Mr Bombastic

Introduction
The Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking's latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book's conclusion is exactly the opposite—that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.

Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to t***slate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, "There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no Gods required" a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?

What new theory?
In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a "new theory" called M-theory (where "M" stands for "membrane," or just "m," or "murky" or "missing"1 depending upon one's particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as "superstring" theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from "strings" to "membranes," although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which "predict" just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.

M-theory: science or faith?
Stephen HawkingStephen Hawking
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?

Whence the laws of physics?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?

Conclusion Top of page
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

1) String People: Ed Witten.
2) Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "new" theory of everything is the same old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
3) ibid. "For more than two decades string theory has been the most popular candidate for the unified theory that Hawking envisioned 30 years ago. Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."

Mr Bombastic

Where are all the atheists at? I figured they'd be all over this? Cat got your tongue?

LPgee

That God has no beginning and no end baffled me . Not profoundly.
It is easy to accept that there is an omnipotent being we call God our Creator for just the simple manifestations of things man so far has not duplicated with equal precision, regularity and beauty with one quality: PERFECTION!
The precision of the movements of the planets as they revolve on their axes; the regularity of night and day , lunar moves and the changes in seasons; the perfect beauty of the petals of a rose... and the ultimate super creation... MAN...the perfect machine that operates only with simple fuel which is food...and as a
Machine it has an intellectual power to produce other machines : ships, locomotives, airplanes ; discover electricity, ten numerical digets, eight musical notes, letters of alphabets.... Ad nauseam.
The complexity of thoughts and theories regarding God's existence can be simplified with an acknowledgement that man is created in the image and likeness of God vested with a soul and chosen to be stewards of the creations...

Mr Bombastic

Looks like I silenced the opposition. They're wrong, and they know it. From nothing comes nothing. Also, nothing material, including energy, can create itself. Some scientists claim that energy always existed, but this violates the law of cause and effect. Energy exists, therefore something, or someone caused it to exists. It cannot be eternal, without a beginning. That also violates the laws of science. So, how about it? Any atheists care to explain how the universe created itself from nothing, in violation of all known natural laws? Anyone?

Mr Bombastic

Bingo! On the other hand, scientists cannot even begin to explain how the universe created itself from nothing. They actually believe this? Seriously? Atheism, along with evolution, are a religion. There is not one scrap of real science to support evolution, and especially abiogenesis. Can you believe it? Scientists actually believe that a bunch of lifeless chemicals magically arranged themselves into the building blocks of life, then somehow became more complex, adding new information to it's DNA. This also violates the laws of information theory. It has been proven that meaningful information comes from one source only. Intelligent minds. also known as complex specified information. DNA contains such information. There is no know way that such information could exist as the result of random processes. It is scientifically impossible. Yet some people still believe it could happen. And they call creationists fools? LOL! Too funny!

wuzblynd Loc: thomson georgia

🐽👍👍👍👍

jeff smith

I have read down through you comments. Bravo and very well stated. I also do not know where God comes from. that to me really does not matter . He , is and Christ Jesus, came as the sacrificial lamb to die for ALL , and is our Savior. as has been said, "mans genius is Gods folly" . back in the 70's or 80's they run a test on a rock , said it was thousands of years old. days later as they were packing things to leave this rock fell and split apart. and to every ones surprise there was a modern day hammer head in the rock. most science is a bunch of people living off of federal grants , thanks to a bunch of extra tax money that really wasn't needed. so instead of cutting taxes the government spends it. don't get me wrong there is a lot of science that needs grants but there are also some that is nothing more than a large waste of money.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Good thinking . I believe there is no explanation that the Universe was created . That the power that created it is beyond all the power in this universe. If that's not God, then what is it?

Mr Bombastic

Many people believe that science has all the answers. They have invested it with a quasi religious status. But, in the end, science is nothing more than men and women observing nature and doing experiments. Anything that cannot be observed or experimented upon is not science. The birth of our universe, abiogenesis and evolution do not fit into this category of observational/experimental science. You cannot observe them. You cannot do scientific experiments on them. Thus, they are not science, since the scientific method, by definition, does not apply.

thinksense

JW

God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If God is omniscient then He knows all things. That means he knows the pain to which all of His creatures will be put in the course of their lives and He is OK with that.

If God is omnipresent then why did He create a self-sustaining system. A self-sustaining system implies an absent creator.

