It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science are sufficient, we don't need God."

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I don't know how to introduce to that, so here's what he said:

Hawking, who recently saw his remarkable life portrayed in the Oscar-winning movie The Theory of Everything, is able to write using a sensor in his cheek, one of the few muscles he is still able to move. He uses several software programs to help him communicate, but it can sometimes still take him up to two hours to answer a simple question – although he does have a special button that cracks jokes.

His life apart, Hawking agreed to answer EL PAÍS’s questions, and discusses the need to conquer space if humanity is to survive, as well as the dangers that artificial intelligence poses, and the future for science in Spain.

His most interesting awnsers were:






Q. You said God is unnecessary to explain the universe as it is. Do you think humans would one day abandon religion and God?

AThe laws of science are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. It is not necessary to invoke God”

Q. You recently launched a very ambitious initiative to search for intelligent life in our galaxy. A few years ago, though, you said it would be better not to contact extraterrestrial civilizations because they could even exterminate us. Have you changed your mind?

A. If aliens visit us, the outcome could be much like when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach. To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.

Q. Why should we fear artificial intelligence?

A. Computers will overtake humans with AI at some point within the next 100 years. When that happens, we need to make sure the computers have goals aligned with ours.


Source for more




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

He has his own "Opinion" based in his belief as everyone else does.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Frocharocha

He has his own "Opinion" based in his belief as everyone else does.


Mostly like yes, as there are many scientists who have different opinions on this matter.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Every creation has a creator according to the laws of nature ...


Just saying ...



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

He has his own "Opinion" based in his belief as everyone else does.


This is true. However some opinions are more informed than others. Some opinions are closer to being correct than others. Some opinions result in better understanding than others. Etc.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta
Every creation has a creator according to the laws of nature ...

Just saying ...



Which of natures laws would that be???

Every "Creation" has a "Creator" because you're using the word "Creation" in a certain context. When certain weather patterns "Create" a storm we don't say the storm has a "Creator" behind it. It's just a result of specific weather patterns.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

Well that is an unfortunate utterance from a brainiac I admired.

Seems Stevie has aligned himself with the new priesthood and it's "laws (dogmas)".

A sad day for all free thinkers.




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta
Every creation has a creator according to the laws of nature ...


Just saying ...




Every creation has a creator according to RELIGION.


Fixed.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Last I checked, if science is still subject to change, then they're not.

Also last I checked, the Big Bang was the theory of space expanding right after the origin of the universe, not the origin itself.

Maybe science has a new definition now, in which case I'll treat it as a religion like any other.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Woopty F#in Doo...


I don't believe he had said a word in 30 years...

He is a preprogrammed cyborg...



Sad, because he could have been the greatest scientist that has ever lived until he was poisoned and rebuilt to spout what our controllers want.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Kapusta
Every creation has a creator according to the laws of nature ...

Just saying ...



Which of natures laws would that be???

Every "Creation" has a "Creator" because you're using the word "Creation" in a certain context. When certain weather patterns "Create" a storm we don't say the storm has a "Creator" behind it. It's just a result of specific weather patterns.


don't play word games with me boyo , you know what i mean .




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
Last I checked, if science is still subject to change, then they're not.

Also last I checked, the Big Bang was the theory of space expanding right after the origin of the universe, not the origin itself.

Maybe science has a new definition now, in which case I'll treat it as a religion like any other.


You should recheck that because Planck epoch is not synonymous with origin.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Go ahead and tell us how science explains the origin of the universe then. I'll eagerly await your response.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta
don't play word games with me boyo , you know what i mean .



I'm not the one playing word games. I would appreciate it if you didn't address me as "boyo" either.

I asked you which of "Natures Laws" you were talking about. How is that a word game???



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
the God of the Bible and the Creation stated he does not want this planet worshipping 'other Gods' before him, I doubt he was talking about "artifical intelligence and robotics"



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
He is subject to the influences of evil as all people are. He says all kinds of philosophical things he really knows nothing about. He should stick to math and not delve into the spiritual if he doesn't think it is part of existence. He is a retard when it comes to those things..



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Grimpachi

Go ahead and tell us how science explains the origin of the universe then. I'll eagerly await your response.



Before the Big Bang it is thought there was a singularity, but before there was a singularity we don't know.

Saying you do not know is appropriate and truthful. Making up sh!t isn't.

Before the singularity there could have been a universe that collapsed in on itself, but we don't know.

God of the Gaps is a fallacy which is what people are doing when they insert "god" where we don't know.
edit on 26-9-2015 by Grimpachi because: fixed



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Kapusta
don't play word games with me boyo , you know what i mean .



I'm not the one playing word games. I would appreciate it if you didn't address me as "boyo" either.

I asked you which of "Natures Laws" you were talking about. How is that a word game???


Ohh forgive my sarcasm , We must be having a serious moment.

I was basing my opinion off of my own personal observation.

Maybe you can provide me some evidence that something is created out of nothing.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Frocharocha

He has his own "Opinion" based in his belief as everyone else does.


Science simply does not have an opinion, this is why it's science. It's a method through which we use all our senses and collective reports to come to a final conclusion.
For example, your opinion that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe has no science to back up those claims, where as the collective agreements between thousands of people with opinions and biased set aside give a better explanation. Opinion has absolutely no credibility in a true scientific study or conclusion. If basic terms, your scientific conclusion is right until proven otherwise, but if it's simply your belief or opinion then move on.

Hawking wrote a book about his struggle with intelligent design, and he admits that he was lost in opinions and thought of a creator, he swallowed his pride and bug deeper, and admitted he was wrong because of the triumphs that the scientific method brought forward. Something that a lot of people need to do now days to be honest.
edit on 26-9-2015 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Today's science, like yesterday's science will be the same as tomorrow's science.

We believe this to be true today until we discover that it is not and update our "facts".


edit on 26-9-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)







 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join