>> Doesn't matter what creed he followed, it would serve no purpose anyway (other than to
>> assuage the fears of the credulous living) given that we've near enough proven the non-existence
>> of a "God" (Hawking has pretty much answered the question).
Never understood that. But then I can't understand most of what he says, any more than just about everybody else can.
It's all very well to say that the universe's existence is an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature, but where did they come from?
As a proof of the non-existence of God (and I think what he actually said was that a creator was not necessary to explain the existence of the universe) it is really no more conclusive than replacing the biblical creation with the big bang.
I don't believe in the supernatural either, but there are plenty of highly intelligent followers of religion. The exact nature of what they believe in varies of course.
The vicar here a few years ago told me it didn't matter whether I believed or not, God still looked on me as one of His flock!
|