Interesting piece summarizing some points from Hawking's latest book. The more we learn, the more it seems to fit our understanding of the afterlife etc.

http://www.livescience.com/18035-stephen-hawking-book-physics.html

He knows nothing about the afterlife. Someone like him should just be quiet about the topic.

Raj wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 2:46am:

He knows nothing about the afterlife. Someone like him should just be quiet about the topic.

Why?
what makes his opinions invalid and yours valid?
He's writing from his own personal point of view. Even if he knows (in paranormal terms) far more than he's letting on, he wouldn't risk going out on a limb for fear of what it would mean to the scientific community, for they have an agenda equally as strong as any fundamentalist.
Quick tip: next time you see Richard Dawkins on TV, watch how his eyes start to blink at warp speed when confronted by the very things he's trying to debunk. Mr Logical and Scientific is equally as insecure as the ones he's trying to debunk.

I digress. Hawking's only being true to what he knows. The fact that he hasn't had (or at least admitted to) any OOBs or otherworldly experiences shouldn't give you cause to dismiss his ideas in such a cavalier fashion.

Best wishes to all,

Dave.
:)

detheridge: please see my current argument with Victor about "opinions" in it's entirety on the other thread!

Please see my "Realm Of Light" forum in completion in which I plead the following case for Steven Hawking Vs. Victor Zammit:


I regard the color red as the best color in the world.

Used in the same context as Steven Hawking.

Steven Hawking presented one thing:

an oppinion.

The bottom line is that an oppinion does not have to be based on facts and even more ironic an oppinion does not have to be even remotely sensible.

Victor Zammit, I propose the following challenge to you:

I challenge that you post a legitimate poll on your web site, leaving the visitors to be the JURY. You may post the following in it's entirety, including my name as I am not ashamed in anyway:

------------------------------------------------
I, Mitchell Shelton am here to represent the defendant, Steven Hawking. Who, although has no further comments on his behalf, would like to allow me to state his side of the defence on his behalf.

I bring to the court the following which is an exact quote, as recorded of Steven Hawking as evidence:

QUOTE: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." - END QUOTE

Victor Zammit has written multiple pages critisizing and belittling Steven Hawking for the above Quote, which, I intend to prove by the end of this hearing is completely taken out of context.

I would like to bring your attention to the careful wording that Steven Hawking has chosen to use in this quote, specifically, the one letter word "I." Whenever the word I is utilized in a sentence it creates ownership. In this case the ownership means that Steven Hawking is merely stating an oppinon.

If, in reality, the context was intended to be taken as a fact.... the Single letter "I" would have been unused in his statement.

In conclusion, I would like to compare the court to a simple statement starting identicle to Steven Hawkings:

"I regard the color green as an ugly color that will ruin that display."

When you consider your verdict, please ask yourselves:

"Does an oppinion have to be based on facts?"

My client, Steven Hawking, feels that no further comment is needed on his part for expressing his oppinion.

I rest my case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I FURTHER propose to the court that Steven Hawking is intelligent enough to utilize proper wording in all of his comments!


Victor Zammit... is not.

Edit:"I am not either... ! Do not mean to imply that whatsoever...."

I feel Steven Hawking is brilliant enough that he beats both me and Victor Zammit.