Stephen Hawking Is "Very Ill" In Hospital

C S Miller writes "Not much more to add. The BBC is reporting that 'Stephen Hawking is "very ill" in hospital.' He has had a few health scares before, and as a post-graduate he was told he didn't have much longer to live; he's now 67."

Comments

Oh dear

[chunk08]

I do hope he pulls through, he is an amazing man.

Re:Oh dear

[A. B3ttik]

Even if his body dies, he will still live on...

...in his Robotic ExoSkeleton.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Jack Chick was a reader here at Slashdot.

Re:Oh dear

[JohaunaRei]

I to hope he pulls through also. This is one that I hope has no funny posts.

Re:Oh dear

[fewnorms]

Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. The guy has achieved more than almost anyone on the planet, and all that while being completely wheelchair bound and having a speech impediment. Most fully healthy and able-bodied people can't even remotely come close to his intellect and insights.
It'll be a shame if this turns out to be his last hospital visit, but if it is, he knows his name will be remembered for a long, long time to come.
Good luck, mr. Hawking. I do hope you pull through once again.

Re:Oh dear

[Hogwash McFly]

I am Jack's medulla oblongata.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Please submit all patches in unified diff format, with all paths listed from the project root.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite the opposite...

Re:Oh dear

[0xdeadbeef]

all that while being completely wheelchair bound and having a speech impediment.

Hey, most of us have American accents, you insensitive clod!

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

Lets see, who would I rather listen to - a self-righteous imbecile who apparently feels the need to post anonymously, despite being so sure of themselves, or a man who was bound to a wheelchair most of his life, can't speak without the help of a computer and despite being told he only had a couple of years to live, managed to do more in a few years than 99.99% of other human beings on the planet have ever accomplished in their entire lives?
A man that, when faced with quite possibly one of the worst things that could ever happen to single human being, didn't give up. I respect this man more than any other human being that has ever lived. Even without his genius, he is a role model for us all, he is living proof that no matter how bad things may seem, your life need never be over.

I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls, but this is something I feel so strongly about, I had to say something. Stephen Hawking is a great man, easily one of the greatest people alive today.

Re:Oh dear

[WillKemp]

God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published.

Too right, it's not. It ain't going to ask him anything. Sorry to have to tell you this, but your invisible friend is just a figment of your imagination!

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

Indeed. He is a credit to scientific thought.

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

Indeed. It does not matter how the man lived his life.

How many people he helped.
How far he helped advanced human society.
How many he inspired.
How selfless he was or was not.

What matters is if he asked forgiveness of the correct God in the right way. All that matters is the paperwork!

If the above were true then the rest would be burning on the side of Right.

Re:Oh dear

[gnarlin]

Also, the tooth fairy isn't real. Sorry :-/
However! Don't you DARE insinuate that the holiest of holies, Santa Claus, is just a children's story! Your feeble words will only make my faith in dear Santa stronger! Evidence smevidence!

Re:Oh dear

[Hognoxious]

I pray to God this is a spoof.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Accept Jebus into your life!

Mathematics, Alchemy and Regular expressions will not save you from an eternity burning in the fires of hell!

Re:Oh dear

[Headcase88]

You can't prove it is, so it's not.

Or is that you can't prove it's not, so it is?

Agh. This is why I don't like religion and conspiracy debates.

Re:Oh dear

[Headcase88]

Even most believers in God would agree. Why ask anything when you're omnipotent? (Except to pour salt on the wound, but that's just mean).

Re:Oh dear

[phantomfive]

lol if you believe that you have no concept of kindness, justice, or love. (if God is truly like that then I will go to hell before serving him, where at least I will maintain a shred of dignity). This is where so many christians get off....what kind of bizarre test is it where you just have to accept someone, who you may or may not have even heard of? It's not even accurate according to the bible, the only reason Christ wants you to accept him is so he can teach you to be happy and good. He doesn't actually ever say "accept me" he says "follow me." Accepting him won't do much good if you don't follow him; following him will get you everywhere, even if you don't get his name exactly right.

And agreed with the other poster: stand up for your opinions, none of this anonymous garbage.

Re:Oh dear

[sootman]

And one hell of a rapper.

Re:Oh dear

[bendodge]

I missed the self-righteousness in the GP's post. You can't even call it malicious. You're free to disagree with what he says, but don't use ad hominem.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymusing]

Ironically, if Hawking helped people, advanced humanity, inspired others to great things, and was deeply selfless... he may actually be far closer to God than most Christians.

Re:Oh dear

[femtobyte]

Perhaps one can look at this in a more positive sense?

Though I'm no scientist like Newton or Hawking,
or a great advancer of society like Gandhi or M.L. King,
indeed, I'm a miserable failure when compared against the highest standards of humanity, and infinitely more so when judged against the perfect standards of God,

the Good News is that even I can receive all the greatest benefits of eternal life through grace, rather than the consignment to nothingness that I deserve by my own efforts.

Re:Oh dear

[neomunk]

I hate to link to another post of mine in another thread, but I think it's appropriate here. I very much DO believe in intangible, imaginary friends, and frankly find myself MORE enlightened for trusting in my Gods to deliver me to the truth.

Some people call me wacko for that, but those people also invariably bask in the works my Gods have allowed to be through Their Divine Influence. Personally, I find it hypocritical, but not blasphemous. I would guess that blasphemy is hard to actually pull off in my religion, but I think it could be possible, if you try hard enough.

Hey, I'm just sayin, it's not as crazy as it sounds, when it's obviously true.

Re:Oh dear

[VendettaMF]

Making you what? A beggar? A loser dependant on handouts at the costs of your betters?

Re:Oh dear

[ClosedEyesSeeing]

We all know he just steals all of his discoveries. Should totally be a Fry Hole.

Re:Oh dear

[ShawnCplus]

s/satan/santa/ There, I'm saved

Re:Oh dear

[interkin3tic]

Lets see, who would I rather listen to - a self-righteous imbecile who apparently feels the need to post anonymously

... is neokushan your actual name? Just find this a bit ironic. Anyway, don't feed trolls.

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

According to that link, Hawking isn't the only person trying to steal things.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, it's turtles all the way down.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Doug, is that you?

Re:Oh dear

[tempest69]

I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

ok.. Any intelligence which is that conceited, petty and needy has no buisness being worshipped. Actually such an intelligence wouldnt even have my respect.

Storm

Re:Oh dear

[Amazing Quantum Man]

You're right. The FSM isn't going to ask Hawking anything! He'll just touch Hawking with His Noodly Appendage!

Re:Oh dear

[danlip]

I do hope he pulls through, he is an amazing man.

He is an amazing man, and the world will be a poorer place without him, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn't want to pull through at this point, I would want to go. I don't know what his wishes are, but I can't really hope for him to pull through.

Re:Oh dear

[ClosedEyesSeeing]

Most certainly. Naturally the link doesn't work any more... should of just used this.

Re:Oh dear

[VendettaMF]

When the Christian god is willing to face a just court (he has, himself, apparently declared us in his own image and therefore his peers after all) on charges of Genocide, crimes against humanity, Child rape, torture, murder, trade in sex slaves (including pre-pubescent girls) and has been justly and fairly executed for such crimes then it can have a say in matters of justice.

And just for the record, resurrections mean another round of execution, not a get out card.

If I truly believed in the Christian god I, like all decent and sane human beings, would seek ways to bring down and destroy the demon king of blood, rape and death it has allegedly declared itself to be.

Religious morons of all sorts are the reason minds like that of "Mr. Hawking" (Pompous religious fool couldn't even bother with the decency to use his proper title? What a git.) are once a generation events. A religious upbringing should be punishable as severe child abuse.

Re:Oh dear

[vlm]

His most fawning worshipful descriptions such as:

Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. The guy has achieved more than almost anyone on the planet

Primarily seem to be a direct result, and inseparable from :

being completely wheelchair bound and having a speech impediment

It is disrespectful toward him, for people whom don't know anything about physics, to brown nose all over the guy, just because he's handicapped. Note, I'm not saying he's a loser, its not a binary this or that response. It is more respectful of his considerable intellectual achievements to describe him as definitely well above average in his profession, rather than a polite version of condescendingly fawning over every little little achievement of a sick child.

For example, in my opinion Asimov beats him in popular science writing, Feynman beats him in actual physics and also general writing. Not coming in first or second place doesn't make him a moron, it just makes him not first or second place. Just not the greatest mind of the century, just not the greatest achievement on the planet. Still cool mind you, just not the greatest.

He is fairly comparable to Edward Belbruno, the genius inventor of low energy orbital transfers, in that both broke new ground in a very specialized area of study where they got very surprising, paradigm changing results, and wrote reasonably decent books about it. Note, you've never heard of Belbruno because he physically normal, as far as I know.

It's more respectful to declare him a very significant figure in early black hole physics and a decent writer and stop at that point, than to focus on his handicap while worshiping his achievements in a pandering manner.

Re:Oh dear

[VendettaMF]

"Should've" = "Should have".

Twit.

Re:Oh dear

[Chabo]

I'd be willing to bet that we could find his real name easily here.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know, I assume, that he's a semi-regular attendee of a particular Church of England congregation just outside the centre of Cambridge?

Re:Oh dear

[ClosedEyesSeeing]

"Should've" = "Should have".

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

Re:Oh dear

[Firethorn]

It is disrespectful toward him, for people whom don't know anything about physics, to brown nose all over the guy, just because he's handicapped. Note, I'm not saying he's a loser, its not a binary this or that response. It is more respectful of his considerable intellectual achievements to describe him as definitely well above average in his profession, rather than a polite version of condescendingly fawning over every little little achievement of a sick child.

I'm going to butt in here and point out that Hawking's achievements were beginning to be known even as a post-grad, when his illness was [i]first diagnosed[/i]. At this point he's been restricted to a wheelchair for most of his life, but he was more or less normal for his first 20 or so years, physically. He was even on the rowing team IIRC.

Now, I don't know if his illness increased his focus and productivity in the realms of theoretical physics or not, other than to note that if he'd been whole in body he'd have a far easier time outputting his ideas, researching, etc... Not to mention possibly having an extra 30 or so years of him. His lack of mobility has likely led to certain health issues that will take him from us early.

Re:Oh dear

[BlackSnake112]

"Guard these math skills well. For one day they will guard your life."

*couldn't resist sorry.

Re:Oh dear

[Twinbee]

I used to be a 'Christian' too until I realized how cruel and plain unfair hell would be for even the worst person that ever existed.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, and he gets around! He's already caused a couple of crises in his marriage thanks to flirting around with the hot nurses, more than most of the /. crew could ever imagine.

Go, my homie, my playa
Don't let it get ya down
Go, my homie, my playa
You're the mothafscking king of this town
You wish
your shit
was as sweet and unchanging in time ::Pull through ol buddy, we need you for MC Hawking

Re:Oh dear

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

the Good News is that even I can receive all the greatest benefits of eternal life through grace, rather than the consignment to nothingness that I deserve by my own efforts.

Wow. That is a compelling excuse for slacking off you've got there.

Re:Oh dear

[The Moof]

Implying that Stephen Hawking is going to Hell is not malicious?
Did I miss the memo where we changed the definition of 'malicious?'

Re:Oh dear

[MightyMartian]

That doesn't appear to be Jesus. It reads more like a C'thulu cult site.

Re:Oh dear

[Moschaef]

It's not even accurate according to the bible, the only reason Christ wants you to accept him is so he can teach you to be happy and good. He doesn't actually ever say "accept me" he says "follow me."

In Jesus own words. "He who believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life"

Re:Oh dear

[chfriley]

Santa emails me all the time to do stuff on his website. Of course he is real. ;-)

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The first question God asks will be "Did you lead a good life and were you kind and giving to other people?"

Jesus acted as an example for other people. Salvation comes through good works, not blind faith. Even the faithless, through leading a good life, can be eligible for heaven.

But you're just a troll anyway so it doesn't matter. You're going to hell.

Re:Oh dear

[hobbit]

Unless you happen to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Then no amount of accepting Jesus into your life can save you. Thanks be to God!

Re:Oh dear

[phantomfive]

Uh huh.....so what you are saying is, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you believe in Christ? Most people believe in christ, he is a historical figure. You might as well not believe in Edgar the Peaceable, king of England, as not believe in Christ.

Re:Oh dear

[Stratocastr]

half way through the first para, I was sure u were talking about Obama..

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

It may be only be an alias, but it's still a form of identity. It's still something that links directly back to me and me alone. You know that if you see any other posts on Slashdot made by "neoKushan" that it's the same person who made the above comment as well as this one. If you do a bit of googling and use some common sense, you could almost certainly find my other hangouts around the world wide web. A bit more and you'd be able to find my real name, email, location and I suspect even my phone number.

If I posted that as AC, you'd have absolutely no indication who I was at all. That's a distinct difference.

Re:Oh dear

[ultranova]

Implying that Stephen Hawking is going to Hell is not malicious?
Did I miss the memo where we changed the definition of 'malicious?'

"Malice" means ill will, not merely stating that bad things might or will happen but wanting that they happen. As the AC specifically stated that he hopes that said bad things won't happen to Mr. Hawkings, he can't very well be malicious.

Then again, it is hard to imagine why anyone would had posted that on Slashdot, especially as Anonymous Coward, except for purposes of trolling.

Re:Oh dear

[Kumiorava]

After that God will go ahead and ask: "Are you Knights Templar and did you wage war against infidels and reclaim the holy land?".

Re:Oh dear

[VJ42]

"Should've" = "Should have".

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

That depends which country you're from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation

Re:Oh dear

[Valtor]

Do you all truly believe that an all loving God will not accept a person like Hawkins? Just because he did not believe while he was here??? Hell is staying away from the light of God after you died. I think Mr Hawkins will not fear to go toward the light.

Valtor

Re:Oh dear

[Riceo]

If Stephen Hawking is going to he'll then I'll gladly see him there.

Re:Oh dear

[Riceo]

Hell even... fail.

Re:Oh dear

[mseidl]

Why can't this happen to some douche bag like Pat Robertson.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read his books, they were impressive, humorous, and able to be understood by the layperson. The made increadibly difficult subject matter interesting and simple to get a general grasp on.

"Greatest mind in physics", no. But damn impressive and well spoken.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Justifying it, endorsing it, and supporting it still make it malice.

"Oh, well it's unfortunate we have to burn those witches at the stake, but that's gods will"

Still malice.

"Oh, well it's unfortunate that god's going to burn mr hawking in the fires of hell, but them's the rules"

Still malice.

