Originally posted by Dan St JohnBecause he is not dogmatic. His views fit the evidence.
I've read, in earlier Stephen Hawking books, that he was actually TRYING to find relevance in God THROUGH physics, and that he felt he had done so. Why the change?
I'm assuming his work led him to the conclusion God is not needed.
Originally posted by jaywillFollow Stephen Hawking? Where's he going?
Stephen Hawking also said that a computer virus should be considered a new life form.
You go ahead and follow Stephen Hawking in everything if you want to. Not me, not in everything.
I don't think a computer virus is a new life form.
4 edits
Originally posted by Dan St JohnIt sounds like you are referring to Stephen Hawking's question "Does God Play Dice?" and his analysis which was in response to Albert Einstein's comment "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." which is often paraphrased to "God does not play dice". This was related to apparent randomness in Quantum Mechanics. Einstein was an atheist and God in this context was a metaphor for nature. Same applies to Stephen Hawking's question.
I've read, in earlier Stephen Hawking books, that he was actually TRYING to find relevance in God THROUGH physics, and that he felt he had done so. Why the change?
This hasn't stopped creationists from taking these out of context though.
I personally believe that scientists should avoid such poetic language when trying to describe something which requires precision and clarity. However, metaphors often help the layperson to attempt to understand what is being portrayed. Maybe similes should be used instead. 😕