Defending the Reformed Christian worldview with the help of a few friends

Menu

Stephen Hawking, Brilliance Crippled by an Agenda

I am amazed at the courage and brilliance of Stephen Hawking. I still remember reading his ideas about the Singularity and how the universe began millions of years ago at this singularity. He achieved this idea and proved it via mathematical calculations and also understood by this process that this singularity must transcend space and time.

Of course Hawking and I might have different opinions on what the Singularity is, but the fact that he was able to come to this conclusion was amazing because in my estimation we had the ability to prove something had to be outside of space and time, and that the universe must have a beginning point. It proved that a less significant revealing of God in nature was real for everyone and not just to the regenerated.

Now over the past several years, and culminating in his most recent book The Grand Design, Hawking has let his denial of God get the best of him and thwart his brilliance. He claims that gravity can prove the existence of the Universe without God and by doing this he not only contradicts himself but also tries to explain an impossibility.

Laws are physical and operate under certain conditions. The Singularity has to be metaphysical because by Hawking’s own admission it transcends space and time, outside of “multiverses” of which there are the possibility of millions. So how would it be possible for a physical law to be responsible for creating something out of nothing?

Answer….It isn’t possible. Why does Hawking say it then? Because he is searching for a way to explain the Universe without the Singularity instead of simply staying within the framework. I have seen many in the Scientific community do this in recent years as they try and stay away from confronting the Singularity issue so they can avoid the idea that a Intelligent creator may exist.

It is sad when scientists go down this route. Regardless of belief system a scientist should study science, a physicist should study physics and just let it take them wherever it goes. Leave the metaphysical to those who study it and don’t start from your belief system and work backward. However this proves to be very difficult as those who don’t believe refuse to admit that Science can’t explain God away, and indeed make attempts such as Hawking to turn it into a tool for disbelief.

The truth is that science and physics alone can’t prove God, but it can be a valuable study of the universe to actually understand as much about the Singularity as possible. Why hide from it and pretend that nothing transcends the Multiverse and stop at a common force like gravity when there is so much more out there and all scientists know it regardless of belief system.

For Hawking to try to shut down the conversation when he himself knows he has no understanding of what lies outside of space and time screams of an agenda to me. When I see an agenda from a scientist and not just a stated bias, which everyone has, I tend to disregard the findings. It looks as if though I will have to put aside my respect for Hawking’s brilliance in the future and look to others who are truly examining the evidence for what it shows. A wonderfully complex multiverse that had a beginning but did not create itself because it lies within time and space which is limited by physical laws such as gravity and causal relationships. Laws that have no power to create in and of themselves something from nothing.

These are fundamentals that we all have to face regardless of belief. Lets face them together as has been done int he past and not disregard to fit an agenda.

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Stephen Hawking, Brilliance Crippled by an Agenda”

In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Professor Hawking quoted as follows:“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”The theory of Spontaneous creation comes about due to the discovery of the creation of particles that could be produced through vacuum by means of quantum theory. However, the experiment in the past has shown that the particles could only exist awhile after its creation and its life could not prolong for more than half an half and it ultimately vanishes. It is erroneous to use this experiment to conclude that spontaneous creation could create something out of nothing in which the created things could last long. Unless the experiment has shown that the created substance could prolong its life more than a year, it is then rational to use it to support there could be spontaneous creation prior to the creation of universe. As the existence of particles through spontaneous creation through the experiment in the vacuum could not even prolong their life more than a year, how could spontaneous creation be occurred prior to the creation of this universe that could create living things that could last even up to this modern days?Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory for spontaneous creation that could create something out of nothing could not be acceptable especially particles that had been created through experiment could not last forever.Stephen hawking also mentions that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. As we know, as the earth revolves around the sun, the gravity is also accompanied with the earth to revolve around the sun. Even if the earth would cease its movement, gravity would cease its movement simultaneously. Thus, the gravity and the earth cannot be separated. As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to assume that gravity could exist at the collapse of stars or prior to the formation of this universe as supported by Stephen Hawking. As gravity and the earth cannot be separated, it is erroneous to support Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist prior to the creation of universe despite there was no object to be found at that time.Isaac Newton was the founder of the theory of gravity and Stephen Hawking develops the theory through gravity. Isaac Newton supported that gravity attaches big objects, such as, the earth. To stay away from big objects, would cause lesser or no gravity. Yet Stephen hawking’s theory contradicts Isaac Newton’s principle that gravity would remain at the absence of object. The worse is that Stephen Hawking supports that gravity could exist even at the absence of the creation of objects prior to the formation of this universe. Thus, Stephen Hawking’s theory has been found to have contradiction with Isaac Newton’s principle.

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
(The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
(The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.

Topics

When you’re trying to understand and apply God’s Word, just reach for Tabletalk magazine. Each issue includes a wealth of daily devotionals and theological articles, along with exclusive online content to supplement your study and help you dig deeper. Now is the time to subscribe and make sure you have this helpful resource on hand. For twelve hours only, yo […]