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

Originally posted by mahajohn

You are entirely incorrect; every person in those videos is speaking speculatively when they talk about 'branes and multiple universes. Although I am in love with the latter notion, there is no direct or indirect evidence yet for the existence of such.

Obviously you didn't watch the videos because they talk about the evidence, in the form of equations, that several scientists from around the world discovered, or rediscovered, and what they all found coincide with each other... That is a lot higher than mere chance, or an accidental discovery and makes it very likely to be at least part of the truth.

Originally posted by mahajohn
Further, you state that "an infinite number of bubble universes, something which has been known by mystics and scholars of ancient knowledge before scientists discovered it." I challenge your assertion. Please show where a mystic or ancient scholar describes "an infinite number of bubble universes." First, you won't be able to find that, unless you're talking about a 20th or 21st century mystic/scholar, in which case they'd obviously be informed (if badly) about the speculative scientific thought of the day.

Sure, and I respond to your challenge.

Srila Prabhupada: “There are innumerable universes beyond the one in which we are put, and all these material universes cover only an insignificant portion of the spiritual sky, which is described above as sanātana Brahmaloka.” (Purport to 2:5:40-41)

Hinduism’s understanding of time is as grandiose as time itself. While most cultures base their cosmologies on familiar units such as few hundreds or thousands of years, the Hindu concept of time embraces billions and trillions of years. The Puranas describe time units from the infinitesimal truti, lasting 1/1,000,0000 of a second to a mahamantavara of 311 trillion years. Hindu sages describe time as cyclic, an endless procession of creation, preservation and dissolution. Scientists such as Carl Sagan have expressed amazement at the accuracy of space and time descriptions given by the ancient rishis and saints, who fathomed the secrets of the universe through their mystically awakened senses.
...
What the Western scientists had discovered in the 19th century, and which our 21st-century eminent scientists like Stephen Hawking and Dr Michio Kaku (the person in the video above) have now affirmed and corroborate, is a twice-told tale for the great majority of the Hindus. That there are multiple or innumerable universes is no news to the Hindu who is learned in the Hindu scriptures. Not just one but several Puranas, viz., Vishnu Purana, Srimad Bhagavatam, Padma Purana and Vayu Purana, and authoritative Hindu scriptures like Atharva Veda have spoken of the different universes:

Srimad Bhagavatam (10:87:41): Because You are unlimited, neither the lords of heaven nor even You Yourself can ever reach the end of Your glories. The countless universes, each enveloped in its shell, are compelled by the wheel of time to wander within You, like particles of dust blowing about in the sky. The śrutis, following their method of eliminating everything separate from the Supreme, become successful by revealing You as their final conclusion.
...
Every universe is covered by seven layers — earth, water, fire, air, sky, the total energy and false ego — each ten times greater than the previous one. There are innumerable universes besides this one, and although they are unlimitedly large, they move about like atoms in You. Therefore You are called unlimited (Srimad Bhagavatam 6.16.37)

antaryamin.wordpress.com...

There are several other examples, but you didn't ask for many, so here is one.

BTW, before you make a fatal mistake, like some other people have done know that the Vedic scriptures, or Vedas, are very ancient.

The Vedas (Sanskrit वेद véda, "knowledge") are a large body of texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by mahajohn
Second, it is literally meaningless to state that there is an "infinite number" of ANYTHING. If we are talking about discrete objects/phenomena/etc., then by definition there will be a finite number of them. If you can't see that, then you probably don't understand the notion of "infinite." Now, it's possible that the multitude of bubble universes exist in a boundless, hyperdimensional realm, in which case IT (singular) is infinite, but not the discrete, singular phenomena that take place in it.

Why is that because YOU say it must be so?...

YES, there can be an infinite number of universes, why can't there be?

Originally posted by FlyingSkullOfDeath

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier
i agree, there is no heaven or hell or god or spirits or ghosts or souls etc ..... its all an excuse, every person believes that he him/her self is better than others and hence believes that something special will happen to him following his/her death. well actually when you die you die, thats it. it could be because the organs are worn off and shut down so your brain ceases to function. right now you are alive not because of a soul but because your body's complex functioning is keeping your brain and remaining cells alive.

a human body is made up of only 28 basic elements in different proportions. trillions of atoms build your body. and everything works like a complex machine.

That is the fervent wish of every atheist, but all evidence is to the contrary. Instead, there is no longer any doubt that after mortal death comes a certain Judgment.

edit on 19-5-2011 by FlyingSkullOfDeath because: (no reason given)

why do you say that this is my wish, do you think i have not asked myself questions like this before ??
just look at a single celled organizm, what happens when it shrivels up and dies ?? judgement ?? this judgement thing does not exist, you have 1 life and being nice does not mean you have to be afraid of judgement after death.

imagine this single cell on a large scale and you get a complex biological machine that performs to keep its self alive but there comes a time when it also is worn off. also there will come a time when you will be able to preserve whole dead bodies through cryogenics and revive them 100s of years later or transfer their brain into a robotic form (i.e. making humanoids) it is already possible with mice so why not humans ???

