Science Makes God Unnecessary
 

As soon as one looks for proof of God such as a question toward the necessarily of a creator, one loses the essence which is represented, that which formless an eternal.

The problem with all this God religion stuff is that it requires and actually demands a bit of faith. Science tries to answer a lot of questions that were formally spiritual, the conclusions that science often provides is no less complicated than it's religious counterpart and faith is still required. The difference is that the scientist normally claims to actually understand a lot of the THEROIES that we are asked to base our whole existance on. In order for science to progress we have to accept hypothisis as fact. I guess it's easier to have faith that all the scientist are smarter than you than it is to believe that God is.

God is a term/word/name given to what others in religions name it. Science sees and refers to differently.....call it God / Source / Life Force / Oneness/ Light / Photon Energy or Particles / Unified Field / Consciousness it is all the same.....just a matter of how one perceives it via their belief system which defines it to them according to that belief.

I agree, we don't need god or gods to understand nature and the universe. Actually it's an obstacle as we still look at the world with blinkers on.

I disagree with his ''let's hide into space'' mantra..That's how it works..

We know that shifting tectonic plates cause earthquakes, but you're free to believe it's god's wrath.
And rats contributed to the black death but spiritual people wanted to believe that cats were Satan's messengers..

Countless examples there are..

As is usual with atheist disprovals of the Divine, this video only make sense in the context of Western monotheism. WM is easy as pie to disprove, I did it for myself years ago, so the conclusions of Mr. Hawking don't shock me in the least. However, nothing he said means much in the context of my beliefs.

CS

''God'' is often used as a pointer for any spiritual belief..
I don't see how any ''eastern polytheism'' or mysticism would do any better, as they can't provide any evidence either.

What is the ''divine''? Spiritual people can't agree and have battled over this for years, centuries, millennia..

Chrysaetos said:
"Actually it's an obstacle as we still look at the world with blinkers on."

IF your concerned about the blinkers still being on then Why do you suggest hiding another belief of reality....Aren't all valid for consideration to pick and choose form free will or do we continue the ancient church's way of hiding what we don't agree with to maintain control over others according to our view?
They are all only Belief Systems ~there is nothing to Fear but your own FEAR of allowing others their choice which is their experience not yours.

This ''pick and choose'' nature is attractive as it keeps us comfortable with living in enchanted bubbles.
Earthquakes is an example, any religious explanation is mere guess work..

I disagree on experiences. Human beings need to have some ''common ground'' in order to communicate.
There are not ''6 billion views'' or ''6 billion truths'', that is New Age relativism.

hawking's 5 points in the interview.

1. everything comes from nothing so there is no need to assume a creator god. einstein said the same thing about ether and photon. hawking's statement meant nothing but to say that our mathematical equation will work with or without the assumption of god. no big deal.

2. on the end of the life and universe - hawkings invoke the big crunch theory which is unproven and therefore a statement of faith in his part.

3. aliens? his guess is as good as mine

4. the physical universe is unemotional and should not affect his family? ya. it means science is not life and not reality in any stretch of imagination

5. people believe in god to connect? spot on, since everything is ONE. what else would be the impetus for such beliefs.

.