Posted on 09/06/2010 2:45:06 PM PDT by wmfights
Newton, who left enduring legacies in mathematics and the natural sciences, had centuries ago warned against using the law of gravity - which he discovered - to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock.
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done,” the 17th century scientist and non-Trinitarian Anglican stated.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being,” he added.
Hawking, however, says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” because there is a law such as gravity.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in his soon-to-be-released book, The Grand Design. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper (fuse) and set the universe going."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
No one would really know who in the hell this guy was if he wasn’t a vegetable speaking through a box that has the voice from the computer in the movie “War Games”.
A scientist can’t say there ISN’T a god and prove it, no sooner than a religious person can say there IS a God, and prove it, but the religious person BELIEVES there is a God, and that’s all that matters to them.
With the Christian, it’s all about faith. Scientists don’t operate on that level(or they shouldn’t), so they should keep their mouths shut on the matter. In other words.... Religion, politics, and science DON’T MIX.
Newton spent at least half his time studying the bible. Maybe more than half.
Physics and math came second to him.
You don't need to use "science". There are several logical proofs for God and logical inference is an essential element of the scientific method. The cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral proofs are all based on classical logic. I would note that Hawking's "free lunch" theory violates the logical law of causality and the concept of "nothing" violates the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction.
Newton thanked God for allowing him to “discover” the laws of motion. In similar fashion our Founders thanked God for revealing to philosophers the reason for government, which is to “secure these (unalienable/Natural) rights.”
For this reason, what we call physicists were called Natural Philosophers well into the 19th century.
I like your tagline :)
Let’s replace the word “God” with the word “Universe”. And God will no longer be needed to answer fundamental questions. Though “Universe” would be...
Same egg, side view.
Obama's (and most progressives) economic theory.
Thanks. I try to keep it seasonal.
Hawking believes that there may be greater life in the universe. If he believes that, why can he not believe there is a God? He’s sort of contradicting himself.
Hawking believes that there may be greater life in the universe. If he believes that, why can he not believe there is a God? He’s sort of contradicting himself.
Hawking, however, says “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” because there is a law such as gravity.
If there was already a “law such as gravity” then the universe could not have “created itself from nothing,” because there was no “nothing.”
**************************
You again!!! :)
Don’t try to match wits with a physicist who is an atheist. He will make stuff up faster than a Democrat before election day.
It just doesn’t make sense to me when scientists say stuff like this. Even in science they say that matter and energy cannot be destroyed nor created, only changed. It seems contradictory to me for them then to also say that the universe could be created from “nothing.”
Reasons to Believe is not a great resource to quote. Hugh Ross believes the universe began with the ever increasingly discredited Big Bang theory.
Me neither. I think there isn't enough questioning of the comments made by "noted" academics. People forget it is the "outliers" that are the creators of big scientific jumps and most of them are pretty quick to acknowledge the existence of God.
Sad really, Hawking is an interesting man, perhaps trapped in a decaying body with his last words being:
“There is no God, no Creator..nothing”
Imho a good case of no man knowing another man’s heart but the Lord.
I would challenge that arrogant physisist to produce evidence of at least one “creation” reaction in which matter and/or energy is produced from nothing. If a creation reaction were possible, the reverse “perfect annilation” reaction would also be possible (based on the fundamental tenet of reversibility in quyantum mechanics). In such a perfect annilation reaction, one or more particles react to eliminate, or annilate all matter and energy. I know of no evidence that this is possible. Even a matter/antimatter reaction (such as an electron/positron annilation reaction) produces two high-energy photons. It is therefore not a perfect annilation reaction.
A good question for Hawking is where all the energy would come from for “spontaneopus creation. He is reaching (I hope unsuccessfyully) for immortality by debating Newton accross 4 centuries, saying effectively that “In the beginning there were the Laws of Physics, and the Laws were God.” I’ll keep my money with Newton.
I would challenge that arrogant physisist to produce evidence of at least one “creation” reaction in which matter and/or energy is produced from nothing. If a creation reaction were possible, the reverse “perfect annilation” reaction would also be possible (based on the fundamental tenet of reversibility in quyantum mechanics). In such a perfect annilation reaction, one or more particles react to eliminate, or annilate all matter and energy. I know of no evidence that this is possible. Even a matter/antimatter reaction (such as an electron/positron annilation reaction) produces two high-energy photons. It is therefore not a perfect annilation reaction.
A good question for Hawking is where all the energy would come from for “spontaneous creation. He is reaching (I hope unsuccessfyully) for immortality by debating Newton accross 4 centuries, saying effectively that “In the beginning there were the Laws of Physics, and the Laws were God.” I’ll keep my money with Newton.
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.