Quit trying to justify it and grow up. If you don't have the backbone for your faith, pick a new one. Don't you love god enough to admit he's doing the right thing flaying hawking endlessly? Don't you think his divine plan included making a genious handycaped man which would remind you that even the friendly need to burn?

If you don't have the balls for your religion, I recommend asking yourself why that is. Maybe you're more humane then your faith is... and maybe you need to think about that for a while.

Re:Oh dear

[bigredradio]

Here here.

Re:Oh dear

[No2Gates]

This is one of the very few occasions that I am serious here on /. I really hope the best for him. The world needs more people like him.

Re:Oh dear

[electrosoccertux]

If GGP's post is genuine (and he's not just an AC troll looking to drop some flamebait) then, according to the Christian faith, the "malicious" thing for him to do would be to not tell Stephen Hawking.

Of course, posting about it on a forum won't do him much good unless SH reads Slashdot... :)

Re:Oh dear

[bigredradio]

Wacko.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they even have a ramp to heaven... the handicapped are doomed anyway.

Re:Oh dear

[electrosoccertux]

Unfair?

What is unfair is for a perfect God to let evil go unpunished.
The punishment for rejecting an infinitely good God is infinite, nothing less is enough.
Now, nobody has to suffer like this, the offer has been made and is free to all; but God's not going to force himself on anybody.

Re:Oh dear

[Temujin_12]

I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

I'll chime in on this, because as a Christian it kills me to see this pre-school level understanding of Christianity repeated.

To make it simple here's the basic axioms of Christianity:
1. God is real and is perfect
2. Anyone who wants to return to Him must be perfect
3. Nobody is perfect (enter the paradox)
4. Christ willingly takes upon Himself the imperfections (sins) of the world.
5. Then as the creditor, He, and He alone, has the authority to redefine the terms of returning to God

The problem arises when Christians think they themselves are able to define the terms of returning to God, which when you think of it could be considered blasphemous at the highest level because one must arrogate themselves above Christ to think that they have the authority to do so.

This is done often by misinformed Christians when referring to atheists, non-believers, other Christian sects, and even people with whom they don't agree with within their own faith--and generally is indicative of a very immature understanding of the Christian faith. I've encountered this myself as I've heard people tell me whether I'm a Christian based on definitions varying from "anyone who follows Christ" to "anyone who goes to my Bible study group on Thursdays." It's a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Continuing from #5 above:

6. A significant portion of God's children never heard of Christ or otherwise lacked the opportunity to accept Him by no fault of their own, and thus could not be condemned by a perfect God for reasons beyond their control (note that "opportunity" is defined loosely here since it is different for everyone)

Christians who stopped at #5 above and simply proceeded to try to define the terms of salvation on their own won't even get to this step since they're too busy trying to pretend they're qualified to judge those around them (which, by the way, is explicitly forbidden in Christianity).

There are several different ways different Christian sects try to solve the paradox contained in #6. Rather than dive too much deeper I'll just say that Christ Himself gave a clue to this in His parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew (go look it up). Summarizing, it basically teaches that those who concerned themselves with helping the homeless, poor, sick, widowed and otherwise less fortunate are those who He will allow back into God's presence regardless of any amount of lip service given.

So if, God forbid, Dr. Hawking dies now, will he be saved? I don't know, and I can firmly say that neither does anyone else on this planet. So, I'd say the best thing we can do is appreciate all the good he did and hope/pray we can enjoy his presence longer. And if not, take all of the good Dr. Hawking brought to the scientific community and mankind in general.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Why are you blaming God for what people do in his name? I've seen people do some pretty messed up stuff in the name of money. Does that make all money evil? Or maybe we should hold people responsible for their actions, not God, whether or not you believe in him.

Religion gives people power just like politics. Are you really so surprised that people at times abuse power? Get some perspective please before you start spewing hate like that. Oh, wait. This is slashdot. Never-mind. Carry On.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Uh... Depends on your interpretation. Most people I know believe that the gates of Hell are barred from the inside. Those who wish to rebel against God are, alas, quite successful, even to the end.

If that is your reason for not being a "christian", you probably were never one. As for Hawkins, who knows what happens next. Only God; "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." It is not for us to judge, and never was.

Re:Oh dear

[haruchai]

Not least of his accomplishments, notable because of his physical limitations, is that he's been married twice and has 3 biological children with his first wife. Also, it's likely that his second wife physically abused him, to point of breaking his arm. If that's true, it's unimaginable to me what sort of person could do such a thing and how terrifying it must be for a man who cannot defend himself and whose body is more fragile than a child's to endure such abuse.

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

You can but then why be good?

The Bad News that comes with that Good News is that there is little incentive to live a truly good life(if things are exactly as framed by some people), and if you don't hear about the "Good News" you are damned.

I may not know what the creator, if there be a creator, had in mind when he/she/it created, but I strongly suspect it was more than just to have some lackeys to tout how wonderful he/she/it was.

Re:Oh dear

[The End Of Days]

There's no evidence that I would accept at this point. The various christian entities have had 2000 years and a hell of a lot of motivation to show historical support for the existence of christ. The entire thing is suspect to me.

Re:Oh dear

[anothy]

for whatever it's worth, being a Christian doesn't really need to presuppose a particular understanding of hell. there have, historically, been lots of different theories ranging from "the absence of god" to "eternal torture" (the common default today), to simply not existing.

Re:Oh dear

[The End Of Days]

You spend a hell of a lot of time codifying your fairy tale. I would admire it if it wasn't such a prolific waste of life.

Re:Oh dear

[ultranova]

That doesn't appear to be Jesus. It reads more like a C'thulu cult site.

Actually, it looks like that image of Cthulhu as an office worker I once saw. Seriously, Chick is either nuts or the most persistant troll I've ever seen. Could be both, I guess.

Re:Oh dear

[Haoie]

I echo the sentimentals of most: Here's hoping.

Re:Oh dear

[anothy]

this is stupid.

first, failure to believe is not the same as a rejection. second, even an active rejection doesn't translate into a moral equivalence of active harm: my being rejected doesn't make it morally permissible for me to harm the rejector. granted, i'm not infinitely good, but it doesn't entitle me to harm the rejector in proportion to my goodness, either. third, threat of eternal punishment looks an awful lot like force from where i sit.

there actually are theological positions that include hell as eternal suffering and don't (inherently) make god out to be a vindictive ass. please stop making all abrahamic religions look bad. either learn a little theology or don't engage in theological discussions.

Re:Oh dear

[anothy]

in the movie A Brief History of Time the argument is made that his disability forced him to construct new mental models to work through ideas, and that those new models enabled him to see things others hadn't. there's a reasonable case to be made that he's done as much brilliant work as he has because of, not in spite of, his physical impairment.

Re:Oh dear

[Temujin_12]

ou spend a hell of a lot of time codifying your fairy tale. I would admire it if it wasn't such a prolific waste of life.

The same could be said of science. If you think you can count the axioms of mathematics, physics, geometry, etc. on both hands and toes then you are sorely mistaken. But it isn't the number of axioms that determine whether an idea is sound or not, its whether it leads to real verifiable results. Science does better than religion in the "verifiable" region being primarily logic driven, but both have levels of validation to them.

As to whether Christianity is a waste of time, that all depends on the axioms above. If God doesn't exist or Christ wasn't who He said He was, then you're correct. But if both (or even either) are true then ignoring them was the actual "waste of life" (see Pascal's wager).

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pathetic opinion does count, those of his peers does.

Re:Oh dear

[JonathanBoyd]

There's no paradox. 2 and 3 form a problem for mankind, which is rather different to a paradox - a problem that is solved by 4.

As for the terms of 5, they are very clearly defined by God in Scripture as being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Additionally, the book of Romans is very clear that no-one is without excuse because God's existence is clear from nature, but denied by us because of our sinful nature, which goes against the problem you claim in 6. See Romans 10:9-17 for example - the problem of people not being able to believe if they haven't heard is brought up here and the solution is not for God to simply let them off the hook, but for messengers to be sent.

Also, you've missed the audience of the sheep and the goats. It's aimed at people who claim to have faith in Christ, not people who claim they're going to heaven. Helping people verifies that faith is genuine, it isn't the thing that saves i.e. helping people without faith doesn't get you saved, claiming to have faith without helping people shows your faith is false, but claiming to have faith and doing these things shows it to be true faith. This is somewhat similar to the teaching in the book of James.

If Dr. Hawking is to be saved, which I hope he will be, God has made it abundantly clear that he must trust in Jesus Christ, just like anyone else.

Re:Oh dear

[phantomfive]

Occam's razor. There were huge religions sprung up, people dying for this man (in the first century AD: we have evidence of this), people writing about him, people fighting over him, etc. It is much more reasonable that there was someone who was at the center of it all, who started it, than that it was a hoax and that he never existed. The true nature of the historical jesus is up for debate, however, that he existed is hard to doubt.

Re:Oh dear

[ultranova]

Justifying it, endorsing it, and supporting it still make it malice.

None of which the original AC did.

"Oh, well it's unfortunate that god's going to burn mr hawking in the fires of hell, but them's the rules"

Still malice.

Indifference, actually, and not what the OAC wrote anyway.

Quit trying to justify it and grow up.

What have I tried to justify?

If you don't have the backbone for your faith, pick a new one.

Well, since you clearly don't have use for yours, Mr. Coward, maybe you give your backbone to me?

Don't you love god enough to admit he's doing the right thing flaying hawking endlessly? Don't you think his divine plan included making a genious handycaped man which would remind you that even the friendly need to burn?

If you don't have the balls for your religion, I recommend asking yourself why that is.

Last I checked, Hawkings was alive and on Earth rather than burning or being flayed in Hell, so it would be a bit early for even the most zealous people to endorse such a thing based on pure speculation. And in any case, why would being genius (or handicapped, for that matter) make a difference on what you deserve? High IQ doesn't excuse you on Earthly courts.

An Anonymous Coward talking about balls is pretty funny, in a twisted sort of way. And in any case, I don't think going with the flow would really be indicative or require testicular fortitude.

Maybe you're more humane then your faith is... and maybe you need to think about that for a while.

Whether or not I'm humane, the claim that someone who's wishing someone else won't die and go to Hell is being malicious is still absurd.

Re:Oh dear

[Penguinshit]

Stephen Hawking is a major reason that I am alive today. When I was diagnosed in 2005, my first thought was "if Professor Hawking can do it so can I". It's the only ground where we are equal so I'm going for it (although I've pulled into a 12' barrel over a reef in Fiji and I don't think the Professor ever imagined doing that ).

Re:Oh dear

[The End Of Days]

An infinitely good god wouldn't punish anyone. That basic logical flaw destroys the argument completely.

Re:Oh dear

[Hognoxious]

The distinction is more subtle than that, but GP is more wrongerist then you.

Re:Oh dear

[againjj]

http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Life isn't fair. What makes you think death is?

Re:Oh dear

[phantomfive]

For entertainment purposes, I did some research on when accept is used in the bible. Sometimes it refers to sacrifices being accepted, but it never talks about accepting Christ. It focuses more on whether WE will be accepted of GOD. And that makes more sense: Christ doesn't need us to accept him.

And how can we be accepted of God? Peter answers in Acts 10:35, "whoever respects God and does what is right is acceptable to him in any nation." Respect God and do what is right. Hmmmm makes a lot more sense than 'accepting him,' don't you think? Excellent. Both entertaining and educational.

Re:Oh dear

[sabernet]

Why the hell were you modded Interesting? I'm hoping there's sarcasm there(if so, then hats off, sir, and ignore the following).

First point:

What is punishment without purpose other then vindictiveness or sheer masochism?

So, assume the "evil"(ignoring the subjective moving target that 'evil' has been over the years) human is banished to hell. After the first 25 years, he's feeling mighty sorry for what he's done.

Maybe the year after he truly sees the error of his ways.

But no, he will be tormented for all eternity for no other reason then He wants it. Scary thought.

Second point is how you have effectively contradicted yourself.

"The punishment for rejecting an infinitely good God is infinite, nothing less is enough."

There is no infinite evil other then Lucifer and the anti-Christ. Thus no man can fairly be given infinite torment.

Man, the more I get into these, the more I'm happy I left my religion behind. Battles of semantics over re-translated words handed over hundreds of years to defend one's viewpoint when they can't get enough out of reality.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

HOW THE FUCK IS THIS BROKEN ENGLISH INFORMATIVE? Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

What makes you so sure that's supposed to be camelCase?

Normally I use the alias "Kushan", taken from the game "Homeworld" as it's one of my all time favourites. Unfortunately this alias is sometimes taken by others, so I append "neo" to the beginning (And no, it's nothing to do with the Matrix, rather it's the alternative word for "new"). When I signed up to /. all those years ago, in typical slashdot form, it decided to lower-case the "K" for no reason that I know of other than some strange zealous unix formatting.

In other words, I quite consistently use an upper-case "K" since that's actually the real beginning of my preferred alias, just slashdot itself had/has issues with it.

Not believe me? To this day, it still can't correctly display £. Woot.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps one can look at this in a more positive sense?

Though I'm no scientist like Newton or Hawking,
or a great advancer of society like Gandhi or M.L. King,
indeed, I'm a miserable failure when compared against the highest standards of humanity, and infinitely more so when judged against the perfect standards of God,

the Good News is that even I can receive I too am, rather than the consignment to nothingness that I deserve by my own efforts.

Yes, I can look at this in a positive sense.
I too am no scientist like Newton or Hawking,
or a great advancer of society like Gandhi or M.L. King,
indeed, I too am a miserable failure when compared against the highest standards of humanity, and infinitely more so when judged against perfect standards.
I will not receive all the greatest benefits of eternal life through grace but instead will be consigned to nothingness like everyone else.

The Good News is that I saved a ton of money on my car insurance, by switching to Geico.

Re:Oh dear

[Angostura]

I suggest you pull your finger out and try to help your fellow man a bit more, rather than trying to worry about making god happy.

Re:Oh dear

[wilkinc]

Or maybe we should hold people responsible for their actions, not God, whether or not you believe in him.

So we should hold people accountable for their actions? Should we not hold God to the same standard? What about Natural Disasters, otherwise known as 'Acts of God'? Just looking at the top 10 natural disasters on that list, it gives a total of just about 6 million people killed by 'Acts of God', were they *all* sinners who deserved to die? How about the babies and small children who were killed in floods, earthquakes and cyclones? I don't really see how an all-loving God could just sit by and allow these things to happen, but if you can, then great! Just don't expect me to play along.

