Posted on 03/14/2007 9:15:46 PM PDT by dayglored
Last night, nearly 3,000 people received a mini lesson on the origin of the universe from perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking.
Hawking spoke to a packed audience in Zellerbach Hall about how Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum theory explained the creation of the universe.
...
His lecture, which touched upon subjects such as black holes and spacetime, was peppered with quips that drew laughs from the audience.
“If one believed that the universe had a beginning, the obvious question was, what happened before the beginning,” Hawking said. “What was God doing before He made the world?"
...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycal.org ...
Yet his comments about "what God was doing before He made the world", while humorous, point to the fact that the closer our scientists get to a description of the Big Bang, the closer they come to concluding that God did it.
IMO, a clear demonstration that advancing scientific understanding of the universe, and belief in the existence of God as the Creator of the Universe, are not only compatible, BUT VERY LIKELY THE SAME THING.
As one trained in Physics, and who has an unshakable belief in God as the Creator, I find Hawking's comments quite interesting and pleasing. Of course, your mileage may vary, depending on your own beliefs...
Why did the headline, to me, read cosmetologist?
I think that's a different kind of "Big Bang"...
In the beginning there was nothing but Nzame. This god is really three: Nzame, Mebere, and Nkwa. It was the Nzame part of the god that created the universe and the earth, and brought life to it. While the three parts of Nzame were admiring this creation, it was decided to create a ruler for the earth. So was created the elephant, the leopard, and the monkey, but it was decided that something better had to be created. Between the three of them they made a new creature in their image, and called him Fam (power), and told him to rule the earth. Before long, Fam grew arrogant, he mistreated the animals and stopped worshipping Nzame. Nzame, angered, brought forth thunder and lightning and destroyed everything that was, except Fam, who had been promised immortality. Nzame, in his three aspects, decided to renew the earth and try again. He applied a new layer of earth to the planet, and a tree grew upon it. The tree dropped seeds which grew into more trees. Leaves that dropped from them into the water became fish, those that dropped on land became animals. The old parched earth still lies below this new one, and if one digs deep enough it can be found in the form of coal. Nzame made a new man, one who would know death, and called him Sekume. Sekume fashioned a woman, Mbongwe, from a tree. These people were made with both Gnoul (body) and Nissim (soul). Nissim gives life to Gnoul. When Gnoul dies, Nissim lives on. They produced many children and prospered.
You know, in every science, the more those that are learned study their fields, the more their findings support the Bible, rather than detracting from it. This comes as a suprise to some.
Agreed... What I was referring to was, I had a close friend years ago who was a cosmetologist, and she was also one of the more "cosmic" people I've ever known (into horoscopes, crystals, cosmic vibrations, etc.). Her views on the Big Bang were a riot.
I'm trained as a mechanical engineer, into thermodynamics. If you know your thermo, you have to understand that the laws do not in anyway preclude the existence of God, as many claim. As you get into quantum uncertainty, it becomes even more difficult to not believe in a God. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but it is certainly a far cry from the academic atheism taught in college.
Well, that's not the case for the global flood story.
Geologists gave up on that idea about 30 years before Darwin's monumental publication.
I rather like the way the Big Bang is developing as a Creation Story. It has wonder and charm, power and glory, and points back to an unknowable "creation moment". Backed by Science, yet not in conflict with faith (of a certain kind, of course).
Suits me fine, anyway.
I'm about 30 years past my college thermo, but I agree with you that the more one studies science, the more one is presented with the notion of God. It's only a question of what one chooses to believe.
You can choose either one without the other, but for me, the combination is unbeatable.
"...the closer our scientists get to a description of the Big Bang, the closer they come to concluding that God did it."
Uh, no. They don't. And Hawking doesn't conclude that God did it. He's just using colorful language.
"Lol!!! I am sure I don't know what you are talking about. However...you must agree that the words are awfully close."
They are close because they come from the same Greek word: kosmos, which refers to order, or an orderly arrangement. Cosmology has to do with the orderly arrangement of the universe and cosmotology has to do with the orderly arrangement of the face.
I was going to say, one advantage of the scientific Big Bang creation story over the various religious ones, is that the names of the players are more familiar and easier to pronounce. Then I remembered we're talking all those subatomic particles, various quarks, bosons, and whatnot, so maybe our scientific names aren't much better than Nzame, Mebere, and Nkwa.
OTOH, the fact that the scientific story hangs together with some really fine mathematics is something none of the religious stories can claim.
Do we not now have better research technology? I would think if it was given over a hundred years ago it is a cold case, not an unproven case.
Agreed, and that conclusion wouldn't belong in a scientific lecture, either. I only said that his use of that question about God indicates that a synthesis of scientific explanation for post-Big Bang events, with a belief in God as the pre-Big Bang mover, is something that human scientists should ponder.
Large and difficult philosophical issues are often addressed initially with light-hearted humor. I believe that at age 65, Hawking has come to the realization that talking about God and science in the same lecture, even in the same paragraph, is entirely acceptable, and I think he does a service to his listeners by challenging them to think about God even as they think about the science of the beginning of the universe.
>> Yet his comments about "what God was doing before He made the world",
The remark is a conundrum and, if not deliberately farcical, insulting.
Some of the comments on this thread indicate Dr. Hawking should have put the < /s > tag after that "quip."
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.