I agree, it is extremely arrogant to imply Stephen Hawking was a supporter of intelligent design. I present a few of his quotes:
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.
God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
C’mon you’re above these silly games, “agreeing” to something we both know I didn’t express. Anyway.
I don’t believe in that sort of “pre-destiny,” and I’m at a loss as to why you brought it up.
Science explains things naturalistically, yes. I love science. It’s a wonderful sort of hammer. It’s just a shame that people, on seeing how perfect a hammer it is, assume it should also function as a soldering iron, scalpeln, et cetera.
The brain is a computer, I agree. I’m thoroughly interested in Sir Penrose’s investigations into quantum consciousness (and CCC, to be honest). But assuming possession of knowledge you literally cannot take possession of (and report on) by means other than being informed is just the sort of arrogance to which I was originally referring.
Apologies, however I have frequently found myself under attack on this site, with a few particular contributers being all too fond of appeals to mockery and no effort to engage in any meaningful discourse that isn’t 100% agreement with them. Hence, if I was ‘off’ with you, I apologise.
The remarks below were supposed to be in quote, so perhaps there’s some confusion here:
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”
“God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
Those three quotes? All by Stephen Hawking. The point I was making is that Paul’s misuse of a Hawking quote to support Intelligent Design is entirely misleading – at best, it is wilful ignorance; at worset, deliberate dishonesty. Is is frankly not right to suggest Hawking supported any sort of design – he had made it plain over the course of his life that he believed in no such thing.
I don’t see science as merely a hammer. It is a multi-faced tool, it can be subtle and deal with the minute, or it can be sweeping and deal with the huge stuff, along with everything inbetween. It is a remarkable field, one where new developments can arise as much from being wrong as from being right. It is the reason we have computers, cars, refrigerators, MRI scanners and all kinds of other useful technology.
As for my personal feelings on intelligent design – the simple question would be to provide proof. Not simply to suggest that the complexity of the universe stands as proof – it is entirely possible that Hawking was correct and the universe is a remarkable accident. As for arrogance… maybe it is arrogant to question the competency of any hypothetical designer – but then again, I’d have serious questions as to the arbitary nature of much of their creation, to say nothing of the numerous hardships imposed upon us by a supposedly benovelent deity.
He also said “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he wrote in The Grand Design. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” But by all means, misrepresent him.
Stephen Hawking’s earlier work on Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems and discovering Hawking radiation undoubtedly qualifies him to have been one of the greatest physicists of our age, however there are some serious questions to be asked about his later work on string theory.
He and other celebrity scientists have been accused of using their fame to willfully misrepresent the actual consensus of the physics community, namely that at best String theory is unproven, and at worse it is outright pseudo-scientific.
The scientific and theological claims made by Hawking and Mlodinow in the Grand Design are therefore outright laughable and denies atheists the moral high ground when it comes to grasping at ridiculous claims to justify their worldview.
“One thing that is sure to generate sales for a book of this kind is to somehow drag in religion. The book’s rather conventional claim that “God is unnecessary” for explaining physics and early universe cosmology has provided a lot of publicity for the book. I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me.” – Peter Woit, theoretical physicist, Columbia University.
Fair enough. I didn’t realize they were quotes from the man himself. And I agree. “Grand design” is an idiomatic expression akin to “bigger picture” and doesn’t necessitate literal design as part of its meaning. I’ll grant that. But whatever Professor Hawking had to say about issues related to metaphysics or philosophy should be considered remarks by a novice in those fields. Being stupendously amazing at math and physics doesn’t qualify anyone to comment with any authority on (unless demonstrated otherwise; I don’t put excessive stock in “credentials” per se) other subjects. This is fallacious appeal to authority in any of several cases.
I didn’t intend any diminution of the far- and wide-reaching applications of the scientific endeavor; I only meant to emphasize that its scope isn’t limitless, and questions of “(ultimately) why” and “being per se” are examples of such that fall outside that scope.
As for your last bit:
– That gives rise to a further question of just what you mean by “proof.” I assume, and correct me if I’m wrong, you mean only those data that constitute proof in the field of science.
– An “accident” (which also needs further specification, but I’ll assume it refers to a “chance” happening) giving rise to existence itself actually is impossible. Like I said, the Professor really should have stayed in his lane.
– Again you’re assuming a lot by labelling things arbitrary; also the imposition of hardship doesn’t preclude benevolence. Lots of problematic logic here.
“metaphysics or philosophy” are not subjects. Any actual natural scientist knows about the principles of empiricism and what can be deducted from them and what not. When physicists argue for atheism they are already using faulty reasoning according to the principles of their own science.
