Hawking - God did not create the universe

[derrick09]

Here is a new article in response to Hawkings book...


http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... me&topic2=

[Kurieuo]

Here is a new article in response to Hawkings book...


http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... me&topic2=

McGrath is a well reasoned theologian...

Good article.

[narnia4]

I'm glad to see a number of good articles out on this, more than I expected at least. I probably underestimate the average Christian who doesn't know anything about philosophy or theology, but I worry about those who will be shocked at every sensational headline and follow whatever celeb scientists say just because of their name. At this point I'd be fine if the story just went away, but I'm glad to see some good responses, even from scientists who are atheists.

[derrick09]

A couple more questions, if this somehow develops into something that has merit (which from what I've seen thusfar, it has not) but if somehow it does, how will it effect the cosmological argument (which to me, is the flagship argument for Theism and is crucial for Christian Theism much like the resurrection argument)? If this book and future studies and expiriments somehow prove this book's main points, I assume it will either destroy the cosmological argument or at the very least, alter it a great deal to where it's no longer as effective as it used to be. So for us apologists, what would be our next best arguments to fall back on? Would it be the ontological argument? The Moral argument? Or would we stick strictly to Christ's resurrection argument to salvage the case for Christian Theism? Thanks and God bless.

[narnia4]

Actually, I'm not certain that this does weaken the cosmological argument, even if proven. As Craig pointed out, the "nothing" that Hawking is talking about isn't the same as nothing in a philosophical sense, and there's still the question of "where did the laws come from". I don't think any atheists has very good answers to that. Rich's article also points out that the theory may be impossible to prove scientifically, so I really don't see how it could come to the point where the cosmological argument is invalidated. As it is, reviewers have read the book by now and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of "evidence" or anything "new" here at all, so I wouldn't worry.

To address your question, however, there are apologists who don't use the cosmological argument at all. Those who don't use it probably tend to focus more on historical arguments, like the historicity of Christ's resurrection and of the Bible, probably talk about archeology, the reliability of the Gospel accounts, and others. For philosophical arguments, I think the moral argument is a very important one that isn't always used in a good way- sometimes it's used like an emotional appeal instead of a professional argument, but I think there's a lot in it. At the very least it can shake up an atheist's view on morality. I really don't get atheists who think they're "moral people" when I think the moral argument presents a very good case that there cannot possibly be an objective moral standard without a God. If there were more intellectually honest atheists who lived their lives according to their worldview, I would have to think that more of them would tend toward nihilism. Anyway, my point is that even though the cosmological argument is an important and convincing one, the loss of it wouldn't mean that we would have to "salvage the case" for Christian theism (at least imo)... there are a lot of other arguments and more could be created in time.

[J.Davis]

Hawking discovered a way to help people that want to deny God’s existence achieve success.

Nothing new…

[godslanguage]

Nobody, not even a physicist such as Stephen Hawking knows what gravity is or isn't. We can observe the effect of gravity and apply mathematical equations (ie: newtoniam mechanics, force = mass * acceleration), but we don't know the cause of gravity. If one does not know the cause, we do not know if it existed prior to the universe. Its all speculation and nonsense (voodoo science) which too readily gets passed as science.

[Gman]

Nobody, not even a physicist such as Stephen Hawking knows what gravity is or isn't. We can observe the effect of gravity and apply mathematical equations (ie: newtoniam mechanics, force = mass * acceleration), but we don't know the cause of gravity. If one does not know the cause, we do not know if it existed prior to the universe. Its all speculation and nonsense (voodoo science) which too readily gets passed as science.

Nice seeing you again godslanguage. Either we make gravity our god or God our God... Either way we are simply practicing a religion, a philosophy.

In other words, choose your God wisely...

[suzette]

I've always enjoyed Mr. Hawking's work, as I do all the physicists and the scientists who work so hard in this particular area.

I watched his two-hour program on this subject (the same info. as the book) and was quite astounded by the beauty of the universe displayed on the screen.

The fact that Mr. Hawking used words like 'luck' in the evolution of the universe was a bit of a disappointment. Mind you, I realize he is trying hard to simplify creation of the world and allow all of us to see how it was actually achieved.

We should all thank Mr. Hawking and the others who put this information out there to provide all the proof we need to believe that God does exist and both the book and the TV program has cemented this fact.

I followed his program with the Biblical version of creation and found it quite amazing how many words he seems to have taken from God's word to describe how the universe and our world in particular, came into being. Image this: we were created from 'dust'... where have we seen that word before?

I always enjoy the science in these discussions because it helps me become even closer to Christ knowing that He did, indeed, create all things.

[Matt DeLockery]

Nobody, not even a physicist such as Stephen Hawking knows what gravity is or isn't. We can observe the effect of gravity and apply mathematical equations (ie: newtoniam mechanics, force = mass * acceleration), but we don't know the cause of gravity. If one does not know the cause, we do not know if it existed prior to the universe. Its all speculation and nonsense (voodoo science) which too readily gets passed as science.

In his book, Hawking says that gravity is the curvature, or warping, of spacetime. What I find amazing is his view that this curvature of spacetime can somehow bring spacetime into existence. On page 5 he said philosophy was dead. It is apparent that he hasn't studied any of it.

[Gman]

We should all thank Mr. Hawking and the others who put this information out there to provide all the proof we need to believe that God does exist and both the book and the TV program has cemented this fact.

I.

I for one am very glad that Hawking has confessed that his science equals his philosophy (which he calls dead).. Finally someone has proved that for us. THANK YOU HAWKINGS!!! And THANKS for the ammunition..

[derrick09]

http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/091910.mp3


Interview that Greg Koukl did with William Lane Craig on Hawking's book. This was done after Craig had read the book, so this is his immediate response to the book's claims. The interview is near the end of the radio show so you may want to fast forward it some. Craig laid out some awesome responses and had some key questions about the claims of the book. Thanks for your time guys, God bless.

[narnia4]

That was a good interview. I'm happy to hear that scientists aren't jumping onto the bandwagon, and from what I've read I think Craig is right about that. Of course there are those atheists who will take any anti-God position and run with it, but the general response by science has been pretty reasonable imo. Then the response from apologists has been great, it makes me think that Hawking should have stuck to what he knows instead of writing philosophy, because he's not cut out to handle these responses.

So yeah, although this was one of those things that grabbed a lot of headlines, I can't see it as a book that tests the faith of any Christian with any understanding of apologetics or the current state of science.

[Trucker]

It beggars belief that some of the contributors to this thread seem to believe they understand more about the nature of the universe than Stephen Hawking. And, as for comments along the lines of "he has more faith than all of us", well, just... Seriously, if you don't get it, do yourself a favour: read the book!

[derrick09]

Hey guys, here is a good article from JP Moreland in response to the book.

http://www.jpmoreland.com/2010/09/22/sc ... laughable/