Debating Dr. Stephen Hawkings

[cschaefer2]

Hello to all. I am a 58 year old former Navy Hospital Corpsman, and former Supply Chain Specialist (Buyer).

I am relatively uneducated, having a Associate degree and am not what one would consider a ‘intelligent person’. I am a very simple person of average intellect.

My immediate challenges in life are very simple and non-critical, relative to the world. I need a job to keep a roof over my wife’s, my two dog’s and my six cat’s heads, but myself and my family have no pressing medical problems, we are free, currently we have food, a roof over our heads…we are doing better than many and we are thankful.

My activities include searching for employment, screenwriting, casual bicycling, and video gaming.

My dream in life is to debate Dr. Stephen Hawking on the subject of life after physical death/existence of God.

Dr. Hawking is a scientist and has a scientist he knows energy cannot be created, nor destroyed but can be transformed.

If given the opportunity I would assemble a flashlight, charge it’s batteries in front of Dr. Hawkings. He and I would go out into the night sky and I would aim that flashlight straight up into the sky, with a clear shot at what I will call ‘nothingness’ and turn the flashlight on, its beam shooting out into the sky.

We would wait until the batteries went dead and the flashlight no longer had a beam of light shooting out from it.

I would ask Dr. Hawking to explain to me where the energy came from and where did it go? Due to the scientific nature of the process he would say there was a transformation. Energy that always existed was transformed, via flashlight, into a light beam. The flashlight lost the energy needed to keep the transformation going, the flashlight ceased to put out the beam. The beam itself, however, did not go out but rather continues on in the sky, virtually forever.

I would then ask Dr. Hawking a rhetorical question: ‘does the human body and mind run on energy to?’ He would answer ‘yes it does’. Then I would ask Dr. Hawking to, in his mind, replace the flashlight with the human body.

If needed, I would explain to Dr. Hawking the human body was created, along with the laws of physics, to, basically, take raw energy and transform it into a ‘light beam’ of sorts. I would start out with calling it ‘sophisticated energy’, then ‘energy with a consciousness’, and end up calling it a ‘soul’. I would ask Dr. Hawking what he thought happened to that sophisticated energy with a consciousness when the human body ceased to function, just as what happened to that beam of light when that flashlight ceased to function? I could go on to proving the existence of God and Heaven, but for now, I believe this would be a good starting point for myself and Dr. Hawking to begin.

Please note I do not seek to debate Dr. Hawkings for fame, nor fortune. I seek to debate Dr. Hawking because of his influence and respect and the effect that influence and respect has on souls that are, perhaps, ‘on the fence’ insofar as their faith goes. I believe I could make Dr. Hawking concede in this argument. He is a man made miserable by his condition, and is man to be pitied.

 

[StrawberryJam]

hawking.org.uk/index.php/information/contactinformation

Looks like his department is not taking any theories for evaluation. But, since you want to debate him, maybe you can send an email request to do that.

Why not try your ideas out with a few others in the relevant fields before you try him to see what types of criticisms there may be so you can refine your argument if needed?

I’m amazed by the confidence in your ability to point something out to Mr. Hawking that he must have overlooked somehow. And your ability to know if he is miserable.

I’m put off and outraged by your claim he should be pitied.

 

[cschaefer2]

I have tried to contact Dr. Hawking, but as you said, he is not available. I do welcome any comments, positive or negative. I am actively trying to draw Dr. Hawking out for debate and do not take him lightly and want to be overly prepared just in case, as slim as that is.

I cannot help but pity Dr. Hawking. Not only is he physically disadvantaged, but is completely separated from God. One of my objectives is to bring him closer to God, as well as all whom are like minded or might be swayed by his argument…

Please understand I am not here to judge Dr. Hawking. I am here to, hopefully, publicly destroy any and all credibility he has on the subject of the existence of life after death, heaven and God. Unfortunately he and those whom are like minded lack faith and lean on science. I am hoping to combine science and logic to open their eyes. I pray for this ability.

 

[dsmantz]

From what little I’ve read of Hawking, he does not doubt the existance of a god. He sees evolution as a process, but believes something had to give it a beginning, much before the creation of space and time, much less matter. He, however, does not believe in a personal god. More or less a creator who put some stuff together and let it do it’s own thing.

