Red Letters

Red Letters


Stephen Hawking says There Is No God in His New Book

posted by Tom Davis

And he has lost his mind. 

In his new book, “The Grand Design,” famous scientist and physicist, Stephen Hawking says God is not necessary to exist for the universe to have formed because of gravity. Seems a bit ironic to me that he titled his book “The Grand Design” when he purports that there is no design, everything we see and are was created from chaos. 
This is a retraction from his previous conclusions:
“In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” From this Guardian article.

Hawking violates several scientific and philosophical facts. Namely:

(1) Out of nothing, nothing comes. In other words, you can’t create something out of nothing. In order for anything to exist there had to be something in existence in the first place. IE, where did the law of gravity come from Mr. Hawking? 

(2) No scientist has ever been able to prove “spontaneous creation.” In fact “spontaneous generation” on non-living life from matter has been disproven many times by many scientists. See this article for more information. 

Take a look at the article and let me know your thoughts. Has Hawking proved that God is dead? 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(45)
post a comment
Mark Sullivan

posted September 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm


Sad.. Romans 1:18-23 … when foolish things start to seem intelligent???



report abuse
 

matthew hansen

posted September 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm


Tom,
What is sad, is that the reasoning here has nothing to do with scientific reasoning, solutions, or formulas. There is obviously a bias against God – as the rhetoric goes, The Atheist motto is, “there is no God, and I hate him.” The reasoning used here is the good old 3-year-old-child reasoning, “…because I said so…” He still answers no questions. The question of “Why” is still evaded. Anyway, what ever happened to the good ole’ consistent atheists…wrong though they may be, they at least made sense with what they had…
Matthew



report abuse
 

Matt

posted September 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm


The fool says in His heart, there is no God. Ps. 14. That’s the first thing I thought of when I read this. The “no creator necessary” argument is impossible to defend. Regardless of your religion, the complex balance of the universe cannot be chances and accidents.



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm


Matthew – great point.
I wonder also if it’s Hawking’s last attempt to thumb his nose at God before he dies. His health hasn’t been doing well during the time he was writing. Reminds me of the last thing Stalin did before he died as witnessed by his daughter. He was comatose and right before he breathed his last he sat straight up in bed, shook his fists at heaven, and breathed his last.



report abuse
 

Sara Schaffer

posted September 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm


Tom, thanks for sharing interesting info like this with us. It’s disturbing that one of the most intelligent men of our time is so ignorant. May God bless him.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted September 9, 2010 at 4:51 pm


I don’t think Hawking ever set out to prove “God is dead.” What he is saying is that according to the best current understanding of the universe through high-level physics, God’s existence is not inevitable nor apparent. I don’t imagine anyone on this forum could even begin to engage his argument at his level of knowledge, so all I see is people projecting ill motives onto him (ie he must be a liberal atheist God-hater.)
The second argument about “spontaneous generation” is easily disproven and has nothing to do with the scale of creation which Hawking addresses. However time and gravity and matter got their start, from that point on, no personal intervention is needed for life to take hold. Once you get those chemical elements in place, it’s all just a matter of them finding the right conditions to rearrange into the more compelex molecules needed for life and self-replication. Is every step in that process at the dawn of life fully understood? No, but there are lots of plausible theories, some which have borne out in laboratory experiments and no insurmountable obstacles at a theoretical level. The magical barrier which was presumed to exist between life and ordinary chemistry was first broken by Wohler in the 1820s when he synthesized urea from inorganic chemicals, creating a chemical which it was long believed needed some pre-created living system to make.



report abuse
 

ProfElwood

posted September 9, 2010 at 5:07 pm


The definitions of “proof”, “theory”, and “hypothesis” are basic to the field of science, but there seems to be a trend away from those things by these scientists. There is currently no way to prove or disprove a multiverse or dark matter or strings, so these concepts don’t qualify for hypotheses, much less facts. This isn’t science — it’s science fiction.
There is a conflict forming between science and religion, but the conflicting religion is atheism.
P.S. Kenneth, there is no viable bio-genesis theory available at this time. A group of scientists have put up a prize contest at http://www.lifeorigin.org/ for you, if you can figure one out and get it published. They also explain what’s wrong with the previous proposals.



