is stephen hawking correct? there is no heaven

[pauldominic]

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

i think such a statement from britain's most eminent scientist is worthy of its own thread.

what do you mean by this lifetime?
as you seem to think there is judging by your performance in the in other thread, although your attempts at backing it up have been shoddy to say the least.

I've lost the will to live now.

In that case why doesn't he STICK to studying SCIENCE.

He's no better than Dawkins if he takes advantage of his position as a scientist to talk about Religion.

Its back to two small words: -

How - Science
Why - Religion<br /><br />-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:00 pm --<br /><br />

He's only saying that because they haven't got a wheelchair ramp,the spiteful ****.

litterally "LOL" !!

He won't need a wheelchair if theists are correct.

 

[Ducado]

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

and for his actions he ll be re-incarnated in a quantum leap kinda thing....which puts him in the toilets of a gay club somewhere in ...oldham!!!!

 

[pauldominic]

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

I agree.

Earlier, though, on my way to the toilet, there was a bang at the top of my stairs. I didn't see it, so cannot be sure, but I reckon it might have been one of those burgling, bumbling spaghetti monsters. Prove me wrong.

The flying spaghetti monster website ranks along side dawkins' and the annotated bible as a humorous attempt to discredit religion.<br /><br />-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:19 pm --<br /><br />

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

Precisely sir, although most scientists would accept the maturity of evolution based on the evidence we have.

 

[Josh Blue]

Always say you dont know! Humble yourself Hawkins!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence

Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21

Coincidence? I think not. Glenn Hoddle was right.

 

[tonea2003]

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

I agree.

Earlier, though, on my way to the toilet, there was a bang at the top of my stairs. I didn't see it, so cannot be sure, but I reckon it might have been one of those burgling, bumbling spaghetti monsters. Prove me wrong.

The flying spaghetti monster website ranks along side dawkins' and the annotated bible as a humorous attempt to discredit religion.

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:19 pm --

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

Precisely sir, although most scientists would accept the maturity of evolution based on the evidence we have.

do you mean evidence that does not require a creator paul?<br /><br />-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:47 pm --<br /><br />

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

i think such a statement from britain's most eminent scientist is worthy of its own thread.

what do you mean by this lifetime?
as you seem to think there is judging by your performance in the in other thread, although your attempts at backing it up have been shoddy to say the least.

I've lost the will to live now.

In that case why doesn't he STICK to studying SCIENCE.

He's no better than Dawkins if he takes advantage of his position as a scientist to talk about Religion.

Its back to two small words: -

How - Science
Why - Religion

you talk some rubbish at times

you have been talking science to death in your feeble attempts at evidence

so why is it ok for you as mr religion to spout science theory and not the other way round
cheeky son of a gun

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:00 pm --

 

[bluegonads]

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence

so he believes in fairies but not heaven?

strange little man.

 

[pauldominic]

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

I agree.

Earlier, though, on my way to the toilet, there was a bang at the top of my stairs. I didn't see it, so cannot be sure, but I reckon it might have been one of those burgling, bumbling spaghetti monsters. Prove me wrong.

The flying spaghetti monster website ranks along side dawkins' and the annotated bible as a humorous attempt to discredit religion.

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:19 pm --

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

Precisely sir, although most scientists would accept the maturity of evolution based on the evidence we have.

do you mean evidence that does not require a creator paul?

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:47 pm --

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

i think such a statement from britain's most eminent scientist is worthy of its own thread.

what do you mean by this lifetime?
as you seem to think there is judging by your performance in the in other thread, although your attempts at backing it up have been shoddy to say the least.

I've lost the will to live now.

In that case why doesn't he STICK to studying SCIENCE.

He's no better than Dawkins if he takes advantage of his position as a scientist to talk about Religion.

Its back to two small words: -

How - Science
Why - Religion

you talk some rubbish at times

you have been talking science to death in your feeble attempts at evidence

so why is it ok for you as mr religion to spout science theory and not the other way round
cheeky son of a gun

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:00 pm --

We really are in Groundhog territory here.

 

[tonea2003]

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

I agree.

Earlier, though, on my way to the toilet, there was a bang at the top of my stairs. I didn't see it, so cannot be sure, but I reckon it might have been one of those burgling, bumbling spaghetti monsters. Prove me wrong.

The flying spaghetti monster website ranks along side dawkins' and the annotated bible as a humorous attempt to discredit religion.

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:19 pm --

Well coming from a man who can not prove most of his theories.

The simple position is "I don't know" Because I can not prove it one way or another, just like no one can actually prove the theroy of evolution, or many other theories

Precisely sir, although most scientists would accept the maturity of evolution based on the evidence we have.

do you mean evidence that does not require a creator paul?

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:47 pm --

Would this not logically be better discussed under the atheist / agnostic thread?

The answer is that he doesn't know and neither will anyone in this lifetime.

i think such a statement from britain's most eminent scientist is worthy of its own thread.

what do you mean by this lifetime?
as you seem to think there is judging by your performance in the in other thread, although your attempts at backing it up have been shoddy to say the least.

I've lost the will to live now.

In that case why doesn't he STICK to studying SCIENCE.

He's no better than Dawkins if he takes advantage of his position as a scientist to talk about Religion.

Its back to two small words: -

How - Science
Why - Religion

you talk some rubbish at times

you have been talking science to death in your feeble attempts at evidence

so why is it ok for you as mr religion to spout science theory and not the other way round
cheeky son of a gun

-- Mon May 16, 2011 6:00 pm --

We really are in Groundhog territory here.

we certainly are
barmy statements and avoiding questions