<P style="FONT-STYLE: normal; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">Stephen Hawking is at the center of controversy after again proclaiming that heaven does not exist.

Hawking, 69, said in an interview with the Guardian that our brains are like computers and that, “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

He has written books on the subject, Time Magazine recalls, wreaking havoc when “Grand Design” was released. In the book, he says the Big Bang is what created the world and that God was just a myth.

He also added, “I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.”

Hawking is a British theoretical physicist and cosmologist whose books have made him an academic celebrity. Among his achievements are the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and is a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Hawking is also known for having a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which has left him almost completely paralyzed. He uses a synthesizer, noted for its robotic voice, to communicate.

http://www.thirdage.com/news/stephen-hawking-says-heaven-does-not-exist_05-16-2011

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

very true, but that is also like quoting ' is there any factual evidence that the easter bunny and santa clause ' doesnt excist ?

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

very true, but that is also like quoting ' is there any factual evidence that the easter bunny and santa clause ' doesnt excist ?

No boater, it is nothing like saying that.

We KNOW the Easter bunny and Santa do not exist because WE KNOW that we made them up. There is factual evidence they don't exist. There is also factual evidence that the bible/koran etc are made up.

The afterlife and a supreme being are not something that has been made up at all, rather it is just something that we don't know about. Religions might be made up fairy tales, but that does not mean there is no afterlife.

Personally, I am disappointed with Hawking and surprised he would come out with such a statement although maybe he has been misinterpreted. I'd have thought he'd think outside the box and accept life may exist in a way that we haven't even imagined yet, or something.

Why do I get a feeling of Deja Vu, have we not had this thread here recently? Or maybe that was on another forum.

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

Indeed there is evidence that God, as portrayed by "His" holy scriptures (of any major monotheistic religion), does not exist.

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

Indeed there is evidence that God, as portrayed by "His" holy scriptures (of any major monotheistic religion), does not exist.

Quite.

But it doesn't mean that there is no god.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

very true, but that is also like quoting ' is there any factual evidence that the easter bunny and santa clause ' doesnt excist ?

No boater, it is nothing like saying that.

We KNOW the Easter bunny and Santa do not exist because WE KNOW that we made them up. There is factual evidence they don't exist. There is also factual evidence that the bible/koran etc are made up.

The afterlife and a supreme being are not something that has been made up at all, rather it is just something that we don't know about. Religions might be made up fairy tales, but that does not mean there is no afterlife.

Personally, I am disappointed with Hawking and surprised he would come out with such a statement although maybe he has been misinterpreted. I'd have thought he'd think outside the box and accept life may exist in a way that we haven't even imagined yet, or something.

Why do I get a feeling of Deja Vu, have we not had this thread here recently? Or maybe that was on another forum.

We KNOW the Easter bunny and Santa do not exist because WE KNOW that we made them up

This was where i was coming from, as Santa Claus is more recent, we KNOW we made him up, but wasnt also God Made up? , as you also mention the the Bible and Koran to be fairy tales.

i dont think there is a question here about afterlife, but what afterlife, as Mr Hawkings stated, the human brain just shuts down.

It is a question that EVERYONE will be able to answer one day, but no one to report back to

This was where i was coming from, as Santa Claus is more recent, we KNOW we made him up, but wasnt also God Made up? , as you also mention the the Bible and Koran to be fairy tales.

i dont think there is a question here about afterlife, but what afterlife, as Mr Hawkings stated, the human brain just shuts down.

It is a question that EVERYONE will be able to answer one day, but no one to report back to

I think you miss the point boater.

Just because we know the bible and koran to be made up, as well as their 'god'. how do we know that their still isn't another god that is not made up?

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

We KNOW the Easter bunny and Santa do not exist because WE KNOW that we made them up. There is factual evidence they don't exist. There is also factual evidence that the bible/koran etc are made up.

The afterlife and a supreme being are not something that has been made up at all, rather it is just something that we don't know about. Religions might be made up fairy tales, but that does not mean there is no afterlife.

Personally, I am disappointed with Hawking and surprised he would come out with such a statement although maybe he has been misinterpreted. I'd have thought he'd think outside the box and accept life may exist in a way that we haven't even imagined yet, or something.

Why do I get a feeling of Deja Vu, have we not had this thread here recently? Or maybe that was on another forum.

You make a good point, and one that I agree with. That is until the red bit (and supported by the blue bit).

If I was to tell you that I believe that if I put my mind to it, I could levitate to the moon, and survive the trip by holding my breath, you would think I was nuts. You have evidence that I can't, just from your knowledge of science....but I say to you, "Why don't you think outside the box and accept that my body may have capabilities that you haven\t imagined yet...or something".