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 9, 2010 at 5:11 pm


Kenneth,
Again, no one in the scientific community, including Hawking, knows how time, gravity and matter got their start. That’s at least as much of a reason for God’s existence than it is against.



report abuse
 

?????? ???? Hamneshine Bahar

posted September 9, 2010 at 8:06 pm


Hello, this ia about “The Grand Design ” in Farsi
???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???.
??? ?? «??????»?? ??? ?? «????????»? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ? ????? ? ???????????? ?? ????? ????
??? ?? «????» ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ???? «??? ?????» ? ????????? ????????? ?? ????
(?? ?? ?? ???)? ??? ??? ???? ?? (??? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????) ???? ??????? ???.
??? ?? ?? ???? ? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????!
?????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????
??? ?????? ??????? Stephen W. Hawking ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ???? ????? «???? ????» The Beginning of Time ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???.
• ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? «??? ????» ? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????????????
• ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ???? ????? ???? ? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? (?? ????) ????
• ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? Lucasian ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ? «?? ?????» ?????????
• ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????
• ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ? ?????? ????? ???? ????
• ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ALS ???? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??
???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ? ???? ???:
??? ?? ???? ??? ? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????…
God NOT Needed For Creation. God Did Not Create the Universe and Physics Leaves No Room For God…
?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????
???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ???.
???? ???? ???: ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ? ?? ??? ?????… ??????? ???? ??? ? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ??? ???? ?…??? ???? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ???????.
????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????? ????? ??????. ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????????: ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????.
????? ??? ????????? ???? ? ??? ??? ? ????? ????? ????.
?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ? ???? ????? ???. ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ? ????? ???????. ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???????.
???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??????
????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??.
???? The Grand Design (??? ???? (?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? Leonard Mlodinow ????? ? ????? ????????? ???.
?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? ? ????? ???????? ??? ? ?? ?? ???? ?? ? ??? ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? «?? ? ?????» M(atrix) Theory ? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ??? ????? ????????… ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? unified theory ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ? ????? ???? ????.
(ultimate theory of everything)
?????? ??????? ????????:
?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ? ??? ????? ????? ???????. ????????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ????? ??????: ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????
?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ? ???????? ? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ? ????? ? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????.
??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????????…
?????? ??????? ???????:
???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???????.
???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????????. ???? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ????????.
??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????. (? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???)
?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ? ??? ???? ? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ? ???? ???? ??????? ? ???? ????? ????.
??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???????…
??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ( Does God Play Dice? ) ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????????? ????? ? ????? ????? (??? ? ?????) ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ? ???:
The future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought.
God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.
God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.
????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ???????. ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????????…
??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? !
?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? «????? ?? ?? ????? ????» ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???. (??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????.)
???? ???????: ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????????… (??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ?????????? ?????)
????? ????? ???? ???:
This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????.
????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? (????? ?? ???? ??????)
????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????????!
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to… set the Universe going.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 9, 2010 at 10:57 pm


First, not having read his book, like apparently all the rest of you, I don’t believe he said there’s no god; I believe he said there’s no need for a god to have started the universe. I understand people once believed their god kept projectiles in the air and moving, so the fact an arrow flew through the air was a proof of their god’s existence. Then Newton discovered momentum and no god was needed to keep the arrows and cannon balls flying. Similarly the need for a god has been pushed back over and over; this is just one more step. Science won’t prove there’s no god but science for centuries has pushed any (non-psychological) need for a god deeper and deeper into the cracks
Second I don’t believe he necessarily believed in one earlier, he used a fairly common phrase that involved “God”. I could look it up but not now.
Third it’s amazing to see preachers and whomever pretending to correct Hawking about basic physics. Perhaps the problem there is that the physics involved in starting the universe as we know it was not basic, it involved quantum mechanics and such, about which none of us here knows a hundredth of what Hawking knows.
And last, for now, you don’t seem to know much about atheists. A real atheist would not “get mad at God”; that would be exactly like getting mad at the Easter Bunny or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You aren’t going to get mad at something you know doesn’t exist.
There are no doubt lots of people who think a god does exist and are mad at it, but they aren’t atheists.
I know y’all are enjoying yourselves trash talking about one of the world’s brighter people who doesn’t happen to believe as you do, but you look quite petty as you do it.



