I keep wondering why atheists want to create a non existent bridge between science and religion christianity.
Well the reason is not far fetched. No one will listen to them if they didnt back their beliefs with science.
Not that science can prove that creation came out of nothing, but the atheist desperately clings to it cos he realises how irrelevant he and his opinion will be if he didnt talk about science.
Not only does he need science to stay relevant, he also needs religion to stay relevant. This explains why most nairaland atheists swarm the religion section day and night.

In reference to the thread joke an atheist recently created;
https://www.nairaland.com/2827519/comprehensive-break-down-stephen-hawkins
I want to quickly point out the ignorance and unintelligence of the atheist.
He emphasized stephen hawking's quote on why something can create something.

Joshuabase:
"Because such a law as gravity exists, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

The issue of the quote has already been overflogged, wonder if dude lives underground
Its funny that the atheists dont care to know why such a law as gravity exists. They prefer to build on this premise without probing it.
Why should a law exist?, why should anything even exist?.
Some atheists even go ahead to say "we are here and thats all that matters". And then they want to build every other thing on such premises.
I seriously wonder what they smoke when they pass off such stupid1ty as logic.



Then he made the most unintelligent analogy ive ever seen.

Joshuabase:
Here's an analogy - imagine a bucket of water filled to the brim whose water is not allowed to spill out, because the water isn't allowed to spill out, if I force stones into the bucket the atoms of water become tightly packed around these stones. In order to provide space for the stones. Matter is the stone, water is the space. Matter, no matter how small warps space causing space to become tightly packed around it. If a larger object warps the space around it, then any smaller object that passes through the warped space (gravity) the relative velocity is slowed and it is pulled towards the larger object.
Space would've been undisturbed just like the bucket until there were massive fluctuations in the quantum fields or in the case of the bucket till I put the stones in, and because space can't expand into anything or in the case of the bucket, the water couldn't spill out - gravity was created.

Read the bolded severally.
He says "If I would force stones into a bucket". Meaning "he" would be a cause to which an effect will follow.
Not only has this dude forgotten that "he" as used in the above is an external force, a greater force and an intelligent being.
He has forgotten that he is an intelligent being that added stone to a bucket to quicken a desired effect.
And he expected the mods to take this joke to the front page? . seriously??
To further pile up his woes, one can ask him why there is a bucket, water and stones. Did they jump into existence from nothing too

In the long joke, he further tried to explain something as nothing by talking about gravity.
I wonder what type of person does not know that gravity is something.
The big question is why existence should exist? Why gravity should even exist, and not how things can spring up into existence because of gravity.


Well, the remainder of the thread will involve some submissions from great scientists on stephen hawking's god quote.

Sensible submissions are welcome too.


cc: timonski, vooks, KingEbukaNaija, efficiencie, CoolUsername, SirWere, plaetton, Maamin

Matt Slick's submission:

I must throw caution to the wind and address what I see as a serious problem of logic in what Mr. Hawking has said. From the above quote he said, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

In order for something to create, it must perform an action, but if it performs an action, it must already exist. This is a logical problem. Does Mr. Hawking know something we don't about logic and the universe? Is he privy to information about physics and the ontologically prior existence of whatever-it-was-that-created-the-universe that we don't have? I don't know, and the article doesn't tell us. It is certainly probable that he in his brilliance is able to see things the average person cannot when it comes to the origins theories. I will defer to his knowledge in this area. However, logic is not something he can violate, no matter how smart he is, and be expected to be taken seriously--at least on this issue. Therefore I, a mere mortal, must take umbrage with Mr. Hawking's statement. It just doesn't make any sense and cannot be true.

There are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the existence of the universe: personal and impersonal. This is called an antonymic pair. It is a set of opposites and encompasses all possibilities within its category. Something is either personal or impersonal in its essence. Therefore, we have two worldviews from which we can derive possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Furthermore, if there are only two possibilities and we negate one of them, by default the other is validated. This is logically necessary.

So, we must ask ourselves how an impersonal cause, the universe, can bring itself into existence. Aside from the obvious logical problem I've already cited above, how is it that an impersonal, non-existent "stuff" can spontaneously create? Again, it can't since it doesn't exist by which it would then have the ability to perform an action such as creation. 

