If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.
"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.
For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.
He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.
Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
Stephen Hawking is missing the point. The important question is not "Is there a god (whatever we mean by "god"): The question to ask is "what would it matter if a 'magic genie' were to exist?"
The Biblical 'magic genie' is a self-confessed genocidal, autocratic psychopath, who arrogantly demands our love and devotion, and 'He' threatens to burn us alive should we fail to comply. Suffice it to say, this is a monster that we can all do without.
Fortunately, there is no reason to suppose "God" exists, nor is there a shred of evidence to indicate He exists. Indeed, the source of this superstitious belief—i.e., ancient scrolls written on goats skins in the Bronze Age—have been scientifically proven to be fictional. (See images below). So can we all, please, embrace science and live in the 21st century? —>
The burden of proof DICTATES that all assertions must be supported with evidentiary proof—or they must be dismissed, outright. Therefore, Stephen Hawking's assertion that no god exists is certainly within the parameters of SCIENCE. However, I would caution any atheists to not state—full bore—that "God does NOT exist", since that assertion suffers the burden of proof, for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible (by definition) to prove a metaphysical assertion, since metaphysics is necessarily beyond the realm of the physical world. Therefore, Stephen Hawking's' assertion regarding a supernatural "magic genie" is, technically, dead in the water, PHILOSOPHICALLY.
God came into existence when the first rogue met the first fool!
Hawking was right. we now live in a rogue and fools paradise
And the rogues are winning.
We humans have ALWAYS "lived in a fools' paradise".
I wish space-aliens luck, if they search for intelligent life, on planet Earth. —>
Sure Hawking was known for this theories and so forth but he's no more able to decide if a ubiquitous god exists as your idiot neighbor is. Who gives a fuck what Hawking believes or doesn't believe in regards to there being a god. Is there a god? Hmm, no answer, guess not. Moving on. Enjoy page 13 of this asinine debate.
He said he didn't believe in a God he never claimed to know
Thomas Edison used to believe in god and then the light bulb went on in his head. All jokes aside my point is who cares what Hawking believed or didn't believe. It changes nothing. It's like debating if Einstein agreed with using the nuclear bomb. It was used, period, end of story. In my opinion people get way too caught up in all this belief nonsense. Whatever happens or doesn't happen after death is what it is. Believing one thing or another makes no difference other than for that one person's perception of their own reality.