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 9, 2010 at 11:36 pm


Nnmns, just because he’s bright, doesn’t mean he’s right.
And, nobody has bothered to refute these two simple points. Obviously, this argument is much more complicated, I agree. But we’re talking about basic philosophy and science here. Hawking knows the implications of what he’s saying in this book. Throwing down the “no need for God” gauntlet is not science.



report abuse
 

XROD

posted September 10, 2010 at 8:05 am


I agree because I know you’ve actually read the book. Personally, I’ve only been privy to excerpted statements.
I am extremely wary of any quotation that lasts for less than two whole sentences. Brackets, ellipses, and general context often go by the wayside.
Thankfully, you’re remarkably brief refutation of all of Mr. Hawking’s arguments have convinced me solidly. I am quite happy to have found someone who read the book for me. Those silly interviewing people don’t put EVERYTHING he chirps into their stories do they?
Don’t get me started on those bloggers who just write about what other people have reported.
Cheers.



report abuse
 

Donna

posted September 10, 2010 at 9:14 am


I have not read the book. We need to remember that God’s Word is the final authority. Don’t get hung up by looking at man and his writings, look to God.
1Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 10, 2010 at 9:22 am


Dearest XROD,
You must know that blogs are not an attempt to give an exhaustive review on any matter. Hence the term “blog” not “dissertation.”
That can’t be done any more than some puny book trying to explain away God’s existence.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted September 10, 2010 at 9:26 am


Hawking has a book to hock. :) I just see this as a way to sell books and get attention.



report abuse
 

Charles Stevens

posted September 10, 2010 at 10:48 am


The simple fact is that Professor Hawking should return to the black hole that god made for him since he advances no argument beyond those offered many years ago by the fakers Laplace and Lagrange. For the uninformed mathematical physicists, those who don’t know up from down (and these are the vast majority), “god” is the nickname among mathematicians for one Kurt Gödel .
(See discussion on “Is it possible that black holes do not exist? ” on Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=421491 for relevant citations.)
In any case all rational scientific discourse has been effectively banned since the illegal shutdown of the first international scientific association and journal in 1837 by the Duke of Clarence, Ernest Augustus. See Percy Byssh Shelley’s Mask of Anarchy for a pertinent depiction of the Duke of Clarence, the face behind Castlereagh. A simple google search for “(“magnetic union” OR “Magnetischer Verein”) AND (“Göttingen Seven” OR “Göttinger Sieben”) gauss weber” shows that there has been no serious discussion of that action on the subsequent development of scientific practice.
We must assume therefore that the concurrent and congruent Augustin-Louis Cauchy scientific method of theft, assassination, plagiarize at leisure remains hegemonic. Chuck Stevens 571-252-0451 stevens_c@yahoo.com



report abuse
 

ARD

posted September 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm


If nothing can come from nothing – where/what did God come from ?? Where is the proof God created the universe other than, I say so, I read it, someone told me, or nothing random happens ??
We think we know more than we do, or at least people try to convince us of it..
Well convince me ? Because neither the Bible or Hawking convince me of anything.. But then that is me, others may rely upon less..



report abuse
 

ARD

posted September 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm


sorry meant “If nothing can’t come from nothing..”



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm


Is it a gauntlet or a simple statement? You folks mostly seem to have a need for your gods; why does it bother you when Hawking points out the universe doesn’t provide one? Is your faith so weak?



