Stephen Hawking: 'There is no God,' says physicist in final book

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.

The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.

Other bombshells the British scientist left his readers with include the belief that alien life is out there, artificial intelligence could outsmart humans and time travel can't be ruled out.

Hawking, considered one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation, died in March at the age of 76.

"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/stephen-hawking-there-is-no-god-says-physicist-in-final-book/ar-BBOsJel?li=BBnb7Kz

[Brother Buzz]

1. If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?

[scheming daemons]

2. That's science.

Literally.

Friction.

[jberryhill]

128. But I thought science friction was just stuff people made up.

[scipan]

158. wish I could rec posts

That was hilarious

[tymorial]

201. It's not easy to do a setup joke on a forum, Poe almost always gets in the way

Especially about religion!

This is a testament (heehee) to both you and DU for the follow through!

[JHan]

216. Lol

[bitterross]

33. LOL! Thanks for the laugh. /nt

[underpants]

151. George Soros

[Brother Buzz]

154. We ought to change the legend on our money from "In God We Trust" to...

"In Money We Trust"; because, as a nation, we've got far more faith in money these days than we do in God.



Who knows? Maybe my life belongs to God. Maybe it belongs to me. But I do know one thing: I'm damned if it belongs to the government. - Art Hoppe

[Delphinus]

205. Ooh,

do I *ever* agree with your statement. I've said for years that money is our God.

[Moostache]

156. As a practicing scientist, I have to say, my Soros check seems to have been lost...

I think I need to register a complaint...or I could blow up the building...

[ProfessorGAC]

209. Same Here

In all regards. Practicing scientist (for 73 more days) and i haven't gotten my check either.

On the building thing: Back when those psychos blew up the Murrah building, i was off that day due to medical things.

While watching, they had an "expert" on CNN that said, WHILE EVERYONE WAS SEEING THE DESTRUCTION ON LIVE TV, that these guys must have used a bomb that was at least 20 pounds.

I nearly spit out my coffee when he said that. Anybody who knows anything about chemistry and physics could tell that was more like a ton of explosives. Freakin' "expert" was off by a factor of a hundred!

[triron]

3. Many scientists are not so dogmatic.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2018, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

http://theconversation.com/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451

[marybourg]

6. They may not know that they're dying soon anyway.

[triron]

45. What is your point??

[Charlotte Little]

47. Forget what his point is

What is yours?

[triron]

52. Just what I said.

What is yours in asking the question that I asked first?

[Charlotte Little]

59. You're not making sense

That's my point.

[marybourg]

80. Knowing he was dying soon may

have given him a freedom to speak his mind, a freedom they lack.

[USALiberal]

21. God is a make believe friend for grownups. nt

[triron]

46. That is as dogmatic a statement as ones made by evangelicals about other religions.

[Charlotte Little]

48. There is a God!

That's as dogmatic as one gets.

Methinks you're being triggered by this thread. Just sayin'

[triron]

49. I am not saying that!

I am an agnostic.

[Charlotte Little]

54. Er...

...ok.



Then, you're a triggered agnostic.

[USALiberal]

51. It is like esp or ghosts. Nt

[triron]

58. What is "it"?

You might read Dr. Dean Radin. He is a scientist who investigates paranormal phenomena.

I think the evidence overwhelming supports the existence of "esp" as you call it.

[USALiberal]

61. I'll ask you what I ask everyone claiming this crap.....

Send me your best link to proof of ESP. I’ll read it and respond.

[triron]

63. Where is your link that it doesn't? Where is your 'proof' that

anything exists outside your stream of consciousness?
What constitutes 'proof'?

[USALiberal]

65. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim....

Simple logic.

Someone says esp is real, they need to prove that claim.

[Lordquinton]

123. If you have proof

There's a million dollars out there for you. If not, then there's no proof.

[ProfessorGAC]

210. How Would Someone Go About Proving Something Doesn't Exist? (eom)

[USALiberal]

62. Here is what google found....

Radin's paranormal claims have been roundly rejected by those in the skeptical and mainstream scientific communities, some of whom have suggested that he has embraced pseudoscience and that he misunderstands the nature of science.The physicist Robert L. Park has written "No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like Jahn and Radin, and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments."

[Mariana]

86. That's all a conspiracy to suppress Radin's findings.

Isn't that the usual answer when those in the skeptical and mainstream scientific communities roundly reject someone's claims?

[USALiberal]

105. Lol, so true! Nt

[demigoddess]

79. hate to tell you, but I have known several ghosts in my life. From age

8 up to age 69. And I saw my severely handicapped daughter smile at one. She is on the level of a one year old. But she looked straight at one who was looking straight at her and she smiled really big at him.

[ThirdEye]

111. I'm sure you, and countless others, believe this in your own mind

and what is life but our perception of reality?

but I hate to tell you, you are making a claim that you cannot back with evidence.

[demigoddess]

225. Don't need to. Don't want to.

[Act_of_Reparation]

108. Not really.

[lindysalsagal]

100. +1000.

Amen!

[Oneironaut]

203. Counter points to all of these arguments:

"God is real because atoms lead to life"


That's a common God of the Gaps argument, where the existence of God doesn't follow. Why can't life be a property of the natural world?

Mathematics is operating in a God-like fashion
Mathematics is operating in a way that allows us to live, and for the universe to exist. If this were not the case, we would not be around. That's not evidence of God. That's evidence the conditions happened to be good enough for us to exist.

The workings of human consciousness are similarly miraculous.

Not really. You can be fascinated about human consciousness and its complexity, but it's still a natural phenomenon. Consciousness has a physical cause - there's nothing supernatural about it.

Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world

What? How can something that happens in my brain exist outside of the world? Also, the laws of mathematics are descriptive - they aren't a "thing" that exists. For example, go get me a math right now and bring it to me. That's a nonsense statement, right?

Yet, our nonphysical thoughts somehow mysteriously guide the actions of our physical human bodies. This is no more scientifically explicable than the mysterious ability of nonphysical mathematical constructions to determine the workings of a separate physical world.

God of the Gaps, again

As an atheist, Nagel does not offer religious belief as an alternative, but I would argue that the supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness adds grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.
Human consciousness is in no way supernatural, and is a physical activity in the brain. Otherwise, ailments like head injuries and Alzheimer's would not exist.


