Skip to comments.Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe
Posted on 09/02/2010 6:21:27 AM PDT by tlb
click here to read article
Stephen Hawking needs to stick to his day job. Speaking out on matters of theology, man-made global warming or other subject matters where he has no knowledge or understand makes as much sense as a celebrity shilling for a cause.
As smart as he is, he FAILS! There has to be an uncaused cause. Spontaneous creation is a far worse theory that undermines all science as we know it.
Stephen will find out soon enough that he is wrong. I pray he fill figure that out before he passes from this life.
I’ve never understood why so many people fawn over Hawking or think that he is so smart. My guess is that the guy who “interprets’ his grunts and groans is the “brains” and Hawking is the Charley McCarthy of the duo. If Hawking said this, then it proves that theory.
THE most insidious lie that Satan has put over on humans is that “people are basically good”.
Then everyone spends all their time and intellect trying to justify their own “goodness” instead of accepting their true sin nature.
This justification leads to people rejecting the authority of Scripture and ultimately rejecting the existance of God.
Or that an ink factory blew up into a bunch of dictionaries.
The statement is self-vitiating and assumes the very thing in question. Scientific laws, physical forces such as gravity, and the Universe are not "nothing". They are something. He is essential asserting that nothing will create something.
But it is irrational and incoherent to assert, as he does, "there is" when there is nothing.
He could assume that the universe has always existed, but then it is irrational and incoherent to assert, as he does, that the Universe created itself.
Hawking has found himself on the lunatic edge of the physical explanation supplanting mystical explanation.
Newton was always careful to say that just because he was proposing a predictable and measurable natural law to explain planetary motion, that God was still responsible.
Now scientific inquiry has pushed back natural causation to the very beginnings of the universe, and while it seems obvious that God created a universe that is self-sufficient and self-consistent according to natural laws (’God created a universe that doesn't “need” God’ as someone once said it), does the creation itself now not need a creator, do natural laws not need a lawgiver?
Hawkins was one of the first to admit that the laws we know of break down at the creation event - thus he is operating on no more evidence than the faithful, and has left science far behind in favor of his own personal philosophy.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Depends on your definition of God
Um, Stephen, I thought you were supposed to be a genius or something.
If there is nothing, there is no gravity. Gravity won't act on a vaccuum and create matter out of itself.
Geez, I can't believe the people that fall for whatever these guys say just because they claim to be smart.
LOL...where did the parts come from? In fact, where did the box come from?
A while back he had some “yo-yo” theory to explain the physics present at the beginning of creation...
I must admit I never understood why evolution is incompatible with Christianity, I always believed that whatever it is that evolution supposedly is, is the way God worked.
The Bible says God created the world in 7 days, I don’t take that literally, after all a day is the time it takes for the Earth to revolve one time, it’s a man-made unit of measure. To God, a “day” may very well have been millions of years.
“Whered those laws of physics come from...?”
so we are both made in His image and basically bad?
Only because some scientists think it has to be. If you're a Jew or a Christian, then you know that God cannot be observed by humans. As a result, using science to "prove" the existence of God will never work.
Most such people also refuse to have a grounded understanding of God before making claims that certain things that happen on Earth somehow "disprove" His existence. I am not saying that all scientists have to believe in God, but when they point to things like wars, violence, natural disasters and other bad things as means of disproving the existence of God, then it shows that they lack even a basic understanding of who God is, and how He operates with respect to the human world.
You also have faith that nothing created something: nothing created God.
He is in for a big surprise
Hawking is a charlatan when he is ONLY a scientist who wants to appear as omniscientist knowing everything.
This guy is also a militant/activist who mixes hese opinions with scientific data...It’s not serious and honest.
He is used as a tool by some MSM
I wonder what type of medications Hawkin is on now? The Universe is so complex that we could not understand it if its operation was explained to us. The Universe’s accomplishment has been to create something that is aware of it.
"Nothing" has no mass and therefore cannot be acted upon by the force of gravity, right? I mean, even I know that much (I think.)
"Nothing" also implies lack of anything, including the law of gravity since that "law" must exist within a "universe" that has a system of causes and effects.
This implies one of my favorite questions to scientists:
"Just where, exactly, did the Big Bang take place? After all, it had to happen somewhere and have something into which to expand, right?"
Why can't liberal elitists (and Hawking is every bit one) admit there are somethings we will never know the answer to while on this world ?
