It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Physicist Stephen Hawking denounced for believing...

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:25 AM
I could understand why this would be a scary thought to a lot of people... As if a lot of people were to hold this thought, they might take it the wrong way and go batsh*t bonkers. Would that happen though? It is a doubtful thing. There really is no hard evidence on this, and frankly I don't think there ever will be. Just major pointers. Is that enough to deny ignorance from perhaps the one of the most freightening thoughts out there? Not a chance. Especially when the mind has been programmed for religion. Don't think so? Maybe not, but you know, deep inside of you, that there is something spiritual about this universe don't you. Perhaps too deep to see right this moment, but if you still your mind long enough, you will find it. I believe this programming will outweigh any evidence. At least, until our race is ready to lose our egos and realize that we might be robots, but it changes nothing, because there is nothing to change.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
What are the effects of free-will if it exists? Can the possessor will himself/herself to levitate or not to breathe? Evidently not. It is supposed to manifest itself in making decisions amongst the many physically and biologically possible choices. Do all supposed possessors make the exact same decisions when presented with the same set of facts and options? Evidently not. Is there any scientifically verifable evidence of its existence? There doesn't seem to be. Is it conceivable to make a machine that makes decisions that can be believed to have been made by a human? Yes.

So from all scientifically verifiable evidence free-will is an unnecessary parameter. That of course, doesn't mean it cannot exist. Many things may exist that are not strictly "necessary".

So if it does exist, how does one know it does? Since it cannot be scientifically verified, it can be known only by personal experience. But if the experience were universal, meaning everyone who is biologically human possessed it and experiences it personally, its existence cannot be denied in earnest, except perhaps as an intellectual exercise. So if it does exist, the deniers are either biologically programmed automatons or dishonest. That does not make all the claimants honest either. Some of them too could be biologically programmed automatons pretending to be possessing a free-will because it offers a survival advantage. In fact, for a biologically programmed automaton, honesty is merely a strategy. It may have been programmed to be compulsively honest or may have been programmed to be honest or dishonest as seems the most advantageous under the circumstances.

It should come as no surprise that a free-will that is not biological in origin is not universally present among those biologically classified as humans.

However, what would be suprising is why some of those who possessed it and experienced it would dishonestly deny its existence.

What are the consequences of a belief in free-will? Belief in free-will makes the person, in his/her own estimation, responsible for his/her actions. So the pressure/incentive needed to coerce/convince the person into doing something that the person considers 'wrong', would be high to offest the feeling of guilt over doing the 'wrong' thing. However, if the person is convinced that he/she is not responsible for those actions, the pressure/incentive required is significntly lessened into making them do things they consider 'wrong'. This is quite evident as in cases where people who believe they are under orders or "just doing their job" (and hence not responsible for their actions) can be made to act in ways they would consider 'wrong'. Essentially, once people are convinced they are nothing more than biological creatures struggling to survive and propogate their genes, they can be reduced to exactly that: biological creatures motivated solely by survival and genetic propogation, if they are even interested in that. All of mankind's history has been to be more than biological creatures surviving and propogating their genes and for as many as possible. It is time so that most of it is reduced to animals while a few can be something else, whatever that motivation be.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by Nikola014

Looks like people feel threatened.

If you know basic chemistry, basic biology, basic physics and basic neurology, you'll see that all of our actions, thoughts and perceptions are influenced primarily by electrical signals in our brain, of which external/internal factors such as genetics, environment, and experiences are a catalyst for. There is no "magical" free will, and IF let's say there is "magical"free-will, it would be so weak in effect that in comparison to all the other "driving forces" behind our actions, it could be considered insignificant.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

So please explain to the audience here where Stephen Hawking gets this "wisdom" or frame of mind? Where does he derive the mental aptitude to come up with this BS? If WE as human beings do not have free will, then how do you explain sex? Animals have sex to procreate the species, we do it for pleasure and excitement and as a mental relief of stress. Please explain all of these things if they are not free will.

Free will.....what is it really, it must be defined first, and WHO defines it, the one WITH the free will or the one WHO BELIEVES he has the free will? I could go on forever, but it is pointles when so few can even comprehend their own existence.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:01 AM
Long time troll, short time member. Due to this, I do not know how to post a video yet. However if you google or youtube "Waking life - Free will" its a short speech about the problem of free will. Interesting viewpoints from both sides are presented.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
Poor Mr. Hawking, it must be boring to live in the barren, infecund spiritual world of this sad little man, good thing he has the brilliance of his work to fall back on since his moral commentary is stunningly lacking. Keep your day job Steven and leave the spiritual prognostication to the pros.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
He is brilliant in astro-physics...good field for him to stay put

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by bigrex
Poor Mr. Hawking, it must be boring to live in the barren, infecund spiritual world of this sad little man, good thing he has the brilliance of his work to fall back on since his moral commentary is stunningly lacking. Keep your day job Steven and leave the spiritual prognostication to the pros.

