--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Life may be astoundingly abundant out there. Hawking is refusing to see that > life is a gimme -- built into the subtle laws of physics -- and if this is > so, then life isn't so damned insignificant as he's framing it. He'd argue > that even if life is automatic, we're in but one universe where that is true > -- a so-called Goldilocks universe that is "just right" for life, but that > there's an infinity of universes that might have no life possible. I'd say > that decades in a cripple's chair is tilting his views about God's ability to > dance.
Gosh, what a hideous thing to say. And all because Hawking doesn't share your views, but do you really think he hasn't considered alternatives. Your statement is an insult based on "ifs" you'd *like* to be true. I also see why science is going to win. > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which > > > is based on authority, and science, which is based on > > > observation and reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > "When asked by ABC News' Diane Sawyer about the biggest > > mystery he'd like solved, he said, 'I want to know why > > the universe exists, why there is something greater than > > nothing.'... > > > > "'What could define God [is thinking of God] as the > > embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not > > what most people would think of that God,' Hawking told > > Sawyer. 'They made a human-like being with whom one can > > have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast > > size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental > > human life is in it, that seems most impossible.'..." > > > > > > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164 > > > > > > I love his advice to his children... > > > > > >
