Posted on 09/13/2010 4:19:14 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
Steven Hawking of late manifested to the world just how much of an absolute reprobate he is by arrogantly proclaiming that there was absolutely no need for a Divine Creator to create the cosmos and all the intelligence found there in (Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 1:18-32). Such rhetoric is the height of idiocy and the ravings of an absolute mad man.
To the reprobate evolutionary mind it is the pinnacle of folly to acknowledge a Divine Designer and Creator (Romans 1:28, 1 Cor. 2:14, James 3:16, Jude 1:7). To these pointy head secular atheists, the creation movement of today is no different than a group of individuals believing that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or mother Goose created the universe in all it’s glorious splendor.
Hawking writes that it is entirely possible that the universe "can and will create itself from nothing." That's why we exist. That's why there's something rather than nothing. We don't need God. So… according to Hawking we “exist and are wondrously super amazingly made by the very act of nothing… by no one.
(Excerpt) Read more at theignorantfishermen.com ...
blind as a bat... which is a sure sign of this ignorance...
He basically said that God can’t exist because gravity does.
Just ludicrous
****according to Hawking we “exist and are wondrously super amazingly made by the very act of nothing… by no one****
Hawking backed into the existence of God with that sublime notion....and Mr. Smartypants doesn’t even understand.
God is ROTFLHAO.
I don’t think he said God does not exist, just that God is not theoretically necessary for the universe to exist.
I still have a dumb question that I have not heard an answer for. We assume that God must exist because something had to create the universe. Yet God was not created, he simply always existed. If God can exist without creation, why can’t the universe exist without creation? Not postulating anything, just asking.
You can postulate all you like, but Paul answered your question from a Judeo-Christian perspective in his letter to the Romans.
Great question.
All created things bear signs of their creator. Since God is uncaused existence, his creation can be seen as being uncaused!
Given his condition you would think he would show a little more humility.
The Big Bang as the beginning of our known universe is almost unanimously accepted based on calculations and observations mostly beyond my knowledge. The question of what existed before the Big Bang will probably never be definitively answered, although many, including Hawking have their theories.
...Everything else that exists is possible and non-essential existence, and consequently is totally dependent upon G‑d as the cause for its existence.
By contrast, only G‑d Himself — Whose existence is an imperative and Whose being derives from His own Self, and as such needs nothing to bring about His existence — has the ability to create a being so corporeal that it is entirely unaware that its existence depends on a Creator; indeed, it is satisfied with the delusion that it is responsible for its own creation...
Try reading my question. I said I wasn’t postulating anything.
“Since God is uncaused, his existence can be seen as being uncaused.”
Isn’t that a textbook example of a circular argument?
hehe
Since God is uncaused, some of that characteristic of being uncaused can be found in whatever He creates, as the work of a great artist can be distinguished from forgeries.
And, yes, the ‘God argument’ always ends up being somewhat circular (not subject to a provable thesis).
You're forgetting time, and in doing so creating a question that sounds logical, but is not.
When you say "universe," it is presumable that you mean a universe within which there is a flow of time - whether or not you include it having a beginning and/or and end.
But as God is by definition without a beginning (being eternal), God is outside of the flow of time itself.
So the two are logically separated by time.
On the other hand, while time is a limiting factor, eternity is not. So while eternity cannot, by definition, exist within time, time can exist within eternity.
In other words, the universe of time can exist as a limited aspect of an eternal God - a "part" of God where timelessness has been withdrawn according to certain "rules" that we discover scientifically and otherwise.
But the "movie" of the universe of time has nothing to do with the essential, eternal freedom of the "light" that focuses itself down to make it's limited "picture."
We know the universe has not been here "forever" because of the laws of thermodynamics. The universe would be in a state of equilibrium and for the most part frozen. The REAL conundrum is where did life come from? All evidence we know of points to life comes from other life. it does not spontaneously arise out of primordial ooze as evolutionists would like you to believe.
This argument seems to me to be based on something that we ae not sure of, i.e. that the universe will run down to nothing. We can see that process in our infinitesimally short life span, but how do we know that it doesn’t just start over. Rather than a ball rolling down hill, it could be a pendulum swinging back and fourth from “Big Bang” to diffuse nothing at maximum entropy. Maybe energy when totally diffused cannot avoid re-combining. All this is unlikely of course, but not impossible.
I believe that the universe exists as a thought in a conscious mind that is entirely and always beyond our human comprehension. I am still looking for a logical progression that can lead to that idea. There may not be one.
All of the "laws" of thermodynamics are postulated within a closed system.
So far, no boundaries have been found to enclose the universe, therefore it cannot be said to be a closed system. And the Big Bang has serious problems involving a massive lack of necessary mass, alternately valid interpretations of red shift, and a dependency on a pre-existence existence for the existence of it's existence (i.e., it's not the most eloquently logical theory to ever have arisen).
So as the theory of the beginning of the universe cannot be invoke to presume any boundary on it's limits, and because nothing has been proposed to explain what could possibly act as a limit (let alone what would be on the other side of it), it cannot be presumed to be a closed system.
Oh, and "curving spacetime" has got some serious flaws as well, starting with the fact that once you invoke it, you have no force remaining to make things follow it. Hell, we're not even sure why we can't precisely predict where our rockets end up in orbit, and calculus itself has some fairly serious flaws that mathmeticians still haven't fixed (such as the difference between the measured value for pi on a drawn circle, versus it's measured value in orbit, for example).
Therefore thermodynamics alone cannot be invoked as the deciding factor in determining it's age - or even if it has an age.
Not sure we know that much about time. It seems to flow from point to point, but the theoretical physicists don’t agree. Einstein called time a “cruel illision”. It is said, and supposedly proved experimentally, that time stops for a body if it travels at the speed of light. (Not sure I agree, there is another unanswered question about that that I cannot get anyone to address.) For all we know time may fluctuated from A to B and back, it may travel in a circle between A and B, or it may flow from A to B as we seem to percieve. Even assuming that time is a flowing stream in that portion of the universe that we see, what is to say that the entire universe works that way. Original question, if God can exist independently of time, why cannot part of the universe exist independently of time?
Ultimately, I suspect that the existance of God must be assumed on faith and personal experience. I do not think that a logical argument exists that can make a proof.
The Big Bang is fading rapidly. More and more scientists are now demonstrating that it is not the explanation for the origin of the Universe.
Entropy aside, what about life? Chemicals alone do not make life and there is no way in heck that one celled bacteria has the genetic information that it takes to make a human or elephant. No way. The Cambrian explosion of lifeforms did not come out of nowhere and did not evolve. Cats make cats and dogs make dogs. Evolution is a fact within species - no denying that. But can a monkey evolve into a man? No way - again.
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.