I could say the same to you friend, it must be boring to live in a world where god is the answer to the great mysteries.

I would say his version of life is vastly more realistic than what you or I could even imagine.

Just remember, as spiritual and special as you think you are, babies still get killed in drive-by shootings and people still starve, things that would not exist in a god influenced world. Or are you special enough for him to take care of you?

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM
Hawking disappointed me so much...

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Nikola014

But it's true. There's nothing that says we are anything but biological machines. It is only in faith that we say anything otherwise. And personally, considering the soul and spirit, and they are not the same thing, are not observable and in fact separate from reality, I honestly do not expect anything to prove they exist ever.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:31 PM
Unfortunately Religion has encouraged many to believe there is some magical being who resides in a different dimension, or a certain part of this universe/creation/existence. Then the ones who try to prove that through their text's sound silly, so others say thats fairytale BS and Stephen Hawkings is right, because he's an intelligent man. I for one love science and respect Stephen Hawkings for his intelligence especially with his disability. However, the fact is science cannot explain so many things, it only creates more and more questions depending on the circumstances. I feel we are just starting to touch on things in science that are truly amazing and confusing at the same time.

Science is great, but it can't explain occurences that happen to people. So Hawkings believe's there is no conciousness/soul in any of us. Ok, that's his opinion. But why deny or just ignore all the facts that do show there is simply life after death. That the energy we are made of, that is the very fabric of existence, can never be created or destroyed according to science. If the energy we have, like everything else, cannot be created or destroyed, and IF our soul is the primary energy we are made out of, then when we die we do not cease to exist.

I am a believer in the after life, through personal experiences I have had that were very real, and can and will not ever be explained by science, at least anytime soon. I'll admit, I still have about that 1% of me that is open to the fact that it may be possible there is no life after death, but there is too much evidence supporting it especially after witnessing it firsthand. If you haven't truly experienced on your own, you will not understand. I was a believer and becoming a spiritual person before my second prominent experience happened about a year and a half ago, my most prominent happened when I was 7. After it happened, and a few other more questionable occurences, I began to realize what I was starting to believe before it happened could be reality.

I think on this Earth we can be too close minded and skeptical, due to the real concious fear of this whole existence. Which leads to the different beliefs. Still, once you have experienced, once you have truly researched, and read into many accounts and try your best to find the truth behind what was happening to that person, whether it be spirit encounters or unexplainable NDE's, waking up days after death, Edgar Cayce etc you begin to open your mind. There are way too many topics to discuss and get a little in depth into, it'd be paragraphs longer than this post already. Just don't believe everything someone says because of their intelligence, this goes for the different sacred texts as well. Research on your own, and go into it with an open mind before just debunking the topic at hand.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

The problem with religion is it has deceived many into believing they are divine beings constructed in the image of their creator. It's harder to accept what the harsh realities of science say about humans and human nature.

HA! Spend a few weeks seeking the source of awareness within yourself or a month aware of just your breath and tell me what you find.

I guarantee you you'll change your mind about your post!!!!

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by Somehumanbeing

The modern physics shows that mind isn't merely an epiphenomenon of matter.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:04 PM
Interesting times, people.

There is a growing trend among cutting edge religious thinkers that science has its place in 'God's Universe.'

There is a growing trend among cutting edge scientific thinkers that religion is a figurative interpretation of 'Newton's Universe.'

Yet neither side will argue their commonalites, just as they will be blind to the fact that the two are far from mutually exclusive concepts.

Religion is the simple man's science.
Science is the complex man's religion.

Neither will give an inch, until it is 'proven' by someone invested in both.

We are a generation away from that realization, and until then, War.

But, maybe, since my chemically assured destiny has just released this information into the ether, a positive and brilliant meme wil start, helping the unity and purpose of this consciousness to spread knowledge and enlightenment to both sides of the conflict.

Alternatively, NOT.
edit on 13-6-2011 by jimnuggits because: ineteresting? Not so much.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:35 PM
I am fascinated and appalled at the mainstream fascination with Hawking ...

... this man is DISEASED his body has been ATTACKING ITSELF FOR YEARS !!!

Of course, his general views of life would be a bit skewed, NOT AT ALL in line with what others might think or feel, even top scientists should NOT reach his general conclusions about LIVE !!

My guess is Hawking is VERY ANGRY WITH GOD for his painful and debilitating situation AND HE IS VERY JEALOUS OF OTHERS WHO ARE HEALTHY, thus, he is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING EVERYONE -- get over Hawking he has a very highly biased viewpoint no matter what his true intentions are !