“The smallest particle is created from accidentals, which is the position of two well-known Iraqi theologians Dhirar bin Amr al-Ghatafani (died around 809 AD) and Husain bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Najjar (died around 835 AD) (Taftazani (1998), 3:23). Since a group of modern scientists believe that the universe is not the mechanical machine of Newton – Sir Arthur Eddington (d 1944), for instance, suggests that the substratum of everything is of a mental [non-physical] character (Henry 2005) and also, that there are vacuum fluctuations in quantum physics which refer to the fact of energy forming what are called ”virtual particles” (Jaffe (2005), p. 1; 2), this may, somehow, support the position of Dhirar.”
As we see Dhirar who died 809AD and Najjar who died 835AD started speaking about a particle which is formed from the accidental 1100 years before Max Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) the father of Quantum Physics who has opened the door for the scientists who have discovered the ”accidental” which forms the matter and gave it the name of ”Virtual Particle”.”
It’s funny how much the Tabekians rant about IERA and other Muslims making stupid claims about science but then come up with such bullshit. Tabek doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
Blogging Theology 
to appreciate the designer
LikeLike
How does anything you’ve said support your claim of the universe being badly designed?
LikeLike
Badly designed if it was.
LikeLike
Everyone’s a critic 😧
LikeLike
Well, if it was done correctly the first time!
LikeLike
The arrogance, while disgusting, is not surprising.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, it is extremely arrogant to imply Stephen Hawking was a supporter of intelligent design. I present a few of his quotes:
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.
God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
LikeLike
C’mon you’re above these silly games, “agreeing” to something we both know I didn’t express. Anyway.
I don’t believe in that sort of “pre-destiny,” and I’m at a loss as to why you brought it up.
Science explains things naturalistically, yes. I love science. It’s a wonderful sort of hammer. It’s just a shame that people, on seeing how perfect a hammer it is, assume it should also function as a soldering iron, scalpeln, et cetera.
The brain is a computer, I agree. I’m thoroughly interested in Sir Penrose’s investigations into quantum consciousness (and CCC, to be honest). But assuming possession of knowledge you literally cannot take possession of (and report on) by means other than being informed is just the sort of arrogance to which I was originally referring.
LikeLike
Apologies, however I have frequently found myself under attack on this site, with a few particular contributers being all too fond of appeals to mockery and no effort to engage in any meaningful discourse that isn’t 100% agreement with them. Hence, if I was ‘off’ with you, I apologise.
The remarks below were supposed to be in quote, so perhaps there’s some confusion here:
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.”
“God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
Those three quotes? All by Stephen Hawking. The point I was making is that Paul’s misuse of a Hawking quote to support Intelligent Design is entirely misleading – at best, it is wilful ignorance; at worset, deliberate dishonesty. Is is frankly not right to suggest Hawking supported any sort of design – he had made it plain over the course of his life that he believed in no such thing.
I don’t see science as merely a hammer. It is a multi-faced tool, it can be subtle and deal with the minute, or it can be sweeping and deal with the huge stuff, along with everything inbetween. It is a remarkable field, one where new developments can arise as much from being wrong as from being right. It is the reason we have computers, cars, refrigerators, MRI scanners and all kinds of other useful technology.
As for my personal feelings on intelligent design – the simple question would be to provide proof. Not simply to suggest that the complexity of the universe stands as proof – it is entirely possible that Hawking was correct and the universe is a remarkable accident. As for arrogance… maybe it is arrogant to question the competency of any hypothetical designer – but then again, I’d have serious questions as to the arbitary nature of much of their creation, to say nothing of the numerous hardships imposed upon us by a supposedly benovelent deity.
LikeLike
bla bla
LikeLike
Oh come on, you’re capable of smarter than that.
LikeLike
Computer parts?
Why are you even talking about pieces of metal that have no life?
LikeLike
*I’m* not saying anything. I’m quoting Stephen Hawking.
LikeLike
how would you know?
LikeLike
Do you consider it to be a good design?
LikeLike
Stephan Hawkins says “grand design”
You say “badly designed”
Do you know what that makes you? It makes you a science denier.
LikeLike
He also said “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he wrote in The Grand Design. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” But by all means, misrepresent him.
LikeLike
How does anything you said support your claim that the universe is badly designed?
LikeLike
If it *were* designed (which isn’t Hawking’s claim, despite misleading claims to the contrary), it clearly cannot be considered well-designed.
LikeLike
“Spontaneous creation”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Design without Designer”. “Creation without Creator”.
Atheists you should come up with your own lingo.
Look at the trinitarians how creative they are. They are light-years ahead lol
LikeLike
*Shrug* do I trust the views and opinions of Stephen Hawking, or you?
LikeLike
who cares
LikeLike
You, obviously.
LikeLike
nope I don’t care for a badly designed universe without purpose
LikeLike
Care to explain what makes it a good design?
LikeLike
Stephen Hawking’s earlier work on Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems and discovering Hawking radiation undoubtedly qualifies him to have been one of the greatest physicists of our age, however there are some serious questions to be asked about his later work on string theory.