It comes down to likelihood. Given a huge likelihood of something being so (or not so), the chances are such that it is not unreasonable to have good faith in it being so (or not so).

I applaud Hawking. It is a very controversial viewpoint and he has the guts to express it (and an intellect to give his viewpoint credence).

(I should mention that I tried to reply to too many quotes, so I had to remove one....I removed Boaters, which was the post Moonrakers was replying to).

But we know about space and the literal physical limitations of our bodies. Not only do we know we can't survive in space, we also know why.

But, we know nothing about the afterlife, not even whether or not it exists. So how can we possibly comment? The chances of there being an afterlife could be a gzillion to one, that does not mean we can say it does not exist, we can't possibly know.

But we know about space and the literal physical limitations of our bodies. Not only do we know we can't survive in space, we also know why.

But, we know nothing about the afterlife, not even whether or not it exists. So how can we possibly comment? The chances of there being an afterlife could be a gzillion to one, that does not mean we can say it does not exist, we can't possibly know.

but wasnt the afterlife and heaven ect made up to withdraw fear against one's Death? i mean there are so many different versions of the afterlife, if it was true, which version to believe?

But we know about space and the literal physical limitations of our bodies. Not only do we know we can't survive in space, we also know why.

But, we know nothing about the afterlife, not even whether or not it exists. So how can we possibly comment? The chances of there being an afterlife could be a gzillion to one, that does not mean we can say it does not exist, we can't possibly know.

but wasnt the afterlife and heaven ect made up to withdraw fear against one's Death? i mean there are so many different versions of the afterlife, if it was true, which version to believe?

Boater.

Forget about religion, forget about the bible or any other kind of book that tells us about these things. What if they did not exist and they were never written. Do you think that would mean the afterlife did not exist?

But we know about space and the literal physical limitations of our bodies. Not only do we know we can't survive in space, we also know why.

But, we know nothing about the afterlife, not even whether or not it exists. So how can we possibly comment? The chances of there being an afterlife could be a gzillion to one, that does not mean we can say it does not exist, we can't possibly know.

I agree with you....except that you seem to me to be contradicting yourself when you say that we know this or that, but don't know the other....in light of the evidence we have at this time we know what we know.......and in keeping with your (very true) idea that we don't know what we don't know, then we have to accept that we may not know what we think we know.

I suppose that what I'm saying (in part) is that if we compare the belief of Hawking to the belief of the Pope, then the evidence that we have supports Hawking.

I think I may also be saying that it is reasonable for us to take Hawking's view....I certainly do.

But their is no evidence there is no afterlife. Nothing, zilch, nada, sweet FA.

It is not reasonable to say that something does not exist when we cannot possibly know. There are not even any statistics to suggest any kind of probability of its existence.

Nothing.

Hawking must be trying to sell a book or get publicity for some other reason because he is certainly smart enough to know that he can't say for certain whether Heaven exists or not. What happens - if anything - after we die is the single greatest mystery for mankind. Unless someday someone invents a way to die for longer than a few minutes then come back to tell about it with pics and video, we'll never know. Maybe that's what gets under Hawking's skin so much? All the brains and science on the planet help figure out the afterlife as much as eating a taco on the beach do.

^

I suspect he has been misrepresented and not quoted in full. He's way too smart for this. Perhaps he just put it forward as a theory, for example, but that part has been omitted.

^

I suspect he has been misrepresented and not quoted in full. He's way too smart for this. Perhaps he just put it forward as a theory, for example, but that part has been omitted.

No, he's like Richard Dawkins, who also thinks he knows all the answers. If I could prove that God existed, I would have no use for Him, because it would mean He was small enough to be comprehended by my very imperfect mind. I am, by the way, a Catholic, if a somewhat unorthodox one!

What we believe is nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove.

Hawking, like Dawkins (any similarity between the names being purely coincidental), is entitled to his beliefs, but if he puts them forward as facts, he is being rather foolish.

What we believe is nothing to do with what we can prove or disprove.

wholeheartedly seconded!

Dawkins cannot be compared with Hawking.

Dawking is just the other side of the coin to a religious believer. I.E., having faith in something in which we cannot possibly confirm is right or wrong.

Hawking is a scientist who, just like all other scientists, is trying to find out how everything works.

Chalk and cheese.

Dawkins cannot be compared with Hawking.

Dawking is just the other side of the coin to a religious believer. I.E., having faith in something in which we cannot possibly confirm is right or wrong.

