It’s seems that from what I’ve read Hawking does believe in what we call God. I’m not sure he believes in a personal God, but only God knows what is in his heart. It is very encouraging to see such GREAT scientists not divorcing themselves from a supernatural being.Scientists find evidence of design
Stephen Hawking, the United Kingdom’s brilliant physicist, ranked with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, has a different take on the subject. Hawking said, “The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of the Big Bang are enormous.” Together with Brandon Carter and other colleagues at Cambridge University, Hawking discovered an extremely delicate mathematical balance among the four fundamental forces of nature. These forces are: strong force in the atom’s nucleus, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. The extremely delicate balance of forces in nature not only enabled our universe to exist but it also sustains our universe. Hawking and his colleagues presented the mathematical details in a formal paper that supports the anthropic principle. In other words, the universe is adapted for a purpose and that purpose is life. During a published interview Hawking put it this way, “I think there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.” And he added, “I think most scientists like to stay away from the religious side of it.”Code:In a piece in Scientific American, Richard Dawkins, the famous evolutionist, concluded, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Dawkins' statement either reveals willful ignorance or he seems unaware of the scientific principle put forth in the United Kingdom that the universe has been precisely tuned for a purpose, and that purpose is life.
more…
Don’t get too enthusiastic yet. The whole point of A Brief History of Time was to portray a universe in which there was no place for God, personal or impersonal.It’s seems that from what I’ve read Hawking does believe in what we call God. I’m not sure he believes in a personal God, but only God knows what is in his heart. It is very encouraging to see such GREAT scientists not divorcing themselves from a supernatural being.
But, then again, isn’t real science about proving things, not trying to disprove something it can’t?
There are numerous posts here that attempt to interpret divine action as recorded in the Bible into (A) What God can do, and (B) What God cannot do – all according to science.It’s seems that from what I’ve read Hawking does believe in what we call God. I’m not sure he believes in a personal God, but only God knows what is in his heart. It is very encouraging to see such GREAT scientists not divorcing themselves from a supernatural being.
But, then again, isn’t real science about proving things, not trying to disprove something it can’t?
PAGE 25!!!AlbertBall was questioned about his use of the word “kent.” He claims he meant “Kent Hovind”, which makes no sense in the context. His original post said “kent,” a fact which is duly noted.
“You can fool some of the people…”.
Good 'nough!PAGE 25!!!
Re: Questions for Evolution-Deniers
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricmat
Actually, there is no possible way to know that past mutations were random. Were you around to observe each and every one?
Well no, i wasn’t kent.
youtube.com/watch?v=gbkI_H7aokc
Jump to 4:55, kent “were you there”.
So i hope this IS now noted.
Paully, it’s not really about proving things. Science is about testing hypotheses that we think best explain observed phenomena. If the hypotheses are not falsified by experiment, they can become part of a broader theory. Theories are not proven so much as they are continually strengthened in explanatory scope by the falsification of alternative hypotheses. This is how the theory of evolution has been progressively strengthened since 1859, by the ruling our of alternative hypotheses (such as Lamarckianism) and the incorporation of allied theories like genetics, into new and more comprehensive syhteses…IBut, then again, isn’t real science about proving things, not trying to disprove something it can’t?
Wow. That is quite a coincidence - You too are British and have the same degree as the previously banned poster that I told you about - Charles Darwin aka A Dancer Whirls.I have studied biology, chemistry and physics at undergrad level, i have studied maths to degree level and computing past degree level.
As itinerant1 points out, saying that you meant ‘kent’ as in Kent Hovind is inconsistent with the meaning and vocabulary of your post.Oh and reason i called the dude kent is because is defense was exactly the same nonsense as spouted by “Dr”(lol) kent hovind, which was along the lines of “you weren’t there so you can’t know”.
Do you mean your education or mine? Anyway, that is a very big question, and one that has been discussed at length with Charles Darwin, whose posts and threads I have referred you to. Without wishing to go over all of that again to little purpose for either of us; I shall simply say that there are differing and complementary types of knowledge and that in some areas such as the existence of God I subscribe to Gould’s concept of the non overlapping magisteria . If I want to know about God I listen to the Doctors of the Church, if I want to know how to treat flu I ask a medical Doctor. This is a broad brushed and very simplistic characterisation of my position, but it will do here I think.I’m curious as someone with an education in science how to you reconcile the gap between knowledge and belief when it comes to religion, and why do you believe that for which there is no compelling or empirical evidence?