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: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'

page: 39
68
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by leo123


A better analogy is when the wood burns and it disappears, but as a source of energy it is still here as smoke in the atmoshere.

It has simply changed form.
Right, I know that, but that wasn't my point. I know that the energy will be transferred into something else. I understand the conservation of energy, but it wont retain any memory.


How do you know.?




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gemineye
He may be a smart guy, but when it comes to knowing whether heaven exists or not, he doesn't know any more than the rest of us.


Thank you, and good night!



Originally posted by Epiphron
reply to post by gemineye
 


There's probably very few people in the world who know as much about our universe as he does. If anyone is qualified to say so, it's him.

Besides, it doesn't take a theoretical physicist to see how the concept of an afterlife is both a control mechanism and a defense mechanism.


Darling, we're not talking about the universe. This is a metaphysical, unseen, spiritual dynamic of which the man has no experience with, nor has he any intent or interest in gaining experience with such a concept, except for perhaps the purposes of supporting his own theories. Stephen Hawking may possess a fine, informed opinion from a scientific perspective but, sir, that is but one, single, confined perspective. Who is to say that the encounters of a wise, spiritually-versed shaman are ill-informed simply because the parameters of established modern science fail to provide a sufficient explanation for his mystifying and enigmatic experiences?

It's not my bag to criticise science. It's a practice that owns vast accomplishments and is a magnificent tool. Although, I think that the moment the scientific community decides to stop shafting the concept of the 'spiritual' and instead embraces the possibility that some of the established theories that pillar modern scientific study require significant revision, answers to these mysteries will flow in as if through an open door.

Hawking is just one man, a cluster of sentient atoms consciously generating marvelous ideas in a staggering, incomprehensible universe and yet he is insignificant to what actually exists beyond this place and ultimately none the wiser to the unfathomableness that surrounds us all. Clever but clueless.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Ok ATS, maybe you can help me figure out this one. So say there is a great creator- what created it?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk


I think he's right, we are biological not spiritual entities. Bet there will be a lottttt of people that disagree with him though.


In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: "We should seek the greatest value of our action."

In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.

Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: "Why are we here?"

In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.


www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Tell me something OP.
As you are sitting in front of your computer now, and you have to flex your muscles to reach things around, turn your eyes and your head to look at certain directions, move your legs to adjust your sitting position and you can feel at some minimal degree every fiber of your muscles twisting and stretching probably.
Tell me, which part of your body hurts even at the slightest bit when you get a new idea, when you feel, when you accidentally remember something, when you suddenly feel alone or you feel love?
Is this all associated with any particular body part and some motor abilities?

Checking the above quote I realize that Mr Hawkins not only believes in the after life but he is also concerned about the majority of the people that claim to do so and the new unsettling trend that is setting in, that all this modern social turmoil just has to come to pass and this notion furthers the apathy of the people everywhere to do something about it. He has to mask his worry and to come forward as a non believer because since he is a clever man, he knows that only in this way he will create controversy and people will start analyzing his idea and realizing their levels of apathy that contribute to the modern mess.

My 2 cents.
Not everything is what it might look like.
edit on 17-5-2011 by spacebot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The whole point of religion is that it cannot be proved to be false

This is why it provides the certainty so many need in their life.

IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED WITH REASON AS IT IS AN UNREASONABLE BELIEF

It is unscientific to state that an afterlife does not exist without proof it does not exist and how can you provide proof it does not exist if it never existed in the first place.

Think how your experiences would change if you knew for sure there was an afterlife. That you had a reset button.

How much longer do you play a game, without all the codes. How often do you reset when it gets hard.

There are too many realities of bizarre coincidences to say that we are only a biological mutational evolutionary coincidence.

In only one generation humans have gone from sun dials to super computers. How can our brains be ready to adapt to such a leap????????



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Thank you for your response. Where do I start here? First off...I just want to keep it real for a minute. After reviewing some of my previous posts, I feel the need to clarify one important thing. I am speaking from the platform of my own understanding. Meaning, it's my opinion. I thought that I may have come off as speaking in a pretentious truth that I expect everyone to know and accept. So, I'm not trying to get on a metaphysical soapbox or anything.

That being said, I think the most important part of tackling an issue of this magnitude is to resign one's self to not getting to the bottom of it, or ever "figuring it out". But, enough with the qualifications.

