[Vanders9]

Hawkings is a very clever man, and has done some great work in pushing back the boundaries of Human knowledge. But there still are boundaries. For example, his contention is that something can be created from nothing “because there is a law such as a gravity”. So why is there a law such as gravity then? Why are the laws of physics like what we see?

[al baby]

Hawking is a talentless hack

[pnh102]

Heh. Given the lunacies dribbled out by Richard Dawkins in response to his being pwned by the Pope and Stephen Hawking's most recent verbal diarrhea, I suppose we should rejoice that these 2 haven't decided to do EVERYTHING ascribed to non-believers in Romans 1:21-32.

Maybe this is is God's way of having a laugh at the expense of these 2. They are following this part of Scripture quite "faithfully" (almost).

[the invisib1e hand]

there's a corollary to Warhol's Axiom of Fame. It's called theinvisib1ehand's corollary on ignominy: “after your fifteen minutes are up you get a lifetime of ignominy.”

[the invisib1e hand]

relativity is a scam, too. unless I misunderstand it, which I suppose is a remote possibility.

[running_dog_lackey]

‘...the renowned physicist writes, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” ‘

What was so special about 14 billion years ago? Why didn’t the universe create itself out of nothing during the eternity prior to that time? And why aren’t new universes creating themselves out of nothing all around us?

[HerrBlucher]

A logical Atheist is an oxymoron. Atheism itself demands that reason and logic are false. They do this by denying the existence of the supernatural, but it is only the supernatural than can view the natural objectively, and only the supernatural that can truly reason.

[tlb]

It would be simpler to refute Hawking by noting a scientist shouldn’t confuse opinion with data. Physics cannot speak to the time before the Big Bang because there is no data. You can’t measure the physical universe when there is no physical universe to measure. Without data you can’t prove one approach or disprove another. This places Hawking in the arena of philosophy - not science. And as a philosopher I don’t see Hawking as entitled to more weight then others.

Hawking could simply have said as a matter of Occam’s razor, it’s more reasonable to conceive a universe arising from “nothing” then a supreme all knowing all powerful sentiment being arising from “nothing” who THEN creates the physical universe. And let it go at that without making such absolutist and unprovable statements as to what “did” occur. But he didn’t.

[Carry_Okie]

If there was nothing, upon what would gravity operate?

The whole thing is stupid.

[RightResponse]

The people of this country CAN create something from nothing... just as it has in creating a President out of a no-count, non-effectual nothing like Obama.

Does a vote record of endless ‘present’s add up to anything?

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Rather, the renowned physicist writes, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

_____________________________________________________________________

I will quote this to my husband when it is time for dinner. : )

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Life is but a dream. (Shaboom.)

This business of something from nothing is just a language problem. Our nothing is an absence of something. For all we know, in the larger scheme there is no nothing and never was, and there are degrees of existence, some quite beyond the ken of all but God.

In any case, it’s clear Hawky is not seeing the big picture. We are not too small for God to care about. He has no limitations and can devote a billion years to listening to the prayer of a child, if it suits him to do so. We are not too numerous to the Lord, who made the numbers. Nothing created by His hand is insignificant to him, and that’s the flaw on which atheists usually rest their case. We’re supposedly too small, too brief, too insignificant; but that’s only if God is limited.

He can give each of us an entire universe if He chooses, and better yet, a personal Savior. Oh wait — He did do that!

[yarddog]

My Nephew has two PHD’s from the University of Chicago. One is in physics and the other in something similar called Cosmology I think. (It may be spelled differently).

We were discussing Hawking and he and several of his friends who also were in the same PHD program said he was not considered all that great within the profession. Yes he is intelligent but nothing out of the ordinary for physicists.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

I heard somewhere that Dostoyevsky said, one human soul is worth more than the whole material universe.

That's a great perspective. I mean, the universe is cool but basically it's just stuff. And as the fireman say, "You can always replace stuff -- the important thing is, learn not to burn!"

So I don't worry much about God's stuff and where He got it and why. I'm busy enough avoiding Hell!

[dagogo redux]

I’m reminded of a great quote from Robert Jastrow’s “God and the Astronomers”:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”.

[noinfringers2]

I had a memorable recall about this. Years ago as a college freshman I had an elective course in Psychology. The prof was Ms. Gibson as I remember. The students were assigned to write an essay about something dealing with the world around them. My essay was simply titled “Nothing”.I remember starting out with telling that although I was writing about nothing , I was really writing about something. I used 3 to 4 pages (handwritten) telling about why in so many ways nothing is something and something can be nothing. Prof said it was all very interesting but no ‘A’ grade.

[smokingfrog]

All of you people that believe in gravity are just fooling yourselves.

[Yollopoliuhqui]

Of course you can create the Universe from nothing because there is nothing to stop it.

[Condor51]

I have a couple problems with this article.

1. As to Hawking 'saying' something, that is a bit impossible. He can't use that touchpad any more, all he can do now is blink. A Post Grad student does all 'his' work. Guessing at what Hawking wants. Its very laborious and time consuming.

   So what 'Hawking says' may not even be 'his' words.

2. And as to this phrase, 'the renowned physicist' -- well, I hate to burst WorldNutDaily's bubble but Stephen Hawking isn't exactly 'renowned'. In the world of Physics he's basically forgotten, his name gets a shrug. Hawking is onl 'renowned' yby the general public - who wouldn't know a Lepton from a Quark.

   A few years back there was a Poll held among Physicists as to who contributed the most to the world of Physics in the 20th Century -- Hawking finished last, with One Vote. And most of the names who finshed at the top, are complete unknowns to the general public.

3. Einstein.

   I don't know where WorldNutDaily is going with him, but Einstein was far from being an atheist. His belief in God is one reason why he never bought into Quantum Mechanics and fought against it (wrongly) all his remaining days.

   Einstein's reason: "God would not create a Universe where two sets of laws were required to describe it".
   (I may have that quote off a tad, but it's pretty darn close)

There seems to be a misconception that all 'Scientists', especially Physicists, are atheists. And WorldNutDaily is trying to further that mistake with this tripe.

Note To WND: God and science (Physics) is NOT mutually exclusive.

Even when they're trying to find the holy grail of Physics: the Grand Unification Theory (GUT). Or solve the question of the Big Bang and if, or what, or anything that preceded it. When 'time began', or if other - parallel - Universes exist.

[metmom]

Rather, the renowned physicist writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Which came first, the universe of the law?

You can't have a law be self-existent outside of the universe. It's a property of the universe, not the cause of it.