Evidence for God from Science

Ok, after hearing what Hugh Ross and the boys had to say about this, I"m still have a lot of unanswered questions and am getting confused and worried about the whole thing. First off, is Hawking saying that the universe came from nothing, literal nothing or is he saying that gravity or some other discovered or undiscovered natural law brought the universe into being? If it's the latter instead of the former, we may have a major challenge on our hands. Also, I'm not seeing anything yet as far as what scientific evidence and studies confirm this or give credibility to Hawkings claims. I wish that Ross and his team would have spent more time on this. I also wish they could have unpacked all the evidence that secular scientists would give for this claim and try to demonstrate that the conclusions don't support the claims. But the fact that they didn't spend enough time and that we don't have a complete picture of this whole deal yet, I"m not only confused but very worried. It worries me that if we don't get a solid rebuttal to this, this may be a major threat to Christian Theism. Has Craig or any other big name apologist weighed in on this issue yet? If anyone has the whole story on this please let me know. Thanks.

I see no evidence whatsoever that Hawking discovered some sort of new natural law to disprove Christian theism or anything like that. I'm guessing the reason no big name apologist has spent a lot of time on this yet is because there's nothing there- all we have is a released quote from an upcoming book, a quote that was meant to stir things up and get people interested (which it did, at least long enough to help book sales). If Hawking were giving anything other than his opinion we would be hearing much, much more. For all the big talk of the atheists, if they ever came up with "real" evidence against Christian theism we would really be hearing about it. Heck, we hear sensationalist headlines all the time (like the "discovering the bones of Jesus" thing) that end up being totally fake.

As far as the quote itself, maybe someone like Craig will address it at some point, but based off that quote and that quote alone he really wouldn't need to. If any rational, open-minded person applies elementary logic, it seems to me that he should come to the obvious conclusion most of the people here have. Most quotes from Christian scientists in the UK (it was a bigger story over there from what I hear) basically wrote it off. So I wouldn't be worried here, I agree with Gabrielman that it's an agenda thing and NOT a science thing.

derrick09 wrote:Ok, after hearing what Hugh Ross and the boys had to say about this, I"m still have a lot of unanswered questions and am getting confused and worried about the whole thing.

There is nothing to worry about.. Actually I'm glad that Hawking manned-up and admitted that his "so called" science eliminates the need for a creator. Again, Hawking fell into his own trap and shot himself in the foot.. No very wise at all... Perhaps his handicap influenced his judgment, I don't know, but it was a kindergarten mistake.

His science is not science at all... It's philosophy with a capital "P."

Why is everyone getting so worked up. This theory has yet to be proven, and even the simple task of devising a test to disprove it has yet to be accomplished.

So at this point the idea is just a mental excersize on what could be an answer.

What you would be reading if you purchased this book, is what Hawkings et all believe is the most rational explanation based on math and reasoning, and of course their beliefs. There is no SCIENTIFIC breakthrough here. It is technically still a hypothesis. So relax.

derrick09,

Dr. Ross and Dr. Zweerink said as much as they could say at this point. The book is not out yet. So, all they have to go on are the news and what Hawking has said in the past. Dr. Ross has books that cover these topics and Dr. Zweerink has put out a booklet on multi-verses. Once the book is out I'm sure they will give a more in-depth response.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Why is everyone getting so worked up. This theory has yet to be proven, and even the simple task of devising a test to disprove it has yet to be accomplished.

So at this point the idea is just a mental excersize on what could be an answer.

What you would be reading if you purchased this book, is what Hawkings et all believe is the most rational explanation based on math and reasoning, and of course their beliefs. There is no SCIENTIFIC breakthrough here. It is technically still a hypothesis. So relax.

BGood, nice to see you.

Hawking's idea is not new. I remember responding to a paper of his in my philosophy class some seven or something years ago. I can't find my response right now, but from memory Hawking's idea is based more on manipulating mathematics rather than science or reality.

Also from memory, it was based on what I considered to be an absurd ontology and definitions over what comprises "nothing" (edit: which I just read August touching upon at the beginning of the thread -- good minds think alike). For example, negative energy may mathematically be able to cancel out positive energy, but this doesn't really mean there is no energy. I can't remember whether this is something like what Hawking proposed, or the postulation of some other secular scientist I have in mind. And I don't have the time to look it up right now. I'll try dig around for my response those years ago though.

But again, as BGood pointed out, there is really nothing to get worked up over here. I recall many intelligent people in my class not fully understanding this, so I doubt there are many Atheists who use it who really understand it. If you come across it while debating, get your opponent to explain the idea until you understand it... I bet they come unstuck or resort to diversion tactics.

K

Gman wrote:

derrick09 wrote:Ok, after hearing what Hugh Ross and the boys had to say about this, I"m still have a lot of unanswered questions and am getting confused and worried about the whole thing.

