The Universe created itself from nothing

[Bravus]

Here's a very good, non-sound-bite explanation of what Hawking was actually saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU

[Bravus]

It shouldn't be necessary to clarify that by posting it I'm not endorsing it, but it probably is.

[phkrause]

It shouldn't be necessary to clarify that by posting it I'm not endorsing it, but it probably is.

Good point Bravus. :)

[BobRyan]

This link presents an interesting exercise in "critical thinking 101".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCVqJw7T1WU

First of all the speaker starts by telling us what atheism "needs to assume" (because it must assume what it cannot prove) in order to leap off the cliffs of what Patterson called "anti-knowledge" with its "everything just happens on its own and we don't need god" mythology.

However there is no news there - (as if atheism has not ALWAYS had a list of things it needed to "assume" )

The speaker tells the viewer that gross equivocation must be applied between what we can actually scientifically discover in the lab vs the esoteric doctrine on origins regarding "why the universe itself exists" imagining to ourselves that real science shows us the birth of the universe "from nothing".

Then the speaker spins a bit of fiction about Einstein claiming that his theory of relativitiy proves/shows/predicts that the space-time-frabric of its own free will can choose to "come into existence".

Apparently just "making stuff up" (in this case about the theory of relativity) is key to the speaker's case.

His next "leap of fiction" is that Einstein proved/showed/claimed that "you can create an entire universe without needing any energy at all". And by "you can create" he means "comes into being all by itself". And he admits this is the case of a universe popping up out of no unverse or out of another already existing one.

He conveniently sidesteps the problem of luminous (visible) barion matter vs dark matter and dark energy when dealing with the lack of completeness in Einstein's models - (aside from the more glaringly obvious point that Einstein never postulated a universe that just pops into existence).

Oh the "daily fear" such mythologists must live with as they conduct basic lab experiments where occassionally an entire universe pops out of the beaker "without needing any energy at all".

Again Patterson's instructive warning about evolutionists and their "anti-knowledge" comes into focus when you listen to the speaker on that video.

Next bit if fiction in the video is that quantum mechanics is bent to the point of claiming that if ever something is speculated to happen then it most certainly 'is going to happen' - (basically ancient alchemy is then affirmed as fact in this by-faith-alone system. Why? Because the ancient alchemist's though that spontaneous generation CAN happen!!)

The Santa Clause story the speaker promotes is the one where the universe ALWAYS explores every possibility - and so whatever easter-bunny just-so scenario you might wish to imagine "will come into existence" says the speaker "if that (that unsound premise) is true".

The wild storytelling concludes that the question "why is there something rather than nothing - has an ANSWER by modern PHYSICS"!!

As if physics (an actual hard science) can be bent to this mythology that anything imagined as "well I imagine it CAN happen" then MUST happen because they universe itself is bent on a "make it so" mission of truly mythical proportions.

The the most astounding anti-knoweldge is of the form "you can IMAGINE the unviverse - why it came into existence without ever leaving the laws of nature". Pay attention to that last part for it is key to the deception. The argument is that the proven laws of nature SHOW US that universes come into being all by themsevles so imagining that the one we live in also did that same thing - is just realying on the proven demonstrated "laws of nature".

Reminds me of the old song "what child is this" only in a completely fictional context suggested by the author of that video.

Now here the most self-conflicted argument of all - the speaker after having just argues that the universe is infinitely wise and powerful such that it WILL create all things that CAN happen -- tries to bend his own argument back on itself to claim that God CAN NOT exist. Yet if hindus believe such beings CAN exist and if by nature atheist mythology argues that all things that CAN exist MUST exist for the universe WILL make them - the speaker has just backed himself into the very point he was so intent on disproving.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

even with all this I am sure God believes in Stephen Hawking.

And just what is it that God believes in S. Hawking?

[BobRyan]

Maybe God is going to Hawking for suggestions and advice?

[Outta Here]

I'm certain that God believes in Stephen Hawking's existence. I am also certain that God loves Stephen Hawking.

[phkrause]

I'm certain that God believes in Stephen Hawking's existence. I am also certain that God loves Stephen Hawking.

Now that I can believe.

He also needs are prays.

[Gerr]

I'm certain that God believes in Stephen Hawking's existence. I am also certain that God loves Stephen Hawking.

I have no doubt that God loves him. Just wondering what it is that God believes in him.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Aubrey

I'm certain that God believes in Stephen Hawking's existence. I am also certain that God loves Stephen Hawking.

I have no doubt that God loves him. Just wondering what it is that God believes in him.

Considering that God already knows Hawking's final destiny,that's a good question.

[Bravus]

It's true. God knows, and only God knows. If Hawking is bound for salvation, heaven rejoices. If he's bound for damnation, it weeps. Why do I sense the assumption that it's the latter, and that weeping is not the reaction of some here?

[Gerr]

I am not only sad for him if he is bound for damnation; I am also sad for those who look up to this genius of a man who become more confirmed in their unbelief because such a smart man does not believe in a Creator.