To address the points you made, I think what you brought up about personality is important. Remember, the first part of that word is "person". So yes, we will most certainly shed that, potentially even before we exit the physical body. This is logical based on the modern clinical definition of "personality". It is defined as, a set of defense mechanisms created and arranged to disguise, project or protect one's inner self. In so many words, our personalities are a created portrait that we use to project who we are to others, and presumably to ourselves at times. The personality is something we can change. It is not WHO we are but HOW we are. Our innerself on the other hand is truly static and unchangeable. Not to turn this into a psychobabble discussion, but keeping one's innerself and one's personality as close to one another is important. When one strays too far from the other a personality disorder could be diagnosed. I believe that it's nearly impossible for any human to achieve total sameness in the two. So, keeping them as close as possible is the best we can do. Earlier I mentioned that we could shed personality before physical death. Given the fact that most, or at least part of our personalities are pretense and perception; I would think that when death comes callin'...the BS is over.

What I'm getting at is that our innerself is a powerful, mysterious, and slippery thing...even to it's owner! This may be in fact, our soul. How does it manifest itself after physical death? I have no idea. To bring this bus fully around, I volley back one of your last questions. It was along the lines of, do we stay ourselves and keep our memories when we pass on? Granting the principles I previously outlined regarding personality and innerself and the relationship therein...Are you really yourself right now? Also, since our memories are merely our personal perceptions of past events, maybe it will finally be possible for us to TRULY be ourselves and see things the way they REALLY are.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


Here's my problem with his philosophy.

In this modern day and age, ghosts (yes I said Ghosts), have been photographed, filmed, caught on live tv, on surveillance cams, witnessed by millions of people around the world.

Though mainstream science is yet to officially declare ghosts real, the evidence is really overwhelming.

If not the lost spirits of dead people, what are they and why do they in many cases resemble people who have died many years ago and why do they act and interact with those around them as if they had some form of intelligence driving them as opposed to just visual memories captured by some unknown natural force (as some have suggested)....?

I am by far the least religious person around that I know of, however there are some things that even Mr Hawkings isn't smart enough to pronounce as a 100% surety..lol

Perhaps he is correct in that we aren't spiritual beings, but how about the possibility that we are dimensional beings. Maybe we exist across dimensions that co-exist within each other. one real and corporeal and the other incorporeal. When the limited version passes on, the immortal one continues to exist. Wouldn't this somehow be classed as an afterlife or rather a co-existing life that continues after the mortal one has had its time...
edit on 5/17/2011 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I completely agree with him, in that there is no evidence to directly support the notion of an afterlife, or continued consciousness after death.

Does it happen anyway? Maybe.


Honestly, the Universe is so weird and amazing that I can imagine the possibility of an ego-conscious identification ceasing to identify with itself, but continuing to exist with some form of new identity "later" and/or "elsewhere".

It all relies on subjective experience and perspective.

We could all very easily die, experience the reality of "blinking out" of existence, only to reincarnate entirely elsewhere and otherwise and have absolutely no recollection or concept of the "earlier" experiences of the continuing portion of the Self. Like changing clothes, but forgetting what you wore last.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Taj Mikel because: Edited for spelling



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Look I don't mean to be nasty here or anything, honestly but it's very hard for someone living life completely lame and in a wheelchair to believe there's a heaven. Not only this but the brain is not something that was ever designed to pass to the next life, just like the rest of your body. I'm not a big bible reader but even it says "from dust you came and to dust you shall return."

I suppose Steve's problem is that he thinks the brain is something you keep forever... actually I'm surprised he even thinks the brain has anything to do with it. I believe there's much more to life than just this current existence but I'm not a famous scientist or philosopher and I don't pass opinion as fact, I'm actually quite disappointed in Steve for passing his opinion as fact as his opinion actually carries weight in the world and that's irresponsible of him.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


Hawkings does not know it all sorry to say. Not too long ago scientists used to think that there were no other dimensions, now scientists know they exist. There is even a new theory, yes a scientific theory, that seems to explain why gravity is so weak, because it doesn't emanate from this universe, but from another.

Even science itself explains that the spirit does exist, the law of conservation of energy states that nothing can be created or destroyed, it changes from one energy form to another, that's part of our spirit.

ALL our thoughts are energy, but they weren't created we transformed one form of energy into another and from it our thoughts flow and persist forever more until those thoughts transform again into another form of energy.

I wish I had saved the link to the video.
edit on 17-5-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I believe that the point Mr. Hawking is trying to make, is that there IS no point. His theory has as much to do with science and spirituality as it does bouncing meatballs. In his opinion, we're all here by random chance, and we should make the most of it while we can. He obviously cannot prove this, however I'm pretty sure there is no evidence to the contrary either (please don't link me to any afterlife confessions). Regardless, it is much more of a topic worthy of discussion, and far less of a topic worth arguing over. Some of you need to relax, as there are much better ways to waste (apparently, our very limited) time.