As for your energy transformation idea, once again, I don’t quite remember where, but have read that he believes that when we die, something happens. What, he doesn’t know, and doesn’t claim to. But he knows there are things that he simply cannot explain, and either doesn’t take the time, or put in the effort to find out more on the subject.

He is a scientist in the area of astronomy and astrophysics. Those two areas are obviously where his interests lie, and I don’t see him putting forth much effort to deny the existance of a creative power.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Hello to all. I am a 58 year old former Navy Hospital Corpsman, and former Supply Chain Specialist (Buyer).

I am relatively uneducated, having a Associate degree and am not what one would consider a ‘intelligent person’. I am a very simple person of average intellect.

My immediate challenges in life are very simple and non-critical, relative to the world. I need a job to keep a roof over my wife’s, my two dog’s and my six cat’s heads, but myself and my family have no pressing medical problems, we are free, currently we have food, a roof over our heads…we are doing better than many and we are thankful.

My activities include searching for employment, screenwriting, casual bicycling, and video gaming.

My dream in life is to debate Dr. Stephen Hawking on the subject of life after physical death/existence of God.

Dr. Hawking is a scientist and has a scientist he knows energy cannot be created, nor destroyed but can be transformed.

If given the opportunity I would assemble a flashlight, charge it’s batteries in front of Dr. Hawkings. He and I would go out into the night sky and I would aim that flashlight straight up into the sky, with a clear shot at what I will call ‘nothingness’ and turn the flashlight on, its beam shooting out into the sky.

We would wait until the batteries went dead and the flashlight no longer had a beam of light shooting out from it.

I would ask Dr. Hawking to explain to me where the energy came from and where did it go? Due to the scientific nature of the process he would say there was a transformation. Energy that always existed was transformed, via flashlight, into a light beam. The flashlight lost the energy needed to keep the transformation going, the flashlight ceased to put out the beam. The beam itself, however, did not go out but rather continues on in the sky, virtually forever.

Unfortunately, that is not true. I’m not a scientist (though I do take Chemistry as one of my courses).

The energy of the torchlight would go into different forms. The light energy would become diffused as photons into the atmosphere. The remainder would most likely go into heat energy, which would be absorbed into the body. It’s important to note that torchlights are not 100% efficient. Some of the energy is wasted. Part of that waste is heat energy, which is absorbed by your body. So it doesn’t go into “nothingness” but is kept in equilibrium by your body, or more specifically, hand’s temperature.

Hopefully a scientist will come on here and solve your questions. I’m a little bit unsure about the photons part (because that is to do with Physics, and I haven’t done Physics in about 2/3 years, i.e. a very long time), but I think that’s it.

As for where energy came from originally in the grand scheme of things, that’s really to do with Philosophy (e.g. Aquinas’ cosmological theory) although I heard that string theory theorists are looking at possible ways energy originated. Quite complex stuff, I wouldn’t even dare go there (same with quantum physics as well).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Link0126]

I highly doubt he would debate you. I mean, you do not have any academic credentials in his or any field. It’s a no win situation for him b/c if it were determined that he lost the debate he would be losing to some one with far less credentials and education, it would be an embarrassment to him professionally. If it was determined that he won the debate he would have beaten someone who is irrelevant in science and someone not highly educated, it would not at all be impressive and could even make him look like a curmudgeon.

 

[cschaefer2]

Thank you for your much needed (name removed by moderator)ut. I can see I have a lot of reading to do, insofar as getting to know Dr. Hawking and his exact thoughts and should, without a doubt, read and understand a science 101 book. Again, all (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated and absorbed. I can see this going to be a great learning experience for me.

 

[DianaCC]

What would you do if Hawking refuses to acknowledge your challenge and dismisses you as a deluded crank?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Thank you for your much needed (name removed by moderator)ut. I can see I have a lot of reading to do, insofar as getting to know Dr. Hawking and his exact thoughts and should, without a doubt, read and understand a science 101 book. Again, all (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated and absorbed. I can see this going to be a great learning experience for me.