Color me skeptical. I know the guy is smart, but I find it hard to believe he's conversant in an entire branch of physics, lets call it ex nihilo, that no one else has a clue about.
If the Big Bang depends on gravity, and gravity depends on matter/energy, and the Law of Thermodynamics says the stuff is constant and can't be created, then how can there be gravity if you start with nothing?
Or, to quote noted physicist Billy Preston, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing".
Initially made “very good”, chose to sin, now fallen and corrupted.
Yes, there are numerous scriptural passages declaring the truth of our sin nature, and none stating that people are “good”. In fact, “none are good” is directly stated, many times.
Seriously, you’re going to waste a lot of effort and emotion trying to prove yourself “a good person” until you accept this fact.
“THE most insidious lie that Satan has put over on humans is that people are basically good.”
SO true. I am re-reading Thomas Sowell’s book, “A Conflict of Visions” where our concept of basic human nature determines so much of our worldview. He posits a division based on—though not explicitly—the concept that mankind is fallen and naturally selfish and sinful. The other group believes mankind is ever-evolving, becoming more and more perfect with each generation, and capable of earthly perfection if the right people set up the right conditions. His term for human nature is “constrained” (meaning fallen) and “unconstrained” meaning no limits to mankind’s ability to improve. The groups are diametrically opposed in the way they view tradition, knowledge, sophistry, government power, everything.
Though it was published in 1987, it really describes Obama and his minions to a T as radical “unconstrained” idealists.
The big band just describes a change in matter; for small and dense to large and expanding. It in no way explains the creation of matter. Shoosh, when will physicists be honest about the limitations of their field. Its called physics for a reason: it explains the physical world. How could a physicist explain nothing, much less how nothing became something? Foolish man.
Actually, generally relativity says a day could be both 24 hours and a million years depending on the vantage point of the one doing the measuring. Time is relative.
So the atheists believe that the “laws of physics” preexisted physicality itself. That’s good to know. I always wondered about that.
The creation of the universe and the creation of man can be answered in simple terms, “God created everything”. I feel that the answer is not that simple, its beyond our comprehension, and our brains are not yet fully developed to comprehend it. I won’t knock Hawkings on his believes or theories because we can’t prove it one way or the other. He could be right or he could be wrong, at this point, its like saying God created man, or did man create God? I do believe that Hawkings IQ level far exceeds that of the average person and I do not believe he is the spawn of the Devil.
God always existed.
Our weak little minds can’t wrap around the concept of forever. We only understand time as having a finite beginning and end.
We can’t fully comprehend infinity.
Show me one theory that states complex life forms came from nothing.
A regular day is defined as having a morning and an evening.
And every day of creation was qualified as having a morning and an evening.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Seriously, it’s a supernatural event. There is no need to appease the atheists by saying a “day” is a billion years.
An egg which came from no bird is no more ‘natural’ than a bird which had existed from all eternity.
- C.S. Lewis
The universe as we know it might have begun as a big bang, but where did it all begin even before that? Hawkings’s answer is short sighted.
Funny...Hawking mentions “the LAW” of gravity. There is order to the universe and these nut jobs who deny this are in fact in denial.
Because THEY are gods.
Gen 3:4 “you will be as gods, knowing good and evil”
The book of Genesis was written using a form of Hebrew that is meant to be taken literally. It is a history/law book. It is not apocryphal (sp?) nor symbolic.
The word used for "day" literally means 24 hours. The standard earth day with which we are all famililar.
A point of infinite energy is not “nothing”
The entire universe was created from something, but not something tangible to the human mind.
Doesn’t that just mean that God created the Universe by simply thinking about it? He didn’t even have to lift a finger!
Hawking's disease and the way he presents himself to the world -- in that wheelchair and communicating only by tapping on a button, makes him a more mythical character and adds to the drama. That's why he is taken so seriously.
Now if I were really cynical I would say it's all part of an elaborate hoax to market Hawking and his "ideas". But I am not, so I won't.
So says a man who clearly has never met Oprah's tailor
I re-read the same book about a year ago...
after several years of Christian worldview studies,
it made infinitely more sense this time, though it was incredibly insightful the first time.
Sowell has never come out and stated his faith,
but no one can have that great a grasp on the TRUTH
without biblical grounding.
The funny thing is, I thought over the years since I first read it that Sowell had used religious references in defining the constrained vision. Now I see that I superimposed my own religious faith on his language. But I think you are right that his philosophy and its source is there to see for those with eyes to see.