Posted on 04/19/2013 6:47:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hey, you’re asking the wrong person. I was just quoting Dr. Hawking.
Ping to Post 38, and creative use of Legos.
The Big Bang theory is actually falling apart. Latest fad in physics is poking holes in it.
The Big Bang theory is actually falling apart. Latest fad in physics is poking holes in it.
Their answer to that question is the most irrational response possible ... nothing; nothing caused nothing to go from nothing to something.
A sophomore in mathematics would tear him a new one.
RE: The Big Bang theory is actually falling apart. Latest fad in physics is poking holes in it.
So, what theory is taking its place?
The problem with Hawking’s supposition is that there never truly was NOTHING in the beginning.
From what (little) I understand the classical interpretation of the red shift is really getting hammered.
Probably the most popular alternative is the cyclical universe where it contracts to a tiny ( but not infinity small volume ) only to re-expand.
We aren't. They only show us what a person with a depraved mind 'thinks' and then it comes out of his mouth. They show us how the "I'm so smart" is really a fool. Amazing, isn't it - how they appear as one thing to the 'world'/natural and - they are the exact opposite in God's Kingdom/Supernatural.
Hawkins gets an "F" in mathematics. 70 or 90 years to him appears to be greater than eternity.
How’s about we start with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”?
Sometimes we find what we seek right in front of us, the most obvious answer to the question (Occams Razor).
Old saying, “if you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras (unless you are in Africa)”.
Best;
exactly...there has to be an Uncaused-cause. We know him as God the creator. “I AM”
But this scientific mind (Hawking) cannot move into the metaphysical. So should we expect anything other than a search for “NO GOD”?
I was going to say the same thing. I love how Job was put in his place.
The problem with this whole line of reasoning is it is not testable. Instead of verses Hawkings has math which is just another abstract way to state things but still present a position no more provable or disprovable than a belief based on blind faith. While he has every right to his opinion the idea that he is leveraging his scientific standing as a means to present what is essentially an ideology as if it is science demonstrates the primary problem with many secular scientists today. They know that the GOD question is beyond their domain of testability just as the ultimate question of what existed before creation. They can of course and do craft what are possible theories but those theories are really no better than someone writing a fiction book. Evolutionists do the same thing when they ascribe anthropomorphic causality to evolution while at the same time denying the possibility of an intelligent driver. Its the magic elephant in the corner that they deny. They present equally incredulous ideas that are when distilled just a more complicated religion crafted of arcane mathematics and ideas that are no more testable than the existence of angels or supernatural events.
They like to pull a slight of hand, they provide a cocktail of the observable testable phenomenon and chase it with a heavy dollop of their own fantastic biases and fantasies.
A true scientific purist would be agnostic in all things because they would be aware of the limits of their own knowledge and the ability to test and truly understand phenomenon. Instead what we have are individuals that though they don’t believe in God try to assume that position themselves expecting us to just trust their supremacy and intellectual infallibility.
That Hawking needs to try to “make a case for a Big Bang without God” suggests that he fears a big bang with God. God is his boogeyman and given his situation I may even understand his disdain for the idea of a God. That said I find it fascinating that those that don’t believe God exists spend so much energy on the subject. I’ve never felt the need to try to disprove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. People believe all kinds of things that are unprovable and I’d venture that even those that fancy themselves scientific minded really don’t grasp enough to really comprehend with certainty what they claim to believe.
We are all limited by our human experience and the filters through which we view things. It doesn’t mean of course we stop believing it just means that we are honest with ourselves about what we truly know and the limits of our knowledge.
There wasn't any time before the Big Bang, so your question is meaningless.
Ask the Unitarians. I would think that question would be more applicable to them.
But for those of us who believe in the Holy Trinity, the answer to what God was doing before the creation is simple: God was in love. He was a Family of Love before all ages: The Father loved His Own Divine Word, His only-begotten Son, and that Love between Them was so total, so complete, that it begot a third divine person: the Holy Spirit.
God is not just loving, he IS Love. Literally. Before anything was created, before the heavens and the earth, before time and before the angels, God was the eternity of perfect Love.
The creation came about not because of any *need* for creatures, but out of a pure superabundance of Trinitarian love that delights in sharing itself and being shared, much as a loving family might want to share that joy with a dog, a cat, a goldfish and some hermit crabs.
RE: Probably the most popular alternative is the cyclical universe where it contracts to a tiny ( but not infinity small volume ) only to re-expand.
The The Steinhardt–Turok model has been proposed for a long time.
It is not without its problems.
Mathematical physicist and physical chemist (who worked with Einstein at Caltech), showed, the earlier cyclic model failed because the universe would undergo inevitable thermodynamic heat death.
I know that the newer cyclic model evades this by having a net expansion each cycle, preventing entropy from building up. However, there remain major open issues in the model. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch.
Moreover, as with cosmic inflation, while the general character of the forces (in the ekpyrotic scenario, a force between branes) required to create the vacuum fluctuations is known, there is no candidate from particle physics.
AMEN! Who created time? who created everything? this “genius” is determined to disprove God only because he refuses to submit himself to the authority of the Almighty God and because he is angry that he is disabled. Satan has used Hawking’s intelligence and emotions to deceive him, and now even worse, Hawkings tries to deceive others.
Faith is like the wind: can’t see it, but can see it’s influence. Can’t touch it, but can feel it. Pray for this stubborn man and all others who refuse to acknowledge their Creator. One day they will be held accountable, and they will cry out when they are separated from Him forever.
God already knew there would be 'a Hawkins' and they are too clueless to realize before 'they were' - He already spoke of 'them' 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God'. as HE did put a knowledge - there is a God - in all of us Hawkins doesn't know God instilled that in all of - while he's trying to convince others of what his depraved mind tells him is true/real. Pitiful man - he had to work to attain that depravity, also, by not allowing Truth to enter.
All that studying and; yet, he still comes up with the wrong answer. Looking for answers/Truth in all the wrong places.
Actually the big bang theory is not falling apart. It has just become incorporated into a larger theory. The Big bang theory was proposed because it explains the observable evidence (cosmic background radiation and expansion of the universe) The big bang theory only goes back to the singularity but could not explain what happened before. The multiple universe theory still says the big bang happened but attempts to explain what happened before it. Not saying that it is correct by the way but it does fill in a lot of gaps left by other theories, such as why is gravity as weak a force as it is in the universe.
Never was a Hawking fan as far as theoretical physics goes.
My fav is still Einstein....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.