"Organisms can guide their own evolution," For my part, the most recent developments in evolutionary biology have increased the probability of a god.
Not only is this theory not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific world, how does it follow that God exists? If the author's statements were true, why couldn't this be more natural phenomenon?

That all these astonishing things (building the modern world, technology) happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”
I hate to tell the author, but modern society is a sliver in terms of how long humans have been around. Furthermore, the author keeps claiming that consciousness is a supernatural process, which they haven't done anything to prove. All that this paragraph shows is that humans have become very technologically advanced. How does it follow that God exists?

In several of my books, I have explored how Marxism and other such “economic religions” were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of “secular religion.”
That's utter nonsense. You can't steal everything and claim that it's Christianity. Christianity is Christianity.

That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable.
Yes, religions throughout the world sometimes have the ability to last a long time. This of course has nothing to do with any God, as humans are the ones who perpetuated these religions.

[LanternWaste]

4. That's going to piss off the "if there *is* a God, he should/should not do X" contingent.

Without that little qualifier to better minimize others, it takes a lot of brown wind out of lot of sails.

[Yavin4]

5. Let me add. For proof, see President Trump.

The end.

[Mariana]

12. How does President Trump prove any such thing? nt.

[BlueStater]

13. Pretty sure their point is...

...that a loving god wouldn't allow an awful human being like Trump to become POTUS.

[Calculating]

25. uh???

Don't blame God for that, it's on US. Why should God intervene if we're so ignorant and hateful that we elected him? If anything, we DESERVE whatever we get.

[WhiteTara]

43. Yavin has a great sense of humor

that was sarcasm.

[Charlotte Little]

50. Why can't we blame God?

Isn't everything part of God's plan?

I mean, God really fucked up when it comes to the Trump plan, don't you agree?

[Mariana]

68. Only if one assumes that God is kind and loving.

A reading of the Old Testament should put that idea to rest. There's no reason to think that God doesn't approve of Trump.

[Mariana]

67. Please speak for yourself.

This is the Democratic Underground. WE didn't elect Trump. WE voted for the Democratic candidate.

[ThirdEye]

110. Trump instead implies the multiverse is real

... and we're stuck in a pretty terrible timeline at the moment.

gotta say though, there's as much evidence a loving god exists as a trickster god... perhaps it wants to fucks with us?

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. There is no way to know.

Stephen Hawking didn't know any more than anyone else.

[USALiberal]

19. The burden of proof is those claiming God is real. So he is correct. No proof God exists. nt

[Blecht]

23. Exactly

Maybe someday humans will outgrow the need for these fairy tales.

[lindysalsagal]

161. The question is, will we, before we deforest the planet???

[Calculating]

26. faulty argument

The same could apply to Hawking and his statement about there being no God. He cannot prove it anymore than people saying there's a God.

[lapucelle]

31. Argumentum ad ignorantiam...

...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[hurl]

37. It certainly can be...

"Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs — droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html

[lapucelle]

42. There are several problems with that argument,

not the least of which is the opening categorical statement. Simply because "ample physical signs" have never been reported does not mean that they have "never been seen". Similarly, it cannot be presumed that something never existed because it has not yet been discovered.

Logically, the argument is flawed, even though the conclusion is reasonably true. (The use of the example "elephants in Yellowstone" is a clever tactic, but it doesn't make the process of reasoning from evidence to conclusion any more cogent.)

As for the use of the word "never" in the opening sentence: the American mastodon lived throughout the North American continent contemporaneous with early man. Is there any evidence that those early men did or did not see those early elephants?

Unknown is unproven, not disproven. And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

35. No god is the null hypothesis.

I'll go with the null hypothesis until there is proof of something different.

[USALiberal]

53. +1000 nt

[lapucelle]

162. "No God" is your null hypothesis.

Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2018, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Because the null hypothesis is simply that which a researcher attempts to find evidence against, "God exists" is a v⃥a⃥l⃥i⃥d⃥ reasonably postulated (and equally untestable) alternative null hypothesis.

[Mariana]

194. Which god (or gods)?

There have been so many gods believed in and worshiped throughout history. Is the proposed existence of each one of them an equally valid null hypothesis?

[lapucelle]

200. I don't think you would say that a null hypothesis is "valid".

Generally, it's an idea that you are seeking to disprove. Often a/the commonly held view is adopted as the null hypothesis.

If the expression is being used to mean either the commonly held view to test against or simply the hypothesis to test against, then "A god exists" is probably a better starting point than "This specific god exists".

[Mariana]

208. You said, in post #162:

"God exists" is an equally valid (and equally untestable) null hypothesis.

Did you mean to say something different?

[lapucelle]

224. Thanks, fixed.

Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2018, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Because the null hypothesis is simply that which a researcher attempts to find evidence against, "God exists" is a v⃥a⃥l⃥i⃥d⃥ reasonably postulated (and equally untestable) alternative null hypothesis.

[Mariana]

229. You're welcome.

Which god (or gods)? There have been so many gods believed in and worshiped throughout history. Is the proposed existence of each one of them an equally reasonably postulated null hypothesis?

[lapucelle]

239. That's a great question.

There are still so many gods (or versions of God) worshiped and believed in today.

I don't think we have the the tools to undertake the type of inquiry required to either prove or disprove the existence. I haven't read the Stephen Hawking book, so I don't know the details of his argument.

I do know that Hawking addressed the question of the existence of God in some of his documentaries, but I'm not ready to accept the opinion simply because Stephen Hawking agrees with it.

Here's evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's take on the issue:

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

The complete essay is a remarkable read.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

[Cuthbert Allgood]

206. The extraordinary claim cannot be the null hypothesis.

When one is making a claim that the thing we can't see, can't touch, can't find any evidence for actually exists, that will never be the null hypothesis. Saying "that thing for which there is no evidence doesn't exist" will always be the null hypothesis.

Put another way, you are really arguing that "unicorns exist" would be a valid null hypothesis? Because if you think that, you're doing it wrong.

[Mariana]

211. Believers don't seem to think

that "God (their god, whichever one that happens to be) exists" is an extraordinary claim at all. When considering the existence of all those other gods that have been proposed and believed in and worshiped, well, that's entirely different. Those are obviously extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence not to be dismissed out of hand.

[USALiberal]

40. Wrong.......

God is the item that needs proof.

Like a unicorn.

I can say there is no unicorns, it is your job to prove there is one.