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 10, 2010 at 7:11 pm


Not a matter of weakness.
We have strengths that people who don’t believe in God could never possess.
Hope
Forgiveness
A Moral Framework Rooted in Something of Substance
Understanding Who I Am
Why I Exist
My Ultimate Destiny
I could go on. What do you believe in NNMNS. By the way, do you have a name?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 10, 2010 at 7:42 pm


You are so ready to assume you have things we don’t. And in such a way as to insult us.
You seem to only want to exalt your position/yourself to the detriment of others. I’m guessing there’s money in it for you.



report abuse
 

K. Duane Carter

posted September 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm


Thanks Tom for sharing this. I’ve studied apologetics for a while now, and I’ve gotten to the point where I about have to refuse to get into an argument because it never goes anywhere. However, I just have to say to ARD that an Ultimate Cause would have no proof of “where He came from.” That would require Him to be an effect and that would mean He isn’t God. If you and nnms want to not believe, then fine. No one owes you a “proof.” If anyone would actually take the time to think about it, a uncreated, Ultimate Cause could not EVER be proven by some equation or formula, for if He could, then He would not be God. He would just be another notch in our belt of understandable effects. So lighten up on Tom. I know Tom. He isn’t in anything for the money. I would also like to know which atheist organizations ever cared for the poor, went after justice for the slave, or sacrificed themselves for someone else just out of the sheer power of love. Tom’s point is that it seems very ironic to talk about a Grand Design and then there be the statement that there is no designer. And if somebody thinks gravity is the sole responsible force for the universe and all of its complexity and all of its mass then that is just simply laughable. And I can say that from a physical science standpoint. Read about dark matter. Read about quantum physics. Even those point to God.



report abuse
 

K. Duane Carter

posted September 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm


All right. Now I am going to apologize. Not because I am wrong, but because I responded wrongly. This is the main reason why I have to avoid the arguments. It tends to draw me into an attitude that I know Jesus wouldn’t have. So to ARD and nnms I ask your forgiveness for getting sappy.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 10, 2010 at 11:58 pm


I see you removed my response. How courageous.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted September 11, 2010 at 12:01 am


No problem KDC. And I have to apologize because when I refreshed my response to Tom wasn’t there, but upon re-refreshing it was. Stupid internet.



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 11, 2010 at 1:37 am


nnmns, my intention is not to make any insults. If that’s what came across, please forgive me.
I’m merely trying to state that there are certain cornerstones we all have to live by, no matter what we believe. And in our worldview those issues need to be coherent. To some extent, we are all struggling trying to figure out what those look like. I can assure you I don’t have it all figured out. I’m doing my best to make sense of life.
I hope we can continue to have these dialogs in a healthy way. I asked your name, simply because I’d like to know how to connect with you instead of using five consonants.
All the best and I hope you have a good weekend.



report abuse
 

David J Donovan

posted September 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm


(Master Hawking: D+ . Lacking proficiency in research skills. In addition you have not demonstrated a grasp of logical reasoning in argumentation that is worthy of your education level. Credit is granted for effort however. Respectfully, Professor Donovan)
Hawking has presented a belief statement on the absence of a God. The origin of belief is to wish or desire something as true. No proof is needed in a belief statement and in Hawking’s announcement, no proof is given. Instead, he has shown us that he has no “complete theory” ,only that he does not know and is therefor an unknowing Agnostic.
As academic research, Hawking has made a claim about the the absence of a God and the universe but has failed to justify his claim with specific evidence.
In referencing Physics, he cites the laws of gravity as proof for an absence of a God. His premise is problematic in that he does not prove how or why God is or is not related to gravity.He claims that math is the method of his proof but fails to demonstrate his proof through the utilization of mathematical deductive reasoning. Reiterating, Hawking fails to demonstrate a math proof that shows us that his hypothesis is true in all cases… and that is the very definition of a proof.
What he does do is truncate ( and take out of context) the ideas and work of others, such as Einstein and Aristotle, in a failed attempt to prove his own beliefs.
His research is therefore akin to qualitative and not quantitative. But even as qualitative research, he falls short in the absence of correctly cited case studies. Instead, he simply references disciplines outside of Physics and Mathematics, such as Philosophy and Sociology and goes on to denigrate these disciplines with wipe sweeping and unsupported claims; in claiming that Philosophy is intuitive and anthropomorphism (sociology) is belief based, he leaves only dangling comments that are unfettered to own his belief based argument.
Ultimately, his claim is not research, nor is it science…its just another faith.



