Debating Dr. Stephen Hawkings

  • Thread starter Thread starter cschaefer2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dsmantz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you read the article on Dr. Hawking’s current believe in an afterlife?

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

I’m with you. I’d love to see a debate between Dr. Hawking and someone known and respected to counter him. It would be great!
 
StrawberryJam said:
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.
Click to expand...
It goes without saying whoever debates Hawking on this subject had better be extremely versed in all avenues the debate might take them in. If not, more harm than good would result. I have no idea who the best choice is, but I know someone out there and they should step forward, especially after that article, for the sake of the few the article might have influenced, from my standpoint, in a negative way.
 
dsmantz said:
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.
Click to expand...
The reality is I fit the ‘crackpot’ category.
 
the only defense you or any other religious person has vs. science in any arguement is – “i believe” – thats it.
 
cschaefer2 said:
Have you read the article on Dr. Hawking’s current believe in an afterlife?

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110516/us_yblog_thelookout/stephen-hawking-says-afterlife-is-a-fairy-story

I’m with you. I’d love to see a debate between Dr. Hawking and someone known and respected to counter him. It would be great!
Click to expand...
Right, he doesn’t believe in the afterlife. He also doesn’t recognize the Jewish-Christian God. But, he does recognize that something happens when we die, but he dare not answer what that something is.

As for Hawking, I don’t think he bares much weight on the denial of faith. Richard Dawkins on the other hand…
 
if you ever do talk to him ask him about “white holes” vs black holes, like what are they… white holes ??
 
Hope is the reality,no other creature on earth, can hope, only man, this was the message of Jesus, believe in His gospel, even if you do not believe in Jesus, so you may learn to believe. His Church has the answers.

Heres one answer : CCC. 40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

Peace:)

“Our essence is from God and He wants us back” !
 
I wouldn’t mind if someone like Father Stanley Jaki or Alasdair MacIntyre took a shot at debating (although MacIntyre is an analytic philosopher, his breadth of knowledge is breathtaking. Father Jaki is a philosopher of science, so he would be someone worth considering.)

As far as the original argument, how would you answer if Hawking retorted, " That is fine my friend, but what about Fido. What happens to him?

Shall we then say that all living things continue existing eternally?" We could with Nietzsche and Schopenhaur just think of death as a “metaphysical comfort” where we return to unconcious mother being and fall back into the great monistic wave of becoming.

Given the argument you first posed, I would state that there is nothing in that argument that would discredit the claim that all living things exist eternally, just in changed forms of energy. It says nothing about personal immortality or a continuation of consciousness.

I think Aquinas and Aristotle did the best anyone can to philosophically justify the existence of an immaterial soul. The continuation of consciousness is really the hub of the disagreement.
 
We shouldn’t waste Dr Hawkings time by asking him to indulge in pointless debates.

The man has great difficulties communicating and it is a struggle for him just to do his work.

There are plenty of other more prominent atheists to debate with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top