Re:Oh dear

[LWATCDR]

My the christian church I go too really doesn't have a Hell.

Re:Oh dear

[Twinbee]

Jesus in the new testament seems to enjoy speaking about it quite a lot, or at least hinting/implying it. That itself (or at least the ambiguity) is enough to turn me off pretty quickly.

Re:Oh dear

[Blublu]

I don't care what any grammar nazi says. It's just not logical. It doesn't make sense. Whoever who thought up that rule clearly hasn't programmed at all.

Re:Oh dear

[CodeBuster]

He was even on the rowing team IIRC.

He was a coxwain or the one who calls the stroke and steers the boat so he didn't actually do the rowing in the strictest sense. However, a good coxwain, who can set the right pace and adroitly steer the boat to avoid being "bumped" (in specific types of rowing races, bumping an opposing team's boat ahead of you allows both boats to pull over and exchange places for the next heat without having to actually row the entire course), is an import team member in coxed rowing so even though he didn't row he still contributed much to his school rowing team.

Re:Oh dear

[Herr Brush]

Pascal's wager is a poor argument. It could be used to justify all sorts of foolish behavior on the infinitismal chance that any given theory is correct. How can you be sure you've even got the right god? Maybe you should avoid pork and shellfish and sacrafice a lamb to Thor while your at it. ALL arguements for a deity boil down to the same thing and can be refuted in the same way - the probability of a supernatural explanation for life, the universe and everything is so tiny that it can be safely dismissed.

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

That's a nice soul! Be a shame if somethin' were to, you know, happen to it.

Re:Oh dear

[Forge]

Why the blanket assumption that Hawkins is an Atheist?

Some of his quotes Imply that he is more of an Agnostic.

Which means we have brilliant scientists at all levels along the spectrum. Atheist, Agnostics, and Believers. (Don Knott), is at that other extreme.

Re:Oh dear

[Twinbee]

You should be modded +5 for that. I've always thought the same way.

It's one instance where I would ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE people to go against the status quo so that the language has a chance of improvement in this area.

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

Sort of sounds like Plato's forms. Ideas and pure concepts are the most real things, physical instances are just crude copies.

Funnily enough, Plato's evidence for the forms is very similar to Anselm's attempt to prove God's existence. Perhaps because Anselm's version of God (at least for the purposes of his argument) basically resembled the mother of all Forms.

I doubt Plato considered the forms to be his friends though, being a grown man and all.

Re:Oh dear

[Temujin_12]

Pascal's wager is a poor argument

I never said that I feel Pascal's wager is perfect (see criticisms on that wikipedia page). Just that the argument that it's foolish to put faith in something as yet to be proven is foolish in and of itself.

Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

your best response is that I didn't bother to log in?

Need a bit of self reflection friend.

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

If your linking of self-reference and consciousness wasn't inspired by Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid , then I'd advise you to read that book as soon as possible, as that's pretty much its main thesis.

Re:Oh dear

[The End Of Days]

I wonder what could be said of someone who responds to an attack on religion with an attack on science. False dichotomy much?

Re:Oh dear

[The End Of Days]

All morals are relative. A person in a position of authority insisting that certain of his morals are absolute is as morally repugnant to me as abortion is to the pope.

Re:Oh dear

[femtobyte]

That's exactly what a faith in such a loving God allows one to do. I am freed from striving to assure my own self-righteousness, "worrying about making God happy," since I know Jesus has already taken care of that. Instead, I can now joyfully serve my fellow man ahead of myself.

Re:Oh dear

[noidentity]

I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

Lets see, who would I rather listen to - a self-righteous imbecile who apparently feels the need to post anonymously, despite being so sure of themselves, or a man who was bound to a wheelchair most of his life, can't speak without the help of a computer and despite being told he only had a couple of years to live, managed to do more in a few years than 99.99% of other human beings on the planet have ever accomplished in their entire lives?

I'd rather listen to the anonymous coward whose joke post went way over your negative head. This is Slashdot, where half the posts are meant to be funny and be laughed at.

Re:Oh dear

[femtobyte]

Parent is modded funny, but this is actually a serious and frequently made argument both outside and inside of Christianity. Many Christian denominations --- most notably, Roman Catholicism --- hold that doing a sufficient amount of good works is a necessary prerequisite for salvation, and worry that if salvation is assured by grace and faith alone, then good works will languish.

The response to this, ever since the Reformation and the split of Lutheranism from Roman Catholicism over this very issue, is that we can trust God that good works will not languish. Rather, that one who accepts the Good News promise of salvation will be all the more driven, out of response to God's love and through the working of the spirit, to strive to be the servant of all, loving others as God first loved them. Thus good works still happen, though as the result and response rather than the cause of God's love for us.

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

Where do you put the front door when you're building a lake of fire?

The Bible does not say you can leave hell. Instead it contains descriptions like "eternal" and "for ever", in both sets of scripture. It's sort of funny that you go so far as to call someone a false Christian "judge not..." while outright ignoring one of the few things that the Bible's really consistent about.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

You really should accept Zeus as your personal God and savior. You're going to be really ticked when you get to Mt. Olympus and Holy Zeus scorches you with a lightning bolt for worshiping an imaginary god.

Re:Oh dear

[Nefarious Wheel]

Science has always progressed from mysticism to cold hard fact. Read up on Pythagoras, Bacon, the early alchemists. The problem lies in the dis-empowerment of any approach to faith that demands a monopoly on magic or requires a static view and interpretation on the messages of nature that are all there for the mentally empowered and logically disciplined to grasp.

Because of his ability and dedication to uncovering and exposing as much universal truth as he possibly could with every watt of his own personal being, I suspect Dr.Hawking is a lot higher up in any hierarchy of angels than you or I, mate.

Re:Oh dear

[rudeboy1]

Fail.
There have been numerous interviews with Hawking and other scientists, mathematicians, physicists, etc. that reference "god" as an unknown quantity in the face of stupendous data. Not to be confused with a deity. Einstein also wrote about "god" in this same reference, and he was a very well known atheist.

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

Both the Catholic and Protestant church teach that hell is eternal. The Bible paints hell as a place of complete darkness, where parasites devour flesh, everlasting punishment, where the fire is unquenchable and where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

That's just the New Testament.

Maybe you could argue that some of those are just poetic license, but asserting that hell is merely "the place where God isn't" really paints the wrong picture. I'm not accusing you of doing this, by the way. You just point out that many people believe this watered-down version of hell, and you are right. But the Bible very clearly says that hell = eternal torture. And it says it over and over again.

Different books of the Bible conflict on issues ranging from how creation happened to the amount of time Jesus spent on the cross. But the descriptions of hell are very consistent. FWIW the absurdity trading a mere 80 years of screwing around with eternal (eternal! NEVER-ending!) torture is one of the many things that eventually forced me to sit down and evaluate how much of my Christian upbringing I actually believed.

Re:Oh dear

[Temujin_12]

You: Pascal's wager is a poor argument. It could be used to justify all sorts of foolish behavior

Me: Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.

All morals are relative. A person in a position of authority insisting that certain of his morals are absolute is as morally repugnant to me as abortion is to the pope.

And we've come full circle.

I'm not saying I agree with the pope, just that absolute moral relativism is just as indefensible as considering your own personal morals as absolute. They are both fallacies on opposite ends of a spectrum.

I've yet to meet a moral relativist who claims they would back their claim with their life by allowing someone who feels it is moral to take it away from them to do so. Anyone I've met admittedly has their limits (and that's fine). It just gets sticky when morals seem to contradict (that's called humanity).

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

ie "Hell is unfair so I'll close my eyes and not believe in it"

Re:Oh dear

[a_nonamiss]

Einstein is often pigeonholed as an atheist. I'm aware that many atheist groups try to claim him as one of their own, but there are many credible quotes that suggest otherwise. From some of his later writing:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - October 25, 1950

Or the more direct, but much earlier:

"I am not an atheist." - 1929

May be subtle, but that doesn't sound like a quote from an atheist.

Re:Oh dear

[Hugonz]

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

Man, keep talking like that and your code is never compiling...

Re:Oh dear

[Twinbee]

If I was somehow in Heaven, I'd sacrifice myself for two people who were in hell, despite the terrible eternal punishment. I hope you could say the same.

Re:Oh dear

[mdwh2]

Who said he was an atheist?

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. The differences are often simply a matter of definitions rather than what a person's views actually are.

All that matters here is that he doesn't seem to express belief in God - and more to the point for what started this thread, he doesn't seem to be a Christian.

Re:Oh dear

[mdwh2]

It's only ad hominem if you're insulting someone in order to criticise an argument.

I don't think he was trying to criticise his argument. He was simply calling him a self-righteous imbecile.

Indeed, the whole point of his post was that Stephen Hawking is a great man, whilst the OP is a self-righteous imbecile. I don't think "ad hominem" applies - it's obviously fair game to call someone a self-righteous imbecile when your point is that they are a self-righteous imbecile.

Re:Oh dear

[mdwh2]

"Should've" == "Should have".

Re:Oh dear

[emjay88]

God has made it abundantly clear [in the Christian bible] that he must trust in Jesus Christ

You missed the most important part.
God has also made is abundantly clear in the Quran that Jesus was just another prophet, certainly not the same Jesus as described in the Christian bible.
God makes no mention of Jesus in the Jewish scriptures.

You really shouldn't go around touting that one book is the actual truth when it's just as reliable as UFO stories.

Re:Oh dear

[femtobyte]

That would be a bummer, indeed.

However, I disbelieve in Zeus for likely pretty much the same reason that you disbelieve in Zeus --- seeing Greek Mythology as a set of fairytales that do not hold up to rational scrutiny. However, the existence of fairytales involving gods disproves the existence of God no more than the existence of fairytales involving wolves disproves the existence of wolves. Christianity (at least in the form I subscribe to) has so far stood up to my scrutiny (to a far deeper level than one-liners in a Slashdot discussion).

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

An Anonymous Coward talking about balls is pretty funny, in a twisted sort of way.

So's someone named "ultranova" talking about anything... unless your parents had an odd sense of humor.

Re:Oh dear

[neomunk]

It wasn't, and I will. Thank you for the recommendation.

Re:Oh dear

[Nefarious Wheel]

I believe in Thrall. No matter how many times you kill that big orc, he keeps coming back. There's an argument for serial reincarnation if there ever was one.

Dr.Hawking can use my jumper cables any time.

Damn I'm going to miss those insights.

Re:Oh dear

[Tokerat]

I thought you where talking about Candlejack until I read the grandparent's po

Re:Oh dear

[VendettaMF]

So, from context I'm guessing you're another individual mentally deficient enough to believe in said God?
This is a site for the intelligent or at least rational. Bugger off.

I'm not blaming God for anything. Can't blame the non-existent after all.

I'm commenting on the cluelessness of Christians regarding the contents of their own psychotic God's Wholly Babble.

And the utter mindless stupid sheeplike qualities of those who believe in a "Good God" in conjunction with "Biblical Truth"

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

ok.. Any intelligence which is that conceited, petty and needy has no buisness being worshipped. Actually such an intelligence wouldnt even have my respect.

Storm

This is why you are going to Hell

Re:Oh dear

[Chabo]

I don't know what character you were trying to do, but if you use the correct HTML codes, you can display pretty many of the characters that get screwed up by simply cutting and pasting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_XML_and_HTML_character_entity_references

For example, the "acute" apostrophe: -- this often gets pasted in to /. comments, and comes out as Â

The dash: — -- Comes out as â"

And so on. Left and right quotes are another big one.

Re:Oh dear

[linuxrocks123]

I'm going to jump in here because I've been doing a lot of thinking on this exact issue. I'm atheist, by the way.

As an atheist, I don't think there's any sort of God out there making up morals for us, and it's pretty clear that the laws of physics don't directly imply a morality. So, "morality" as a word and concept can only mean some physically arbitrary principle or set of rules defined by humanity.

The moral relativists catch on to this. Where they go wrong is by saying, "therefore, anything I want to say is equally valid to any of your morals". To put it bluntly, that's semantic nonsense. Morality is a word. Useful words mean things. Morality is a useful concept to many people, and it means something to them. But, since it hasn't been examined mathematically, it doesn't mean anything precise.

So I've been working on making it precise. It is inconsistent when imprecise, so I'm looking for the largest consistent subset of moral concepts that doesn't seem to imply anything totally nonsensical. I look at my approach to the task as similar to debugging someone else's computer program. I didn't make up morality, but I'm making it work right. My product so far is a Utilitarian-based scheme that works pretty well for anything I think I'm likely to come up with, but has problems with regard to the rights of animals, fetuses, children, sentient computers, and those in persistent vegetative states. All of those problems could be defined away trivially in the code, but that would be hack. I don't like hacks, so I'm thinking of what the "right" solution to that problem is.

Once my morality is complete, my claim won't be that it is divinely or universally inspired. It will be that it is self-consistent, intuitively correct, and matches my views of how I and others should behave. I won't care whether you agree with me, except to the extent that I might have to change my own actions toward you if you are prone to immoral behaviors. If you don't agree with me and claim that "morality" is something different to you, I'll just say that we're speaking slightly different languages. Whether or not you agree with me, you could get my attention by pointing out inconsistencies in my work or absurd or unexpected results that follow from it. This is much like the approach taken by mathematics today. In fact, my morality will /be/ a form of math, though a form not likely to be interesting mathematically.

This, I think, is the solution to your argument. It is not to speculate the highly unlikely existence of some supreme being, or to (usually unintentionally) claim that the term "morality" has no meaning. It is to define, logically, what you mean by the term, and then to run with that and see where you can get with it.

I've written more about this on my web log (linked to in the home page), and you can randomly comment there if you want to talk to me about it. I may eventually publish my "morality document", but it's really not ready yet.

Best regards,
---linuxrocks123

Re:Oh dear

[syousef]

Though I'm no scientist like Newton or Hawking,
or a great advancer of society like Gandhi or M.L. King,
indeed, I'm a miserable failure when compared against the highest standards of humanity, and infinitely more so when judged against the perfect standards of God,

the Good News is that even I can receive all the greatest benefits of eternal life through grace, rather than the consignment to nothingness that I deserve by my own efforts.

Thank you for demonstrating one of the great dangers of religion. It allows people to take comfort in their own complacency. Why should I strive towards any goal or care if I achieve any I set if I can believe in a wonderful afterlife where there is no pain and everything is fluffy clouds and fairy floss?