Hawking is a scientist who, just like all other scientists, is trying to find out how everything works.

Chalk and cheese.

jing and jang

As brilliant as the man is, he has no special insight as to whether there is a heaven or not. This is one area where all of are equal - all of us can only guess what happens next.

he is a man of facts, as there is no evidence that god excist's , he refers to a logical explantion

simliar to his last speach on God didnt create the universe, as there is more facts behind he didnt then he did.

Is there any factual evidence that God does not exist?

Indeed there is evidence that God, as portrayed by "His" holy scriptures (of any major monotheistic religion), does not exist.

You are rewording my question.

Please humor me and answer it as asked, without displaying your editing skills, such as they are.

Don't start the squabbling, you are not the only people on this forum

Anyway. I have found that Hawking's ideas are otherwise known as the M-Theory, google away. Just as I suspected his comments are part of a theory of how he thinks everything works according to the information he has available to him.

Hawking, like Dawkins (any similarity between the names being purely coincidental), is entitled to his beliefs, but if he puts them forward as facts, he is being rather foolish.

I concur.

Yes, please don't start squabbling. I don't know if there is a heaven or not, but I do know there is a very big cyber garbage can where posts can go.

Dawkins cannot be compared with Hawking.

Dawking is just the other side of the coin to a religious believer. I.E., having faith in something in which we cannot possibly confirm is right or wrong.

Hawking is a scientist who, just like all other scientists, is trying to find out how everything works.

Chalk and cheese.

Dawkins is actually a good scientist (though nothing compared with Hawking), or was, until he got on to his anti-religious kick. Then, maybe, he lost his sense of proportion.

I find it interesting that there is so much speculation about an afterlife yet no one ever raises the question of where we were before we came into this world. I imagine the reason is that most simply assume that this is our first go-around.

I've probably pointed this out before in another thread at one time or another but we seem to be clueless as to what came before our birth, what happens upon death, and even where we go when lay ourselves down each night (which, BTW, comprises approximately a third of our lives, a more than goodly portion I might add). On top of that if you were to ask someone, anyone, why they are here or what life is about you'd most likely get a blank stare.

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers. I strongly suspect, and would even be willing to wager, that the answers to these questions would so profoundly impact us that the changes they would produce within ourselves would be on a scale so massive that most would not be willing to undergo them for fear that people might not recognize themselves afterwards.

And if I may be so bold I would claim that the answers are, literally, all around us. Certainly they are within us. These questions are not unknowable, impenetrable, or even inherently mysterious as we like to believe. Perhaps the true fairy tale which we've created for ourselves, and I think this point is worth considering, is the belief that the answers to death, life and who we truly are are, well, beyond us.

Regarding the idea of heaven I'd like to add this as food for thought. The idea of heaven is generally defined and agreed upon as a place of ultimate perfection. Yet if this definition were true then the implication would be that there would be an end to growth. For in a state of perfection there would be no possibility for further growth because we would have arrived at the end of the road; nothing could be improved upon and no new heights of experience could be possible. That would be the true definition of death as expansion has come to a halt. And that would be an impossibility. Therefore, heaven, as we like to define it as a final resting place, could not be. I think rather that we misunderstand the concept of heaven.

Hopefully I haven't said too much, but I believe this is the forum for thinking out-of-the-box?

And if I may be so bold I would claim that the answers are, literally, all around us. Certainly they are within us. These questions are not unknowable, impenetrable, or even inherently mysterious as we like to believe. Perhaps the true fairy tale which we've created for ourselves, and I think this point is worth considering, is the belief that the answers to death, life and who we truly are are, well, beyond us.

I suspect that at some point in the future our understanding of the universe will begin to shed light on the matter. I think science will one day be able to give answers to at least some of the questions and maybe even prove or disprove religion and/or the after-life, albeit in a scientific sense as opposed to mystical mumbo jumbo.

I think it's a case of not knowing where to start looking. There might be some leads to go on, however.

The double slit experiment here

might go some way to explaining in scientific terms what appears to be mystical.

I also remember once watching a documentary about life after death. Apparently, thoughts within in the brain are transmitted and then received between two separate nodes that have actual space between them. Of course this space is tiny but for just a fraction of second our conscience, or part of it, is existing in open space. That might be another place to start looking.

These questions I consider to be more than just trivial, irrelevant, meaningless or inconsequential. And yet oddly enough very, very few concern themselves with these questions seriously or make any true attempt at arriving at real answers.

I very much disagree. A lot of us dwell on these questions in our youth and eventually realize that we are never going to know the answers and just get on with the rest of our lives.