Stephen Hawking's Disbelief in the Afterlife

Post Reply New Topic

Theology is a field of study that deals with things unproved and unprovable. Theoretical astrophysics is a field that deals with things thus far unproved, but at least possible of proof given sufficient data. Why, exactly, should I give Dr. Hawking's opinion of possible afterlives any greater weight than I give Einstein's opinion of nutrition, or (for that matter) a theologian's opinions of astrophysics? Should I avoid things spherical because Nikola Tesla, who was inarguably more intelligent than I by a long way, detested them? Should I believe in alchemy because it was a lifelong pursuit of Newton's?

For that matter, if Hawking is an atheist, and Einstein was a deist, which physicist's view of metaphysical matters should we think of as correct?

Why does one equates an unknowable and unprovable assumption of an all powerful being who predates the existence of this universe and the founding of all universes, who created something out of nothing, invented time and space along with all the other properties and laws of physics...

to a knowable and provable...



Or unicorns hiding in your closet or a flying toaster orbiting around the sun, or what have you. For one, you just made it up while writing this.

We know - according to Hawkings - how finely tuned this entire universe, all the laws of physics, and its properties is to even allow the slightest possibility of life. Sure, the notion of an unknowable and unprovable God is Radical, but the prospect of a well-tuned Universe, governed by laws, having a Law-giver and Designer doesn't sound any more far-fetched then constantly expanding the borders of science to find a narrative that disproves and discredits the need for a creator.

It never came off as a powerful way to discredit what I wrote above because there is reason and meaning infused into its creation instead of some silly hypothetical - constructed for mocking - that goes nowhere: like the unicorn, flying toaster, or cat people.

What have old books got to do with the existence of a nearly-impossible-to-prove supernatural phenomenon (i.e. life after death)?

In those old books, no-one tries to 'prove' the afterlife, so why believe them? Why do those old books have any authority beyond the self-invested kind?

Even if you don't believe in them, cutting off ties to history blinds you to everything that has happened before you.

I'm being entirely sincere when I tell you that a the idea of a Creator makes exactly as much sense to me as cat-people do. They seem equally as likely.

Of course.

I love old books.

However, studying them gives me no authority on things like the afterlife.

So are most of the theories put forth by Hawkings(not that he's an author of them either as they've been around in the physics community for some time).

How does one construct a test for an M theory or a Multi-verse universe? It is highly possible and a theory I subscribe to, but also impossible to prove.

It requires faith in the unknowable and unprovable on either side of the argument so haggling in the dark with no absolute proof is pointless.

history only goes so far,
most of it is passed down in a written or spoken form, making the "pollution" of the source material inevitable.
much has then been verified through many different fields, but all in all the problem still stands for the unverified bits.

they found what is very likely the troy that inspired homer's lliad
just because they found the city however, doesnt mean that any of the actual details are true.
including all the various supernatural phenomenon depicted in there (including a rain of fiery arrows fired by the god artemis)

Yes, however if you had read enough history you might well be aware of the importance between the natural, or general, revelation and the historical, or special, revelation. The natural revelation is through that which has been made, the creation itself, and the clues of design and causality within itself. The historical revelation however being necessary since precise, or specific, identification of the Creator through nature alone is impossible. When history is dismissed, only the general revelation is utilized, subconsciously or consciously, leading some to consider the existence of a Creator on their own and leaving others with annoyance as they don't want a Creator to exist or to be involved, and perhaps there are those who are genuinely in denial of a Creator as everyone who is an atheist loves to proclaim in one way or another.

But cat people exist for no other purpose other then to mockingly entertain the notion of a Creator.

The creator exists because one asked why is there a universe at all for the laws of physics to explain. That is one of the most deep and unanswerable/unprovable questions of life. Why is there a natural world, Why is in the Theist and philosophical domain. And oddly, Darwinian mindset are applied to the scientific creation-story when they have no place or purpose beyond explaining the evolution of life on one planet in the cosmos. The gulf between the two is quite vast...

It is easy to equate a creator to cat people when one is removed of the following:

Last edited by MarketAndChurch on 17 May 2011, 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And this historical revelation is true because you think so?

Some people have read a lot of history and haven't seen it, or they have read it and dismissed it because they question the veracity of the sources. You took a leap of faith but I 'aint jumpin'.

How do you know? They could just exist for the sheer awesomeness of it.

If a Creator exists, I doubt it is for any reason.

like i said before, the human has not created a tool anywhere near as complex and powerful as itself. You can create the most advanced tools in science and it will always pale in it's advancement in technology compared to the human being. Perhaps we are the only "natural" tool that can detect the supernatural, which would give us that authority, and rightly so.

The act of questioning ought to be carried out fully, since questioning alone means nothing. However, if one considers axiomatically that the act of questioning itself is to thereby disprove the veracity of a subject, then there is nothing which is true whatsoever since there is nothing which cannot be questioned.

True, if you take the logic way beyond sense. However, some stuff is more provable than other stuff. I think it's better to form beliefs based on that rather than just because I like an idea (though I will admit I do that way too much).

Does this mean a Historian would be able to make the claim as Hawking without being so based?

Even If I was kind for you today and allowed you to claim that the textbooks theologians study have a link to history. Who cares? Stephen Hawking made no claim related to History, but to the supernatural. For theologians to claim to know more about the supernatural than Hawking, they would need to prove the supernatural, then prove that the supernatural has an actual link to the books they 'studied' so much.



Hawking's argument does not work because he is an authority in physics. It works because it is actually a pretty good darn argument . In so far we have not found anything magical in the human brain that would justify believing in the existence of a soul. Ergo souls don't exist, ergo there cannot be after life.

I guess that theists are afraid of Hawking's argument not because of the contents of those arguments, but because Hawking is an authority. Theists are used to following authorities rather than reasoning , so they probably think that Hawking's opinion somehow means that all of science will become atheist. What they do not understand is that Science itself required to consider the supernatural bogus a long time ago, and that Hawking has not changed anything in regards to the overall opinion of scientists in the world.

And I guess that's the reason the first line of defense against Hawking's argument is not one that deals with his argument but one that tries to undermine Hawking's authority in regards to the topic.


It is a bogus field of study. You can't deal with things unproved and unprovable, because there is nothing to study. Instead, they study text books. Textbooks with a validity that depends on whether it was really a super natural entity which wrote them. Which theologians have never demonstrated or anything.

Hawking's opinion on these matters is more important to me that the opinion of a drunk at a bar, and that's more important to me than the opinion of a guy who claims to be a theologian for studying tons of books written by men.

--
If Einstein made a claim about nutrition and it turned out that his claim was testable, verifiable and it turned to be true after tested. His claim would be as important as any contribution to nutrition from people with a degree on it.


Just because humans have not created a tool as complex as the human body yet, it does not mean they will never do. Nor it does not mean that Hawking's claim that we have not found anything supernatural or magical about the human brain and that we instead found tons of chemical and physical processes that make it work is false. Under that view there is not much difference between the human brain and a computer. Architectures and materials may be well different, but what else?