Write the debate out as if you are actually in his presence and he is answering your questions. Could make a good blog entry or an article. Or a book, depending on how long the debate lasts.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Thank you for your much needed (name removed by moderator)ut. I can see I have a lot of reading to do, insofar as getting to know Dr. Hawking and his exact thoughts and should, without a doubt, read and understand a science 101 book. Again, all (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated and absorbed. I can see this going to be a great learning experience for me.

Hello,

My own personal advice would be not to try and debate with him. I don’t really want to hurt your aspirations or anything, but Physics is a difficult field, and quantum physics…don’t even get me started. Stephen Hawkings is one-of-a-kind, as described by one of the interviewers at Cambridge University (America’s equivalent of Harvard) when he applied. He was a bad test-taker though, so he needed to do an oral exam before being accepted there.

I personally believe that God can not be proven. He is someone you experience. No theory will ever conclusively say, “lo and behold, we have empirically determined God’s existence”. Just pray for Dr. Hawkings, and leave the rest in God’s Hands.

On that note, a better question I’ve always wanted to ask: “How do cynical historians explain away what happened in Fatima (the miracle of the dancing sun and the Blessed Virgin Mary’s appearance)”? It’s very well documented…

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have tried to contact Dr. Hawking, but as you said, he is not available. I do welcome any comments, positive or negative. I am actively trying to draw Dr. Hawking out for debate and do not take him lightly and want to be overly prepared just in case, as slim as that is.

I cannot help but pity Dr. Hawking. Not only is he physically disadvantaged, but is completely separated from God. One of my objectives is to bring him closer to God, as well as all whom are like minded or might be swayed by his argument…

Please understand I am not here to judge Dr. Hawking. I am here to, hopefully, publicly destroy any and all credibility he has on the subject of the existence of life after death, heaven and God. Unfortunately he and those whom are like minded lack faith and lean on science. I am hoping to combine science and logic to open their eyes. I pray for this ability.

He claims no expertise on the supernatural, therefore there is nothing to destroy. His personal opinions, are not viewed as anything by anyone who understands the difference between his contribution to science and his personal thoughts on non scientific matters.
I suggest you try to contact Niel Tyson

haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/

I know he is approachable on a first hand basis. See if he will discuss your theories.

 

[cschaefer2]

What would you do if Hawking refuses to acknowledge your challenge and dismisses you as a deluded crank?

I’m sure if Dr. Hawking is even aware of my challenge, he has already dismissed me as a deluded crank. I am not a person of great fame or intellect.

I would take no offense at his dismissing me, as ego is not involved as much as discrediting his point of view. Again, the only reason to discredit him is to assist those whom are on the fence between believing and not believing…

I believe if I keep trying to draw him out, there is a 1 percent of 1 percent chance it (a debate) would happen. In the meantime I am learning, through this forum, the weak points of my argument, which of course is ‘gold’. It is also gold to all whom join in on this forum. There are many ‘Dr. Hawking’ types out their and we all need ‘ammo’. And…there are some extremely great debaters far better equipped than I whom may pick up on all this and ‘destroy’ Dr. Hawking as a result. It doesn’t have to me who gets the job done.

Thank you

 

[StrawberryJam]

You really think that because of his recent statements people all over the world are giving up on the possibility of an afterlife? That’s amazing.

 

[cschaefer2]

Hello,

My own personal advice would be not to try and debate with him. I don’t really want to hurt your aspirations or anything, but Physics is a difficult field, and quantum physics…don’t even get me started. Stephen Hawkings is one-of-a-kind, as described by one of the interviewers at Cambridge University (America’s equivalent of Harvard) when he applied. He was a bad test-taker though, so he needed to do an oral exam before being accepted there.

I personally believe that God can not be proven. He is someone you experience. No theory will ever conclusively say, “lo and behold, we have empirically determined God’s existence”. Just pray for Dr. Hawkings, and leave the rest in God’s Hands.

On that note, a better question I’ve always wanted to ask: “How do cynical historians explain away what happened in Fatima (the miracle of the dancing sun and the Blessed Virgin Mary’s appearance)”? It’s very well documented…

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

I would never try to debate Dr. Hawking in his area of expertise. I believe he stepped out of his area, though when he made reference to the ‘after life’ as being a ‘fairytale’. (news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story).

