Posted on 09/02/2010 2:40:29 PM PDT by WhatNot
LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You really have no concept of the Creator do you?
My response was to the person who claimed that God is the Universe, which is an obvious paradox.
Time is relative, and ours is most certainly not the first universe, and likely not the only one either.
Well Steven ole chap...
You royally mucked up the whole “Blackhole radiation theory”
So what makes you think you can get your nerdy little head around the Mysteries of God?
What a moron. Yet brilliant.
Then why doesn't anyone call him by "I AM"?
"I AM" is a statement that a being would make upon becoming self aware, which would lead to the logical conclusion that something else must have created the being that uttered that statement.
***Too many people think God must adhere to our very human concept of time.***
By George, I think you’ve got it;)
God never runs out of time.
The Universe is not structured by time, it is structured by space-time. There is a big difference between the two.
Psa.14:1. ‘The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God’
God is the eternal ‘I Am’.
There are quite a few people here calling Hawking an "atheist", when all he is claiming is that the Universe could have sprung into existence without the help of a "Creator" or a "God". The physics back him up, and his claim does not necessarily make him an atheist.
If Hawking claimed that ice could be created from water without the hand of a "creator", would that necessarily make him an atheist? Natural phase changes happen all of the time ... it is proven science, yet nobody claims that every ice cube has to be created by God individually. If he created the physics laws that made the ice cube able to create itself, then where is the problem? If God created a multitude of potential universes which could then follow the proven and universal laws of physics and pop into existence with any further help, then that is the same argument as that of the lowly ice cube. Itis all just physics.
Well then where did physics come from?
That’s why saying it’s all just physics doesn’t cut it.
Bottom line: “God doesn’t exist” will sell more copies of his new book than “I just don’t know” ever will.
No, I am sorry. You see, the supposed statement by God was "I am, that I am". The problem is.... there is no Hebrew word for "I AM", so you are the victim of a mis-translated later version of the Bible.
The truth is, you have no idea what was originally said, since there is no reliable translation. For all you know, he could be the "I IS".
> “I AM” is a statement that a being would make upon becoming self aware.
.
No I Am is the only description of his state of God’s being that something as limited as a human might understand.
He exists before and beyond time. (or outside of time?)
.
Perhaps he is some sort of “Hyper” or super-agnostic, believing that God is more than just uninvolved in the day to day affairs of people, but also uninvolved in anything, a by-stander watching the “big-bang” just happen, like we might stand in awe watching a fireworks spectacle.
> “Hawking was referring to the theories of Physicist Alan Guth, who has theorized how something can come from nothing.”
.
Guth needs to get off the stuff.
.
Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers. Science is the eternal quest for truth. What is unknown becomes known over time.
Besides, physics in our universe are a property dictated by the circumstances present at the inception of the current universe, and I would not supposed that the laws of physics here would be the same in another universe with different circumstances.
Hawking shows that he is not so smart after all.
What an ingrate.
The problem with your argument is that you are make a definitive statement about the nature of God's existence that is based on a mis-translation a a text written by men (ancient Hebrews), and re-translated over centuries by multiple languages.
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.