5th October 2012

“You can call the laws of science 'God' if you like, but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”

Stephen Hawking

3 Responses to “5th October 2012”

  1. Jeff Says:

    Stephen happens to be wrong on this one, and his entire life is the argument against it. We meet the laws of science, and the universe which is a consequence of them every day. We humans function within them and ask questions of them all the time. Paraphrasing Sagan, intelligence is nothing more, NOR LESS, than star stuff’s way of understanding itself. The universe is our only textbook, and everything encoded since the invention of writing is nothing more than translations (more or less accurate, to be sure) from that source.

    So if you want to put the label “God” on the laws of science, you must understand that you are limiting the translation thereof into understandable texts, and thereby limiting the star stuff of which we are made in its mission to understand itself.

  2. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    The Bible describes: A deity who can be related to as a person? A personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape? A God who talks with and instructs his prophets, possessing volition, emotions, intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person.

    This crazy idiot personification junk supposes all the most irrelevant and retarded jibberish that man can imagine, but why take it seriously?

    You aren’t going to be interacting with science in a personal human interelation sort of way. You aren’t going to chat up a cute quasar, or spend time debating the limits of the speed of light with a black hole, physics isn’t going to call you to see if you want to go have a few beers.

    Call it god? Gravity is god? Is that reasonable first, before we even suggest it is a personifying entity we can relate to?

    What kind of logic stretch must we undertake to validate this idea and what is the return on the investment for doing so?

    Just stupid!

  3. R J Says:

    JEFF at 1654……………..

    i agree