Re:Oh dear

[syousef]

Why are you blaming God for what people do in his name?

Don't know about G.P. but I blame the people that commit the acts because I'm not in the habbit of blaming fictional entities when things don't go the way I want. I also blame other people that created and legitimised the fiction on the basis of which these thoughts were founded.

Re:Oh dear

[Cruciform]

Can we blame "God" for things he did himself? The whole Job incident sounds like the first case of biological warfare.
And then there's the giving of virgin children as spoils of war after killing all men, women, and livestock in cities.
God is apparently a real dick.

Re:Oh dear

[incognito84]

Luckily for Hawking, if he concentrates hard enough, he can make God disappear in a poof of logic.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

i 'too' hope he becomes a singularity... i mean...

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, if Hawking helped people, advanced humanity, inspired others to great things, and was deeply selfless... he may actually be far closer to God than most Christians.

You misunderstand the whole point of Jesus' death. It is precisely because man cannot save himself through "good" works that Jesus died for us as the redeemer of mankind. Only through your act of acceptance of this gift can you achieve acceptance in the eyes and judgment of God.

Re:Oh dear

[VonSkippy]

"The guy has achieved more than almost anyone on the planet"

Get real. Except for a few landmark papers VERY early in his career, he hasn't done anything special. He has a great marketing engine behind him, and he's good at selecting "assistant" writers to explain complex physics to the general public.

It's been decades since he's even peeked into the Top 100 physicists list (which is peer review based). His "achievements" are mostly honorary, and if he wasn't a cripple - he have been moved to the "has been" pile many many years ago.

Good for him to overcome his physical handicaps (and live way longer then predicted), but lets not start giving bonus points for scientific achievements based on the guys handicap (lets leave that to public schools).

Re:Oh dear

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I'll just leave this here.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

You may claim to be a Christian but based on your fundamental inability to get basic tenets of Christianity correct, I doubt you really are. More likely you are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

A significant portion of God's children never heard of Christ or otherwise lacked the opportunity to accept Him by no fault of their own, and thus could not be condemned by a perfect God for reasons beyond their control (note that "opportunity" is defined loosely here since it is different for everyone)

This issue is directly addressed in the Bible. You have not discovered some great paradox as you claim.

Summarizing, it basically teaches that those who concerned themselves with helping the homeless, poor, sick, widowed and otherwise less fortunate are those who He will allow back into God's presence regardless of any amount of lip service given.

No, that is not what the Bible or Jesus taught you must do to have everlasting life. Again, you clearly show a lack of understanding of basic Christian doctrine. It clearly teaches that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Man is separated from God because of sin and no amount of good works will bridge that gap. Jesus was sent to us to redeem us from sin and make us acceptable to God through his sacrifice on the Cross. You have two choices. Accept his gift or reject it. There are lots of people who do good works as you suggest above. However, many of those same people choose not to believe upon Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. These people of "good works" will not be saved on Judgment day because of their "good works".

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see you on Judgement day. We'll see if you are so arrogant and prideful then. Learn to be humble before God and accept his gift. God loves you but he will not be mocked. He is God, you are not.

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

Indeed, but are you able to accept in this life or the next?

Ie would a skeptic open to the possibility of Jesus Christ be able to accept him once direct evidence was placed before him?

Or is it just a fill out the correct form sort of universe where it deeds besides accepting JC don't matter at all and Hitler could go to heaven if he just accepts on his deathbed and Mahatma Gahndi would be left burning in hell if he does not.

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

I have seen many people who supposedly accepted JC and do not do terribly good works and those who haven't who are almost saintly.

The idea that the acceptance will make good works be done does not seem to bear out in practice.

My personal belief is that God, if he truly exists and is worthy of worship, has already forgiven all souls. We may gain a wider understanding of our actions after death and that understanding and our own lack of how we behaved is what will drag us down. In other words the "fires" of Hell are not the creation of a just God but rather of the soul's own guilt.

Re:Oh dear

[Gerzel]

"That's exactly what a faith in such a loving God allows one to do."

So you are saying that those without such faith are not allowed to do good deeds? That is demonstrably wrong and goes against all evidence I have seen in my life.

I have seen all too many self-righteous, condemnable people in this world who proclaim their own salvation and that of the flock they lead. They are often the loudest to proclaim that Jesus Christ is all you need and by my own senses they are the falsest profits I have seen.

Re:Oh dear

[Majik Sheff]

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." - A. Einstein

Sounds like an acknowledgment of a creator to me.

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive, they never have been.

Re:Oh dear

[Miseph]

Or maybe there are other people attempting to define his faith other than how he does, and you're selectively accepting their definition rather than his in order to attack his for it.

I also fail to see where anyone justified, endorsed or supported witch burnings or Stephen Hawkings being flayed for eternity. But maybe that's because I'm crazy and try to just read what people write, not read into it what I wish to see.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Oh dear

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Somber fail.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

ok.. Any intelligence which is that conceited, petty and needy has no buisness being worshipped. Actually such an intelligence wouldnt even have my respect.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

--Marcus Aurelius, c. 170 BC

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Just because you bolt the door doesn't mean you can unbolt it. I never stated that. All I'm saying is if you had "found God" as people like to call it, this may not have changed your mind about being a christian. Christianity is about relationships, not rules or doctrine. And especially not about doctrine on Hell. You'll also notice my use of the word "probably."

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Ah, unlike your sibling posters, you get it. The key word here is "allow". Maybe God would have stopped such things, but we told him to get lost, and so he told us fair enough, go and solve your own problems then, but when you change your mind, I'll still be here. An all loving God would never simply remove the consequences of people's actions. How else would they learn?

No, I don't expect you to play along, and I am not really trying to convert you. I would just rather it was recognised that among Christians, there are rational reasoning people as well as outright nutcases. Just like among atheists, we have those who aren't quite so rational. See VendettaMF's response to me for a nice example.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

[Poke the angry ogre] Well done! As I said, carry on. You do it so well. [/Poke the angry ogre]

I am sure in other circumstances you are quite a reasonable person. It is a new one for me being called irrational and stupid. Can't say it worries me all that much when written like that. Sorry. If you're into rational debate, not namecalling, I'll be quite happy to reply to you. Even though this is off topic.

Have fun...

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

Yeah, I'm well aware of that, but the point is that slashdot's systems are...shall we say...somewhat flaky? It's not like it's some obscure unicode character, so why can't it get some simple parsing correct?

Re:Oh dear

[neokushan]

False!

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Sure you can. Lets see, who tormented Job? The devil? Ok. As for the giving of virgin children, I must have missed that one, which is unusual for me. I'll have to look up a reference.

Re:Oh dear

[bronney]

I may eventually publish my "morality document", but it's really not ready yet.

I wonder any of us writing our own morality.doc will ever see the doc ready. It's never ready bro :)

Re:Oh dear

[VJ42]

The distinction is more subtle than that, but GP is more wrongerist then you.

I understand that, hence the wiki link for more detail. However as the two forms tend to be called "American style" and "British Style" I simplified. Furthermore British style was the one taught to me growing up here in Britain, I assume (especially given the link that the GGP gave) that American style is taught to American students. It's only as adults that the subtleties become appreciated, and different styles used for different circumstances. Personally I stick with British style unless it causes ambiguity, which it does less frequently than American style (again, for those who want more detail see the above wiki link).

Re:Oh dear

[wilkinc]

I think I understand your reasoning here, but I don't really understand how floods, earthquakes and cyclones are 'the consequences of people's actions'. I can agree that human failings (murder, rape and possibly diseases) are consequences of our own innately destructive nature and God does not interfere with these types of actions (for the reasons you stated above).

What I don't really understand is how humans are expected to 'solve' the problems of natural disasters. Do you agree that such 'Acts of God' are directly caused by God? If not, surely there is no reason for an all-loving God to let these things happen since they are not caused by the failings of humans, right?

I rather enjoy debates along religious lines, and I perfectly recognise that you can be both rational and religious. However, I am biased by my secular upbringing to be very skeptical about God in general and organised religions in particular. ;)

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, if Christianity is as accepting and reasonable as the GP decribes, I would gladly sign up. Christians do not appear to understand that, especially for people from other cultural backgrounds who have non-Christian parents and grandparents, to start believing what the preacher tells them would literally mean to believe that their (possibly deceased) parents, grandparents, ancestors have gone to hell to be tortured forever - simply for the reason that they were not aware of the existance of Jesus when they were alive. This teaching for me is so unredeemingly stupid that I will never be a Christian.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Thanks. I enjoy such debates too :). I am also a bit biased, but have debated these topics with friends for years. It is interesting to see varied points of view. I would like to believe I see yours, but I am not always right. We can always agree to disagree.

I would not agree that "acts of God" are acts of God. Rather they are circumstances that God has allowed. Or to be a bit more precise, situations which result since we have withdrawn from God's protection. Humans were never expected to solve such problems, but the reasoning goes, they decided they could when they decided they did not want God. God would hope that we'd realise we can't solve these problems and come back to him.

If you accept the existence God, by logical extension you must accept the existence of evil. Evil is portrayed as wanting to harm humanity. Not that volcanoes or earthquakes are necessarily caused by evil - the world is how it is. Nevertheless, looking at the story of Job, who is tormented by evil, you can see within the Christian belief system, evil is considered powerful and dangerous. God is naturally more powerful than evil (I am not a dualist), but will not violate people's free will. Free will is fundamental to the concept of a loving God.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Too right, it's not. Instead, it's just going to throw a dice where it cannot be seen.

Re:Oh dear

[Ihmhi]

People are already continuing his work. I believe that you've just discovered quantum humor.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your argument falls down at point 1.

If God was perfect and we are created in his image, we would be perfect too. How can a perfect being fail to create something perfect? Since we are not perfect, then God is not perfect.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Being all powerful has nothing to do with it. Omniscient on the other hand...

Re:Oh dear

[Phoghat]

Amazing doesn't even cover half. Hawking is my hero. A brain that can encompass the universe locked in a crippled body and he still has the sense of humor that allows him to guest on "The Simpsons"

Re:Oh dear

[JonathanBoyd]

Given that we were discussing the Christian view of God and salvation, it doesn't make much sense to look at the Quran. As for Jewish scriptures, obviously Jesus didn't appear in them by name because he hadn't been incarnated by the time they were written. There is however a great expectation of the coming of the Messiah and arguably the appearance of a pre-incarnate Christ at certain points.

You really shouldn't go around touting that one book is the actual truth when it's just as reliable as UFO stories.

That's a very juvenile and glib treatment of the issue.

Re:Oh dear

[wilkinc]

That is an interesting position. How did God decide that humanity had turned away from Him? Given that (approximately) 5 billion of the 6 billion people on Earth believe in some sort of God, it seems strange for God to abandon humanity completely. Isn't that like judging the whole of the population by it's worst (or stupidest!) members?

Even granting that assumption, it still doesn't explain why so many children are killed by natural disasters, surely they haven't turned away from God (yet), right? God removes his protection from the entire planet because some of the population didn't worship him in the correct way? Sounds a bit petty to me! :)

As is always the way with the classical, Old-Testament God, the more you hear about His actions, the less you feel like He is deserving of worship!

Re:Oh dear

[Hognoxious]

I'm an atheist but I still use expressions like "thank God". It's a figure of speech, a cliché. No more, no less.

Re:Oh dear

[Unipuma]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

I think if anything, Einstein was above this whole discussion, although somewhat amused by it.
(See: http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm
& http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm )

Re:Oh dear

[Hognoxious]

genious handycaped man

Are you using ViaVoice with a crummy synthesiser?

Re:Oh dear

[rastos1]

No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

Out of curiosity, would you mind enumerating some sins of Mr. Hawking? Do you think he committed adultery, stole something or misused Lord's name?

Re:Oh dear

[Unipuma]

You might have to be careful with that. I don't want Occam's razor proving the existence of Xenu, just because a lot of people want to pay loads of money to find out the plot of a bad SF story.

Re:Oh dear

[emjay88]

My point is that in your post you implied many things, the first (and most obvious) is that God exists and the the Christian bible is His divinely inspired word. In addition to this, you imply that no other holy books are.
Certainly, Jewish scriptures mention the coming of a Messiah, but it is widely accepted (I would say almost completely accepted) that Jesus was not it.
So, when you say that in order for Prof. Hawking to be "saved" (ie, get into heaven) he must "trust in Jesus Christ", you are also saying that Judaism is wrong.
I mentioned the Quran and UFO stories in my post because they are both just as reliable (in terms of evidence) as the Christian bible. They are all examples of anecdote.

That's a very juvenile and glib treatment of the issue.

And that's a very shallow interpretation of my comments.

I think Prof. Hawking needs to set up a video camera so that there's no way religious vultures can claim a deathbed conversion (as is Richard Dawkins' plan). But I do sincerely hope that he pulls through and that he lives to do more.

Re:Oh dear

[Dan541]

Why the blanket assumption that Hawkins is an Atheist?

Because he is one of the most intelligent people of our time.

Most Scientists talk about GOD purely in a poetic sense. Einstein, for example once said "God does not play with dice" meaning that the universe must be ordered (as explained by the general theory of relativity) however it irritated him when people said that he did believe in god as he did not.

"God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen." -Stephen Hawking
I believe that like Einstein, Hawking talks about god poetically not because of any belief in the existence of a god.

Re:Oh dear

[fbjon]

Once again, we see that Perl is the tool of the demons.

Re:Oh dear

[Unipuma]

I fail to see how Greek Mythology can be dismissed as fairytale. Perhaps you are taking some stories from Greek mythology a little too literally, and do not understand them for the metaphors that they are. Or do you take the bible literally as well? (6000 years, universe in 6 days, etc...)

Re:Oh dear

[BenjiTheGreat98]

Einstein did believe in a God. His belief would probably be categorized as Deism. He believed in a deity that created the Universe, but he did not believe in a personal God that performs miracles, comforts the sick, etc, etc. He often spoke of figuring out the secrets that God created in the universe. If I recall, it was all too mathmatical for there not to be some sort of deity to have created it in the first place.

As a young boy, he did have strong faith. He observed Jewish practices, but as a teen, he rejected it. It was later in life that he came to the conclusion that there is a God.

Re:Oh dear

[sqldr]

That's a shame. Me, all of the greatest minds in science, all of the porn stars, rock stars, philosophers, and anyone who has ever contributed anything to enriching our lives, and of course, chuck norris, will be partying in hell, while you get to live on a cloud with Jerry Falwell.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

I would argue that it was not God's decision at all, but "Adams", whether or not you accept a literal Adam. The idea is that from that point on, people are messed up in a fundamental way that requires them to be fixed.

