Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

SHIMBA YA BUYENZE said:
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing...."
Click to expand...
Labda useme aliyeutengeneza alipomaliza kuweka sheria zake tu

Naye akadive kuupa uhai_hakubaki alipokuwa

Akawa cause ya Big bang to bang_kidogo hii ina kapicha [emoji53]
 
SHIMBA YA BUYENZE said:
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing...."
Click to expand...

One needs to read Hawking fully to appreciate these matters fully, first of all, the written and spoken languages do not have the necessary vocabulary to capture the concepts of say, Quantum Physics, one need to delve into specialized math.

From reading Hawking over the years, I think what he is saying, based on mathematical model, models that are not unimpeachable, is.

If you want to define God as the creator of the Universe.

Then.


Nothing is God.

God is nothing.

Nothing created the universe.

"God" exists.As nothing.

God is nothing.

God does not exist.

God is nothing.

God exists as nothing and therefore does not exist.

Nothing is really not nothing due to quantum fluctuations, it is more like the positives and negatives balancing to zero, with potential to explode by spontaneous quantum fluctuations that are not very well understood.

In any case, the omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent God of the Bible and Quran is a fiction.

Hawking can be wrong, but the omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent does not need Hawking to be right to be disproved.

The problem of evil has done that thousand of years before Hawking was born.
 
Imeandikwa.
Mpumbavu anasema hakuna Mungu.
Wengi waliwaona Manabii na Mitume LAKINI hawakuwaaamini.
Yesu Kristo alisema heri yao wale wanaoamini bila kuona.
 
At Calvary said:
Hakuna chochote apo
Mungu yupo aisee, kubali kataa.
Na izo proof ziko kiaasumption sana ni ambacho ni vigumu kutokea.
Lazima kuwa na kitu kilichotokea ambapo kuna nguvu ilikifanya nguvu hio at least iwe known.
Click to expand...
Vyote ni assumption tu kama ulivyosema uwepo wa mungu ni assumption na kutokuwepo kwake ni assumption hakuna usahihi na ushaidi wa usahihi wa aya mambo ambayo mnayazungumzia mi naisi nikae kimya tu ila ila lazima utambue kuwa kuwepo kwa mungu na kutokuwepo kwake vyote vinabaki kuwa ni assumption tu kama ulivyoitumia coz hakuna ushuuda wa uwepo wake wala kutokuwepo kwake
 
Kuna mahali Hawking anasema kama Mungu yupo basi alitengeneza laws za universe kisha akakaa pembeni. Hii inaonesha yeye Hawaking pia hana uhakika wa kutokuwepo kwa Mungu.

Pia, kuhusu origin ya universe kuna mahala niliona anasema alikuwa ktk majadiliano na mwenzake aliyekuwa na hoja juu ya dying of a star kisha yeye aka jaribu kuireverse hiyo process ndo aka develop hiyo theory. Hapa nikisema Hawking alijaribu kutafuta maelezo kukidhi mawazo yake nitakuwa nakosea? Yaani ni kama sisi humu jukwaani tunapotafuta maelezo kukidhi mawazo yetu juu ya uwepo au kutokuwepo kwa Mungu, hayo mawazo yetu yanaweza yasithibitishe kuwepo au kutokuwepo kwake.
Mpaka sasa hawking hana utibitisho wa vitu viwili; Chanzo cha ulimwengu kuwa kinatokana na bingbang kwa kuwa hajaeleza bayana what banged. Nafkiri huko mbele yanaweza kuja kugunduliwa na kuthibitika njia za kisayansi zitakazoelezea vizuri kuliko hizi ambazo zinatupeleka mbele nyuma kila Siku.
 
Kiranga said:
One needs to read Hawking fully to appreciate these matters fully, first of all, the written and spoken languages do not have the necessary vocabulary to capture the concepts of say, Quantum Physics, one need to delve into specialized math.

From reading Hawking over the years, I think what he is saying, based on mathematical model, models that are not unimpeachable, is.

If you want to define God as the creator of the Universe.

Then.


Nothing is God.

God is nothing.

Nothing created the universe.

"God" exists.As nothing.

God is nothing.

God does not exist.

God is nothing.

God exists as nothing and therefore does not exist.

Nothing is really not nothing due to quantum fluctuations, it is more like the positives and negatives balancing to zero, with potential to explode by spontaneous quantum fluctuations that are not very well understood.

In any case, the omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent God of the Bible and Quran is a fiction.

Hawking can be wrong, but the omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent does not need Hawking to be right to be disproved.

The problem of evil has done that thousand of years before Hawking was born.
Click to expand...

Scroll post # 15 kupata majibu ya Stephen Hawking. he was dubious!
 
James Comey said:
Kuna mahali Hawking anasema kama Mungu yupo basi alitengeneza laws za universe kisha akakaa pembeni. Hii inaonesha yeye Hawaking pia hana uhakika wa kutokuwepo kwa Mungu.