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
In my eye's Hawkins is now officially a Twat. Seems like such a great intellect but obviously he's a bit dull. Then again can we really expect someone with his disability to believe in God? Probably not. I think he's taken the huff with the Almighty and this is payback time.

Hawkins is a Deist so he does believe in god.
www.christiandeistfellowship.com...

We deist just don't believe in religious dogma or BS
Deism is unique in that it doesn't predicate it's love of God on rewards such as heaven.

Even as a Christen deist i don't in the divinity of Jesus, and don't believe Jesus was anything more then a philosopher like Aristotle or Socrates.
www.christiandeistfellowship.com...

Heaven and Hell were just ways for the church and priest to get money to support the church and control the masses.

Stephen Hawking isn't always right...ask Leonard Susskind.

Second line

You know whether other people believe or not, you ask any Christian who believes in God and heaven, they are not afraid of death. You go to a Christian funeral and people are more at peace, yet you go to a funeral of an unsaved person they are not nearly as peaceful. With the unsaved its usually mourning, with the saved its celebration.

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier

Originally posted by FlyingSkullOfDeath

Originally posted by TiberianPurifier
i agree, there is no heaven or hell or god or spirits or ghosts or souls etc ..... its all an excuse, every person believes that he him/her self is better than others and hence believes that something special will happen to him following his/her death. well actually when you die you die, thats it. it could be because the organs are worn off and shut down so your brain ceases to function. right now you are alive not because of a soul but because your body's complex functioning is keeping your brain and remaining cells alive.

a human body is made up of only 28 basic elements in different proportions. trillions of atoms build your body. and everything works like a complex machine.

That is the fervent wish of every atheist, but all evidence is to the contrary. Instead, there is no longer any doubt that after mortal death comes a certain Judgment.

edit on 19-5-2011 by FlyingSkullOfDeath because: (no reason given)

why do you say that this is my wish, do you think i have not asked myself questions like this before ??
just look at a single celled organizm, what happens when it shrivels up and dies ?? judgement ?? this judgement thing does not exist, you have 1 life and being nice does not mean you have to be afraid of judgement after death.

imagine this single cell on a large scale and you get a complex biological machine that performs to keep its self alive but there comes a time when it also is worn off. also there will come a time when you will be able to preserve whole dead bodies through cryogenics and revive them 100s of years later or transfer their brain into a robotic form (i.e. making humanoids) it is already possible with mice so why not humans ???

The probability of the random workings of evolution producing the genome of even the simplest bacteria are 10^40000. Far beyond impossible, that would be like you hitting the Powerball every week for 800 years in a row....

reply to post by spacedonk


Stephen, like most of us, is swaddled in the cloth of dogma, or self hypnosis, or a choice of awareness. I was raised a scientific materialist and still view that stance as useful and valid in the state of consciousness we now experience.

BUT people experience sh*t that is totally counter to that strict view every day. Even before I had first hand "proof" that things like "spirits" could exist, I learned enough about science to understand it's limitations regarding things that are difficult to measure, let alone conceptualize.

It's a big (perhaps infinite) universe(s?) in our own consciousness... expand that exponentially as one moves into experiential reality (if that exists ultimately outside of ourselves) and things get pretty expansive. Nobody really gets that oft misused word "infinite."

To state that there is "no afterlife" is pretty myopic and ignorant, though considering what religious fundamentalists have brought to the world, I can sympathize with the sentiment.

Well those that know, know that heaven is what we make of it here on earth. If I was confined to a wheel chair, all crumpled up with the voice of an alien I'd say the same thing. Take a load Stephen...

It's "fairy tale" dumbass.

And you're wrong

and you have no proof.

reply to post by FlyingSkullOfDeath


Check out the recent findings on the development of Ceteceans from hoofed ungulate to what we see now. Transitional forms present and sequenced in the fossil record.
As to claims for the Noah's Ark how can anyone believe a craft of those dimensions could carry two of every species on Earth let alone the years of collecting and transporting them is beyond my comprehension.
To get back closer to the topic Hawkings believes in science and not only that his personal freedoms should allow him to make assertions just like this. There are numerous other scientists that would endorse his conclusions wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by FlyingSkullOfDeath

 

Check out the recent findings on the development of Ceteceans from hoofed ungulate to what we see now. Transitional forms present and sequenced in the fossil record.
As to claims for the Noah's Ark how can anyone believe a craft of those dimensions could carry two of every species on Earth let alone the years of collecting and transporting them is beyond my comprehension.
To get back closer to the topic Hawkings believes in science and not only that his personal freedoms should allow him to make assertions just like this. There are numerous other scientists that would endorse his conclusions wholeheartedly.