Is it fair that we should all suffer for Adam's folly? Not really no, but the universe is governed by a set of rules that God does not violate. Is it fair that (from Christian tradition that you are free to not accept) Christ had do die for us? In order for man to be reconciled to God, a sacrifice was required which God quite helpfully provided. The only requirement being acceptance. To understand my point of view try and think of it from God's point of view. It is out of character to violate your own rules, one of which is free will. How do you salvage your creation without becoming something you are not?

Re:Oh dear

[Cruciform]

Numbers 31:
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotta ask though - if No.1 is true, God is perfect, totally perfect - no malice, contempt or hatred (as we know that things like these actually come from failings in the person who hates, not the other way around) - God is all powerful, all-seeing, and 'all-good', totally benevolent.. right?

How could he/she/it ever condemn someone they love so much to an eternity of pain and suffering?

We as humans are told to forgive all transgressions against us - to 'turn the other cheek' - we are told to love and hold dear everyone and everything that god created, because he loves each and every single one of us in the same way. The people in my life that I feel this way about, can commit no crime nor transgression that will reduce the amount I love them or make me wish them ill. They can do things I will never forget, but nothing I cannot forgive.

Surely this ability to love comes from God himself? And as such, as the epitome of all that is good in us, his love of us is similarly unconditional?

So i ask again - looking past the fact that he gave me the reason and logic I use to justify my lack of belief - even if God can fault me for not getting the right message from this massive game of Life, can he truly condemn me to a flaming prison till the end of eternity?

I realise this questions kind of ignores your entire post above - i.e. who am I to question the almighty - but then again if he is perfect, and he did in fact make me, in all my curious and interested glory, and the rest of you as you are, then he knows I'm gonna question this stuff and I'm not gonna be satisfied until im standing at his feet and getting some answers from the horses mouth. So, for him to create me in this way, then judge me for the way I've been created, AND condemn me for it, seems less than benevolent - let alone perfect... actually it sounds kinda schizophrenic :S

Re:Oh dear

[dargaud]

I have so many problems with those ridiculous religious statements that i don't know where to begin:

1. God is real and is perfect

There's not even a decent definition of 'God' (the usual christian ones are fraught with paradoxes). And perfection is a judgment call.

2. Anyone who wants to return to Him must be perfect

Huh, why ?

3. Nobody is perfect (enter the paradox)

Hmm, okay, but as before, personal judgment is involved here.

4. Christ willingly takes upon Himself the imperfections (sins) of the world.

If that's figurative sense, it means nothing. If it's literal, it's absolutely haha ridiculous.

5. Then as the creditor, He, and He alone, has the authority to redefine the terms of returning to God

Another good sounding but empty sentence. How many times have I seen people move their head like they agree with such empty drivel when 2 seconds of bullshit-o-meter will just expose it for what it is...

Re:Oh dear

[anothy]

you're correct that the Bible contains that picture of hell, but you're incorrect in the claim that it only contains that picture or contains it consistently. particularly in the old testament, there's no uniformity in what hell is. the more common descriptions there are of being separated from God by a vast chasm.
also, even sections that talk about "burning" often get retroactively cast as "eternal damnation". for most of Judaism's history and at least part of Christianity's, those were interpreted as simply burning the soul away; nothing "eternal" about it. you burn it up, and then it's done.
you're correct that the Catholic church (Roman, anyway; I don't recall the Orthodox church's stance on hell) teaches that hell is eternal, but saying Protestant gets murkier. all of them? in official doctrine, not just what people happen to toss around? i find that hard to believe, just because of the impressive diversity. our conception of hell is as much social as it is theological, and there's no shortage of layering our current cultural context on top of theological claims to get something somewhat different than intended.

Re:Oh dear

[adavies42]

isn't that basically what nietzsche meant by "slave morality"?

Re:Oh dear

[adavies42]

[i]first diagnosed[/i]

i was going to read your well-moderated post, but then you used bbcode, and i realized it was fundamentally impossible for you to have anything worthwhile to say.

Re:Oh dear

[anothy]

fair enough, in at least some of the books. i do wish the authors were less interested in establishing and appealing to authority. that's why i like John better than the first three gospels. in addition to focusing more on the core than the surround, i don't recall hell being mentioned much or at all.

Re:Oh dear

[nobaloney]

This morning I saw this crawler at the bottom of an ABC telecast:

Doctors say Hawking will completely recover.

It reminded me of the following:

Patient: Will I be able to play the piano after the surgery?

Surgeon: Absolutely!

Patient: That's great. I never could before.

Re:Oh dear

[Temujin_12]

I have so many problems with those ridiculous religious statements that i don't know where to begin

That's why I used the word axiom. These are "propositions that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident."

Every human pursuit has at its core its own set of axioms. Geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, biology, astronomy, computer theory, etc. At a certain point, you're left with a set of items which are assumed to be true but which aren't proven or are not provable. That doesn't mean that geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, etc. are invalid or somehow weaker. It just highlights the lack of understanding or absolute certainty we're always surrounded with as humans.

If any of those axioms I listed above are PROVABLY false (not just suggestively or implicitly), then Christianity as we know it would crumble or at least have to be fundamentally revised.

The same could be said of geometry. If you discovered that parallel lines on a 2 dimensional plane do in fact intersect, then geometry as we know it would crumble and would have to be revised.

Now, this happens all the time in religion/science. Earth as the center of the universe gives way to a better sun-centered model. Newtonian mechanics gives way to relativity. Likewise religion, at least any honest religion, must also give way to verifiable proof. The idea the angels were needed to keep the earth in motion must give way to Newtonian mechanics, the creation story must align with verifiable evidences found around us (ie: carbon dating, evolotion etc.).

But the key is to when new evidences are discovered, in whatever pursuit you're in (science, religion, human studies, etc.), know what needs to be abandoned versus what remains or needs to be revised. It's the old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

I know this probably sounds platitudinous, but not everything can be put into a math equation.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Ah, why I couldn't find it comes out. In context, you'll notice that this was moses speaking - not God. God simply said avenge Israel. It was in the context of justice. You may or may not agree that that is just. Yes, you can quite happily blame God for telling the Israelites to avenge themselves, but further than that is dodgy logic. I assume of course you judge "God" by your own standards since you don't believe in him? Which makes the statement "God is apparently a real dick" interesting on a number of levels (sorry; I enjoy strange loops :) ).

Have fun...

Re:Oh dear

[femtobyte]

I have no problems taking Greek Mythology as metaphor --- that's pretty much what a fairytale is, the encapsulation of a society's moral/social norms and knowledge in catchy story form. By calling it a fairytale, I don't mean to wholly dismiss it, but rather to simply categorize it for what it is.

Furthermore, I have no problem with seeing large segments of the bible, especially in the Old Testament, in the same way, as a mythology/set-of-fairytales passed down by the Isrealites, describing their understanding of God and the world.

The New Testament Gospels, however, fall under a somewhat different rubric. They are retellings of actual events about actual people, passed down from the original eyewitness of the first apostles. Not that the gospel accounts are wholly free from all errors (in the many decades intervening between when the actual events and when the Gospels were actually written down, there's plenty of room for muddling a few items in transmission), but that they do speak of a real Jesus who was the real Christ, actually dying for the sins of the world (including mine!) and rising again.

Re:Oh dear

[Firethorn]

I goof that up quite a bit, unfortuantly. Habit from hand-coding on other boards.

If I've been posting on slashdot a bit, I do the opposite.

Re:Oh dear

[Firethorn]

Thus my mention of 'I don't know if his illness increased his focus and productivity in the realms of theoretical physics or not'.

I know about the arguement that his disability led to his discoveries, my point is that he was starting on stuff even before the disability had seriously developed.

Personally, I'd call it a wash, as our brilliant scientists, by and large, didn't have disabilities. Hawkins is an exception, not the rule. If I had the chance to prevent a Hawkings(or anybody else) from developing that condition, I'd do so. Most theoretical losses in productivity would be counterbalanced by theoretical increases in time to make the discoveries.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I still hate hearing Christians arguing over "The Rules" to be saved and get in when the entire manual on the subject is provably broken/false. Logic and experimentation bear that out. How about you stop debating which version of your imaginary men gets his soul that you can't even prove exists? How about you just have a little respect for the man and just hope he gets better or goes with as little pain as possible?

Soul Vultures, I swear...

Re:Oh dear

[Cruciform]

But Moses was a prophet of God, was he not?
So he picks a guy who mangles words for his own agenda and makes him the voice of God on Earth.
Still seems rather dickish. :P

Re:Oh dear

[bugnuts]

Just not the greatest mind of the century....

Actually, he probably is the greatest mind of the century, at least the greatest mind of which we currently know.

The century is barely 8 years old.

Re:Oh dear

[bugnuts]

bah! the GP said "20th century" so I retract that post :-)

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good question. I'll do my best to answer it.

God's love is perfect and unconditional. God is also the just judge.

None of us are perfect. We have all sinned and fallen short of being perfect. Because God is the just judge, he has to find us guilty of our sins. The penalty for sin is death.

Because God's love for us is perfect and unconditional, he does not want any of his people to suffer the penalty for their sins, which is death. In the Old Testament, the Jews offered burnt offerings to God to atone for their sins. But because the sin is so severe, those aren't enough to atone for sin. The only sacrifice that was sufficient was God's own son, Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, he died so that all sin could be forgiven.

However, because we have free will, we are given the opportunity to accept that Christ freed us from our sins or to reject Christ. If we accept that Christ died so that our sins would be forgiven, we are not condemned to death and Hell. The penalty for our sins was already paid when Christ died on the cross. However, if we reject Christ and that by his death we are freed from our sins, then we have to serve the penalty for our sins.

In short, God doesn't send anyone to Hell. We have the opportunity to choose death and Hell.

When we die, we have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Satan is permitted to be there to tempt us. But we will also have support from Christ, Mary, and other souls that have already entered Heaven. We have the free will to choose our destiny.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Re:Oh dear

[bandmassa]

Considering he wasn't really expected to live very long because of MND, and has outstripped the average life expectancy for that disease by a long margin, it probably is coming on for his time, sadly. It comes to us all in the end, sadly sooner for some than others.

Re:Oh dear

[ajs]

His most fawning worshipful descriptions such as:

Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. The guy has achieved more than almost anyone on the planet

Primarily seem to be a direct result, and inseparable from :

being completely wheelchair bound and having a speech impediment

It's very easy to make this assumption if you don't know anything about his work. If you do know about his work, then you immediately realize that the opposite is true: the magnitude of his contributions is often under-appreciated. After all, if the same thing were said about a non-disabled person, you wouldn't blink. But with Hawking you find yourself questioning how much of an impact his disability had in the assessment.

He's essentially given an extra hurdle to pass through before he can be recognized for any contribution he makes.

With that said, no one gets to be the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge without having done something truly impressive. That's not a charity post. You earn that, and those who have held that position include Paul Dirac, Charles Babbage and Sir Isaac Newton.

Simply noting that his peers consider him to be one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, among whom number some of the rest of that set, should be proof enough. The fact that he has a form of radiation named for him should be proof enough. The fact that he changed the rules of our understanding of the nature of singularities should be enough.

Sad, really, that we can't accept someone's massive contribution to modern physics and math because of his disability.

Re:Oh dear

[ajs]

Oh, a few other points: you seem to be replying to a strawman. You suggest that "Feynman beats him in actual physics," which may or may not be a sane thing to try to compare (given the divergence of their specialties), but doesn't actually affect the original point, "Stephen Hawking is one of the greatest minds of the 20th century." I'd like to note that I'd include Feynman in that list as well, not because of his contributions to physics were game-changing, but because he contributed in such important areas while, by all accounts, remaining one of the most respected educators in his field.

Of course, it's always easiest for people from other fields to point to examples of people who are not only recognized within their field, but also have the ability to communicate with the public. A Brief History of Time and Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman both demonstrate an ability to communicate with the layman which almost none of their peers can match.

Saying that Hawking is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century doesn't diminish the impact of Dirac or Einstein or the brilliant minds in other fields. It just acknowledges that Hawking's ability to understand, contribute to and transform his field are to be reckoned with.

Re:Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

"indeed, I'm a miserable failure..."

How do you _ever_ get past this point and still "look at this in a more positive sense"?

I'm not particularly self-confident, but having grown up in a very religious family and community, and developing apparently very similar unhealthy, overly self-effacing attitudes (due at least in part to said upbringing), I can tell you now that you sound just plain crazy. A hypocrite at best.

Grace only begins to be meaningful when you learn how to accept yourself gracefully.

You are who you are. Why did you start comparing to others in the first place?

Re:Oh dear

[JonathanBoyd]

My point is that in your post you implied many things, the first (and most obvious) is that God exists

One Christian makes a claim about Dr Hawking and salvation. Another Christian comments on this claim by explaining his understanding of Christianity. A third (me) disagrees with the second and makes comments that would support the first. Three Christians debating what Christianity says about what is required for salvation. Of course there's an underlying assumption that God exists! Christians don't exactly need to explain that to each other. This wasn't a case of a Christian trying to convince a non-Christian.

and the the Christian bible is His divinely inspired word. In addition to this, you imply that no other holy books are.

Again, these are things that were not being disputed by the three people involved in the debate. This is akin to three people debating whether a penalty had correctly been awarded in a rugby match then a fourth coming along and saying that there the only true form of football uses round balls instead of oval ones. True or not, it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Certainly, Jewish scriptures mention the coming of a Messiah, but it is widely accepted (I would say almost completely accepted) that Jesus was not it.

Widely accepted by who? Every Christian believes it. Not exactly sure what Muslims think, though I'm not all that interested to be honest. Quite a few Jews believe it too - some of them now call themselves Christians, while others call themselves Messianic Jews.

So, when you say that in order for Prof. Hawking to be "saved" (ie, get into heaven) he must "trust in Jesus Christ", you are also saying that Judaism is wrong.

Judaism which denies that Jesus is the Messiah? Yes. Your point?

I mentioned the Quran and UFO stories in my post because they are both just as reliable (in terms of evidence) as the Christian bible. They are all examples of anecdote.

You're just showing how uninformed you are. In what respect do you think the Christian Bible lacks evidence? Evidence of what? Events? Authorship? Dating? Which bits? How did you go about comparing it with the Quran and UFO stories? What was your method of investigation? Where is the rigour in your approach to this issue?

