No one direct our fate - Stephen Hawking

[DS Star]

"There is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate.".
Stephen Hawking said in the following short video.

http://youtu.be/7L7VTdzuY7Y
	Small | Large

Hawking had said again and again that there is no God the Creator... the only issue from my personal view is, Hawking also doesn't believe in afterlife. For him this is our only life, that's it.

"I regard the human brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no afterlife for broken down computers. That is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark" -Stephen Hawking

As Buddhist, I feel that Science is still lacking in giving answers to mystery on life and universe. For those people deluded with hatred and lust, Stephen Hawking's statement may induce them to do bad actions. They may think I only have this one life, why do I care?

The Law of Cause and Effect (Karma) is still the most important concept for people to live in harmony and in peace with each other.

[diablo1974]

Karma is the term to use if a word is needed. Karma sees everything, just that we do not know clearly how karma is related and interconnected wiith our intentional actions.

[icy]

No doubt Stephen Hawking's findings are scientific, they reveal a certain truth but limited and incomparable to Buddhadharma, the highest truth.  Yes no one directs our fate but oneself, the highest liberation is ours and is within our reach.  If Stephen Hawking seeks out the Buddhadharma in furtherance to his findings, he will certainly have answer in Buddhadharma as Buddha is the greatest scientist of all times who lived more than 2500 years ago.

[Matibhadra]

"I regard the human brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no afterlife for broken down computers. That is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark" - Stephen Hawking

Actually Hawking offered an argument in favor of reincarnation. In the same way that programs and data can be transferred from a broken computer into a new one, mind can be transferred from an old body into a new one.

Besides, with cloud computing, even if a computer including storage is totally destroyed, on can still have one's Gmail or Facebook account intact in the next computer, tablet or smartphone.
 
The simile might oppose the Abrahamic idea of resurrection, but corroborates the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

[kris]

Stephen Hawking is a scientist, and his statements are based on scientific models, experiments, etc. From his scientific findings, he manage to conclude on a findings that there is no creator god.

However, there are still many things can't be explained by science yet, and those are categorized under the paranormal. for example, ghosts, UFOs, after life, reincarnation, etc.. May be with a few more years of findings, Stephen Hawking may be able to conclude on after life

[vajrastorm]

Scientific findings regarding the investigation of "Truth" are limited in their ability to reveal the whole truth. The Law of Karma -cause and effect - is the first level of Reality that we, as Buddhists, must understand and accept.

Stephen Hawking postulates that the mind "is like  a computer, which will stop working when its component parts fail".He goes on to say that "there is no afterlife"...and that there is no creator of the universe  and "no one directs our fate". His tool of investigation is empirical studies and logical and mathematical inference.Very limiting tools indeed.

Buddha Shakyamuni, on the other hand, discovered the primordial truth about Life and Existence, by using logic and the sharp tool of an awakened mind, which was open and spacious and had no barriers or divide.

[Matibhadra]

      “Stephen Hawking is a scientist, and his statements are based on scientific models, experiments, etc.”

      ”His tool of investigation is empirical studies and logical and mathematical inference.”

      "No doubt Stephen Hawking's findings are scientific"

The mere fact that Hawking is called a “scientist” does not mean that all of his findings as “scientific”, or that all of his statements are based on “scientific models, experiments, empirical studies, logical and mathematical inference.”

Rather, they may also be based on mere preconceptions and gross, thoughtless non-sequiturs.

For instance, even if the human brain is like a computer, it does not follow that there is no afterlife. Where are the “scientific models, experiments, empirical studies, logical and mathematical inference” showing such an unrelated conclusion?

Rather, even if the human brain is like a computer (Hawking's assumption), it follows that the imprints of actions and experiences can be transferred to another brain, as much as programs and data can be transferred to another computer, not the other way round.

Hawking's unbaked conclusion simply does not follow from his premise; rather, the opposite conclusion follows. This shows how much even a so-called scientist can fall prey to the most primitive reasoning failures, and how much gross preconceptions can overshadow reason even if someone is called a “scientist”.

It is not so much that Buddha's teachings “go beyond logic or science”, as suggested by some, but rather that Hawkings's precipitated conclusion that “there is no afterlife”, merely based on the poor computer analogy, falls *beneath* any logic, and therefore whatever is worth being called “science”.

Just because a statement comes from a so-called “scientist”, it does not follow that this statement is “scientific”.

This is a bit like with the Dalai Lama. Just because he is labeled “Dalai Lama”, it does not follow that he is a Buddhist, let alone that he is not under the power of bestial murdering instincts, as exemplified by his invitation for the murdering of 10 Tibetan Lamas (see http://truedalailama.com/).

[dondrup]

The existence of future lives (and past lives) and Law of Cause and Effect are fundamental truths in Buddhism. If science accepts the fact that for every action, there is a reaction, it is not difficult for brilliant scientists like Stephen Hawkins to understand karma. Unfortunately Science are not able to demonstrate or observe the process of death to rebirth hence their non-acceptance of afterlife! Anything spiritual is beyond the boundaries of science! However modern science like the quantum physics are beginning to accept some of the truths of reality.

Non acceptance of the truths of future lives and karma does not mean these truths do no exist or applicable!  It is sheer ignorance!