There is nothing to worry about.. Actually I'm glad that Hawking manned-up and admitted that his "so called" science eliminates the need for a creator. Again, Hawking fell into his own trap and shot himself in the foot.. No very wise at all... Perhaps his handicap influenced his judgment, I don't know, but it was a kindergarten mistake.

His science is not science at all... It's philosophy with a capital "P."

Many Christians out there acknowledge that this is what has been happening since the Enlightenment period, and that we should reform our ideas of how our whole educational system has been infiltrated by this.

In terms of refutation, Origin of Species was roundly refuted shortly after its release... but that didn't stop folks from buying into the ideas of it and other philosophical ramifications of these "Enlightened" people.

I am wondering if anyone finds it fruitful to actually review the way this has come about and how to help remove barriers to faith for unbelievers, or shall we just sit around on the internet and talk about a handicapped person flubbed up. Mocking Hawking sounds like sloganeering, and the last thing we need as a Christian response is worldly manipulative techniques to be continued as the way the Church should be responding to a lost and dying world.

Of course, that's just my opinion. And what do I know?

Much of even what people in other Christian threads seem to communicate shows that they are not understanding how engrained the philosophy of the world has become in our brains. Just to reject this portion of the philosophy is not enough, IMO. I'm praying for God to continue to renew minds, because He is good to His word. Thanks for letting me jump in here.

gralan wrote: I am wondering if anyone finds it fruitful to actually review the way this has come about and how to help remove barriers to faith for unbelievers, or shall we just sit around on the internet and talk about a handicapped person flubbed up. Mocking Hawking sounds like sloganeering, and the last thing we need as a Christian response is worldly manipulative techniques to be continued as the way the Church should be responding to a lost and dying world.

I'm certainly not mocking Dawkings or saying that he made a mistake. What I'm saying is that one cannot separate their philosophical views from their scientific ones. One's religion (whether you are atheist, Christian, Buddhist, etc..) and science at some point MUST conflict. Especially around the topic of origins.. Hawking's has beautifully demonstrated that for use, exactly as Darwin did in his books. Theirs ideas are simply the natural progression of thought and reason. This idea that science and religion can be somehow separated is a myth.. It's everywhere too, in college books, magazines, etc..

Simply put.. Whenever you take science and question the meaning or origin of life or the universe, then you are making a belief system out of science, the answer for everything, your concerns, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You are making a religious philosophy.. Your god.

His only mistake is that he doesn't see this..

I'm happy he wrote the book.. Maybe people will actually start to think about it..

I agree wholeheartedly that our knowledge is not separated from our faith or our philosophy.

The world is errant, and I'm hoping we might get people to start thinking about it in our neighborhoods and workplaces... and in our churches.

Praise be to God for grace and love within the community of faith. I'm glad you are putting up with me, so far.

Peace of Christ to you.
In His name,
gregory alan anderson
aka gralan

For derrick09, William Lane Craig now has a short audio blog on his website about this if you're still wondering. He basically said the same thing people have said here (he hasn't seen it yet, but from what he can see there is nothing actually new here and it's not even a reversal of Hawking's earlier positions). He then poses a number of very good questions (some of them similar to concerns raised here) that will tear apart Hawking's work if he doesn't have good answers to them. Hawking's objections to fine tuning are also addressed.

It's good stuff, if you're still worried you should definitely check it out.

Thank you Narnia, I'll check it out, I assume once the book comes out Craig and others will offer more in depth responses. Thanks again, God bless.

I wrote something with regards this issue on a wee blog I sometimes drop a line at. I may as well just paste it over to here...
Mr. Hawking does nothing to negate a necessary being. Hawking no doubt will shift plenty of books, but certainly not for any great insight. The genius of Hawking is that he still manages to fool so many people.

The man has a sense of humour. Believe it, and do not get wound up over this nonsense. Smile at those who still hang on his every word.

Hey everyone, I have a few new questions about this, first off, how in the world does Hawking (in his condition) study about the universe? Since he's immobilized how does he look through telescopes study computer models, data, and test how his theories stand up against the latest and greatest evidence? Also, since his book has been out a few days, have any top Christian apologists responded to the book's top arguments? I know that William Lane Craig will be on Greg Kokul's radio program this Sunday to discuss Hawking's book. And I'm also assuming that Hugh Ross and company will have something here in a few days if not at least in the next week or so. But if anyone knows anything that's already out there from Christian apologists let me know. Thanks and God bless.

Here is a nice article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2010-09-13

Personally I dont think we have too much to worry about here. But like you said - WLC and RTB will come up with even more detailed critiques soon.

God Bless

Silvertusk

Just in case if you all haven't seen the article yet, Rich just did one that's up on the main site. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ssary.html