Pia, kuhusu origin ya universe kuna mahala niliona anasema alikuwa ktk majadiliano na mwenzake aliyekuwa na hoja juu ya dying of a star kisha yeye aka jaribu kuireverse hiyo process ndo aka develop hiyo theory. Hapa nikisema Hawking alijaribu kutafuta maelezo kukidhi mawazo yake nitakuwa nakosea? Yaani ni kama sisi humu jukwaani tunapotafuta maelezo kukidhi mawazo yetu juu ya uwepo au kutokuwepo kwa Mungu, hayo mawazo yetu yanaweza yasithibitishe kuwepo au kutokuwepo kwake.
Mpaka sasa hawking hana utibitisho wa vitu viwili; Chanzo cha ulimwengu kuwa kinatokana na bingbang kwa kuwa hajaeleza bayana what banged. Nafkiri huko mbele yanaweza kuja kugunduliwa na kuthibitika njia za kisayansi zitakazoelezea vizuri kuliko hizi ambazo zinatupeleka mbele nyuma kila Siku.
Click to expand...

James Comey:

Please scroll back to posts on # 15. To say least Stephen Hawking was a dubious man. unreliable scientist! and in realistic he never went to the sky to explore the vastness of God creations due to his inability.
 
schlumberger said:
James Comey:

Please scroll back to posts on # 15. To say least Stephen Hawking was a dubious man. unreliable scientist! and in realistic he never went to the sky to explore the vastness of God creations due to his inability.
Click to expand...
Even if Stephen Hawking is all the things you said.

That does not prove God exists.

The logic that disputes the existence of God was established thousands of years before Stephen Hawking was born.

The very fact that you are defending a God who cannot defend himself shows that that Gid does not exist.

Prove God exists.
 
Hizi mada tangu zianze humu,hazijawahi toa mshindi

Mimi siku zote huwa naamini MUNGU yupo kwa swali moja tu,ambalo kwa vyovyote vile lina jibu moja tu

Tuchukulie mfano mdogo tu,Jicho! lina lens kwa ajiri wa kukusanya Mwanga na Retina kwa ajiri ya kutengeneza image,halafu kuna mfumo unaofanya hio taswira iliyoundwa kutafasiriwa na ubongo

Swali la kujiuliza hivi ni Nani aliyewaza kabla kuwa Jicho inabidi liwe katika muundo huo ili lifanye kazi,au lens inabidi ikae hapa na Retina ikae hivi ili jicho lifanye kazi sawasawa

Sasa tuna nadharia 2,moja inadai hakuna sababu yoyote iliyofanya jicho liwe katika muundo huo,bali imetokea tu by mere chance and series of random mutations ndani ya mda mrefuuuuu

Hivi kweli hakuna sababu kwanini Jicho liwe na kope?kope hazina kazi?
Kama zina kazi,lazima kuwe na sababu ya kope kuwepo
Na kama kuna sababu,lazima kuwe na yule aliyeifikiria hio sababu mwanzoni kabisa

Kama kuna betri kwenye smartphone yako,na kuna sababu ya betri kuwepo,basi lazima kuwe na mtu aliyeiona hio sababu kabla hajaweka hio betri

Point ni kwamba haijalishi Jicho limetokea vipi,by evolutionary process au by design lazima kuwe na sababu kwanini jicho linatakiwa kua katika muundu huu,na sababu(reasoning) ni sifa ya intelligent mind

So we have to affirm the existence of intelligent mind(or mechanism) otherwise our eyes have no purpose(a proposition which is utterly absurd)

Mwisho,Kuamini Evolution as mindless process unahitaji a lot of assumptions zaidi kuliko kuamini kuwa Evolution iliyotokea kwa msaada wa intelligent agent(s)

Na kulingana na Occam's razor,ni sahihi kwa mtu mwenye busara kukataa Darwinism
 
Mish Albert said:
Hizi mada tangu zianze humu,hazijawahi toa mshindi

Mimi siku zote huwa naamini MUNGU yupo kwa swali moja tu,ambalo kwa vyovyote vile lina jibu moja tu

Tuchukulie mfano mdogo tu,Jicho! lina lens kwa ajiri wa kukusanya Mwanga na Retina kwa ajiri ya kutengeneza image,halafu kuna mfumo unaofanya hio taswira iliyoundwa kutafasiriwa na ubongo
Click to expand...

Jicho lina mapungufu mengi sana.

Haliwezi kuona nyuma ya kichwa, haliwezi kuona beyond visible light (gamma rays, ultraviolet rays etc)

Jicho hili lenye mapungufu yote haya haliwezi kuwa limeumbwa na Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote.
Lingekuwa limeumbwa na Mungu huyo, lisingekuwa na mapungufu, huyo Mungu si Mungu wa mapungufu.

Swali la kujiuliza hivi ni Nani aliyewaza kabla kuwa Jicho inabidi liwe katika muundo huo ili lifanye kazi,au lens inabidi ikae hapa na Retina ikae hivi ili jicho lifanye kazi sawasawa
Click to expand...

Ukishaanza kuuliza kwa minajili ya "nani" na "aliwaza" tayari ushajipa jibu kabla hata hujamaliza kuuliza swali, unejilengesha kwenye jibu unalolitaka, kwa kujua ama kutojua. Swali lenye maana zaidi ni "nini kilifanya hivyo" si "nani aliwaza".

