Posted on 09/02/2010 6:21:27 AM PDT by tlb
The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”
In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" God existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
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.
“Where’d those laws of physics come from...?”
Exactly.
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.
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.