Stephen Hawking Takes on Isaac Newton; Christians Respond

The Christian Post ^ | September 5, 2010 | Eric Young

[wmfights]

Newton, who left enduring legacies in mathematics and the natural sciences, had centuries ago warned against using the law of gravity - which he discovered - to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock.

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done,” the 17th century scientist and non-Trinitarian Anglican stated.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being,” he added.

Hawking, however, says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” because there is a law such as gravity.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in his soon-to-be-released book, The Grand Design. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper (fuse) and set the universe going."

[barnicus]

Undermined himself with the title:

“The Grand Design”

/facepalm

[scottiemom]

I pray he does but let's face it, Hawking is a brilliant man who is very close to death. He will most likely find out very shortly that he was dead wrong for eternity.

[Eddie01]

Hawking is a Tool.

[muawiyah]

Look, you people are getting caught up with semantic differentials. Energy is "something"; matter is "something"; laws (and fields) are "something". You can convert energy to matter, and matter to energy. With particles popping up out of the vacuum all the time, gravity is not just on its own.

The Universe may well "self-assemble" because of the existence of the laws.

[muawiyah]

The “Big Bang” is not discredited ~ maybe measured with more precision, and maybe we don’t quite understand the scale of the totality of the universe, but what we call the “Big Bang” is still there ~ just as it was described in Genesis.

[dartuser]

You mean “First there was nothing ... then it exploded” isnt true?

[naturalized]

One of the reasons why Hawking doesn't get it:

In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

In every culture, the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design. It's called Genesis 1. Amateur. He ought to stick to science.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Meet some friends of mine.

[RegulatorCountry]

He’s angry at God for what he sees as trapping him in that body, imho. Railing and raging that he doesn’t believe out of sheer venom and spite. So much energy expended upon a nonbelief? No, he believes but denies.

[SunkenCiv]

additional:

• Stephen Hawking's latest book fails to disprove God
• The Grand Design:
  Hawking on Gravity and Creation, and William Lane Craig on More.
• Is Intelligence By Association Possible?
• Stephen Hawking vs. God
• Professor Stephen Hawking says no God created Universe
• God did not create the universe, says Hawking
• Stephen Hawking Picks Physics Over God for Big Bang
• Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

archival:

• Stephen Hawking just doesn't get it
  (asserting the superiority of science over religion)
• Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says
  Pope told him not to study beginning of universe
• The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?
• Hawking: God may play dice after all

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

I bet they wish they never debunked the steady state theory.

So very true.

I recently posted a relevant reply but rather than repeating it, here's the link if you're interested.

[LiteKeeper]

The “Big Bang” is not described in Genesis 1:1.

[LiteKeeper]

Can only guess you haven't been keeping up on cosmology. The "Big Bang" is rapidly losing credibility. A problem is that the scientific establishment is suppressing contradictory evidence, but there is a lot being written on it.

A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology

[blasater1960]

I am somewhat suprised Hawkings is stating the law of gravity as a means stating there need not be a G-d. According to M theory even constants may be completely different from one Brane to another and the requirements for life in our universe allow virtually no variation in any given constant or the whole thing wont work.

And I am not entirely sold on the concept that our universe was created by two Branes colliding, that seems rather convienient.

[ROTB]

>jjotto; papabrody; blasater1960

Greetings!

[Mikey_1962]

I would note that Hawking's "free lunch" theory violates the logical law of causality and the concept of "nothing" violates the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction.

Faith is faith and therefore not subject to the human invention of logic. Either you have it or you do not.

Chasing your belief system via science or logic is like a dog chasing a car. Even if you do 'catch' it, what do you do with it and what does it have to do with faith?

Do not rise to the temporal bait.

Be unshakable in your beliefs.

[Zionist Conspirator]

ROTB is one of those “bodies without a soul” . . . and a particularly annoying one, at that.

[wmfights]

Thanks for the link.

[Zionist Conspirator]

And I am not entirely sold on the concept that our universe was created by two Branes colliding, that seems rather convienient.

I have no idea what a "Brane" is, but if the universe was created by two of them colliding then there was no creation ex nihilo (beri'ah yesh me'ayin).

The whole point is that atheists are at heart a-nihilists who cannot admit the concept of absolute nothingness prior to the universe's coming-to-be. They always have to have some kind of "raw material" from which the universe was created. This is essentially no different from the concept of the eternity of the universe or of matter or of physicality.

[circlecity]

"Faith is faith and therefore not subject to the human invention of logic. Either you have it or you do not."

I disagree. Paul himself says that God reveals himself in his creation. That is by definition temporal proof and would include the laws of logic. Our faith is not "blind faith" or a "leap of faith". God gave us plenty of evidence to support our faith.