Stephen Hawking's Stand.

[Mobiosity]

Recently Stephen Hawking has made a statement of the universe not needing God as the creator. (You can find it all over the internet) The media, athiest and agnostics are going crazy!~
If you know of William Lane Craig, this is one of his main arguments (how something can come from nothing). I don't know much about this subject but didn't the Big Bang create space and time to put laws like gravity into effect (God created the Big Bang) ?

What are your views on Hawking's points...?

Whether God was necessary for the creation of the universe is irrelevant. Interesting, but it has no bearing on whether He created the universe or not. He did.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

There is no evidence of God and there never will be any evidence of God. If God wanted us to believe through evidence He would have just shown himself to all of us so we could see Him with our own eyes. Instead He chooses for us to believe through faith. Also, science cannot quantify God because you cannot use the natural to measure the supernatural.

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

John 1:18
"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

You are right, we have never seen God but He have left us with evidence. And I think Science is one of His biggest evidences when we take the facts, not the theories, but facts of science. Those facts do not contradict Him. But scripture is probably the most concrete evidence we have of Him, because that book is His heart--we might not have an insiders guide to How He thinks, but we do have an insiders guide of how He loves us.

 

[razeontherock]

we might not have an insiders guide to How He thinks, but we do have an insiders guide of how He loves us.

"We have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor 2:16 Seems we do have an insider's guide to how He thinks

Also the verse right before comes to bear re: Hawking: "he that is spiritual judgeth all things"

 

[wayseer]

Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks has his own article on this as well as that bit I quoted earlier.

Thank you - good read.

What I find interesting is that both Hawkings and Dawkin both fail their own disciplines - neither seem cognitive of their own inconsistency.

If science is built of the philosophy of cause and effect then to stay true to the mantra of science there must have been a cause to the big bang. But what do we get from science - a cop out. Unable to follow through with the cause and effect principle the big bank is simply called a singularity. In one ontological sweep of the hand the whole rational of science is cast aside in favour of ... a contradiction.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you - good read.

What I find interesting is that both Hawkings and Dawkin both fail their own disciplines - neither seem cognitive of their own inconsistency.

If science is built of the philosophy of cause and effect then to stay true to the mantra of science there must have been a cause to the big bang. But what do we get from science - a cop out. Unable to follow through with the cause and effect principle the big bank is simply called a singularity. In one ontological sweep of the hand the whole rational of science is cast aside in favour of ... a contradiction.

Thank you for your perceptive analysis. Perhaps you should be the next person to publicly debate either of these two individuals, if not publish a book on the topic.

 

[Montalban]

Thank you for your perceptive analysis. Perhaps you should be the next person to publicly debate either of these two individuals, if not publish a book on the topic.

Dawkins is very anti-religious and would probably never consent to such a debate.

Check out YouTube with a search by "Richard Dawkins" and the F-word

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dawkins is very anti-religious and would probably never consent to such a debate.

Check out YouTube with a search by "Richard Dawkins" and the F-word

Oddly enough, Dawkins did accept the challenge to debate John Lennox who is a very sound Christian. Depending upon which side one listens to, Dawkins was either soundly trounced or vice versa. I rather doubt after that experience that Dawkins would be willing to debate again. As you rightly note, he is a very vulgar and profane man.

 

[Montalban]

Oddly enough, Dawkins did accept the challenge to debate John Lennox who is a very sound Christian. Depending upon which side one listens to, Dawkins was either soundly trounced or vice versa. I rather doubt after that experience that Dawkins would be willing to debate again. As you rightly note, he is a very vulgar and profane man.

Dawkins is illogical. He's pushed for biomorphs as a tool for teaching how evolution might work.

He's suggested that religion is caused by genes - which means his own lack of belief must equally be genetic.

After 9/11 he said "What can you expect from an Abrahamic religion"

 

[daydreamergurl15]

"We have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor 2:16 Seems we do have an insider's guide to how He thinks

Also the verse right before comes to bear re: Hawking: "he that is spiritual judgeth all things"

 

[wayseer]

Thank you for your perceptive analysis. Perhaps you should be the next person to publicly debate either of these two individuals, if not publish a book on the topic.

Thank you.

I think it important that Christians appreciate the very 'unsystematic' approach science sometimes resorts to to prove a point.

I am not anti science - quite the reverse. Science has much to contribute but it also has its limitation and we need to be aware of those limitations.

I don't think I necessarily need to write a book - there are any number out there dealing with the subject. Polkinghorne is a good start. But what I think Christians do need to do is to engage the theological debate and to do that one needs to do some serious study.

 

[Mr Dave]

Thank you for your perceptive analysis. Perhaps you should be the next person to publicly debate either of these two individuals, if not publish a book on the topic.

I'd buy the book

 

[wayseer]

A readership of two. I don't think a publisher would be too attracted. But thank you for your comments.

For those interested you might get hold of 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath - a good short read that sinks Dawkins thesis better than I could.

 

[Mr Dave]

A readership of two. I don't think a publisher would be too attracted. But thank you for your comments.

For those interested you might get hold of 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister McGrath - a good short read that sinks Dawkins thesis better than I could.

That is a good read

Peter Hitchens' 'The Rage Against God' is worth a read as well. That's more aimed at being written against his brother's works, his brother being Christopher Hitchens. (Peter Hitchens is a political journalist for The Mail on Sunday).