Cheers,
Strype
edit on 17-5-2011 by Strype because: Sp



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mantisfortress
 



I thought that I may have come off as speaking in a pretentious truth that I expect everyone to know and accept. So, I'm not trying to get on a metaphysical soapbox or anything.

It's all good, I never got that impression.



It is defined as, a set of defense mechanisms created and arranged to disguise, project or protect one's inner self.

Thanks, that's a brilliant definition (and later explanation) for personality and I agree that I am not my personality.


What I'm getting at is that our innerself is a powerful, mysterious, and slippery thing...even to it's owner! This may be in fact, our soul. How does it manifest itself after physical death? I have no idea.

The inner self is a fascinating subject. If it is not our thoughts, the way we act, things we have done or any physical material, what is it? If we don't know what it is or how it would manifest outside of the body how can we say we even have an inner self?


To bring this bus fully around, I volley back one of your last questions. It was along the lines of, do we stay ourselves and keep our memories when we pass on? Granting the principles I previously outlined regarding personality and innerself and the relationship therein...Are you really yourself right now?

All I really know is that Azp420 is something the universe is currently doing. It sure feels like I am my own entity but when I go looking for it I can't find it! I have no definition of myself other than an event in the universe starting when I was born and lasting up until every moment. But even starting when I was born is not correct. It is more correct to start when I was conceived, or even when my parents met. But my physical makeup (including brain) is a result of their genetic material, so the start of the event goes back to at least when they were born, etc. The start of the event would then have to be the beginning of the universe.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Circular Universe
Ok ATS, maybe you can help me figure out this one. So say there is a great creator- what created it?


This is a problem that pops up regardless of if a god is involved or not. In Christianity they say God just always was and always existed and was never created. Which sounds stupid at first. But it actually makes since once you see all the options.

Look at the universe without God and we'll see there are only a few possible options. Let's take the theory of aliens. Many people believe that life didn't start on earth. But that life was seeded from some extraterrestrial source like a comet. Others believe that aliens came down to genetically engineer man.

That's fine, but you're actually right back where you started when trying to explain the origin of things. Where did the aliens come from? Where did the comet come from? Did they come from other aliens? Where did the second aliens come from? And so on and so on.

You always have to figure out where the thing that caused the other thing came from. What did we evolve from? What did apes evolve from? What did they evolve from? This is the theory that every creation has a creator and it just keeps going for infinity and you're always asking where the last thing came from. Just like you're doing in your post.

Then there was a time when scientists speculated that the universe had no origin. That it just always was and came from nowhere. This is the second option, that every creation has a creator up until some point where you finally reach something that just always was, like the universe or God for example. That eventually if you keep going you can reach a creation that had no creator and no origin.

Then we discovered the big bang and that the universe would expand forever. So, this was the third option. That every creation had a creator up until some starting point that ALSO had an origin, but had no creator and just sorta happened. It came out of nowhere with energy that didn't exist.

Then came along string theory and it suggested that we live in a 10 or 11 dimensional multi-verse and that outside the universe there are these membrane things that move around and when two of them collided the collision produced the big bang and created our universe. And new universes are created all the time.

But that's the the same option as option one. If that's the case, then what created the membranes that crash together? And we're right back where we started looking for the next thing.

So, if we look at our options all will become clear.
1. Every creation had a creator and it keeps going forever unto infinity and there was no original starting point. A concept most humans don't understand. How could there be no starting point?
2. Every creation had a creator up until some point that just always was and existed forever. A concept most humans don't understand. How could something have just always been there?
3. Every creation had a creator up until some point that had no creator itself, but that it just popped up into reality out of nowhere and came from nothing. A concept most humans don't really understand. How can something come from nothing?

None of these really make logical sense, but we KNOW it had to be one of the three. Either everything goes on for eternity or that eventually you reach some start point that came from nothing or that just always was. There are no other answers. It's got to be one of three no matter how whacked out they sound.

So, we see the problem has nothing to do with God. The problem is simply that humans don't understand creation itself. So that's why the question isn't logical, because no matter which answer I gave, it would never satisfy a non-believer.

If I say he just came from nothing they'll say that's not possible. How does something come from nothing? Everything comes from something. But that's a logical fallacy. Given our options we know it's a perfectly valid answer for something to come from nothing.

If I say he had even a more powerful creator they'll just go on and on about who created God? Who created God's creator and so and so on? Just like you're doing. But it doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy. We know it's one our three perfectly valid explanations, that things just go on forever and ever and everything could have been created by something else with no original starting point.

If I say God just always was, they'll say that doesn't make any sense. I'm just giving up because I don't know the answer and God doesn't exist. But that's a logical fallacy. We know from our three options that it is perfectly valid for something to just have always existed.