And that's a very shallow interpretation of my comments.

I'm sorry, but if you bring UFO stories into a debate then you're not very likely to get taken seriously are you? How many universities have departments of theology and professors of biblical studies? Now how many have departments that are going to study UFOs? What are the hither to unplumbed depths of your comment that I missed upon first (and second) reading?

I think Prof. Hawking needs to set up a video camera so that there's no way religious vultures can claim a deathbed conversion (as is Richard Dawkins' plan).

It's a little unseemly that people do that. Christianity's veracity does not rest on the confession of any living person. The gospels stands or dies on the historicity of the crucifixion and resurrection. If they happened, Christianity means everything. If they didn't, it is nothing more than a lie and those who confess, on their deathbeds or elsewhere, are to be pitied.

But I do sincerely hope that he pulls through and that he lives to do more.

I hope he lives to. I'm slightly disgusted though by the fact that so many seem to want him to live on the basis of his achievements. It would appear that that not all lives are equal in value according to many Slashdot readers. That isn't a comment directed at you, by the way. I don't know what your precise view is on the matter.

Re:Oh dear

[inasity_rules]

Most prophets start with "And the Lord said" when delivering messages directly from God. Moses was very human. Being a prophet doesn't magically make you perfect. Look at all the trouble he had in Egypt, or the fact that God told him he would not see the promised land because he messed up. Where was this perfect character God was supposed to pick?

I'd say that God shows quite some patience with his prophets.

This being said, I don't pretend to know if in this case it was God's will. It may be that he knew the Israelites would not accept anything less than that and therefore allowed it so as not to lose them - but that is mere speculation so you can take it or leave it. I have been known to be wrong before. :)

Re:Oh dear

[atraintocry]

You're probably right. I was raised Catholic but assumed that Protestants also considered hell to be eternal. But there is a lot of variation within Protestantism and of course individuals don't always follow the doctrine of their particular church to the letter.

I should mention that I am going off of the KJV. Newer translations have less references to hell, and some don't use the word in the OT. The concept certainly developed as time went on. However I think that in places where something appears in the NT, it should supersede the earlier books.

In Catholic school a lot of the sisters would tell us about what they personally thought the afterlife would be like. One of them (oddly enough, the meanest one) read us Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I don't personally believe in hell but you need the world's most creative concordance if you're going to read "fire and brimstone" as reincarnation.

Maybe that's for the best, though. Maybe people are just taking the best of the teachings and leaving the puritan stuff behind. I guess we can draw the line at the resurrection. Like if someone didn't believe in it, then they need to piss or get off the pot. I often wonder how many people simply profess to be Christian just take things like that for granted...I studied a lot of philosophy and theology and was going on retreats, toying with the idea of becoming a Catholic Brother. But I wasn't called to it, and finally the really big stuff just got to me. Hell, the resurrection, the virgin birth...I can't reconcile it anymore. Bad things happening to good people finished it off.

I do believe that the universe has beauty and order both on scales that we can understand and scales that we have yet to understand.

On one hand, I feel that a lot of Christian doctrine is frankly pretty weird, and I get the impression that in this modern age people have a hard time owning up to it. On the other, if someone can believe that life is beautiful and has a purpose (side note: I don't know any atheists who don't, despite the reckless live-for-the-day stereotype), and be just as sure of the resurrection, and takes the stuff printed in red ink to heart, that's probably Christian enough to keep you out of whatever hells there are.

Re:Oh dear

[SBFCOblivion]

You know, if 'god' is actually like this (elementary, spiteful?) I can see why Lucifer would rebel. Seriously.

I'm reminded of those crazy-ass bastards that are the Westborough Baptist Church. If they're right and they go to the supposed heaven why in the hell would any sane person want to go there with them?

Re:Oh dear

[Unipuma]

Well, the same could be said about the works of Homerus, who wrote about the war of Troy, which was of course a retelling based on eyewitnesses. Actually, perhaps more accurate, as Homerus was supposed to actually have been present, while the New Testament was written down later, so the stories have been passed along before they were put on paper.

Since Homerus did write about the gods, their interventions during the battles, does that not make for just as accurate an account if not better as the New Testament Gospels?

You are rather quick to place the whole of Greek Mythology as a metaphor, and not take some parts of it as possibly containing truths, and thus allowing for the gods of the Greek. If you allow they story of Jesus as being entirely true (including miracles), why would every miracle from Zeus or Apollo suddenly be a fairytale?

Re:Oh dear

[dargaud]

The same could be said of geometry. If you discovered that parallel lines on a 2 dimensional plane do in fact intersect, then geometry as we know it would crumble and would have to be revised.

He, check this out, it just came out... In mathematics you can pick axioms and play with them. Sometimes contradictory axioms can both prove useful. I'm not so sure in real life...

Poor Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is that I hope he doesn't have to suffer any more pain than he already has.

WOW

[PersianTech]

Watching some of Stephen Hawking's speeches is very interesting but takes over 3 times as long to understand what he is saying. He is that intelligent, when he dumbs it down its still hard to understand. My heart goes out to him and hopefully will get better.

Re:WOW

[PersianTech]

Yeah, I understand that maybe some of this theories were disproved, but stimulating the smartest physicists around the world to prove his theories wrong is somewhat amazing thing. Many people tried to disprove "theories" but that's the wonderful thing about science, the right to prove someones work.

Re:WOW

[Metasquares]

Hawking radiation hasn't been disproved, and you'd better hope for the sake of the planet that he's right about that one when the LHC starts back up.

Re:WOW

[Hikaru79]

My heart goes out to him and hopefully will get better.

Maybe if your heart actually went out to him, this whole crisis could be averted in time?

Re:WOW

[Chabo]

Back in the days of Aristotle, we knew that gravity was a constant downward force.

Newton's calculations didn't show that to be wrong, it merely proved that it's a good approximation if you're on the Earth's surface. If you're in space, you need to use Newton's work.

Einstein didn't disprove Newton, he merely showed that his calculations are a good approximation if you're traveling at less than 10% the speed of light. Higher than that, and you need to use Einstein's equations.

Hawking showed that Einstein's equations only worked in a limited scope, just like Einstein did to Newton. In the same way, Hawking's early work has been supplanted by more recent studies, but it doesn't mean the man is dumb.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawking radiation hasn't been disproved, and you'd better hope for the sake of the planet that he's right about that one when the LHC starts back up.

Why? Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Re:WOW

[jeric23]

If time is relative, then we can just reach through any event for Stephen to see the next horizon.

Re:WOW

[evanbd]

Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sympathy for the guy and the hardships he has had in life but I won't ignore the fact that none of his theorys have ever been proven and the Hawking radiation one could have very bad consequences for all of us.

Re:WOW

[The Iso]

Hawking did to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton?

Or did Hawking find solutions of Einstein's equations which prove surprising things? Has relativity predicted the outcome of every experiment for a century?

"I don't pay much attention to how journalists describe me. I know it is media hype. They need an Einstein like figure to appeal to. But for them to compare me to Einstein is ridiculous. They don't understand either Einstein's work, or mine." - Stephen Hawking

Re:WOW

[Chabo]

I'll readily admit that I don't know that much about Hawking's work. The extent of my knowledge of theoretical physics came from the latter half of a high school honors-level physics course.

Sometime in the next few years I plan on reading Hawking's books; I have a feeling I'll have a much greater appreciation for the man afterward. :)

A much-expanded version of what I said in my post was essentially how my physics teacher structured our class, and to this day I still think it was so cool. It's also provided me with an excellent starting point for explaining the scientific process to non-science people, and for doing things like explaining "theory does not mean unproven" -- Newton's "theory of gravity" wasn't strictly correct in the binary sense, but it was mostly there.

Re:WOW

[Splintax]

Back in the days of Aristotle, we knew that gravity was a constant downward force.

Constant downward acceleration, not force. If it were constant force, heavier objects would fall slower than lighter ones. Although I guess we can't really apply the Newtonian definition of 'force' to Aristotlean physics..

Death announced before death?

[networkz]

I do hate it in this day and age, where people speculate before people die.

Report the news after it's happened, not before.

It's like akin to reading about Jade Goody demise.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do hate it in this day and age, where people speculate before people die.

Call it speculation, but I'm pretty sure that the rules haven't changed in regards to death.

It's still 1 per person.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLWUT?

They're reporting on him as he is now, very ill and in the hospital. TFA was a brief article on BBC discussing what they knew about his present condition, not a link to the Death Clock.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Keyper7]

I understand your point, but please never make an analogy between something involving Stephen Hawking and something involving Jane Goody again.

It simply sounds wrong.

Re:Death announced before death?

[JustOK]

It's still 1 per person.

[citation needed]

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart for all the people who get resuscitated after clinical death. Oh, the people who get accidentally misfiled as dead by bureaucrats and need to spend months to prove that they are alive, they don't count either. Anybody else with more than one death that you're missing?

Re:Death announced before death?

[Cro Magnon]

Apart for all the people who get resuscitated after clinical death. Oh, the people who get accidentally misfiled as dead by bureaucrats and need to spend months to prove that they are alive, they don't count either. Anybody else with more than one death that you're missing?

Zombies?

Re:Death announced before death?

[CarpetShark]

I do hate it in this day and age, where people speculate before people die.

As opposed to in the past, where a mammoth would rip out the village elder's guts, and the rest of the the village would be all, "Let's not jump to conclusions now..."? ;)

Re:Death announced before death?

[PiSkyHi]

Flanders was a Zombie ?

Re:Death announced before death?

[daveime]

I think the Buddhists might disagree with you there ...

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart for all the people who get resuscitated after clinical death. Oh, the people who get accidentally misfiled as dead by bureaucrats and need to spend months to prove that they are alive, they don't count either. Anybody else with more than one death that you're missing?

Zombies?

Wolverines!
WOLFMAN HAVE NARDS!

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because when Stephen Hawking dies, humanity will suffer a net loss.

Yes it will.

But when Jade Goody died, humanity achieved a net gain.

No it didn't.

Now be a good little shit and go become an hero so that we may truly experience a net gain.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Coan_teen]

But when Jade Goody died, humanity achieved a net gain.

The untimely demise of the mother of two young sons is not a boon to humanity, however much she may have irritated you or somehow symbolized the intellectual rot of our society to your spiteful little mind.

But hey, who cares about those two little boys? Clearly it's the good of the elitists who take reality television as a personal affront that matters.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazarus presumably.

Re:Death announced before death?

[michaelmuffin]

In other news, ailing former dictator Fidel Castro is still alive.

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Re:Death announced before death?

[JoCat]

Worse yet, when people spectate after they die and say where all the CTs are over Ventrillo.

Re:Death announced before death?

[Neurotoxic666]

It simply sounds wrong.

In fact, it doesn't. It just show that whatever we did, whatever we accomplished, whatever we believe in, we will all end up dead.

Memento mori...

Re:Death announced before death?

[notrandomly]

Death announcement? Where? All I see is someone reporting on him being ill, and as a well known person, this is definitely of interest to people who might be interested in his work.

Hawking has proposed a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can launch him into space, and get him traveling fast enough, he'll seem to live nearly forever from our perspective.

Re:Hawking has proposed a solution

[Reason58]

If we can launch him into space, and get him traveling fast enough, he'll seem to live nearly forever from our perspective.

That is dangerous thinking. He could very easily create a Hawking Hole, and that would be the end of us all.

Re:Hawking has proposed a solution

[xmason]

I thought it was a fry-hole...

Re:Hawking has proposed a solution

[Reason58]

I thought it was a fry-hole...

HAWKING

I call it a "Hawking Hole".

FRY

No fair! I saw it first!

HAWKING

Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?

Re:haha

[Millennium]

who cares.. he's been dead for years anyway.

I'm not sure he'd agree with you on that.

Oblig. Futurama

[Dachannien]

Fry: Hey! Stephen Hawking! Aren't you that physicist that invented gravity?

Stephen Hawking: Sure. Why not?

Hey now, enough of that talk

[Weaselmancer]

...as a post-graduate he was told he didn't have much longer to live; he's now 67.

Let's not start gearing up for his death just yet.

He obviously has a fantastic will to live, or he wouldn't have made it to 67 with his issues in the first place. There is no reason to think he won't pull through this also.

Re:Hey now, enough of that talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are realistic reasons to believe he won't pull through the current episode. Human health does not improve by accumulating experience points from when one is sick or going through some harsh issues, in actuality it is quite the contrary for most cases, except for some viral infections when your body is able to develop a definitive resistance.

Re:Hey now, enough of that talk

[Anonymous Coward]

That was exactly the point of that sentence. Usually Whooshes are reserved for jokes, but....whoosh!

Re:Hey now, enough of that talk

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to think he won't pull through this also.

Except for the whole '"very ill" in hospital' + ALS + being 67 thing.

Re:Hey now, enough of that talk

[Timberwolf0122]

Maybe he just needs a new set of double A's, drop an energizer and he'll keep on going, and going, and going.

I am so, so sorry.

A Legend

[Lifyre]

This man has been an inspiration to many people, myself included. He has inspired hope and shown the true courage and grit that humans can possess. Mr. Hawking has contributed man things to the fields of science and written some truly great books. His legacy will extend far beyond when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

I wish him the best and hope that the end to his current predicament comes swiftly, no matter the resolution.

Re:A Legend

[yascha]

Mr. Hawking has contributed man things to the fields of science and written some truly great books.

Can't fault someone that contributes man things.

Re:A Legend

[Lifyre]

Personally I'd prefer woman things though.

Re:A Legend

[iMac Were]

You do it our way, and I'll do it mine. Hugs!

Re:A Legend

[Xemu]

Mr. Hawking has contributed man things to the fields of science

That Penthouse magazine subscription that he sent to Kip Thorne was to settle the black hole bet, nothing else, damnit.

Re:A Legend

[Beat The Odds]

Can't fault someone that contributes man things.

If he'd produced woman things, would you have thought less of him?

Re:A Legend

[Lifyre]

I see what you did there!

Post-graduate

[JaZz0r]

...as a post-graduate he was told he didn't have much longer to live...

Let this be a lesson to all - graduating is hazardous to your health!

Re:Post-graduate

[EvanED]

That's why I plan on never graduating. ;-)

(/me is a 3rd year grad student)

Re:Post-graduate

[An ominous Cow art]

I started working on my CS degree in 1984. I guess I'm immortal, yay!

Good luck to him

[east coast]

Considering how dire his normal condition is hearing that he is very ill doesn't leave a lot of prospects. I wish him the best. Hopefully the reports are an exaggeration.