[RedLantern]

Fate is said to prevail in everyone's life in many different religion in the world.It can be changed right now.
There is a saying that goes "if you want to know about your past,look at your current state,if you want to
know about your future ,look at your current state.If you want to know the future,look at your current state.
Your current state is a after effect of your best actions.Your future state is an after effect of your current state.

[yontenjamyang]

It is true that scientist like Stephen Hawkings works within the empirical system of scientific research. In this model, there needs to be proofs to theories and experiments are done to measure these theories. So theories cannot be proven or otherwise disproved due to the lack of advance enough technology. Einstein is famous for his "mental experiments" and yet he is regarded as the father of modern science.

Hence, because of the way Stephen Hawkings works, he concluded that since there is no time before the big bang, there cannot be a creator God. While I agree that there is not Creator God, there is an alternative to explain the "creation" of the Universe. I would like Mr Hawkings to explain why Universes seem to pop into existence even in this universe. Please view this link.

http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

It seems that there is a potential for things to exists out of seemingly nothingness. It Buddhism, it is called Emptiness. Emptiness is not nothingness. It refers to potentialities.  It make cause and effect possible.

[Matibhadra]

It is true that scientist like Stephen Hawkings works within the empirical system of scientific research.

Just a myth. Aside from the unwarranted analogy of the computer, where is the “empirical system of scientific research” bringing him to the conclusion that there is no afterlife?

In this model, there needs to be proofs to theories and experiments are done to measure these theories.

Hawkings obviously forgot this detail before blurping his “no afterlife” theory.

Einstein is famous for his "mental experiments" and yet he is regarded as the father of modern science.

But not so famous for having stolen the relativity theory. And for having tirelessly promoted the construction and use weapons of mass destruction to mass murder innocent people, thus being the father of modern terrorism.

Like Malala and the Dalai Lama, just another myth for the consumption of the gullible masses.

Hence, because of the way Stephen Hawkings works, he concluded that since there is no time before the big bang, there cannot be a creator God.

Since the “big bang” theory itself is an infantile and illogical dogma, created in order to give pseudo-scientific justification to the no less infantile and illogical creation ex-nihilo by the Jewish “god”, taking is as a premise is itself just a show of dogmatism.

Besides, stating that “there is no time before the big bang”, one assumes the very existence of a “before”, which is a time before the supposed “big bang”, which makes the statement ridiculously self-contradictory.

It seems that there is a potential for things to exists out of seemingly nothingness. It Buddhism, it is called Emptiness. Emptiness is not nothingness. It refers to potentialities.  It make cause and effect possible.

Emptiness, as explained in Buddhist tradition, is surely not nothingness, but does not produce any effect either.

Making the effect possible is not the same as producing an effect, either as material cause or as efficient cause. Emptiness is not the cause of anything, let alone of an universe.

While one may say the “out of emptiness” this or that comes, the meaning is not that anything comes out of emptiness, but from its own causes. The statement should not be taken literally.

[fruven]

What is Stephen Hawking's stand on human mind?

Indeed programs and data can be transferred from one computer to another computer. Stephen Hawking didn't address this point. The human mind can grasp concepts and receive input from external environment and feedback to the environment. He explained that when human brain is broken the program and data are lost. If no one created the universe and human, where is there a so called brain exist to process data?

There are many more unanswered questions then answers. What is addressed in his documentary is merely that a creator of universe doesn't exist. A canned of worms is opened.

[Matibhadra]

What is addressed in his documentary is merely that a creator of universe doesn't exist.

Also that an afterlife does not exist. The funny thing is that in Hawking's mind the lack of a creator god somehow implies the lack of an afterlife, while it should be precisely the opposite. Then he came with the silly analogy of the computer.

What he probably wants to say is that that there is no mind apart from matter (the millenia old Charvaka view). The other funny thing here is that, apart from a wrong imagination within the mind, there is nothing to be called “matter” -- understood as that which does not depend on mind.

Anyway, this whole story shows how much unbaked thoughtless dogmatism manages to transvestite as “science” -- and to be accepted by many as such.

[Q]

"I regard the human brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no afterlife for broken down computers. That is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark" - Stephen Hawking

Actually Hawking offered an argument in favor of reincarnation. In the same way that programs and data can be transferred from a broken computer into a new one, mind can be transferred from an old body into a new one.

Besides, with cloud computing, even if a computer including storage is totally destroyed, on can still have one's Gmail or Facebook account intact in the next computer, tablet or smartphone.
 
The simile might oppose the Abrahamic idea of resurrection, but corroborates the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

Interesting thought and in a way, a very good way of explaining reincarnation too, for those with a logical view point.

I don't think Stephan Hawkings do not believe in reincarnation though. I think what he's referring here is related to the after life in heaven made by the non-existent creator

[Klein]

What's interesting here is that Stephen Hawking is talking about beginningless time and attempting to prove that no creator is necessary to create the Universe. Even for a non Buddhist, it raises questions on the similar observations that modern scientists are only addressing now, when the Buddha spoke about these phenomena 2,600 years ago.

The truth is not exclusive to 1 religion. Understanding the truth enables us to make better and wiser choices in our lives. I believe that we should always have an open mind to explore and investigate.