Now I don't know what the answer was, but it had to be one of those three. So it's a logical fallacy to ask the question because no matter which answer I give, humans won't understand it. It's not that we don't know what the answer is, it's that we don't understand how it's possible.

When asked, God said that he just always had been. And that's a perfectly valid answer because we know it had to be either that, or one of the other two. But just because we don't understand how that's possible doesn't mean anything. We don't understand how any of the three could be possible, so we see now, the problem isn't with how the universe got here or how God got here, but the problem is our inability to understand the answer.

Therefore asking the question gets us nowhere. Because we cannot understand the answer to it.
edit on 17-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


Tephra, please consider this as a possibility.
Never mind Hawking, who is entitled to his view, but he may be Illuminati, for all we know. Here's my opinion, for what it's worth, though it will sound daft: Please look at an image of the Earth's electromagnetic field and the Sun. It looks to me like the Earth is trapped in the grip of an evil octopus, whose centre forms a kind of torus, or donut shape. Some say that the divine energy of our Heavenly Father flows toward Earth using the Sun as a conduit, and solar flares are actually trying to FREE us from the grip of the octopus, which seized us all in ancient times, in order to trap all the beauty of the natural world, turning its positive energy into negative energy, harvesting negative energy from humans and all life forms by causing pain, fear, anger, violence and depravity. We are spiritual beings trapped here, circling round and round, each in our own tiny section of the torus, trapped by the fallen angel called by many names, the one who creates all the evil in the world, and yet we all blame our Heavenly Father in daily curses using His name. The Dark Forces want to cut us off from the Sun, and from the beauty of the natural world which links us so closely to our Heavenly Father, by making us afraid of the Sun, by using "cancer scares", chemtrails for "Global Dimming", satanic symbolism in movies and music, and technology like computers and televison to keep us all indoors, and always looking down at our ipods when outdoors. At the same time, NASA images show UFOs attacking our Sun, which seems to be throwing out flares in self-defence.

We must help the Sun to reach us, to break through these electromagnetic prison bars, loosen the grip of the satanic octopus, by sending out our own positive energy, and the positive energy of all the glorious natural world around us, back towards the Sun, the conduit to our Heavenly Father. This WAS the Garden of Eden, but it was invaded by the Dark Forces long ago, and they are growing ever more bold. And for those who have abandoned Christianity because of the violence and injustice of the god of the Old Testament, please look at the ideas of Marcion of Sinope. Thank you for taking time to read this, and think about it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


An interesting read. I think some related questions are:

Can something have an end but no beginning?

Can something have a beginning but no end?

To me it seems the most reasonable answer is that it always was and always will be. Perhaps going through some sort of cycle, where all information is destroyed at a certain point and it all starts fresh. That way no conscious part of the universe is able to look back in time and keep finding out what caused a certain event which caused a certain event to infinity.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
edit on 17-5-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by 547000
God didn't appear to me, but I experienced the sensations of the crucifixion. I felt the holes, the blood, and a wonderful light. I have also felt my body burning in a terrible fire. And no, nothing to do with fever.


I'm curious which types of mental diseases have you been diagnosed with?


Sounds as if he/she is talking about the Stigmata. This is a very real phenomenon experienced by Christian Saints. Saint Francis of Assissi was the first recorded Saint to have the Stigmata. Also there was Padre Pio, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint John of God, Therese Neumann and others.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.catholictradition.org...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


An interesting read. I think some related questions are:

Can something have an end but no beginning?

Can something have a beginning but no end?

To me it seems the most reasonable answer is that it always was and always will be. Perhaps going through some sort of cycle.


When it says that God is the alpha and the omega I think that God was, is, and always will be, without end or beginning.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by 547000
God didn't appear to me, but I experienced the sensations of the crucifixion. I felt the holes, the blood, and a wonderful light. I have also felt my body burning in a terrible fire. And no, nothing to do with fever.


I'm curious which types of mental diseases have you been diagnosed with?


Sounds as if he/she is talking about the Stigmata. This is a very real phenomenon experienced by Christian Saints. Saint Francis of Assissi was the first recorded Saint to have the Stigmata. Also there was Padre Pio, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint John of God, Therese Neumann and others.
en.wikipedia.org...

www.catholictradition.org...


Yup, I didn't know what it was called at the time.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Here we go.

Parallel Universes
edit on 17-5-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


and

www.youtube.com...
edit on 17-5-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 


Bipolar, but I doubt that means anything, because they probably diagnose such things as explanations for phenomena they don't believe in.
edit on 17-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join