Comments on No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe TypePad2010-09-18T21:42:21ZBrian Hineshttps://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/09/no-need-for-god-in-stephen-hawkings-universe-/comments/atom.xml/Arnaud commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2014e8623c3a0970d2011-02-17T21:20:44Z2011-02-18T02:16:56ZArnaudVery fine comments here in a great explaination of Hawkings latest book but with a critical eye and not all...<p>Very fine comments here in a great explaination of Hawkings latest book but with a critical eye and not all this grand admiration, wow for such a scientist who claims the great design as a natural masterpiece. From nothing appeared the "Mona Lisa". It was just the atoms working togetther, no creator is needed. "The same reasoning applies to why we find ourselves inhabiting a planet, Earth, that orbits a star, the Sun, in a fashion that is Goldilocks-like. For example, we aren't so close to the Sun that we'd boil, or so far away that we'd freeze."</p>
<p> Well argued.</p>
<p>For a scientist who claims there is no intelligence beyond the grand design, he forgot the chaos theory, he wanted to make it secure but an atheist view point should make us feel insecure and without a universal balance and harmony, we should be soon a victim of chaos. It should have been his conclusion.<br />
</p>Roger commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f4d645e3970b2010-10-04T16:01:11Z2010-10-20T01:20:52ZRogerRon, I did scan through your ebook. I don't think mysticism is nonsense. Mysticism makes great conversation. Your ebook, imo,...<p>Ron,</p>
<p>I did scan through your ebook. I don't think mysticism is nonsense. Mysticism makes great conversation. Your ebook, imo, is a nice enclycapedia of mysticism. Yes, it could assist those who are interested.</p>
<p>Are you aware of a mechanism that describes the "direct experience" that 'true' mystics understand and use? If so, write something.<br />
Thanks Roger</p>Ron Krumpos commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f4c6b06e970b2010-10-01T18:17:44Z2010-10-20T01:20:54ZRon Krumposhttp://www.suprarational.orgRoger, you are very close to getting it. "Divine" is a superlative adjective for the underling essence of all existence....<p>Roger, you are very close to getting it. "Divine" is a superlative adjective for the underling essence of all existence. Most "mystics" don't like to be called that (too much misunderstanding) and a ditch digger can be a mystic (as can the CEO of a global bank).</p>
<p>Again I suggest that you read the book. It is only 100 pages and you can finish it before we exchange any more blog posts. It was written to assist those who are interested in mysticism, not to convince those who think it is nonsense.</p>Roger commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2013487e68039970c2010-10-01T17:56:50Z2010-10-20T01:20:54ZRoger"The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter." ---Could a 'ditch'...<p>"The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter."</p>
<p>---Could a 'ditch' digger intuit through<br />
sense perceptions, intuitions, and realizations the non-conceptuality of various perceived matter? I'm guessing they could. They could view 'divine' essense as just another gimicky term, and then go back to the digging of their ditch. These ditch diggers are totally KOOL. </p>Roger commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f4c5a678970b2010-10-01T15:05:43Z2010-10-20T01:20:56ZRogerRon, "True mystics had direct experience in divine union. Within these essays, oneness, union and unity all mean to be...<p>Ron,</p>
<p>"True mystics had direct experience in divine union. Within these essays, oneness,<br />
union and unity all mean to be consciously in the unifying divine essence. These<br />
are some terms which are used in mysticism most often, but they are simply words.<br />
What is is not changed by what it is called. People’s opinions too often distort it."</p>
<p>---Is the unification within the 'divine' essence, a self-wareness consciousness?<br />
And, is divine essence better than just 'plain' essense?</p>
<p>---Yes, people(you and me) can often distort meanings of words. If there are 'true' mystics, then there must be 'false' mystics. </p>
<p>Does a 'true' mystic require the 'mystic' title? Would mystic Bob be offended it I called him by his name Bob only?</p>
<p>Thanks for some replies. I'm not finding fault with you. Your information is good.<br />
Best wishes Roger </p>
<p><br />
</p>Ron Krumpos commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2013487e1501f970c2010-09-30T23:07:39Z2010-10-20T01:20:56ZRon Krumposhttp://www.suprarational.orgRoger, ask a mystic or read my free e-book. I was introduced to mysticism by a Nobel physicist in 1959....<p>Roger, ask a mystic or read my free e-book. I was introduced to mysticism by a Nobel physicist in 1959. Since then I have met 18 other mystics in 12 countries. 20 religious leaders and scholars across the USA were consulted prior to posting it on the Internet </p>Roger commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f4ab77f1970b2010-09-28T15:13:00Z2010-10-20T01:20:57ZRogerRon, Very good post. That said, how would anyone know that the 'mystics' have a 'supposed' fourth power of suprarational...<p>Ron,</p>
<p>Very good post. That said, how would anyone know that the 'mystics' have a 'supposed' fourth power of suprarational consciousness?<br />
You may want to expound on this topic further.<br />
Best wishes, Roger</p>Ron Krumpos commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e2013487c45a80970c2010-09-27T21:26:18Z2010-10-20T01:20:59ZRon Krumposhttp://www.suprarational.orgIn "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which...<p>In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.</p>
<p>In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”</p>
<p>E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.</p>Willie R. commented on 'No need for God in Stephen Hawking's universe 'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d83451c0aa69e20133f4695f0b970b2010-09-21T01:24:50Z2010-09-21T01:24:50ZWillie R.I just finished reading "The Grand Design" - which I purchased based upon hints of it's existence obtained right here...<p>I just finished reading "The Grand Design" - which I purchased based upon hints of it's existence obtained right here in Brian's blog.</p>
<p>I find myself in concurrence with Hawking and Mlodinow's primary conclusion: the universe spontaneously appeared out of nothing, without cause.</p>
<p>That makes the universe (everything that exists) nothing's kissing cousin.</p>
<p>Nothing exists.</p>