Re:Good luck to him

[jd]

The latest news on Stephen Hawking's own website says that he is "comfortable" and that there will be no further updates until tomorrow morning. I am hoping this means that the illness simply required more medical supervision than the one full-time nurse he currently has, but is otherwise not likely to throw up additional complications. This would indeed be "very ill" prior to getting into hospital, but would explain why he's "comfortable" now.

However, in today's PR-based world, it could just as easily mean that they want to keep any further bad news getting out. I hope that's not the case, and that my original guess is correct, but you just can't tell these days.

Re:Good luck to him

[jd]

The reports from Stephen Hawking's personal website report that he's comfortable in hospital and that there'll be an update in the morning. I'm hoping this means he merely got a mild illness that was beyond the ability of his 24-hour nurse to handle and that Cambridge was more reflecting how the nurse felt prior to the Professor going into hospital rather than any solid medical assessment.

Re:Good luck to him

[jd]

There is a new update. His condition is said to have improved (which is good). The illness is some sort of chest infection (which in his case is very very bad).

Re:Good luck to him

[caluml]

Surely they can keep him alive, no matter what? Strap a few more devices to his chair (lung/heart/kidney support), and he'll be away.

I jest, of course.

equally oblig:

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

perhaps we need some kind of death clock

Re:equally oblig:

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps we need some kind of death clock

http://alarmklok.ytmnd.com/

Sorry for posting anon, but you can understand with all the idiot moderators that don't watch TV to get the reference

At first...

[courteaudotbiz]

I read the subject line which looked like "Stephen Hawking Is "Very III" In Hospital". I thought he was "Very 3", and thought it was a new movie, like the sequel of "Very 2"...

Re:At first...

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL, you made my day. that's hilarious. ha ha ha

Re:At first...

[courteaudotbiz]

Didn't mean to make you laugh. Sorry for that.

Re:At first...

[wastedlife]

I can see how you could have misunderstood that on first glance, but it is obvious that Stephen Hawking is playing the role of "Very III" in the new movie "Hospital". "Very III" is a zany medbot with a heart of gold(literally, who knew that common gold would be the material needed to stabilize cold fusion?) and Hawking will be providing the voice work.

I'm a big fan of his music

[Murpster]

Fuck the creationists! Fu-Fuck the creationists!

Re:I'm a big fan of his music

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly not! Do you want to create *more* of them?!?

Re:I'm a big fan of his music

[Missing_dc]

f-them running with a chainsaw!!!

escalate the issue and derivative problem solved.

Cruel fate

[Hognoxious]

Sadly, it's even worse. I heard he has considerable holdings of Sun stock.

Note to the BBC

[damn_registrars]

I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows who Hawking is knows of his disease and what it has done to him. Hence we already know he isn't the most photogenic person on the planet. Couldn't you find a slightly better picture of him?

Re:Note to the BBC

[EvilToiletPaper]

This is Stephen Hawking and BBC, not Sarah Palin and Fox news.

Who gives a damn what he looks like. What's a 'slightly' better picture gonna do? Everyone who knows him reveres him for his mind not his body and face.

Re:Note to the BBC

[jd]

Well, admittedly the BBC picture makes him look like he's sick of being photographed. On the other hand, it's probably better than a photo of him racing his modded electric wheelchair down the roads at breakneck speed.

(P.S. Can anyone confirm that Prof. Hawking was planning on getting one of Braun's F1 diffusers added to the back of his wheelchair for extra cornering speed?)

Re:Note to the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Insert witty "insensitive clod" comeback here.

Re:Note to the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this one?

Re:Note to the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we'd like a picture of his brain.

Re:Note to the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a damn what he looks like. What's a 'slightly' better picture gonna do? Everyone who knows him reveres him for his mind not his body and face.

My gay physicist friend would disagree.

Re:Note to the BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean a better picture, or a more flattering picture?

Sorry, but this is what Steve looks like. He's not beautiful - you might even say he's ugly, depending -, but it's what's real. Reality sometimes doesn't conform to our wishes, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

I for one applaud the BBC for using an accurate picture, one that shows the real Steve, not some made-up media personality. I don't want him to look good in photos, at least if that's a lie - I want him to look the way he really looks like.

Re:Note to the BBC

[cwtrex]

Speaking of his mind, hopefully we save some of that DNA!

Re:haha

[blind biker]

He's been one of the most alive people I have ever known, and his life is still a great inspiration for me.

The Facts

[eldavojohn]

He was given 2-3 years to live ... at age 21 due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

He contracted pneumonia in 1985 and would never speak naturally again as a result of the surgery to save his life.

When the odds are stacked against you, a "fantastic will to live" can seem pretty insignificant. I'm grateful we've had his presence for this long but these are the facts.

I'm not afraid to show Stephen Hawking we're shocked and mortified that we might lose him. I hope we don't but I'm not one to go through life with a "everything's going to be just fine" attitude masking my true feelings. I followed Robert Jordan's disease in mortified fear and I'll follow Stephen Hawking's progress in mortified fear. I would like him to know how much the world will miss him before it is too late.

I am grateful for all that he has done in stealing knowledge from the unknown and delivering it to mankind. I know my own personal state of understanding owes him a great deal.

Re:The Facts

[Povno]

I second those thoughts for both Robert Jordan and Stephen Hawking. R.J. was a brilliant craftsman of the English language; and I think he knew he would be missed; given that he wrote until his body could no longer function. As for Hawking. He is the greatest mind of our time. He will truly be missed; but he will always be with us. Every innovation for the progression of mankind will be founded on the knowledge that he gave us. We will travel to the stars on the backs of his ideas.

Re:The Facts

[Junior J. Junior III]

I am grateful for all that he has done in stealing knowledge from the unknown and delivering it to mankind. I know my own personal state of understanding owes him a great deal.

Hey, now. Don't say that too loudly, or the Unknown Knowledge Industry Association of America will sue him into silence.

Re:The Facts

[DarthVain]

Even if you discount his contribution to science, which is considerable he is pretty amazing.

As someone who has ALS, aka Lou Gehrig's Disease, aka motor neuron disease, run in the family (Gradfather died from it) and has read up on it a lot, it is remarkable that he is even alive, let alone a scientist of some repute.

By the time most are diagnosed they only live for a handful of years.

Anyway I hope he recovers from this and continues to lead such a productive life. Best wishes.

Re:The Facts

[MightyMartian]

It was sad when Jordan died, but "brilliant craftsman" never came to my mind when I read his turgid, awkward prose. I never understood the people who compared him to Tolkien. It's like comparing the Cookie Monster to Shakespeare.

Re:The Facts

[anothy]

it's funny. i spend a lot of time with people who spend most of their time with the sick and dying. it seems to me that when the odds are stacked against you, a fantastic will to live can be the most significant thing in the world. i'm not sure what "facts" you think you're citing.

Re:The Facts

[Penguinshit]

One actually can speak normally after a tracheostomy with the use of a Passy-Muir valve (a one way valve permitting inspiration but forcing expiration up around the trach through the vocal cords). I use one as I still have some remaining strength in my diaphragm. Professor Hawking phrenic nerve is totally wasted at this point.

Re:The Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

He was given 2-3 years to live ... at age 21 due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

When the odds are stacked against you, a "fantastic will to live" can seem pretty insignificant. I'm grateful we've had his presence for this long but these are the facts.
 

He was wrongly diagnosed back then or else he would have been dead in 5 years at most, just as they said. The only thing his survival tought us was that he did NOT have ALS. The diagnostic procedure of that time wasn't very precise I guess. (And yes, I am a doctor - soon to be, anyway).

His ability to overcome his disability though, THAT is an inspiration to humankind!

Re:The Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the clarification - the article didn't make it clear whether he was recently a post-graduate or whether he had outlived the estimates.

Re:The Facts

[bitrex]

One has to speculate on whether Hawking was diagnosed correctly with ALS. There have been cases of patients diagnosed with ALS recovering when treated for Lyme disease with large doses of antibiotics - the testing for the Lyme spirochete is notoriously inaccurate. I know this because I suffered from all the symptoms of MS except I had no evidence of autoimmune disease and no lesions in my central nervous system. Spent years trying to get answers from physicians with no luck - until I had some Western blots done at a quality lab which showed band after band of pathogen-specific antibodies. I improved greatly on antibiotics. It could all of course be some coincidence, but from my perspective it's hard to imagine that's the case. There may be a close link between autoimmune diseases and infectious diseases that we're not seeing.

Re:The Facts

[bitrex]

I should add that the one bit of clinical history that almost no physician took into account was spending huge amounts of time growing up hiking in the woods of New England.

Re:The Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that he lived much longer than would be expected for ALS, what do you base your opinion that this diagnosis is wrong?

I would really like to know, I checked the Wikipedia page on Stephen Hawking, which I assume would be likely to at least mention any speculation that this diagnosis is wrong, but at the time I checked it there wasn't.

Re:The Facts

[Povno]

I never understood the comparison either. Tolkien was a poet, he practically constructed stories as if they were songs. Jordan was craftsman because he was so adept at creating imagery; he wasn't fancy about it in the least. What he did do was show you a world instead of telling you of it. Although I found your cookie monster analogy somewhat funny; I think that is a bit harsh. He should have a little more credit than that. He was hardly a hack.

futurama, schmuturama...

[martas]

steve is god. gods don't die.

Re:futurama, schmuturama...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a Nile song that claims otherwise, give it a listen.

A long time ago...

[Jhon]

I had the pleasure of seeing one of his lectures. This was before the breathing tube and voice synth. Honestly couldn't understand a word he was saying. One of his undergrads would translate for him. Went something like this:

Hawking: "hmm um mumb bllum blbl lun udn ummm mummb lum mum".

SomeGuy: "And we should see a large burst of gamma radiation."

I had a less than elegant friend with me who leaned over to me and whispered: "Wouldn't it be funny if the guy in the wheel chair was just some retarded kid and the other guy was a genius who didn't want noterity?"

Re:A long time ago...

[Dystopian Rebel]

the other guy was a genius who didn't want noterity

Your English teacher must have been a Hawking of spelling.

Re:A long time ago...

[Jhon]

notoriety

Happy? Your English teacher must have been the Soup Nazi.

Re:A long time ago...

[Joe E. Deacon]

I had a less than elegant friend with me who leaned over to me and whispered: "Wouldn't it be funny if the guy in the wheel chair was just some retarded kid and the other guy was a genius who didn't want noterity?"

Gnnn n nnneh gknnn.

Re:A long time ago...

[evil agent]

Your English teacher must have been the Soup Nazi.

Correction: Alphabet Soup Nazi.

Re:A long time ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me a pretty good Sherlock Holmes movie (with Michael Cane) where SH was a poster-boy idiot and all the mysteries were in fact solved by Watson. Forgot the name of the film though ...

Re:A long time ago...

[Dystopian Rebel]

Your English teacher must have been the Soup Nazi.

It was just an old-fashioned school, where they marked wrong answers "Wrong" instead of "1/2 point, nice try, your mistake shows tremendous promise and creativity."

Re:A long time ago...

[emurphy42]

*looks up*

Without a Clue

Re:A long time ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!That one has Michael Caine, an entirely differnt actor. You STUPID RETARDED MORONIC OFFSPRING OF A SLUT AND A NIGGER.

Re:A long time ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

School prepares you for life.

Life isn't black and white.

So why should school be?

Quick get him the Nobel Prize

[MosesJones]

What is amazing is that despite coming up with the theoretical basis behind the big bang and a whole bunch of other stuff he is still yet to win the Nobel Prize. Hopefully this is just Professor Hawking's way of making a VERY big hint to the awards committee.

Yes I know its about theoretical pieces that must be proven by experimentation, but surely the big bang is worth it on its own.

Re:Quick get him the Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt old people don't care. Remember how Einstein won the Nobel Prize for something that WASN'T relativity? I bet it's going to be the same for Hawking if he ever gets it, that is.

Re:Quick get him the Nobel Prize

[edremy]

Einstein got it for the photoelectric effect, and it was richly deserved. It was a property that could easily be observed and tested (unlike relativity, which was a lot harder to verify) and that couldn't be explained by classical physics but could be through quantum mechanics. Winning for PE wasn't a bad thing

What was bad was that he missed out on the other *4* he should have gotten

Photoelectric effect (won)
Special relativity
General relativity
Brownian motion
Heat capacity of crystals

Einstein really was a staggering genius.

Oh no!

[flintmecha]

We should visit him!

Person that inspires

[SalaSSin]

Ever since i saw him at a lecture at ULB in Brussels, i have been inspired by the sheer willpower this man has, let alone his understanding of physics (even if some theories have been disproved).

Respect for Stephen Hawking, hopefully he'll get through this!

Decades Lost

[kenp2002]

I fear his death would set us back decades. With the LHC going online his loss would potentially leave a a vaccume in the world of physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and mathmatics.

Black Holes research among other astronomical phenomena (high energy) could gain a wealth of information from the LHC's test results. Without him for those early few years guiding the new generation through the initial results, I fear they may flounder and miss important initial indicators on WHERE to look setting us back decades. I have learned over the years that experience is crucial in research. Fresh minds innovate and take risks, experience guides those innovators on where to start looking rather then randomly sifting through data, while effective, is time wasted.

"Better to walk the path for a life time then to spend a lifetime looking for the path. Even when wrong at least you went somewhere. Where is the path you ask? Ask someone walking it." - Me.

Re:Decades Lost

[PacoCheezdom]

So is science about scientists, or about the new understandings of things which are generated?

Certainly, Professor Hawking has made significant contributions to physics and astronomy, and his ability to do so while his ability to communicate became increasingly handicapped has been an inspiration to people. However, no matter how brilliant or inspirational he is, he's just one man. If science really still is about expanding human knowledge dispassionately, then others who are just as experienced but lesser known can just as easily come forward and help to understand the implications of the LHC results just as well as Hawking.

Re:Decades Lost

[frank_adrian314159]

I fear his death would set us back decades.

WTF? I mean seriously... get a grip.

The guy was a good physicist, but what do you think he'd see that others in his field would miss? He wasn't the only one working on black holes and, in reality, most of the stuff coming out of the LHC would be more in the area of quantum gravity, rather than in the macro-scale phenomena he worked on. Also, as far as I know, his output has declined in the past few years already.

He's good, but he's not that good.

Re:Decades Lost

[SwordsmanLuke]

"Better to walk the path for a life time then to spend a lifetime looking for the path. Even when wrong at least you went somewhere. Where is the path you ask? Ask someone walking it." - Me.

