stephen hawking: the afterlife does not exist

See, my interpretation of the laws of physics would rule OUT the possibility of an afterlife. The decaying of the body and eventual return of that energy to the earth would account for any needed transfer. And the body ceases to function, meaning it ceases to take in new supplies of energy.

 

I have always found it odd that people who supposedly use words for a living continue to mangle the definition of a "theory" when it comes to science. Pretty good gig if you can get it, I guess.

 

The irony of Shoeless Joe's dumbassery is that Hawking isn't actually considered the "smartest mofo on the planet." There are plenty of physicists, as I understand it, who are arguably more advanced than him. The reason he's the most famous one is because he's so good at ... wait for it ... communicating! He has an uncanny knack for distilling this stuff for the masses.

I am flat-out astounded at how educated people on this particular site just dismiss science out of hand because it's, well, really hard! And if it's really hard! then the path of least resistance is just to wall it off and never speak of it again. Reminds me of the old newspaper strategy of pretending a story you got beat on didn't happen/didn't matter.

 

Entropy doesn't apply to midi-chlorians, silly bear.

 

So that covers only the body? What about the soul; the spark that makes you, you? That's the part I don't think is returned to the earth.

 

As a Catholic, I was taught that science and faith are not two sides of the same coin, but rather two distinct coins. I feel like trying to use science to prove faith and vice versa insults/diminishes both, but particularly faith. While I bring health skepticism and independent thinking to both, I am completely at peace with my ability to be fully a man of faith and fully a man of science.

 

Outing alert: Stephen Hawking is the priest at the bar in Caddyshack.

 

What is this "soul"? What is it about this unseeable, unknowable spark that makes us, us?

Part of the problem with your assertion is that you're applying the laws of physics, which were discovered and confirmed through repeated testing, to something that cannot be tested or confirmed. Besides, if you're going to start applying science to the ethereal plane, why is this "soul" — or even "heaven" and "hell" — exempt from the second law of thermodynamics? You can't go cherry-picking scientific principles and insist that certain systems don't break down over time because they're special.

 

Exactly. Stop looking for scientific backing for it (while at the same time dismissing science that doesn't fit the hypothesis).

What makes faith powerful is that the evidence does NOT support it.

 

I don't know what a soul is. Nor do you or anyone else, including Hawking.
But there is something in all of us that makes us unique.
And there is a spark - something (scientific) that creates life - or my more to my belief transfers the energy to generate another life. The spark of life is a fact.
I think that spark is energy, hence my belief in some sort of an afterlife existence. I don't believe in heaven or hell - so it's nothing like that. I don't know what it is, but I don't believe it is nothingness.
And you'll have to explain how the second law of thermodynamics would apply here, 'cause I don't understand.

 

DNA.

 

I agree with Hawking’s take on this and have said as much many times. However, I also have taken to heart this argument by BDwP, it’s actually the one I argue most in favor of.

What “makes me, me” is the parenting and life experiences that occurred. The end result is a distinct series of neurons firing in my brain in a particular pattern. The tastes and smells of certain items bring up certain memories and experiences that I had, which would differ from you, and as such my response would be different.