• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • David J Donovan
    September 12, 2010 - 14:18

    (Master Hawking: D+ . Lacking proficiency in research skills. In addition you have not demonstrated a grasp of logical reasoning in argumentation that is worthy of your education level. Credit is granted for effort however. Respectfully, Professor Donovan) Hawking has presented a belief statement on the absence of a God. The origin of belief is to wish or desire something as true. No proof is needed in a belief statement and in Hawking's announcement, no proof is given. Instead, he has shown us that he has no "complete theory" ,only that he does not know and is therefor an unknowing Agnostic. As academic research, Hawking has made a claim about the the absence of a God and the universe but has failed to justify his claim with specific evidence. In referencing Physics, he cites the laws of gravity as proof for an absence of a God. His premise is problematic in that he does not prove how or why God is or is not related to gravity.He claims that math is the method of his proof but fails to demonstrate his proof through the utilization of mathematical deductive reasoning. Reiterating, Hawking fails to demonstrate a math proof that shows us that his hypothesis is true in all cases... and that is the very definition of a proof. What he does do is truncate ( and take out of context) the ideas and work of others, such as Einstein and Aristotle, in a failed attempt to prove his own beliefs. His research is therefore akin to qualitative and not quantitative. But even as qualitative research, he falls short in the absence of correctly cited case studies. Instead, he simply references disciplines outside of Physics and Mathematics, such as Philosophy and Sociology and goes on to denigrate these disciplines with wipe sweeping and unsupported claims; in claiming that Philosophy is intuitive and anthropomorphism (sociology) is belief based, he leaves only dangling comments that are unfettered to own his belief based argument. Ultimately, his claim is not research, nor is it science...its just another faith.

  • Polly Pickford
    September 12, 2010 - 11:57

    With all due respect to Mr. Smith , the only possible thing Hawking and he have in common is that they both use wheelchairs for mobilization .

  • dogloc
    September 11, 2010 - 22:39

    Really what does Ed Smith know about anything?

  • Ron Krumpos
    September 11, 2010 - 19:39

    In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories. In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.” Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

  • Anon
    September 11, 2010 - 13:53

    Hawking is a Genius straight up. He has brought so much to the scientific community I don't see why his beliefs in God or lack thereof should have anything to do with the science he studies. Maybe he can't prove God exists or doesn't exist but he certainly can and has proved a lot of other valuable questions for physicists, chemists and even Biologists. The math that govern's our world. the Golden Ratio of Phi, the seemingly random and organized patterns that appear through out nature are for more beautiful than any debate over the existence of God. Because there is one thing neither side of that debate has been able to prove or explore sufficiently: Existence its self. God and Physics both need to have existed before existence in order to govern the formation of our universe(s) today. However how can something exist in order to predate existence to ensure everything today exists?