If God is omnipotent then why does He allow entropy. Degrading systems are always subject to ultimate destruction.

If God exists He is an uncaring, absentee landlord unwilling to maintain His property.

LPgee

When science did not yet creep into man's perception of the existence of lifeforms other than himself ...with theories :cellular , molecular , atomic , then the speed of light , the attraction of opposite poles, the magnetic field , physics and eventually electricity, then genetics , euthenics, biology , ... men resorted to myths
and superstitions to explain the existence of things.
There was comfort and entertainment in the belief that the gods and goddesses in Olympus were immortal and omniscient. They can appear, disappear in less than a blink , blend with people as they disguised themselves in any which form , created havoc on the disfavored and pampered the favored ones with a demigod status and some powers thereof.
The suspicion that earth was flat was debunked by Galileo. Microbes were discovered and seen through lenses refined by Leovenhoek and man got preventive measures against pathogens and Hippocrates introduced the medical profession.
Fast forward to latter day scientists, among the crop , Albert Einstein ( despite his regret on the damage wrought by the Atomic bomb in
WW II which made use of his Theory of Relativity) did not attempt to hide his belief that there is a God of the universe.
The Theory of Evolution was actually a stepping stone to further experiments on human existence... asserting some provable facts we are derived from primates ( the difference between the DNA of man and gorillas was established at .01 percent).
But Genesis claims otherwise with a tale of the first man and woman.
To ward away the confusion , religions came to be to establish the presence of a Being perceived to be an Almighty called God , Allah, Buddha and other names. depending on the originator.
It's a chaotic world compounded by the characters and pronouncements of world leaders aggressive with their peculiar stand on supremacy be it in economics, technology , social norms and cultures. Man engages in the pursuits of his passions now affected by shades of g****r variety and tinge of skin color.
But as long as the HUMANITIES allow as to laugh and ponder, we survive.
We either take to the streets for venting our choices, write a book , paint a scene, watch movies, try new ways of preparing sandwich, consider taking a cruise, ride an air balloon , try chemotherapy or have an aided suicide as mode of expressions and choices.
It is still a man's world...whether he comes from a sperm bank to test tubes or a surrogate mother, or from biological parents.
The creator invested on true life forms either flora or fauna with procreation latent abilities. The hen
first then it laid eggs.
Other than being an Homo sapiens
did you ever consider existing as a tree or a fowl?

JW

Galileo didn't prove the Earth was round. That was done by the Greeks 2000 years earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Human and gorilla DNA are approx. 1.75% different based on the latest testing but such comparisons are questionable. http://www.newser.com/story/141325/human-gorilla-dna-just-175-of-it-is-different.html

Try for greater accuracy in your data. There are other inaccuracies in your posting as well. See if you can find them.

Mr Bombastic

God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

"If God is omniscient then He knows all things. That means he knows the pain to which all of His creatures will be put in the course of their lives and He is OK with that."

Ask yourself why this pain exists. It's because man sinned against God. Any pain and suffering we experience is our own fault. And who says God is OK with this. God DOES care about us. That's why He sent his Son to die for us.

"If God is omnipresent then why did He create a self-sustaining system. A self-sustaining system implies an absent creator."

Gods creation was perfect. Entropy did not exist. Creation was cursed when Adam Sinned against God.

"If God is omnipotent then why does He allow entropy. Degrading systems are always subject to ultimate destruction."

Once again, it is the result of sin. But God gave us a way to something better. Eternal life in Heaven. It is a free gift. We don't even have to pay for it.

"If God exists He is an uncaring, absentee landlord unwilling to maintain His property."

God is not absent. He works in the lives of millions of people every day. In fact, your very freedom is a result of men who revered the Creator, and formed a system of government that has been a shining beacon to the world for over 200 years. Not so much, lately, but America is the result of the efforts of men who believed in God. Without them, and without God, our culture would not even exist.

Richard Rowland

Well, you had me hooked till I came to the part," super creation." Man is the worst of the creations, in fact, I have to chuckle every time I hear those words uddered, "Man is in the image of God". You've got to be kidding! This two-legged, upright walking fool personifies lucifer, rather than God. There isn't one thing on this planet that you describe as beauty and perfection, that wouldn't fare better if mankind didn't exist. Nice try, though.