report abuse
 

D tabary

posted September 12, 2010 at 11:34 pm


completely agreeing with mr.donovan though my older brother doesnt. if he can relate these things,ill beleive him.for now though,i have to politefully disagree with his theory



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted September 20, 2010 at 9:17 am


Sorry, but all the laws of physics had to be there before the universe was created, or it couldn’t have been created. However, the laws of physics is actually something very tangible – gravity, speed, light, rotations, etc… so if it’s tangible, then it had a beginning. Everything does. The big bang theory is actually correct – God created light first, and the big bang theory says brilliant light began first. Then scientists say that the universe is still expanding – Isaiah 45:12 says God stretched the heavens. Even the Bible said the earth was round long before idiotic mankind admitted it! So if the Bible is ahead of science, then science cannot possibly catch up. Hawkings has truly lost his mind. He said himself that since math is the language of the universe, then that’s God to him. I actually agree with him – this was from another book of his. Every single thing under the sun and beyond was established purely on math – and if everything was random and by chance, according to nonbelieving scientists, then why do we not see mistakes in the mathwork of the universe? I apply that question to the apostasy of evolution, too. Chance itself is not always correct, so why are we not seeing any incorrectness? He has lost his mind!



report abuse
 

Aaron

posted September 28, 2010 at 8:09 am


My oh-so-humble opinion is that people who don’t understand the science, shouldn’t write articles to contest what little philosophical knowledge they have.



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted September 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm


Aaron, I’m about to post about a philosophical and scientific debate about this issue by the best in the field. But you don’t have to be scientist to understand the laws of gravity and the existence of God. Even us stupid people know a little about that.



report abuse
 

Rusty Shacklefor

posted October 6, 2010 at 10:16 pm


Hawkings should just come out and confess that there is no god. I can not believe that in this day and age that people still believe that there is an invisible man in the sky. I once was a Christian myself but one day it just hit me that there is no god. There is no evidence at all for it and there is absolutely no need for a god. Since becoming an atheist I have been happier than when I was a Christian. I value human life more than a Christian and I can see the wonders of the universe.
Please for the sake of humanity think about what you are doing. You devalue human life by telling people that there is life after death when there is not. You kill other people because they worship a different god. You hinder scientific advancements that could save millions of lives.
Just Think. Think. Think about what you are believing in and how it is terrible. It is a scary thought to know that a majority of the human race are under the delusion that some “god” created this marvelous, enormous, beautiful universe for a race on this tiny planet.



report abuse
 

Jmoney

posted October 11, 2010 at 1:17 pm


There is no god ! Yea, Stephen Hawking lost his mind, lol. He’s ten times as smart as you. Religion is for fools. You truley beleave there’s a guy with a white beard holding all the cards. Give me a fucking break. It all comes from worship of the sun ….



report abuse
 

Mike

posted October 14, 2010 at 12:45 am


Jmoney, yeah you’re right. and Rusty Shacklefor, you’re damn right too.
Believing in a man holding all 52 cards and worshiping him as ‘god’ is spiritual juvenility. They’re still sucking on a pacifier. Please grow up.