Back in 1973 I heard something on a radio while driving to a military base I was stationed at. Some students at M.I.T. did some kind of study/calculation on the chance of mammalian life coming about by pure accident, no outside influence. Their conclusion was the chances of this happening were the same as finding a fully functional Kodak Instamatic camera naturally formed by the surface of the moon.

I guess what I am saying is at what point does theory become fact? I’m beginning to believe that is, in and by itself, subjective.

I do pray for Dr. Hawkings and all whom are like him. I doubt a debate in this area will never happen, but I do believe discussing it is fruitful and useful to the readers of which whom might be ‘on the fence.’

thank you

 

[cschaefer2]

You really think that because of his recent statements people all over the world are giving up on the possibility of an afterlife? That’s amazing.

I do not think that at all. But I do believe some, be it only one, might have been influenced by that article (news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story). This is why I want to discredit Dr. Hawking.

I, personally, need no proof, as is with many others. My proof is my faith.

 

[cschaefer2]

I would never try to debate Dr. Hawking in his area of expertise. I believe he stepped out of his area, though when he made reference to the ‘after life’ as being a ‘fairytale’. (news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story).

Back in 1973 I heard something on a radio while driving to a military base I was stationed at. Some students at M.I.T. did some kind of study/calculation on the chance of mammalian life coming about by pure accident, no outside influence. Their conclusion was the chances of this happening were the same as finding a fully functional Kodak Instamatic camera naturally formed by the surface of the moon.

I guess what I am saying is at what point does theory become fact? I’m beginning to believe that is, in and by itself, subjective.

I do pray for Dr. Hawkings and all whom are like him. I doubt a debate in this area will never happen, but I do believe discussing it is fruitful and useful to the readers of which whom might be ‘on the fence.’

thank you

 

[dsmantz]

I would be very intrigued to see Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Hawking have a debate. The argument seems not to be with a creator, but with a personal God. He at least, aknowledges the possiblity of a god, who created all. The rest, is to show that not only is there a possibility, but there is, period. Then to further explain into the personality and actions.

I’m sure Dr. Hawking is no slouch, and hasn’t dismissed religion without looking at the evidence. He’s a scientist to the letter, and it would simply be illogical to do so. Unfortunately, the evidence seems to be presented by a majority of crack pots.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I would be very intrigued to see Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Hawking have a debate. The argument seems not to be with a creator, but with a personal God. He at least, aknowledges the possiblity of a god, who created all. The rest, is to show that not only is there a possibility, but there is, period. Then to further explain into the personality and actions.

I’m sure Dr. Hawking is no slouch, and hasn’t dismissed religion without looking at the evidence. He’s a scientist to the letter, and it would simply be illogical to do so. Unfortunately, the evidence seems to be presented by a majority of crack pots.

Dr. William Lane Craig had a terrible debate not long ago where he pretended to know science and got himself discredited zippity quick by people that actually know science. Not sure he would be a good choice after that fiasco.

 

[dsmantz]

Dr. William Lane Craig had a terrible debate not long ago where he pretended to know science and got himself discredited zippity quick by people that actually know science. Not sure he would be a good choice after that fiasco.

Hmm… Haven’t seen that debate, but then again, I haven’t watched or read his stuff in quite some time (a year, maybe?). I’ll look into it.

Aside from WLC’s fiasco, I do think that a debate, or at least dialog between Dr. Hawking and a very learned, scholarly believer would be wonderful. Since Dr. Hawking is completely open to the idea of a creator, I don’t see it a far stretch to delve into philosophy and science to change his mind.

I step down from the offer, of course. I’ll stick with what I’m good at. Guitar and EMS.

 

[cschaefer2]

I highly doubt he would debate you. I mean, you do not have any academic credentials in his or any field. It’s a no win situation for him b/c if it were determined that he lost the debate he would be losing to some one with far less credentials and education, it would be an embarrassment to him professionally. If it was determined that he won the debate he would have beaten someone who is irrelevant in science and someone not highly educated, it would not at all be impressive and could even make him look like a curmudgeon.

I agree. I wish someone with substantial credentials would take him on.