Like me saying I have a cure for cancer and telling you to prove I don't.

stupid logic.

[realmirage]

74. Wrong, if I have a box and you insist

there is nothing in the box, the burden is on you to prove there is nothing in the box, just as there is burden on the one who says there is something in the box. You don’t realize you are both flipsides of the same coin

[ThirdEye]

112. To a major extent you are correct.

Most atheists are careful to be clear that their position is "insufficient evidence exists to believe a god is real, thus I remain in my starting position that a god is unnecessary for explaining the reality around us and thus shouldn't be considered until there is specific evidence to the contrary." or some flavor of that.

...but don't pretend that it's two sides of the same coin. There's vastly more things that aren't real than real.

[realmirage]

145. That insufficient evidence as a starting point thingy is bad logic.

We know life exists. Something must explain this. Either something created us or we happened by accident. Neither has been proven. Therefore, anyone arguing either side has the burden of proof that does not yet definitively exist. For Hawking to say it's impossible that there is a God is the stupidest shit a person can say when it is obvious no one has yet proved it either way. But who says a giant ego needs proof of anything?

[Mariana]

195. Did Hawking even say it's impossible that there is a God?

I don't think he did.

[realmirage]

237. Yes in his last publication he said there was "no possibility"

[Mariana]

238. So he did, kind of.

"For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

He clearly is expressing this as his opinion, not as a bald fact ( "For me this means..." ).

He's also speaking only of a creator of the universe type of god. That kind of god may be the most popular variety among religious people today, but there have been many gods people have worshiped who were not supposed to have created the universe. This particular statement doesn't rule out the possibility that any of those gods are real.

[Blue_true]

144. Legitimate argument. nt

[Goodheart]

34. The absence of proof doesn't mean there is no god. HOWEVER...

there's scant evidence of god, anyway.

[Mariana]

88. Believers often say there's an overwhelming abundance of evidence

but you have to become a believer, first, before you can perceive any of it. That's a neat trick, isn't it?

[realmirage]

73. No, if you say there is no God

the burden is also on you to prove it. The only one with no burden to prove a stance is the one who says “I don’t know.”

[scipan]

159. Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is usually the best and postulating a God explains nothing. It's just superfluous.

[realmirage]

236. Occam's razor is the oldest bullshit logic

there is.

You see a person swallow a piece of food. It disappears. I guess the simple explanation is that it disappeared rather than being digested in a complex system where its nutrients are dispersed and converted into energy. No, I tell you Occam’s razor proves it actually disappeared. It’s obvious and simple. That’s why it’s correct.

Also, some girls in Salem were exhibiting strange symptoms which appear to be the result of witchcraft, since they are known symptoms of demonic possession, and after all the perpetrators confessed... Simple. Case closed. Except ergot fungus most likely was the culprit thanks to a rainy season that rye season. Of course people didn’t understand complex things like that back then. Ergot, from which lsd is derived, works on the brain in a complex way that we don’t fully understand, since we don’t even fully understand the brain. The simple explanation is witchcraft.

Idiots in the Middle Ages used that simple trash logic in tragic ways.

If you think about it, to assume that the simplest answer to every situation is the correct one makes zero sense.

But here’s something else to think about: Which of these makes more sense, to think that living creatures who create art and set goals and purpose for themselves came from pointless matter all by itself and that this pointless matter poofed into existence magically and somehow went from stupid chaotic matter to finely tuned beings that create finely tuned machines and argue on the internet which they also created and again all this springs from stupid mindless matter that sprang from nothingness.... and that there must be mutiverses to explain this even though no proof for them exists...

Or that, just as we observe in nature, all living things come from other living things, and therefore it is likely that we came from some other living thing that some call God or whatever you want to call it.

Which one is simpler?

[Mariana]

240. So, where did "God or whatever you want to call it" come from?

If "just as we observe in nature, all living things come from other living things, and therefore it is likely that we came from some other living thing that some call God or whatever you want to call it", then "God or whatever you want to call it" must have come from some other living thing. Right?

The poster was right, postulating a god is superfluous and it explains nothing.

[Doodley]

139. But it is a matter of faith, not proof. A man may not believe in love until

he finds it, but that does not mean it doesn't exist, and even after he finds love, he still cannot prove it exists. By the way, I am an atheist.

[Blue_true]

142. Legitimate viewpoint. nt

[violetpastille]

41. + 1 Standing ovation!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Exactly - what we learned in school - no one knows because no one has ever

come back from the dead to tell us. This is seared in my brain for some reason, the professor saying this. And, since no one knows, lead a good life and be good to people. You can only be rewarded for that. If, there is only evil after life then all is lost anyway. Pragmatic Existentialism? something like that.

[Charlotte Little]

64. I hate this fear-mongering crap

No offense to you, certainly - not even to your professor - but if the only reason folks are walking around being good to people is because they think they'll be rewarded for that kind of defeats the purpose.

Be good to people because you feel an innate reason too. Or, if not, you're likely a sociopath. I think most humans fall into the first category, at least until they are tested in some horrific way and end up getting sucked into mob mentality. Then it's a mob of sociopaths. We see that all the time and with today's current "leaders," we are bound to see more of it.

But the white-man-with-a-beard God is like Bigfoot. Some claim to have seen him, but no evidence exists after decades of mankind looking for him.

Bigfoot. God. Hmmm...maybe they are one in the same!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

66. It wasn't about god - it was just one existential theory - the pragmatic - you are more likely to

get eternal reward for good (in general)....and that was only if there was an afterlife.

You are right. I can't think of anything more appalling and more evil than what the Saudi's did in Turkey. Although the GOP, not caring about whether or not human beings can see a doctor ranks up there on the evil meter to me.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

120. Pascal's Wager is significantly flawed.

There are mainstream religions where leading a "good life" isn't enough. If you don't believe in Jesus as the son of god, their religion says you go to hell. So then "believe" in Jesus, right? What if Jesus isn't the answer and it's a different religion you need to believe in to go to heaven.

But, hey, I'm sure your professor was a great person.

[sprinkleeninow]

199. "Believe in Jesus" is altogether too simplistic.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

207. That's the point.

It's one of the reasons that Pascal's Wager is utter bullshit.

[sprinkleeninow]

233. My point, if you will, is that belief in Him Who Is, well that's only a starting point.

It ain't so simplistic, just say the words and that's it.