report abuse
 

Abe Froman

posted October 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm


I completely agree with Mr. Shacklefor. I was once also a Christian but have since seen the light. Now I cant believe that I actually believed what I thought was true with christianity. All the “believers” need to wake up and think about what they believe in. If the Christian Taliban in America would wake up and see the harm they are causing. They are impeding scientific advancement by hindering what scientist can do. If they would open their eyes and look they would be able to see that what they believe in is absolute madness.
There is absolutely no proof for the existence of a god and there is no need for a god. You are just diminishing the human race by saying that some “omnipotent” being created us in his image. (If we are created in his image I am not sure I want to follow this fellow) Religion was created to explain what we could not comprehend. Science has advanced so much in the recent years that it is just insane that people still believe in religion. We know that evolution is true, we know that the big bang is true, we know that the Universe is larger than what the Christian word says it is… Please just wake up and look around… look at all the harm religion has caused. I am not saying religion has not done good things but it also has provoked evil things. Had there been no religion then 9/11 would never have happened. If the world would stop looking to the past and look to the future this world would be so much better. The human race is obsessed with a man that may have existed 2000 years ago. 2000 years ago… In the Bible itself Jesus said he would return within 1 generation. It has been a little longer than one generation!!
The human race needs to sober up and look toward the future. We are destroying our planet and it is the only planet we have at the moment. Religion gives people the feeling that they can do whatever they what because Jesus is coming back within this generation. This is not the way to live. We need to look to the future and let reason guide us not some blind following in a man that doesn’t exist. Please, Please, Please just think. Think about what it is you believe. Does it make any sense whatsoever? NO!!! Look at Christianity from an outsiders point-of-view, it makes no sense. A invisible man sent part of himself to earth to pay for a sin that he created. For the sake of me and all the other humans out there, THINK. THINK!!! THINK about your religion. THINK about what harm you are causing. THINK about everything wrong with what you believe in.
PLEASE!! PLEASE!! PLEASE!!!! I hope this reaches at least one person and they would see that religion is harming humanity.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted October 16, 2010 at 10:10 pm


Froman spoke as a man, a human like what we humans really are. The belief in 1 creator with 1 of his son as our savior and lord has lulled the human race into a flock of sheep. 1 generation is 60years. 2000 years ago, lifespan was less than 50 years. Where is his return?
Shacklefore said the bible said he ‘stretched the universe’. ‘stretched’ is past tense so it’s over already. However, the universe is still expanding today. So that ‘he’ who ‘stretched’ the universe never existed, so it follows the bible is once again a bedtime superstition folklore.
There were good things but those good things only take place within the small confines of the church. Outside of the church, bigger evils, disunity among living beings, wars, bloodshed happen because of the religion & in the name of god.
Creationist will say it is humans who used god wrongly as god is good and we humans are the bad using god wrongly. A hammer can be used to knock a nail to build a home or the hammer can be used to break windows to commit a crime. If we can use god for the good or for bad just like we used a hammer for the good or for the bad, god is then nothin more than a still, non-intelligent object that can be manipulated by us for the good or bad. Their god is like a hammer – which has no awareness, no intelligence, not able to do anything including creating the universe, creating all living things, creating everything that happens around us, “loving us”, ‘redeeming us’, “saving us”, judgin us, condemning us, creating us, speaking English to us, sending his child to die for us and all those fairy tales described in the bible. .
Scientific advancement has not explained yet everything. But a thinking human and science is enough to debunk a that a creator is a super-being and created us and that we have to follow his way.
We are humans the way we are and not the humans 2010 years ago. Let us live and think like dignified humans and don’t tell us we are sinners to god and has to submit to his commands.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted October 16, 2010 at 11:33 pm