As to the claims of Hawking's Nomad Space Aliens In Deep Space, how can anyone believe that Aliens in other dimensions could invade Earth let alone be REAL is beyond my comprehension, sounds like a page right out of H.G. Wells. It's real Science that keeps these fantasy's going....

reply to post by FlyingSkullOfDeath


Many of the creationists, who claim statistical impossibility are wont to be influenced directly or indirectly by Borel and here is what he had to say:

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126: The Problem of Life. In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments. When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle? It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit. Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance. In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless. References Borel, Emil (1962), Probability and Life, Dover, translated from the original, Les Probabilite et la Vie, 1943, Presses Universitaire de France. Borel, Emil (1963), Probability and Certainty, Dover, translated from the original, Probabilite et Certitude, 1950, Presses Universitaire de France.

Originally posted by goldentorch
reply to post by FlyingSkullOfDeath

 

Many of the creationists, who claim statistical impossibility are wont to be influenced directly or indirectly by Borel and here is what he had to say:

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126: The Problem of Life. In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments. When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth. Is it not possible to infer that the probability that this brain may have been produced by the blind forces of chance is even slighter than the probability of the typewriting miracle? It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance. Moreover, certain of these properties of living matter also belong to inanimate matter, when it takes certain forms, such as that of crystals. It does not seem possible to apply the laws of probability calculus to the phenomenon of the formation of a crystal in a more or less supersaturated solution. At least, it would not be possible to treat this as a problem of probability without taking account of certain properties of matter, properties that facilitate the formation of crystals and that we are certainly obliged to verify. We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit. Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance. In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless. References Borel, Emil (1962), Probability and Life, Dover, translated from the original, Les Probabilite et la Vie, 1943, Presses Universitaire de France. Borel, Emil (1963), Probability and Certainty, Dover, translated from the original, Probabilite et Certitude, 1950, Presses Universitaire de France.

As a stark atheist I scoff at story's like the biblical flood, the Ark, and the Golden Calf, you should too.... I believe in Evolution, and that's enough to save us all!

i just wanna put it out there.

ive always thought that "anonymous" was stephen hawking"

i mean. really he's just a guy in a chair right. the perfect "mouth piece"

for anyone who can hack his "voicebox"

..

is it really him. beyond a doubt.

ive always thought it was like a seriously sick joke on society!

How utterly disappointing to hear from a person that so many people claim to be a genius. He obviously isn't, and is simply an expert in the field he chose to focus on, which is in itself unknowable at this point in time by mainstream science.

Hawking knows nothing about death and hasn't the credentials to even comment on it. If he had been familiar with the work of Thomas Campbell, Dennis Mennerich, Robert Monroe and the Monroe Institute he would have had a much more intelligent response to such a question. Unfortunately it's completely obvious that the subject is out of his realm of reasoning, understanding and experience.

There clearly is something that continues, and it isn't just energy. It isn't what most people think though, and especially isn't what most religious people think of as the afterlife. It's simply reality, an awareness that encompasses more than what we experience here but is not anything magical. It's just the next phase of your reality and one that is more true and real. Like waking up from a dream and remembering who you really are, and realizing that this present life was just a role you played in order to gain experience and understanding. It's like waking up in this life from a crazy dream and feeling kinda relieved it was only a dream, with the difference being that this present life you are living is a necessary dream(simulation) in order to gain experience and grow as a small piece of individual consciousness.

Hawking needs to do some homework because there is plenty of evidence that strongly suggests you will still be conscious and even more aware after the point of death. Both the religious and atheist nuts have it wrong.

This is the same man who said, there is no perfection in the universe... or something to that effect.

For a man of science to make such a claim invalidates all he says. Has he not looked at the "perfect" location of our planet in our solar system? Has he not seen sunrise or sunset?

Clearly he has not seen woman, the female form... if that is not perfection, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by nwosigns
This is the same man who said, there is no perfection in the universe... or something to that effect.

For a man of science to make such a claim invalidates all he says. Has he not looked at the "perfect" location of our planet in our solar system? Has he not seen sunrise or sunset?

Clearly he has not seen woman, the female form... if that is not perfection, I don't know what is.

Hawking was right to say it isn't perfect...at least if life was the goal

ol boy is getting a little paranoid, me thinks.

watch out for aliens who want to kill us and now this.

the pope might give him a visit and straighten him out, i bet.



although i can't see him b***h slapping a guy in a wheel chair.

Originally posted by fooks
ol boy is getting a little paranoid, me thinks.

watch out for aliens who want to kill us and now this.

the pope might give him a visit and straighten him out, i bet.

although i can't see him b***h slapping a guy in a wheel chair.

Are you talking about the current pope? The one who declared the old pope "blessed" even though this guy demonstrably tried to hide child molesters? And you're looking towards him for guidance...really?

steven hawkins can be a DOOSH sometimes