Theosis is the organic practice/lifestyle of becoming like Him. God.

Erroneously and unfortunately it's been whittled down to just speak the words and you're covered.

Once saved, always saved is a relatively new invention.

[Oneironaut]

204. Also, a serial killer who repents on their last day alive will go to heaven, non-believers hell

That doesn't sound like a moral or just God deserving of worship.

[jberryhill]

130. No, you are penalized for believing in the wrong god

Unfortunately, Pascal only had one god to work with, instead of multiple competing and mutually exclusive gods.

And, maybe there is a god, but this god actually has it in for people who believe in one without evidence.

[sprinkleeninow]

127. 'If' there is existence, the reality of (a) 'God', quite soon after his repose I guess he

surely found out.

[Blue_true]

141. Exactly, that is the wonder of it all. I can go into how I feel on this, but won't. nt

[VOX]

8. There is no celestial puppeteer, but there is AWE.

You know, all the things that stagger one when they get high.

-An endless universe? OMG! A universe with boundaries? Double OMG! Black holes, where everything is inside-out? OMG!
-The complexity of the human body? OMG!
-The overwhelming, countless random events that had to occur for you to just be present? Every coupling of ancestors, all the way down to single-cell life, that had to occur in a specific, precise sequence of time/space for you to be here now. OMG!
-The fact that we are able to perceive the universe around us, as limited as that view is. OMG!
-The fact that we can actually contemplate this stuff? WOW!

Just my “beliefs.” No god, no judgement, no dogma—all just noise. But energy-gravity-motion-stasis, etc.? All filed under AWE.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

10. "The complexity of the human body? OMG! "

It f**ked up when it designed the prostrate gland?

[MineralMan]

11. The Prostate Gland Too.

[VOX]

71. I was treated for prostate cancer in 2001.

And it’s PROSTATE, not “prostrate,” which means to be stretched out with one’s face on the ground in adoration or submission. Regardless, by experience, I’m immune to that argument. But I’m not talking about disease or syndromes.

I’m talking about our ability to perceive the universe around us, each of us being a unique aperture in doing so. Which, when grasped in its fullness, could knock you prostrate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

82. Also knees. A lousy design, prone to failure.

[thucythucy]

137. The price humanity pays

for evolving from knuckle dragging to walk upright.

One of those instances where evolution progresses at different rates within the same organism. Walking upright--great for survival in the savannah. Very tough on our knees though.

[lindysalsagal]

163. Humanity survived thus far partly with the dependence on genetic variety: Some of the herd will surv

survive to reproduce. If some of the herd does not, it does not prevent the species from continuing.

Thus, we are prone to random weaknesses. Our lives are disposable, exactly like insects: "god's" plan is to have the weak fall away.

Whattaguy.

So, I don't tolerate any B.S. "pro-life" religious dogma: It's clearly not in the cards, whether they were sent on from the past or by a diety.

[VOX]

171. In the meantime, your heart beats and your lungs breathe without your having to think about it.

Give the "old bod" some credit.

And then there's memory. What are memories? I just snagged this bit online:
"Every sensory experience triggers changes in the molecules of your neurons, reshaping the way they connect to one another. That means your brain is literally made of memories, and memories constantly remake your brain."

Whoa.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

172. And I'm glad for that, but that's also true for any animal that has a heart and lungs.

I just think people have intrinsically defective knees.

[VOX]

180. I destroyed my left knee in high school cross-country.

We trained on a local golf course, and my foot landed on a grass-covered sprinkler head. Thus ended my "loneliness of the long distance runner."

So I'll give you knees. They suck. A total short-change by nature.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

182. Mine are just wearing out because I'm old,

but they seem to be the first parts to deteriorate.

[VOX]

185. For me, it's hearing. Playing in a local rock band for 10-plus years...

And listening to hard-rock through headphones at holiday volume put me on track for major hearing loss. It was gradual until two years ago -- I woke up with a dead left ear to match my overtaxed left knee. Nothing gets through on the left side-- that ear might as well be a piece of stone. I'm strictly "monaural" now and need the closed captioning function on any TV/blu-ray fare.

Aging kinda sucks. But it beats the alternative.

[sprinkleeninow]

198. I do believe you mean getting 'translated'?

[StevieM]

14. I actually am willing to hold out the possibility that we are alone in the universe.

At least as far as intelligent life is concerned.

I suspect that simple life is fairly common. But the evolution of advanced life may be difficult to achieve.

It may be that there are only a few hundred places in the universe where plant and animal life has ever evolved.

And perhaps most places in the universe that have plants and animals never get beyond the dinosaur stage. The asteroid that hit the Yukatan came down in the worst possible place. Maybe most planets dominated by dinosaur-type creatures do not suffer that kind of asteroid hit and so their dinosaurs-equivalents carry on.

[VOX]

76. Interesting line of thought.

There is also the aspect of the vastness of space, and the time required to travel from one point to another, even if one could ride a beam of light. The usual fictitious work-around in sci-fi books and movies is a wormhole that allows for long-distance travel without the time factor.

Thanks so much for your input. It is fascinating to contemplate.

[ThirdEye]

115. the other theory is that life is fairly common

but considering the scale of time in the cosmos, life could be like little flashes of light appearing and disappearing in an instant, either too far away from each other or not timed to exist at the same time.

[Doodley]

140. Or each time intelligent life forms. BOOM! It destroys itself and renders its own

planet uninhabitable.

[VOX]

181. Given how humans are busy fouling their own nest at breakneck speed...

Your idea is plausible.

[VOX]

186. That's the problem-- everything is so darn far apart out there.

Even if you could throw a saddle over a beam of light (and could magically exist in a vacuum), you'd never survive more than the years you have left. Not enough time to reach any planet with a potential "Goldilocks Zone."

[lindysalsagal]

101. I can live with awe. Just look at any newborn human or animal.

[VOX]

170. Thank you for "getting it."

The late "philosophic entertainer" Alan Watts humorously described it as those moments when we experience "the which than which there is no whicher."

Witnessing birth is certainly that. Or looking up to catch sight of a fireball meteor. Or the way the fog caresses the cedars in the straits off Vancouver. It can happen anytime, that feeling of being connected to all living (and even inanimate) things.

On edit: To be clear, I'm not saying these events are the workings of some imaginary sky-dwelling deity; rather, it's just the way the universe works, and sometimes we catch a glimpse or a feeling that connects our emotions to our perception in a profound way. It's abstract, and difficult to explain.

