assume.

It seems to me that scientists have all kinds of problems with theologians speaking into their realm so why can't theologians have all kinds of problems with scientists doing the same?

Part of a humble approach to both disciplines is the recognition that there are simply some matters which can't be explained or observed about human existence.
 
carpro

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Where he's going, he still won't know there is a heaven...

but he'll wish there was and that he was there. :jesus:
 
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
carpro said:
Where he's going, he still won't know there is a heaven...

but he'll wish there was and that he was there. :jesus:
Click to expand...

exactly correct....
16But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

17Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

18When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.

19Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.

20Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son.

21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes
Click to expand...
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
preachinjesus said:
Again this statement by Hawking exhibits the intellectual pomposity of some in contemporary science that believe they both can rationally explain all phenomenon and must explain all phenomenon.

The reality is that when Dr. Hawking speaks about matters like this he moves out of the realm of scientist and immediately assumes the mantle of theologian. A task which he is ill suited to assume.

It seems to me that scientists have all kinds of problems with theologians speaking into their realm so why can't theologians have all kinds of problems with scientists doing the same?

Part of a humble approach to both disciplines is the recognition that there are simply some matters which can't be explained or observed about human existence.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Chessic said:
Why do we so often single out physicists as examples of the most intelligent people on earth?
Click to expand...

Because they understand the underpinnings of how things work, what makes things work, why things work plus they can express this knowledge mathematically which crosses the language barriers. Also, they are responsible for many, many scientific breakthroughs that ultimately find their way into inventions and technology that make everyday life and tasks a lot easier.
 
C

Chessic

New Member
InTheLight said:
Because they understand the underpinnings of how things work, what makes things work, why things work plus they can express this knowledge mathematically which crosses the language barriers. Also, they are responsible for many, many scientific breakthroughs that ultimately find their way into inventions and technology that make everyday life and tasks a lot easier.
Click to expand...


I would say that they seem to understand the apparent or visible (in the broadest sense) workings of the universe, but cannot know the whole story, or even the root of the story, without acknowledging the Creator.

However, I agree at least that the appearance of bringing the mysterious down to concrete, understandable terms is largely why the masses follow them so readily. Another part just seems to be band-wagonning.
 
E

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
This is where I saw this, yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...ephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
Click to expand...

What it occurred to me this reflects is in imagining what a God would be like, projecting our own perspective into it. If we were placed in charge of a big universe like this, we would not have the capacity to focus on what is relatively insignificant in the grand scale of things. So we feel a "personal" God couldn't or wouldn't either. (And of course, the whole "accidental" thing is presupposed on the notion that a God wouldn't exist or be involved in the first place).

But it's obvious that what we call God is obviously a totally different kind of being than anything we are familiar with on earth. So why couldn't He have a "relationship" with the sentient beings who do exist int he universe?

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going," he writes.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that figures. (Gravity is the factor that leads to the universe creating itself. And then the point after it seems to be set upon it).
Where did this gravity come from, then?
String theorists will claim to answer this with an 11D space containing "branes" (other spaces), and that new universes (such as ours) are created when they collide. But where did all of this come from, then? They've just pushed genesis further and further back into total speculation. (But then they'll claim using this as evidence of a Creator is just "God of the gaps").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top