He and other celebrity scientists have been accused of using their fame to willfully misrepresent the actual consensus of the physics community, namely that at best String theory is unproven, and at worse it is outright pseudo-scientific.
The scientific and theological claims made by Hawking and Mlodinow in the Grand Design are therefore outright laughable and denies atheists the moral high ground when it comes to grasping at ridiculous claims to justify their worldview.
“One thing that is sure to generate sales for a book of this kind is to somehow drag in religion. The book’s rather conventional claim that “God is unnecessary” for explaining physics and early universe cosmology has provided a lot of publicity for the book. I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me.” – Peter Woit, theoretical physicist, Columbia University.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nope
LikeLike
Your concession is accepted 🙂
LikeLike
Darthtimon,
Many physical constants in this universe are precisely at the correct values required for complex life to develop.
For example:
the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to gravity;
the number of spatial dimensions;
the strength of the strong and electromagnetic forces;
the hydrogen-helium nuclear efficiency value;
the cosmological constant;
the mass density/critical density ratio;
and the energy/mass ratio of gravitation.
LikeLike
Yet there are many occasions where life is threatened and many locations, even on earth, where humans cannot go.
LikeLike
Fermi’s Paradox disproves atheism. How can the Universe only have one Earth?
LikeLike
In what way does Fermi’s Paradox prove the existence of a deity and/or intelligent design?
LikeLike
See next comment, forgot to add it to the previous one, sorries ….
LikeLike
Hit reply too early, will wait.
LikeLike
*If God didn’t exist, then the creation of Earth wouldn’t be special, we should have many earths, but we don’t Only One! Explain that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, we’re discovering more and more potential ‘earths’ all the time. What this has to do with the Fermi Paradox, you have yet to explain.
LikeLike
If God didn’t exist, then the creation of Earth wouldn’t be special, we should have many earths, but we don’t. Only One! Explain that!
LikeLike
dream on
LikeLike
Fair enough. I didn’t realize they were quotes from the man himself. And I agree. “Grand design” is an idiomatic expression akin to “bigger picture” and doesn’t necessitate literal design as part of its meaning. I’ll grant that. But whatever Professor Hawking had to say about issues related to metaphysics or philosophy should be considered remarks by a novice in those fields. Being stupendously amazing at math and physics doesn’t qualify anyone to comment with any authority on (unless demonstrated otherwise; I don’t put excessive stock in “credentials” per se) other subjects. This is fallacious appeal to authority in any of several cases.
I didn’t intend any diminution of the far- and wide-reaching applications of the scientific endeavor; I only meant to emphasize that its scope isn’t limitless, and questions of “(ultimately) why” and “being per se” are examples of such that fall outside that scope.
As for your last bit:
– That gives rise to a further question of just what you mean by “proof.” I assume, and correct me if I’m wrong, you mean only those data that constitute proof in the field of science.
– An “accident” (which also needs further specification, but I’ll assume it refers to a “chance” happening) giving rise to existence itself actually is impossible. Like I said, the Professor really should have stayed in his lane.
– Again you’re assuming a lot by labelling things arbitrary; also the imposition of hardship doesn’t preclude benevolence. Lots of problematic logic here.
I do appreciate your thoughts though.
LikeLike
This was meant to be a reply to darthtimon 🤔
LikeLike
“metaphysics or philosophy” are not subjects. Any actual natural scientist knows about the principles of empiricism and what can be deducted from them and what not. When physicists argue for atheism they are already using faulty reasoning according to the principles of their own science.
LikeLike
And I just found this on Tabek’s site:
“The smallest particle is created from accidentals, which is the position of two well-known Iraqi theologians Dhirar bin Amr al-Ghatafani (died around 809 AD) and Husain bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Najjar (died around 835 AD) (Taftazani (1998), 3:23). Since a group of modern scientists believe that the universe is not the mechanical machine of Newton – Sir Arthur Eddington (d 1944), for instance, suggests that the substratum of everything is of a mental [non-physical] character (Henry 2005) and also, that there are vacuum fluctuations in quantum physics which refer to the fact of energy forming what are called ”virtual particles” (Jaffe (2005), p. 1; 2), this may, somehow, support the position of Dhirar.”
As we see Dhirar who died 809AD and Najjar who died 835AD started speaking about a particle which is formed from the accidental 1100 years before Max Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) the father of Quantum Physics who has opened the door for the scientists who have discovered the ”accidental” which forms the matter and gave it the name of ”Virtual Particle”.”
It’s funny how much the Tabekians rant about IERA and other Muslims making stupid claims about science but then come up with such bullshit. Tabek doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
LikeLike
Go and educate him then 😧
LikeLike
This is a serious issue AT. Tabek just shows his ignorance of theology and physics anyway.
LikeLike