Perfect example: when my wife first saw Niagra Falls, she wept involuntarily with joyful giddiness. She clearly saw and felt "the which than which there is no whicher."

[anarch]

104. I've always appreciated the way the Lakota talk about it...as "the Great Mystery"

I interpret that phrase as implying a fundamental agnosticism combined with an open-minded approach to the divine or sacred. Life would just be a series of meaningless chemical reactions without such a sense of awe, and such awe would be impossible without the chemical and electrical processes that occur in our cerebral cortex. Personally, it saddens me when people say things like "there are no miracles; there is no God" in a defeatist way, as if that implies that everything is meaningless and there is no hope or wonder in the universe (I haven't read Hawking's book, so I have no idea of the context in which he asserted his view that the universe isn't being steered by anybody, and I didn't know Hawking; I don't know how he really thought about the things you mention above--I would hope that his forays into cosmology and astrophysics wouldn't have tempered his sense of awe--if anything, they probably enhanced it).

[VOX]

173. It's a game of spiritual one-upmanship: "Bah, it's all just random, and no big deal."

It's deemed a "toughness of character," publicly flexed when one "faces facts" with these matters. "It's completely random, there's nothing special going on, everything that happens is just random." As if to say, "I don't need any of that touchy-feely crap, it's just some wishful thinking that fearful people cling to." As you say, it's genuinely sad to hear statements like that, because of what's being missed right under one's nose.

To be clear, I'm not talking about any deity or dogma or organized belief whatsoever. But that doesn't automatically cancel out one's connection to the universe around us. We are ALL connected, whether we believe it or not.

On randomness: If everything is random, isn't that a kind of anti-pattern pattern? How does randomness account for birth-growth-death cycles, or seasonal cycles, or mathematics? Or the speed of light? Gravity?

All of which is to say, we are unique apertures through which the universe can perceive itself. It's all a grand show, and everyone has a ticket.

[MontanaMama]

227. That is beautiful.

Well said.

[ThirdEye]

113. Thank you for posting this.

Your post is me, everyday.

[VOX]

174. Thanks. You get it.

We are all connected.

[Blue_true]

147. You seem to be about where I am.

The organized religion claim of a God is nonsense. But, I do believe there is infinite intelligence in the universe and beyond. I also believe that special people, whether they realize they are or not, are born onto the earth and are capable of reaching levels of understanding about the wonders of the universe and beyond that others can't. Call those people what you want, great scientists, prophets, ect, they were given that extra from the wondrous intelligence of the universe and beyond that the rest of us were not given.

[VOX]

178. True! Some have such a profound connection that rivers of light course through them.

As you allude, they shine brighter than most others. Bob Dylan, Muhammad Ali, Nikola Tesla, Charles Dickens, Plato, Galileo, Marie Curie, Hypatia of Alexandria, Shakespeare, Einstein, Leonardo, and so on. Many such persons claim no special gift, but that's because their voice/ideas generates and flows outward with no monumental effort -- you often hear variants of, "It's like someone/something is moving through me, and I'm just the messenger."

It angers me no-end that biblical creationists appropriated the concept of "intelligent design." But they're bogged down in the "ceramic model" (Adam made of clay, etc.) of religious dogma, which completely misses the mark. There IS a kind of "intelligence" embedded in the universe itself, and how it works, insofar as we can understand it: Gravity. Mass. Energy. Electricity. Memory. Emotion. Tides. The spiral of a galaxy reflected in the spiral of a nautilus shell. On it goes.

Glad you're a seeker. Your life will always be richer for it.

[scipan]

160. Nicely put!

The OMG!!!! religion.

[VOX]

183. There are always those unbidden things that cut right through...

And take your breath away. It doesn't have to be some huge event; just watching an ant struggle with a cookie crumb can be fantastic: how can it carry so much weight in relation to its body size? How does it know where to go? Why are ants so damn busy? Do they even sleep?

[malaise]

9. Why is that a bombshell?

Rec

[Mariana]

15. It's a bombshell to some, I guess.

I guess some people really are shocked to find out that a scientist didn't believe in something for which there is zero evidence.

[malaise]

16. You nailed it

[Old Vet]

84. If people want to believe they saw gods image on there grilled cheese sandwich, let it be

[malaise]

99. LOL

[NightWatcher]

17. Creationism: the belief that Kirk Cameron knows more than Stephen Hawking

I saw that and had to share.

[Permanut]

18. Just a little bit of context..

In "A Brief History of Time", Hawking is quoted as saying "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God." He those same words through his speech synthesizer in the video version of the book.

That said, he later explained that he was using the term "God" figuratively, and was actually an atheist. I took his meaning figuratively from the book and the video, that he was using a kind of hyperbole to describe how monumental such a discovery would be.

[GulfCoast66]

20. I am a Diest. A power may well have created the universe.

Discovering the secrets of the most Reasonable universe and living our lives based on reason and what is now called Science is the highest form of Worship.

To Christians and others who think they are in a special club I am an atheist.

[Blecht]

24. You're from Belgium?

I hear it's nice there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diest

[GulfCoast66]

39. No. Florida. But have always had a problem with the 'i' before 'e' thing!

[jberryhill]

131. "i before e, except after c" has also been disproven by SCIENCE

[ProfessorGAC]

213. Good One!

That was really funny!

[Blue_true]

149. I am a Deist also, BTW. A Warm Deist in that I neither deny a supreme intelligence or that a person

named Jesus once roamed part of the Earth. Where I drop off is with organized religion's dogmatic interpretation of those two occurrences.

[GulfCoast66]

167. I am similar.

I certainly do not believe in magic whether today or 2000 years ago. Cause there is lots of magic in almost all religious texts.

[MarvinGardens]

150. Greetings fellow deist!

I might drag my family to a deist church, if there were any. But what would we do there, anyway?

[GulfCoast66]

166. Math?

[MarvinGardens]

176. I'd go for that.

In place of the hymnal, there'd be a copy of "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose.

[GulfCoast66]

177. As a plant scientist

I think boning up in the Krebs cycle would be nice.

Learning that 35 years ago was when I first felt in awe at the natural world we live in. And how evolution can bring order out of disorder. It seemed impossible but totally rational and explainable. No magic involved.

It began my flight from superstition.