...I'm sorry that you get the brunt of this, but I just <rant>CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! DON'T ATTRIBUTE YOUR OWN QUOTES! JUST SAY SOMETHING AND LET SOMEONE ELSE QUOTE YOU!</rant>

Re:he's faking it over embarassment...

[jnaujok]

I think it's far more likely that Hawking found out that he was being connected to that vicious rape of a particularly good kids show (Isaac Asimov wrote for the show) and is dying from *that* embarrassment. Someone, please stop Will Ferrell before it's too late!

Brief History of Time

[tpheiska]

Magnificent book. I got a copy when I was under 10 years old and read it, changed my life. I heard a great quote concerning it: "It is one of the most bought, least read books in the world that every owner claims to understand". I truly hope he pulls through.

P.S. I understood the book.

Re:Brief History of Time

[Chris Tucker]

It took me several readings and some other books to "get it".

Talk about an "ahHA!" moment.

Re:Brief History of Time

[Coan_teen]

I'm alright with admitting that I only grasp about 50% of any Hawking publication I've tried to read. It's fascinating stuff, but the math trips me up every time. Still, between his writing and Feynman's, I understand a hell of a lot more about how the universe works than I would have if I had just accepted my public school education as the be-all end-all of information.

Dr. Hawking

[Tolkien]

Please please PLEASE get well soon! :(

Re:oh yea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he would prefer an attractive woman.

Re:Breaking: Condition downgraded to "dead"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. Stupid prankster.

Re:he's faking it over embarassment...

[Aladrin]

I remember the show from when I was a kid and 'particularly good' didn't really describe it.

'Decent' or 'better than most of the other dreck' yes, but not 'particularly good.'

I'll be going to see the movie with the understanding that other than having sleestacks (spelling? ... Do they even call them that in the movie?) and dinosaurs, it's not going to be the same at all.

In the end Gravity and Time get us all

[Walter Wart]

Dr. Hawking can at least have the satisfaction of knowing that he took as many of their secrets as any man in history.

Re:Breaking: Condition downgraded to "dead"

[gyrogeerloose]

As of 13:50 EDT, there is no report of Hawking's death on the NYT Web site.

What Do Atoms Do When Friday Night Comes?

[CyberSlammer]

They go to the bar and get smashed...*boom ching*

My Personal Hero

[toppings]

I've had this article on my cube wall for the last 8 years. On mine, the headline reads "Hawking urges engineered humans".

Re:he's faking it over embarassment...

[satoshi1]

Nothing wrong with being proven wrong in the field of SCIENCE. That's the whole point behind science and the scientific process. We've discovered many things because of Hawking, whether he was right about it to begin with or not.

He's already outlived Sagan

[JoshuaZ]

I can't help make a comparison between Hawking and Carl Sagan. Sagan was also a great popularizer of science in addition to being an accomplished scientist in his own right. Like Sagan, Hawking has serious health problems (although Hawking's are much more severe than Sagan's). Sagan only lived to 62 and his death was connected to lung problems. I do hope we aren't seeing the same pattern for death as well as life.

Re:He's already outlived Sagan

[some old guy]

I dare say that, he having been dead for several years, Dr. Sagan's health problems are a good bit more severe than Prof. hawking's.

"Very ILL" In Hospital ???

[anonymousNR]

Who would be "very awesome" in a hospital ? By the way "Very unwell" is a better choice of words.

Re:"Very ILL" In Hospital ???

[Ma8thew]

He could be 'slightly ill' in hospital.

Re:"Very ILL" In Hospital ???

[LWATCDR]

On should never be slightly ill in the Hospital. If you are slightly ill you are better off at home.
Of course he is already very ill to start with.

God and Stephen

[WED Fan]

I see God sitting down with Stephen, winking and then saying something like, "Hey, did you get what I did with that 10 dimension thing and how it really changes when you look at it in 11 dimensions. Trippy, right?"

Re:God and Stephen

[Anonymous Coward]

I see God sitting down with Stephen, winking and then saying something like, "Hey, did you get what I did with that 10 dimension thing and how it really changes when you look at it in 11 dimensions. Trippy, right?"

Hawking: I also spotted your unintentional mistake which become clear when you look at in 12 dimensions
God: You mother-fsckin' smartass

Re:God and Stephen

[Anonymous Coward]

But since you don't get to keep your possessions, poor Stephen won't have his wheelchair/Speak n' Spell and it won't be much of a conversation.

Re:God and Stephen

[WED Fan]

Since some theories hold that when you die you become one with the Universe, I see god getting a whole lot smarter when Stephen finally joins him.

Re:God and Stephen

[bigredradio]

That's pretty much how the God of my understanding would be.

Re:God and Stephen

[master_p]

And this is one of the greatest moments in televised sci-fi history:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hawking-Einstein-Newton-and-Data-Playing-Poker

Re:God and Stephen

[Petrini]

Would God even have time to reply before he admitted an error and disappeared in a puff of logic?

First one to run into Mr. Adams should ask.

completely shocked :(

[fitash]

There won't be a new book of the Dark Tower series :(. I guess that this time the van hit the right point

Time scale?

[SEWilco]

Isn't he still "a post-graduate"?
I think the sentence is referring to a period of several decades, not one ambiguously timed academic achievement. I think he did not become post-grad when he was 15 years old, so the error range is only a few years.

Re:Time scale?

[petermgreen]

Isn't he still "a post-graduate"?
The term postgraduate usually reffers to someone who has completed thier bachelors degree (or completed a direct to masters program) and is studying towards a higher degree (masters or phd).

After completing thier phd if the person stays in academia they will typically end up with a temporary reaseach job. Such people are generally reffered to as "postdocs".

Eventually a few of those postdocs (most will leave academia and go into industry) will then get permanent jobs as lecturers and eventually a few of those lecturers will get jobs as proffessors.

note: this is based on the UK system which is the relevent one for this subject, I don't know if and how US conventions differ. It is also based on the system as it stands today, I don't know how much things have changed since hawkings day.

So maybe

[greymond]

He'll figure out a way to get his head in Jar and go on forever like those celebrities in Futurama...

you down with entropy?

[SendBot]

A choice of lyrics from MC Hawkings' "Entropy":

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.

John Dobson Quote...

[VoxMagis]

I used to be an avid amateur astronomer. My club was hosting an event with John Dobson, who, at least at that time, was kind of considered the 'uber-amateur'.

He was talking about his views of Physics and such, suddenly stopped and said "You can't ARGUE with Hawking, it takes too damn long!"

Preserve Brain

[Stratocastr]

Im curious to know if they will freeze his brain after he's gone. I mean, the dude's very smart, very famous and very ill. Someone must have considered it..

Re:haha

[Kjella]

I'm not sure he'd agree with you on that.

Unless he's a zombie, I don't see how he'd agree either way.

Re:Devine interventian

[omnichad]

You thinking of Dawkins, troll?

Fearing the worst

[Ian.Waring]

My mother died of Motor Neurone Disease at age 42. In the end, all the hospital would do was to "run tests" on her. Those appear to be the same words being used on the news bulletins in the UK atm.

I wouldn't wish this condition on my worst enemy.

Ian W.

Re:Fearing the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine died at 43 of ALS. She was diagnosed in 99 and died days before 2001. Two years verses Hawking's many many more.

You are right. This is a horrible disease.

More than handicapped

[Anonymous Coward]

He has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. It killed my mom in 2 years. He was diagnosed in college... when he was like 21.

He's now 67.

He's an amazing man just for his sheer fortitude and will to live. This is a very hard disease to live with. It's not just that you have some paralysis. You lose motor control over ALL your muscles... you can't hold your head up... you can't lift your hand... your every need is dependent on others...

and despite this he has become one of the foremost astrophysicists of our time.

Maybe not the smartest man on earth, but definitely a level of amazing few of us will ever reach.

Re:More than handicapped

[MsGeek]

I lost my dad to ALS when I was 12. He was diagnosed when I was 8. 46 years with ALS is literally unprecedented. Most people don't make it to the 5th year after diagnosis. I hope he's willed his body to science because his final act of discovery might be to help medical science figure out how to slow the progression of the disease.

Oh yeah: if you want to do something in Dr. Hawking's honor, drop a few coins ALSA's way. The DNA of the foundation my mom started after my dad was diagnosed is a part of the current charity.

Re:More than handicapped

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah: if you want to do something in Dr. Hawking's honor, drop a few coins ALSA's way. The DNA of the foundation my mom started after my dad was diagnosed is a part of the current charity.

What does sound on Linux have to do with Stephen Hawking? Am I missing something here?

Oh, wait... does his voice synthesizer run on Linux?

Re:More than handicapped

[tommyhj]

Sorry to hear about your loss. But as you say, 46 years with ALS is unprecedentet. After the first 20 years of survival, they should have canceled the ALS diagnosis, as it evidently wasn't correct... He's amazing because of so many thing he DID inspite of his condition. Not because of his passive survival of a disease he did not have.

Re:More than handicapped

[giuda]

For a moment I thought: "Damn, Stephen Hawking also writes Linux audio drivers in his free time?"

Most trolled article ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen so much fail in comments about a single article before.

Hope he pulls through

[Atrox666]

If not I hope his exploration of his next reality is as fruitful as this one.

P.S. I disagree with almost all of his theories but appreciate how many people he's actually enabled to even have an opinion on physics/cosmology. He's done more for science education than all the highschools put together.

Way OT, but

[ThatsNotPudding]

could someone explain to me the origins of this type of different phrasing between American 'in the Hospital' and English 'in Hospital'?

Re:haha

[atraintocry]

There were some rumors going around, turns out they were greatly exaggerated.

Warning: bad joke ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

If we put him in the box early and close the lid with something dangerous in it, we can keep him both alive and dead forever!

Wait, I'm posting this A/C...

A beautiful story from a beautiful mind...

[lamapper]

Stephen Hawking, we wish you well.

From David Adair s book, America s fall from Space, while I admit that I have not read the book yet, it is on my list. I have quite a bit about David Adair on the radio and the stories are as excellent as they are incredible. An incredible American who is now teaching Science somewhere in the Caribbean.

David was young when they met, around 11 years of age.

Dr. Stephen Hawking, who at that time had just received his Ph.D. in Theoretical Astrophysics and was at the beginning of his own career. When they met and David was asked for the source of his formulas, he sheepishly replied that many came to him in dreams. To that Stephen Hawking replied, I get a lot of my ideas through dreams also. We dream on the same wavelength; therefore, that makes us brothers.

May the story bring you a smile during darker days.

RIP Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got word that he passed away a few hours ago.

Re:RIP Stephen Hawking

[adavidw]

No, this is Stephen Hawking we're talking about. You're thinking of Stephen King.

Update - Situation Improved

[DavidD_CA]

An updated posted not too long ago on BBC's site says this:

"Leading scientist Stephen Hawking's condition has "improved" after being admitted to hospital with chest problems, Cambridge University says."

I'm not gonna squander an excuse to quote Bakunin

[seandiggity]

ok.. Any intelligence which is that conceited, petty and needy has no buisness being worshipped. Actually such an intelligence wouldnt even have my respect.

A jealous lover of human liberty, deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him. - Mikhail Bakunin

over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

he has done nothing for mankind other than come up with theorys on things. which have done NOTHING.

A Firestorm

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?

I am the OP of the words above which seems to have started a firestorm of sorts. I find it somewhat perplexing that people could become so offended or outraged over my words. My words only expressed two thoughts.

1) One that Mr. Hawking get well.
2) That he have everlasting life by accepting Jesus Christ for that day when he will die. We all die someday.

It may have been somewhat presumptuous for me to suggest that he is not saved. But to the best of my knowledge he is he is still very much the Atheist. I could be wrong, I hope so. If you have knowledge or evidence that he has repudiated his Atheism and accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour the please post this information.

In any case, whether he becomes saved or not, I wish him a speedy recovery.

don't forget to use the -M option

[Randle_Revar]

"When the revolution comes, and the people who haven't converted to git get
sent to the gulags, we'll make "-M" the default. In the meantime, please
use it when sending patches for review and for me to apply." - Linus Torvalds

The name Steve

[dafing]

Anyone notice how the brightest men are named "steve"? Steven, Stephen, Theres Wozniak, Hawking, Jobs, Ballmer, um, hold the last one maybe? Is there another first name so closely linked to genius?

I met him once

[wickerprints]

There's something about him that almost invariably goes unappreciated unless you have the chance to interact with him. I'm not talking about listening to him deliver a speech or lecture; nor am I talking about simply exchanging greetings.

I had the rare opportunity to participate in a dialogue with Dr. Hawking. You know, as in one of us asks a question or makes a statement, and the other one replies. A conversation, if you will. But what was immediately, almost painfully, obvious from the outset is that this was no ordinary conversation. It took the better part of an hour to exchange the equivalent amount of information that would normally take at most a few minutes of most people's time. And yes, it seems like a *duh* kind of observation, but it is not until you actually experience it that you begin to develop the appreciation for his stature and how he has coped with his lot in life.

Unlike lectures and speeches, a real-time conversation cannot be composed in advance. One of us would ask a question, and there would be no response. We would have to wait through this incredibly pregnant pause while he composed his answer, one word, one letter at a time. Once he was finished, it would then burst forth from his synthesizer in this electronically modulated artificial voice. And yes, we did ask whether he had an interest in changing that voice, given the advances in speech synthesis algorithms, to provide a more "natural" expression. He didn't see any reason to.

The greatest lesson any of us got out of that conversation that evening with Dr. Hawking, is that every moment is valuable. Choose our words, our thoughts, our actions, with purpose and efficiency. And yet, learn to develop patience for that which you have no control over. I would find it maddening to be forced to communicate at 1/20th the speed of most everyone else, and yet have full, unfettered speed of thought. It is the realization that the vast majority of people on this planet take for granted the time which passes in each moment, each day, and do not fill it to its potential, that I am reminded of when I think about my encounter with Dr. Hawking.

Make each moment count. May he have a speedy and full recovery.

hit by the bus.

[bronney]

To quantumplate the mass of the man, do what CIA do. Who can take his place? I don't know anyone that can. The fact that "scientists" can think of a successor isn't the point. That's how great this dude is.

Stevie I love your book btw, rest up and come back? :)

reboot

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they tried turning him off then on again?

Reboot

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they try turning him off and back on again?

He will be fine either way

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a scientist that believes in God, so he should be cool regardless. Loved his books and his mind.