Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[darkendless]

I doubt that God or Heaven ( however it might be described) Is part of our physic Universe or set of universes.
I am quite happy for any scientist to say that "there is no heaven in the Universe."

I am also quite happy that any other inhabited worlds would have their own equivalent to Jesus, and set of unique religions.

I doubt very much there is more than one God.

Heretic!!!!

 

[TheKnight]

You would have to prove it does in order for it to be true. Burden of proof is on the one who made the idea.

The proof would lie on both the person who claims it does exist and the person who says that it doesn't.

Both claims are claims that require evidence. To say, with conclusiveness, that something doesn't exist requires that you explain how you know it doesn't exist. If there is no evidence then there's simply no evidence. You cannot say that it doesn't exist unless there is evidence which entirely rules out its existence.

Then why do many people say "Science means proof" or why does science and proof seem so related?

Because the scientific method is a method wherein logical procedures are used to reach a reasonable conclusion. Thus, science is the best method we have for determining the truth, or at least the reasonable conclusion, of a matter.

Isn't science a tool that is used by using the scientific method to prove something?

"Science" is just a term which refers to knowledge, or in some cases the pursuit of knowledge. The scientific method is what makes science so great. The field of science, professionally speaking, is a field wherein experts use the scientific method and the knowledge they've learned from their predecessors to develop or improve conclusions that have been made by the sci-method and apply those conclusions to improving (hopefully) the world around us.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

explaining what someone observed and reporting doesnt prove anything.

its just how science works.

just search around a bit and study and you will see what im talking about.

So you're saying nothing in science has proof?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is in direct contradiction to what Belinda Carlisle says - and shes a lot cuter, so I'm going with what she says.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're saying nothing in science has proof?

That would be correct.
Consider that theories can be proven false, but you can't ever prove them true because there are always new & different circumstances to test the theory.
Just as Newton's laws of gravitation were replaced by Einstein's general theory of relativity, any theory is potentially replaceable by something better.
So no theory is true, it is merely useful in understanding & predicting.

 

[horizon_mj1]

A physicist is qualified to make pronouncements on what is likely to exist (or not exist) in the universe/s.

Heaven is not a theological or spiritual proposition: it is claimed to be a location, which presupposes that in some corner of some universe, it actually exists...

For the record, a physicist will not necessarily tell you heaven is impossible. Since M-Theory (very fashionable) predicts an infinite number of infinite universes, many physicists who subscribe to this model will swear up and down that this means every conceivable universe not only CAN exist, but DOES exist. quote]
What if this place in which "may or may not" exist is Dark Matter? It is the very substance that allows for expansion of the universe, is made up of unknown attributes, yet is undeniable in existence. Sounds like there are some similarities IMO.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I personally believe that there may be an afterlife, but it is something I don't feel one can really prove either way.

It's provable but you have to die first.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's rather telling when someone takes one quote from a genius and runs with it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Heaven is not a theological or spiritual proposition: it is claimed to be a location, which presupposes that in some corner of some universe, it actually exists...

Why does it have to exist in this universe?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It's rather telling when someone takes one quote from a genius and runs with it.

It is truly refreshing when a presentation of ones own ideas are presented, and when presented give reason to pause.
That is what makes people like Hawking so popular, that they not only think deep thoughts, but talk publicly about them, so that others that don't think as deeply have something to talk about. just the way it works I guess...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is truly refreshing when a presentation of ones own ideas are presented, and when presented give reason to pause.
That is what makes people like Hawking so popular, that they not only think deep thoughts, but talk publicly about them, so that others that don't think as deeply have something to talk about. just the way it works I guess...

Yes, but what Hawking said wasn't a particularly deep thought.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yes, but what Hawking said wasn't a particularly deep thought.

Which just adds more irony to the thread, which supports your initial reply

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What makes a physicist qualified to make pronouncements about theology?

If Hawking tells me something about black holes, or the curvature of spacetime, or the probabilities of the Higgs-Boson being found next year, I will pay close attention and presume that his qualifications are beyond reproach, and above nearly anyone alive.

But his unquestioned genius for physics doesn't make him uniquely qualified to speak about spiritual and theological matters, anymore than it makes him uniquely qualified to make definitive pronouncements about Shakespeare's motivations in composing one of his sonnets. That simply isn't Hawking's area of training and expertise.