[MarvinGardens]

187. I went through an atheist period

while taking physical chemistry, specifically thermodynamics. The second law can be interpreted as nihilistic, and I interpreted it that way. At the time, biochemistry was an entirely separate program, and we chemistry majors were not required to take biochemistry (to our detriment). So I could sure stand to bone up on the Krebs cycle too. Though I am an analytical chemist, I have remained employed because of the need to answer questions in biology, medicine, toxicology, and environmental science. Currently I do lipid analysis. It is absolutely amazing to me, the complexity of these lipid molecules and their functions.

Plant science sounds like an interesting field. I have quite a few houseplants, but I struggle to grow a garden without insects eating most of it.

[GulfCoast66]

188. Ironically I have not thought of the Krebs cycle in decades

Your are obviously still in the hard sciences. I am a manager!! And not of people in science.

And I do not consider myself an atheist as I do not reject the possibility of a higher power. And believe that more on some days than others. But believe in one who expresses their power through rationalism and order.

I may not be in the science field now, but my science education is responsible for any success I have had. Learning science teaches a person they do not really know much and that life is a quest for knowledge.

[mia]

22. No ONE directs the universe

ONE is a multifaceted prism reflecting from us all.

[gtar100]

27. Nice visual. (n/t)

[Croney]

28. This is from someone here but I don't remember who;

"Prove there is no god"

OK...do you believe in Zeus? "No, of course not." Fine. Tell me how you arrived at that conclusion and I'll just use your method.

[babydollhead]

29. "there is no God", Hawking. "There is no Hawking", God. (n/t)

[Calculating]

30. I've always figured it's more likely than not that there's a God/greater power in the universe

Mostly because the existence of the universe itself makes no sense without belief in the impossible/unknown. Science will most likely never unlock the truth behind what caused the big bang, why this universe is tuned to allow for complexity, or even explain concepts such as dark matter/dark energy. Why would the 'big bang' even happen? According to known physics, if you condensed all of the matter in the universe down to one spot you would just end up with a super massive black hole. It certainly wouldn't explode and spew out the universe. And that's not even going into the issue of how you would create something from nothing.


With that said, I don't buy into organized religion. I believe that most likely none of them are fully correct, and that they're all attempts at interpreting creation in different ways. Whenever that happens, you run into corruption issues as certain humans will try to use faith to mislead or take advantage of their fellow humans.


As for the inevitable "why is there suffering?" type arguments, they all have a flaw. They assume the existence of only a pure good deity with supreme powers. What if there were a competing evil deity, or more of a 'hands off' kind of creator?

[Goodheart]

32. Tell me something I didn't know, Stephen.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

36. I'm glad he made it clear and his family is publishing it

because I'm sure there would be more than a handful of douchebags that would claim he had a deathbed conversion or something equally as sickening.

[Mariana]

90. They'll still claim he had a deathbed conversion

or something equally as sickening. They'll just say his family and his publisher and whoever else are all covering it up.

[zipplewrath]

38. Publishing out of one's discipline

The most dangerous thing one can do is to publish out of ones discipline. The most likely thing you'll do is demonstrate you haven't read the fundamental research on the topic.

[Corvo Bianco]

136. The guy has studied the secrets of the universe for a good amount

of his life. He should publish his findings on the workings of the universe. They didn't find a god.

[zipplewrath]

217. They didn't look for one

The opposite side of the double blind test is that you won't find what you are predisposed not to find.

[Turbineguy]

44. OK then... How do you explain

Mozart?

And baby cheeks?

[Mariana]

70. How do you explain them? nt.

[ego_nation]

56. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

As for me, my faith is in many ways driven by what I don’t know, not what I do know. It takes humility to realize there are some things beyond the scope of what science can prove. It’s a journey, not a destination.

[Goodheart]

69. "My faith is driven by what I don't know" is rather tautological, IMV.

[Raine]

92. I agree nt

[sarisataka]

57. On what does he base his belief

in alien life?

[musicblind]

93. Probably the Drake equation.

He has talked about his belief in alien life before. Some of these answers are not new. At least, they aren't new to people who follow his work.

The truth is, Hawkings can't know answers to questions like "Are there aliens" "Is there a God" "Is time travel possible."

He can surmise, theorize and make an educated guess, but he can't know.

That's the problem with giving absolutes.

That being said, I think it is very probable, in my opinion, that there are aliens somewhere in the universe. It is also my opinion that there is a God and it is my opinion that time travel could be theoretically possible based on things I have read. It's also my opinion that humans never achieve time travel based on having never met a time traveler, but again, I can't know that and should not claim to be able to absolutely know that.

There is little in science that we can "know." We can only hypothesize and theorize.

That the sun will rise tomorrow is only a theory. (One supported by mountains of evidence)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

122. He didn't say he "believed" in alien life.

He said that it is statistically almost likely that other alien life exists given the number of planets that exist in the number of solar systems there are and the requirements for a planet to be habitable by life.

But, hey, yeah, he "believed" in alien life.

[sarisataka]

152. The article said

Other bombshells the British scientist left his readers with include the belief that alien life is out there

Why do you say he "believed" in alien life in quotes? If he believed it is statistically likely there is life out there then it is a true statement without the need for quotes.

[Mariana]

184. That's the writer's interpretation. It is not a direct quote.

I think we should wait and see what Hawking actually said, before we argue whether his position was valid.

[aeromanKC]

60. Agnostic Athiest

The best God answer is: Atheist in that no Man made God exists, but Agnostic in that likelihood that a God force does exist in some form. But the Jury is still out on that.

[Goodheart]

72. Yesterday on CNN Mike Pence's daughter, selling her new faith-centered book, said

"I tried atheism for a while".

LOL

Nobody can "try" atheism. You're either a believer or you're not. Belief is a consequence, not a goal. If the available evidence meets your threshold of proof then you believe, if it doesn't then you don't.

Now if she goes around picking and choosing her religion/non-religion of the moment that tells me that there's no true belief there of any sort, just self-imposed illusion. And I believe that Charlotte Pence is typical of most god believers.

[Mariana]

85. "I tried atheism for a while."

So, she tried to not believe what she believed? How would that work, exactly?

"Hey Charlotte, do you believe any gods exist?"
"Well, I'm trying not to believe they do."

Riiiiiight.