I mean Katherine said he “stretched the heavens” not shacklefore.
Thr bible has put humans down that only fools say in his heart there is no god. To Matt, we are not fools because we didn’t say in our hearts there is no god; we say it out loud to the whole world there is no god. Even if a human says in his heart there is no god, he is no fool because he is a thinking human.
Katherine, the world is not round like what the bible said. The world is a globe, not round. Round is flat and 2 dimensional. The Bible thought the sun revolved around earth – only a fool will believe in this. And how dare the bible says fools do not believe in god. It’s a load of fairy tale for those with inferior complex to believe.
What is so good in the bible that is absent everywhere. The man cleanin the street is a good man doing a good work, the woman selling lunch in a restaurant is doing a good thing keeping hungry away. What is so good that only the bible has. On a global scale it has disunited humans and caused wars and bloodshed even as it claims it has good intentions. The man cleaning the street and woman selling lunch has good intentions but has never claimed that they are the Final Authority.
The bible has threatened and chided and suppressed humans for far too long. We cannot remain silent and let the bible continue to berate those who do not believe in god.
The right human and the human that we all should be is to think intellugently that there is but no god. Whoever who says there is a god because so-and-so says so are human inferiors.
Like what froman said THINK THINK.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 19, 2010 at 1:18 am


How great it must be to be so intelligent and free of sin. The principles of compassion, love and salvation from hell are what’s in the bible…and yes that IS abundantly missing out in the world. Also, the thing about Jesus’ return within the generation is a misinterpretation…as is the whole “end of the world” thing. Jesus comes when your world ends.
What is wrong with loving God and what is wrong with abiding by the commandments?
If there were never any commandments given…where would the world be?
The main flaw in hating god and his followers (or just denying the existence of god..because that happens so often without the hate part) is that you take too much for granted. You live by the very moral principles brought into the world through the religion you say shouldn’t exist. We cannot exist without so many things coming together in such a manner that the odds are beyond comprehension. I mean really…what are the chances?
Think about the existence of life as a huge equation. If you remove even one tiny factor then life cannot exist! Think about how perfect it is! The gravity and rotation of the earth, the distance from the sun, the orbit of the moon helping us with equal night and day, the waters being held back from the land through the tides. It’s too perfect of a balance to have no depth beyond “well…it just happened to work out.”
I don’t buy that for one second. I’ll continue to thank God for every moment and realize that in a grand scheme of things, I’m a speck on a rock floating around a giant endless ball of fire. So, please… before you jump on the “I’m smarter than all believers because there’s no god and also I hate him” train… consider the damage you’re doing to those on the fence who are searching for some truth. Searching for direction. Searching for a way out of hell. You just might lead them astray. Then they might just decide there’s no reason not to kill and take what they want and they come find you first. I hope you see the point. After all, who needs the commandments right? I mean all humans just automatically know how to behave on their own.
So, I say think! … think about your dying breath. think about how perfect everything needs to be just so we can live. think about the perfect balance of all things, from the universe down to the cell. think of how you “just maybe” could face the one who gave all of this to you and he knows your heart. think of what you’re doing in life and what more is possible. Think of the darkness that creeps in and changes you. Think about how there is a spirit that can heal you and help you let go of the bitterness. Think about the ones you love and the ones who love you… or the possible future loved ones! Think of how much better your life could be if you had the ultimate spiritual weapon to fight that darkness. To live a light and happy and giving life… Think about all the people around you who help you because they embrace god’s will. They help you and then you throw it in their face and say “you shouldn’t help.”
Ask yourself: “What am I doing here?” & “Why do I hate God?”
The final flaw in denying god is that you hate what you also say doesn’t exist. If God doesn’t exist then so be it…end of story.
Those believers down the street aren’t hurting you… they are only reminding you of the sin you’re hanging on to. If you want to think of it like “religion causes all pain” … think about a world where there was never an inclination toward faith or sense of morality. How could you believe the world would be better off with no sense of right or wrong beyond what we humans want?
If that were the case then all law and logic would be driven by gain. All laws would be based in greed or lust or in some way serve our carnal human desires. I for one believe if we were truly left to our own devices we wouldn’t last long.
Anyway…I’m done ranting. No one will likely ever read this but if they do… I hope they just got their minds blown… oh, and start lovin’ jesus. word.
PS> If the ex-believer reads this: Consider Mary Magdalene in the gospels. If the story of the resurrection was made up… the first witness wouldn’t be a woman … let alone a converted prostitute. I’m just saying…it’s food for thought. If you were trying to convince people back then that a guy came back from the dead then you would have someone with some social standing or authority be the witness. It’s probably true is the point.
I’m sorry if someone hurt you or used your faith to mislead you. Read the bible on your own and forget what other people say or think. The true message IS in there. It’s the greatest miracle of all that we couldn’t destroy it with our manipulation.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted October 31, 2010 at 1:19 pm