Ni kama vile umekuta jani la muembe mlangoni mwako, badala ya kuuliza "ni nini kimelifanya jani hili la muembe liwe hapa mlangoni mwangu" unauliza "ni nani kalileta jani hili la muembe mlangoni mwangu". Ikiwa jani limepeperushwa na upepo, swali lako la kutafuta "nani" litakuwa limeanza katika msingi potofu.
Sasa tuna nadharia 2,moja inadai hakuna sababu yoyote iliyofanya jicho liwe katika muundo huo,bali imetokea tu by mere chance and series of random mutations ndani ya mda mrefuuuuu

Hivi kweli hakuna sababu kwanini Jicho liwe na kope?kope hazina kazi?
Kama zina kazi,lazima kuwe na sababu ya kope kuwepo
Na kama kuna sababu,lazima kuwe na yule aliyeifikiria hio sababu mwanzoni kabisa
Click to expand...

Hata kama kuna sababu, sababu hiyo si lazima iwe Mungu. Kimsingi unapinga evolution, kitu ambacho sina hakika unakielewa, lakini hata ukifanikiwa kupinga kwa ukamilifu evolution, hilo halithibitishi Mungu yupo. Hili si suala la mutual exclusivity kwamba if its not evolution, then it is creation by God.

It is possible that the answer is neither evolution nor creation by God.

Kama kuna betri kwenye smartphone yako,na kuna sababu ya betri kuwepo,basi lazima kuwe na mtu aliyeiona hio sababu kabla hajaweka hio betri
Click to expand...

Unaelewa kwamba hii argument inaonesha Mungu hayupo, haioneshi Mungu yupo?

Kimsingi unasema complex systems lazima ziwe na designer, haziwezi kuwepo tu bila ya designer.

Mungu naye ni very complex, hivyo, naye atahitaji designer.

Mungu akishahitaji designer si Mungu huyo.

Na designer wake atahitaji designer, ad nauseum, ad infinity.

Kwa hiyo habari yako inayosema complex systems zinahitaji designer inaonesha Mungu hayupo, haioneshi Mungu yupo.

Point ni kwamba haijalishi Jicho limetokea vipi,by evolutionary process au by design lazima kuwe na sababu kwanini jicho linatakiwa kua katika muundu huu,na sababu(reasoning) ni sifa ya intelligent mind
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?

So we have to affirm the existence of intelligent mind(or mechanism) otherwise our eyes have no purpose(a proposition which is utterly absurd)
Click to expand...

Kama unasema kwamba huwezi kupata complexity bila ya kuwa na intelligent design, unaelewa kwamba umekubali Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote, ujuzi wote na upendo wote ambaye hana muumba hawezi kuwepo?

Mwisho,Kuamini Evolution as mindless process unahitaji a lot of assumptions zaidi kuliko kuamini kuwa Evolution iliyotokea kwa msaada wa intelligent agent(s)
Click to expand...

Mtu hahitaji kuamini evolution ili kuona kwamba Mungu mjuzi wa yote, mwenye uwezo wote na upendo wote hayupo.

The problem of evil does not need evolution to validate its successful critique of the God idea.
Na kulingana na Occam's razor,ni sahihi kwa mtu mwenye busara kukataa Darwinism
Click to expand...

Hata ukikataa Darwinism, kukataa huko haku prove Mungu yupo. Hili si swali la mutual exclusivity kwamba kuna majibu mawili tu, Darwinism na Mungu, inawezekana kabisa vyote viwili vikawa vina makosa na jibu likawa si Darwinism wala Mungu.

Nikikutaka u prove Mungu yupo, hilo si sawa na ku disprove Darwinism. Unaweza ku disprove Darwinism lakini ukawa huja prove Mungu yupo, katika ulimwengu ambao Darwinism na Mungu vyote ni makosa.

Unaweza ku prove Mungu yupo?

Habari zako zote juu zina faulty logic, logical non sequitur (unaunganisha mambo ambayo hayana muungano), ukiona jicho liko complex una conclude limeumbw ana Mungu, wakati actually ukisema hakuna complexity ambayo inatokea bila kuumbwa unasema Mungu hawezi kuwepo.

Unaelewa kwamba kusema complexity lazima iwe na muumbaji ni kusema Mungu hayupo, si kusema Mungu yupo?
 
Misimamo yetu ya kuwepo Mungu au kutokuwepo ni zaidi ya sababu tunazotumia hapa kubishania,watu tumegawanyika makundi tofauti wapo wenye elimu na wasiokuwa na elimu na wengineo ila wote kila mmoja ana msimamo wake juu ya suala la Mungu na
kila mmoja anajaribu kutetea msimamo wake.
 
Kiranga said:
Sitaki kuamini chochote, nataka kujua.

Unaelewa hilo?
Click to expand...
Wewe mwenyewe una kazi ya kuaminisha watu humu kuwa hakuna Mungu halafu unasema hautaki kuamini,huko pakodaiwa kuwepo Mungu wewe unajua kuwa hayupo au unaamini tu kuwa hatakuwepo?
 
Have you ever doubted about your own existance? Try to read about Rene Descartes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register