[sprinkleeninow]

133. Agnostic (atheistic?) 'thoughts' creep in here and there and are immediately abandoned

by my 'spirit' and not by my effort or my critical thinking skills that yes, I believe I do possess.

[Mariana]

138. Disbelief is not voluntary, at least for me.

I can't just choose to start believing something I don't believe. If I decided to go "try a religion" the way Charlotte claims to have "tried atheism" I'd have to pretend to believe the stuff the followers of that religion believe. If Charlotte did "try atheism" then she pretty much had to be faking for whatever reason. I think it's more likely that she's just lying.

Sprinkleeninow -

[sprinkleeninow]

190. This is how you said. One doesn't 'try out' or making oneself

forcefully switch over to like 'atheism' to see what it feels like.

Or the reverse of that.

Atheism and its 180° counterpart [faith in the One Who Has No Beginning'] are not made by 'decisions'.

It's a deeply spiritual occurrence. Realized or not.

What I related was how, here and there, when pressure mounts and I get exasperated, my Faith doesn't collapse, but an adverse 'thought' comes in like "where is my God here in this?"

Incoming--»»

[smirkymonkey]

97. I always believe that a discussion about "God" needs to first have a definition for the word "God".

The word means different things to different people. The argument seems pointless unless you first define the term. I am also an agnostic athiest. My bottom line is that I don't believe and that I don't know. However "God" might be defined in broader terms than the theological "God". It could be a much more complicated discussion.

[realmirage]

75. Hawking said a lot of crap that got eye rolls

in the last 10-20 years. The only thing that is certain is that his ego was greater than his search for truth.

[mvd]

77. While I am a liberal Christian, I respected him

Didn't always agree, but he was quite an intellect. I know that life seems random a lot of times. I just personally think there is some purpose for us being here and that this existence had some kind of creators or creator.

[realmirage]

148. I don't think he was one of the better intellectuals. Mainly because

he had a very common flaw which is that he wanted to be right so badly he would take a position and claim it was absolutely correct and that there was no possibility that he was wrong. That's bad thinking 101. Imagine a detective arriving at a crime scene and never finding 100 percent proof of what happened, and then claiming he is absolutely 100% certain there could be no conclusion other than the one he came up with? Sounds like trump to me.

I don't have all the answers about why things are the way they are, but it does seem more likely that something designed this reality. You can criticize the design, but without knowing the reasons for certain designs, it's hard to criticize. Tragedies and seeming bad luck are the most difficult to grasp. I don't have an answer for those, but it is very possible that there are explanations that will make perfect sense when we are able to see the larger picture.

[lindysalsagal]

165. Interesting. You are willing to be skeptical about a human being and his provable science, and skept

skeptical about your own powers of observation and understanding.

But you're not skeptical about a being you cannot see or hear or test or prove.

To me, that's bad thinking 201.

[realmirage]

235. What on earth are you talking about?

Nowhere did I say I wasn’t skeptical of a designer. In fact I said there’s no proof either way, and therefore it is bad thinking 101 is to say 100 percent there is or isn’t.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

78. But there are kittens.

That means there is some absolute perfection in the universe. Maybe there's no god, but at least there are kittens.

[Permanut]

81. And chocolate..

There's some additional proof right there.

[Laffy Kat]

83. And coffee. Don't forget coffee. nt

[Buzz cook]

87. So he takes on the burden of proof.

There are anti-theist arguments but they tend to be about specific gods or god concepts. If Hawking has an argument about any god, then I'd like to hear it.

[Blue_true]

157. He took on proving something that was unprovable by him or anyone else.

The smartest person that has EVER walked the earth knew nothing when his or her intellect measures against that of the universe and beyond.

I think the organized religion is nonsense, even Christianity which I was born under. It all is a hodge-podge of attempts by those in power throughout history to maintain their control over populations by filling their heads with fantasies and superstitions. But on another hand, I doubt that Hawkings or any other person that is living or has lived is remotely capable of comprehending the vast wonder of celestial space and how it operates, including how we came into existence.

[Ron Obvious]

89. That's nothing new

He's always said that's what he believed, so for that matter, did Einstein. It's hardly controversial: among high profile scientist religious beliefs are extremely uncommon as they are antithetical to science.

Unfortunately, simple literary phrases like "God does not play dice", or "I want to know the mind of God" are taken out of context by religious believers anxious for validation that scientists share their beliefs.

It's really no different that me saying "God knows", when asked a question I have absolutely no way to answer.

[Mariana]

91. Yes, it was clearly metaphorical

but as with Einstein, some religious people will seize upon the use of the word "God" and insist he really was a religious man.

What's funny is many of the people who do that are the same people who insist that the Bible is chock full of metaphors and allegories and parables, and the parts that make God look evil, incompetent, or ridiculous must not be taken literally.

[musicblind]

95. According to Pew Polling 51% of scientists believe in a higher power or deity.

33% believe in a specific God.

That's not exactly "extremely uncommon."

51% is a slim majority and 33% is common enough to not be surprised when encountered. If I was walking through a forest that was 33% redwood trees, I wouldn't be surprised to see redwoods every third tree.

Here is the link to the poll:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[Ron Obvious]

96. That's out of total number of scientists

I was specifically referring to the top members of the profession where the percentage is considerably lower.

[Cha]

94. I wonder if Stephen Hawking

had anything to say about the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars, etc etc etc, and their precise movements in our Universe?

[Achilleaze]

98. There is no Hawking

He be dead.

[Cha]

103. I said "had", Achilleaze.. back

when he was alive and well.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

119. If you mean did he understand all the equations that explain it,

I'm sure he did.

If you mean some kind of intelligent design nonsense, then he probably would say that it was nonsense.

[HopeAgain]

102. Stephen Hawking decided there is no God

So clearly for him there was no God. The Universe may not be as objective as we think...

[Lordquinton]

121. Hawking based his statement on years of research

Into the depths of the universe. What are your qualifications?

[HopeAgain]

124. When it comes to spiritual matters...

probably as good as Hawking since he was a physicist.

[Lordquinton]

189. Quantum physics

you know, what all the current spiritual types are basing their spirituality and beliefs off. He kinda helped write the book on it.

[HopeAgain]

214. I know a lot of "spiritual types" who

never heard of a quark. I am talking about an existential view and it is different than physics. Perception and the subjectivity of reality may be a such a crucial component of human experience that it, in turn, may define the true nature of reality. Clearly you believe in the supremacy of human scientific knowledge and that is fine by me. But this is why the endless arguments in the Religion thread are pointless. One group is arguing apples while the other is arguing oranges. That's why I don't talk about Schrodinger's cat as a way to understand my spirituality.