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by GideonHM
Before posting, I took a while to refresh my knowledge of Adams and found him to be full of New Age-style nonsense. It's ironic that you opt for the 'fallacies' approach as Adams is rather well-known for littering his arguments with the very same. You are applying a standard to me that the man you defend falls far short of.

If you now take the route that says you weren't defending the man...just his ideas, my position remains the same. It's part of my outlook on life that I hold consciousness and a form of spirituality in some esteem. Likewise, I also believe in the interconnectedness of life on Earth and human society specifically.

Personal beliefs aside, science is also something I hold in the highest regard and respect the fact that science has saved more lives than notions of soul. The soul (if it exists) will be fine whether we believe in it or not. In Adam's diatribe, he criticises science whilst offering no tangible alternative. Wishy-washy rhetoric and finger-pointing didn't lead to developments e.g. small-pox vaccines....practical science and the determination of human ingenuity did.

As you touch upon the idea that science will explain the 'soul,' it's possible that we aren't actually in total disagreement. The existence of 'soul' is something I await confirmation of and remain open-minded.

Good day

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:51 PM
I think it normal to hear something like that coming from a man, trapped in a body that is slowly degenerating into oblivion.

Optimism of freedom at the end is a luxury he probably does not want to waste. Just in case this life is all there is..

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:56 PM
I dont give a fudge what any one is saying "CREATION" happened and thats a magical phenomenon all on iits own and its happening over and over again... Funny it is to dare and belittle the magic of life, like your science and knowledge is an all knowing intuition

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:08 PM
I think religion start where the science ends.
They should work together because they complete each other.
We can not understand one without the other. It's stupid and arrogant to say that we are just "machines" .
One can say that as a result of science growing , the religion is weakening... In fact it's getting stronger because it amplifies its base.
Religion is an idea supported by an universal and constant fact : humanity is religious. Therefore, the word "religion" has an necessarily and absolute sense.
The need of believing it's closely related to the need of love. Of all human passions, religious passion is the strongest and most vivid of all.
It is manifested by affirmation or denial, some stubbornly to asserting some God designed it in their own image, the others deny without fear , as they could cover with their limited minds all the infinite , which is linked by his name.
Religion is a faculty of the human soul , like intelligence and love.
As long as there will be people, there will be religion.
If science says something that does not know or what it is, would destroy himself...
To believe and to know is two different things.
God can only be defined through faith. Science can not approve or deny his existence....
To subject reason to faith means to be unreasonable, because faith is outside the object of reason.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:18 PM
"...most modern scientists do not believe human beings have free will,"

It is not science that denounces freewill, it is the premise of the all-seeing omniscient God
that forbids it. The concept of freewill cannot exist where you have a God that knows all
that is, was, and will be. You can either have one or the other, but both cannot exist simultaneously.

A scientist would be hard pressed to sit in front of THIS layman and argue that freewill
doesn't exist. And that I/we are a slave to the chemical and electrical impulses from our
brains. I refute that by making a conscious decision to ~change~ my mood, thereby changing
the chemistry of my exercise of MY freewill.

My argument for the continued consciousness, for ~the soul~, if you will, is simply the fact
that we are all individuals, completely separate, with consciousness and self-awareness.
The idea that each of us arose to sentience separately without purpose is TOO strong
and enigma to fathom.

What science doesn't know yet is the answer to the question of WHY this is.
I argue, from a scientific perspective, that all living things evolve, and that the
physical evolution that we perceive does not end with ~what we perceive~
and that there is also a constant evolution of the energy that makes
is an unseen, unknown force, you can think of it as your aura, your soul,
your Kirlian footprint. And one day we will discover this....

edit on 13-6-2011 by rival because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by prof7

The entire Universe (as seen from the god perspective) is stateless, timeless and static, like a giant well defined mathematical object.

We have free will and you are so right... nothing is random in this Universe ever! There is no such thing as coincidence.

However in a "free will" Universe...God has granted us the open door to God's self. That means (as you have so geniusly stated) all math is ours. However, it is not static unless you need it to be, mine is an infinite loop. I know , I will write back, if it is a loop how can it be infinite and you would be correct. Also, as you have so geniusly stated, it is well defined and timeless. My friend, the hint you left yourself about infinity is that the Universe is timeless. Nothing can be timeless unless it is infinite.

This (your post) is a damn near perfect post on the state of our Universe.

As for stateless...I have a personal relationship with God. I can quantify this mathematically. Hence, I do not concur with you on the stateless aspect of our Universe. Having written this, my father, husband and others I love so dearly agree with you on this and the Universe is working for them just fine. So, I have decided that i must be open to the math for a "stateless" aspect of the Universe.

It is very exciting that you have posted this. No one to my knowledge on ATS has ever stated this information so clearly. Please think about authoring a thread on this subject.

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in