He is entitled to his theological, or atheological, opinions, as is anyone; but he is no more qualified to state that there absolutely is no afterlife than I would be to state that there will absolutely be a contraction of the universe followed by a Big Crunch.

So... in your mind, Heaven isn't a physical place or a testable proposition?

If so, then aren't you basically saying the same thing as Hawking?

For the record, a physicist will not necessarily tell you heaven is impossible. Since M-Theory (very fashionable) predicts an infinite number of infinite universes, many physicists who subscribe to this model will swear up and down that this means every conceivable universe not only CAN exist, but DOES exist. (I disagree with them, though - like religious folks, they tend to obfuscate the line between imagination and reality - I will confidently claim that there is no universe where a thousand monkeys banging away on typewriters have inadvertently produced the complete works of Shakespeare just as I confidently as I will claim there is no heaven).

But there's one important aspect of Heaven that this doesn't address: for Heaven to be Heaven, it isn't enough for it to be a place that we would consider very pleasant where people live forever; it has to be a place where people (some of them, anyhow) go when they die. IOW, for Heaven to be real and fit into M-theory, not only would we need a reasonably Heaven-like parallel universe, but we would also need some way to transport "us" from this universe to that one.

What happens in parallel universes may be beyond science's scope, but the claim of Heaven creates a prediction for this universe, too: that there exists in this universe some means of transport to that other universe.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd like to see him prove, beyond a doubt, that there is no heaven. I personally believe that there may be an afterlife, but it is something I don't feel one can really prove either way.

Can you prove beyond a doubt that leprechauns don't exist? Generally in life we don't feel the need to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to dismiss it and assume it isn't true. There is enough evidence that heaven is a made-up idea that only serves the purpose of calming people's fears concerning death to dismiss it as one would dismiss leprechauns.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why does it have to exist in this universe?

Because if it doesn't, I'll just expand the term "universe" until it does.

The concept of heaven includes a testable prediction about the universe, i.e. that some component of us survives and gets transported somewhere when we die. Because that claim is testable, it falls within the view of science, and so it's entirely reasonable to say that it doesn't exist until we have evidence to back it up. Anything that can't be tested scientifically doesn't exist automatically, because the very idea of the thing existing implies scientifically-testable effects.

 

[no-body]

The man gave his opinion he wasn't doing research or anything.

I don't see why only theologists should be able to comment on religious things to paraphrase Dawkins that's like saying you have to read up on all the intricacies of fairy mythology before you can talk about whether fairies are real or not.

 

[linwood]

Isn't the idea that "there is no heaven" an idea?

No, it`s a rejection of an idea.

In order to deny the existence of heaven(concept/idea) one must first be aware of heaven.
Without the idea of heaven the rejection of it is impossible.

The one who posits the idea of heaven as "real" holds the burden of evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, but what Hawking said wasn't a particularly deep thought.

its not

but it opens a can of worms

 

[outhouse]

No, it`s a rejection of an idea.

I agree


lets go to the root of it all.


was the concept of heaven created on earth or not?

If so then we could rule out multiple universes and other places that reside in imagination only.

To study heaven one must be able to define heaven, so far that cant even be done with any certainty.

Is there a energy source that can go on forever without diminishing???

And the tough question, what makes you think we poccess this ever lasting energy??

a book written 3000 years ago by ancient man who had little understanding of the world around him? who may have brought this afterlife place with him from previous cultures?

sorry to stack questions like that I just think there very valid to the subject at hand.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I agree


lets go to the root of it all.


was the concept of heaven created on earth or not?

If so then we could rule out multiple universes and other places that reside in imagination only.

To study heaven one must be able to define heaven, so far that cant even be done with any certainty.

Is there a energy source that can go on forever without diminishing???

And the tough question, what makes you think we poccess this ever lasting energy??

a book written 3000 years ago by ancient man who had little understanding of the world around him? who may have brought this afterlife place with him from previous cultures?

sorry to stack questions like that I just think there very valid to the subject at hand.

How can we look for eternity, if God is the only thing that is eternal? I mean it is said he grants eternal life to some, but it seems to me, if I were God I wouldn't leave eternal energy sources on planet Earth and our universe, so that the quest for eternal energy continues, and ultimately points to God.