[WeekiWater]

106. With all of his accomplishments I think it's sad that this is what he was asked about most. N/T

[Caliman73]

134. That question is the one on a lot of people's minds.

People have a drive to know if there is a purpose or some kind of power/being/whatever that has influence over our lives. Whether you believe in a god or not, it is a fundamental human question.

Scientists are often asked for a couple of reasons. They are masters of likely the best method that human beings have for making and organizing the observations made into knowledge. AND If they can be proven wrong, then religion can regain an absolute prominence in society.

[WeekiWater]

135. He has some major accomplishments.

I can't imagine asking him that question if I had the chance to talk to him. Then again, I would probably ask him about Higgs boson.

[Caliman73]

164. No doubt. There are plenty of other questions I would have asked as well.

There is a difference between relatively educated and secular people and the majority of Americans. I would focus on sussing out whether humans can harness the positive benefits of artificial intelligence while avoiding a scenario where it gets out of our control.

[MarvinGardens]

175. I'd ask him about God.

Among other things. And I'm a scientist, no where near as accomplished as him.

[Blue_Tires]

107. I'm sure the people of Houston are all saying this after that debacle last night...

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. If this thread is any indication, that was a very controversial statement.

Because reasons.

Thank your god at an awards ceremony and no one bats an eye. Say there is no god and people—even Democrats, it would seem—flip the fuck out.

[MineralMan]

114. So, will this be what most people remember about him?

How strange.

[cbdo2007]

116. Under his definition maybe...

which is ridiculous because it's one of those things that can be defined differently for everyone.

That's like saying love doesn't exist.

[Calculating]

117. Food for thought

Assume that there IS a God and that this world/universe is some kind of test to determine the worthiness of the soul. Wouldn't it make sense that God would make it impossible to prove his existence while within this universe? That would defeat the point of the test. The point being to determine what we will do with our own free will, for good or for evil, without the guarantee of a reward at the end.

[MarvinGardens]

179. An excellent point.

If that is the case, I think it's not a very well designed test for a variety of reasons, but He might not give a crap about my opinion.

[HopeAgain]

126. My point exactly

in my post #102. You just said it much better.

[fescuerescue]

118. Anyonymous people arguing about God on the Internet with anonymous strangers

That's got to prove something.

[sprinkleeninow]

129. I feel it's more of a discussion or dialogue-ing.

[fescuerescue]

146. Yea. It's just one topic that is perpetual

No one ever changes their mind. All efforts to make the other side change their mind, only makes each side even more sure of themselves.

And a few people go away angry.

[sprinkleeninow]

196. It's just interesting to know how others do 'be' in an exchange.

[LAS14]

125. Why a bombshell? I knew his opinions about God years ago. nt

[dameatball]

132. If there is a God, then it is also possible that there are more than one.

A ghost told me that late one night. In the morning I realized it was a coat rack.

[Doodley]

143. I'm an atheist, but I am open to the possibility we are part of some kind

of game, and that would put the player in a God-like role. There is too much that we don't know to be arrogant about how much we do know.

[Mariana]

212. I think most atheists are open to the possibility

of the existence of some kind of god or godlike figure. We just don't believe it at this time because there isn't any evidence for it.

[sprinkleeninow]

234. You dudes and dudettes an' yer evidence! 😘

[Iggo]

223. I'm an atheist.

Show me a god and I won't be.

[True Dough]

153. I see the face of god right here

I'm sorry that's the face of dog! But, honestly, to me they're one in the same.

[sprinkleeninow]

191. I just wept. Again. And the last time I viewed this beauty of creation.

[True Dough]

192. I'm telling ya

that's spiritual to me. When I look at those eyes, I am moved.

[sprinkleeninow]

197. Truth.

[JHan]

193. one of my fave gifs ever.

[Squinch]

155. Didn't Einstein say there was a God? So if there's some third smart physics guy who voices

an opinion and breaks the tie, does that settle the question?

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in theorderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concernshimself with the fates and actions of human beings.
- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein'squestion "Do you believe in God?" quoted in:
Has ScienceFound God?
, by Victor J Stenger

https://www.scribd.com/document/141955670/Albert-Einstein-Quotes-on-a-Personal-God-pdf

Or, in other words, who gives a crap what any of them says? People believe what they believe about this. Then ridiculous people become enraged about others' opinions about it.

[lindysalsagal]

168. NO, He didn't. He issued a denial afterwards to clear up the misquote.

[Squinch]

169. He didn't believe in a personal God. The quote I

provided tells what his idea of God was.

[kentuck]

202. "My God"

[struggle4progress]

215. 'Actually, there is no Stephen Hawking,' says God

[Cuthbert Allgood]

219. Of the two entities you name,

we have proof that one of them existed.

But, yeah, clever.

[struggle4progress]

220. It's a very very old graffiti joke, y'know:

God is dead
-- Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead
-- God

[Solly Mack]

218. I'm amused people are getting a case of the ass over his statement.

If you're a believer then why get all ruffled up about what he said? Did it change your belief?

Of course it didn't.

He's not the first to not believe or state they didn't believe there was a god. Won't be the last.

Did people get a case of the ass each and every time someone said there was no god?

Why?

Did it change their habits? Did they stop going to worship? Did they stop praying?

So, nothing changed.

No one is required to believe a god exist.

No one.

He's not attacking those who believe by saying what he thinks.

It's not like he is demanding people abide by his thinking.

He's not even asking people to respect or like what he thinks.

He merely made a statement about what he thinks.

[Mariana]

231. You don't understand.

When believers express their opinions that the particular gods they worship are real, and that all the other ones are imaginary, that isn't offensive or insulting in the least to anyone. However, when unbelievers express the opinion that all the gods are imaginary, they are being extremely offensive and insulting to believers. See how it works?

[Solly Mack]

232. I've come across that thinking before.

[SidDithers]

221. There's a Mitchell and Webb for everything...

Sid

[Iggo]

222. It appears to be true. (n/t)

[aeromanKC]

226. If there is no God, what are Mormons going to do

With their planet?

[Snackshack]

228. He's wrong...

Tides prove it...

[Mariana]

230. Indeed.