@James
First of I find it scary that you cannot see what is right or wrong without being told it. I know that murder is wrong because I value human life. I know that I should not take things that is not mine. It is terrible that Christians believe that without god people will become heathens. I truly wish that I lived in a world were there was no religion. There would be less wars, less hatred. We would be hundreds if not thousands of years more advanced. Religion is hindering scientific and medical advancements.
I used to be a Christian and attended church regularly. No one hurt me or used my religion to mislead me. Do you want to know what made me an atheist? I read the Bible. That’s right the Bible made me a atheist. If you actually read the Bible and look at what it is saying it doesn’t make sense. There are countless contradictions that just make it unbelievable. The gospels were written by 4 different men at least 70 years after the death of Jesus. That right there makes the “truth” of the Bible a little sketchy.
I understand that religion makes people feel better. I do not agree with it nor will I ever but I will not stop you. I just wish that you would get religion out of the government and schools, and leave it at home where it needs to be. Let the children decide for themselves before we enter another dark age. You are teaching our children to believe but not ask questions. This is a very dangerous thing to do.
Wake up humanity! Look around and see that this world is magnificent without some invisible, telekinetic man in the sky pulling on the universe’s strings.



report abuse
 

Frank Parker

posted January 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm


there is no god, jesus is a myth, human beings are stupid and they suck



report abuse
 

Tom Davis

posted January 10, 2011 at 2:54 pm


Frank, if you really believe that, then what keeps you living from day to day?



report abuse
 

Himangsu Sekhar Pal

posted January 11, 2011 at 6:11 am


Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.



report abuse
 

Himangsu Sekhar Pal

posted January 11, 2011 at 6:12 am


Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.



report abuse
 

Kaye Swanson

posted January 25, 2011 at 7:33 am


As Albert Einstein has said – if you can’t explain something simply, you really don’t understand it.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted July 22, 2011 at 5:24 am


All this talk of God has got me so horny



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs to Enjoy!!
Thank you for visiting Red Letters. This blog is no longer being updated. Please  enjoy the archives. Also, here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Activist Faith Is It the End of the World

posted 9:51:43am May. 29, 2013 | read full post »

Download SCARED for free on Nov. 1 & 2!
The publisher of Scared is giving away free e-book downloads on November 1 & 2. Don't miss this great deal. Download Scared today! Download your free Scared e-book! A Note from the Author: Tom Davis Scared is a work of fiction, but the world and life stories described in the book

posted 5:05:29am Nov. 01, 2012 | read full post »

Touching the Image of Jesus: Part 3
In the final chapter of Alexandra's story, she shares what happened when she boarded the plane for Swaziland with her teammates. This post is a little longer, but I'm pretty sure you won't be able to put it down. Thank you again, Alexandra, for sharing your heart and story with all of us. Fol

posted 9:50:18am Sep. 13, 2012 | read full post »

Touching the Image of Jesus: Part 2
When we left Alexandra, she was wondering how she was going to raise $3,411 to travel across the world with a group of Christians she didn't know. She wasn't a Christian and had no church. But she did feel deeply compelled to get on this trip to the Ludlati CarePoint. So she decided to enter a

posted 4:17:01pm Sep. 10, 2012 | read full post »

Touching the Image of Jesus: Part 1
[caption id="attachment_2722" align="alignright" width="300"] Alexandra, looking ready.[/caption] Sometimes there's a lot more going on than we can see with our physical eyes. At least, that appears true in the case of Alexandra Warwick. I first introduced you to Alexandra in this post, Reje

posted 11:01:13am Sep. 06, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.