But, let's not stop there. Let's take a look at the idea that there is a cause of the universe that is other than the universe and is itself impersonal.

In order for something to bring about an effect, it must have the necessary and sufficient conditions. Let me illustrate. Let's say I want to move a small boulder. It is too big for me to move without a lever. Therefore, I apply a lever to the rock and move it. The necessary conditions to move the rock are 1) my existence, 2) the existence of the rock, 3) a lever, and 4) a fulcrum (something the lever must press against). The sufficient condition is that I must have enough strength. Therefore, when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the rock can be moved. But, I am a personal being, and I must decide to apply the lever to move the rock.

In the case of an impersonal cause of the universe, there must have been necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence. But, the question is if the pre-existence stuff that brought the universe into existence had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then it would automatically have brought the universe into existence. In the case of the lever and boulder illustration, if a "necessary rock" of "sufficient weight" were placed on the end of the lever, it would spontaneously move the boulder. When impersonal conditions that are both necessary and sufficient exist, the result is automatic.

If the necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence were impersonal, then the universe would have been spontaneously formed an infinite amount of time ago since the necessary and sufficient conditions would have existed for eternity. If the universe was brought into existence an infinitely long time ago, there would be no usable energy left in the universe (entropy). But since there is usable energy left in the universe, the universe is not infinitely old. Because the universe is not infinitely old, the theory that an impersonal cause that is both necessary and sufficient brought the universe into existence cannot work.

It would seem more logical to say that since the universe is not infinitely old, that there must have been a personal cause that brought it into existence. Furthermore, Hawking's statement that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" is incoherent. It is illogical and not possible.

Scientist John Lennox's submission;

There's no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

Unfortunately, while Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters'?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don't like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle's view of the 'eternal universe' without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

Quotes from learned cosmologists, mathematicians, religious leaders and philosophers of science on stephen hawkins bulllshit quote.

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the universe.  It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence...

Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.”

Rev. Dr. Ernest C Lucas
"Christians and people of other faiths argue that there is good evidence in human history and human experience that a Creator God, not just the laws of physics, is required as the answer to the question: 'Why does anything exist at all'?"

Professor John Lennox 
"Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe," he said, adding that laws do not create anything in and of themselves.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent."

Rev Dr. David Wilkinson 
"[Hawking] raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator, such as cosmic purpose, the source of the laws of physics and the intelligibility of the universe."

Professor Alister McGrath
An Ulster academic at King's College in London who has an international reputation in Christian apologetics – asked: "So where do the laws of physics come from, then?" Downpatrick-born Mr McGrath, who has an extensive background in molecular biophysics and theology, said: "Hawking just moves the problem back one stage."

Professor Eric Priest,
"...to rule out a possibly important role for God is in my view unjustified. It is certainly possible that God sets up and maintains or underpins the laws of physics and allows them to work, so that being able to explain the big bang in terms of physics is not inconsistent with there being a role for God.

As a scientist, you are continually questioning, rarely coming up with a definitive answer. The limitations of your own knowledge and expertise together with the beauty and mystery of life and the universe often fill you with a sense of profound humility. Thus, unequivocal assertions are not part of a genuine scientific quest.

... many of the questions that are most crucial to us as human beings are not addressed adequately at all by science, such as the nature of beauty and love and how to live one's life – often philosophy or history or theology are better suited to help answer them.

The complementary nature of different questions and in particular of the difference between how and why are important. If M-theory does indeed turn out to enable a unified theory, Hawking may be able in future to say how the universe started, but as a physicist he cannot answer the question "why?"

Dr. Lee Rayfield.
"[Science] can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God. Faith is a matter that's outside that.

But as I look at the universe, and as many people who are much more understanding of cosmology than I, and mathematics, as they look at it, through the eyes of faith, they see a universe which is still very coherent with what we believe about God and His nature."

Lord Jonathan Sacks
"There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live,"

Dr Denis Alexander 
"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative."

Dr. Fraser Watts
"a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Professor George Ellis
Scientist and educator George Ellis, the president of the International Society for Science and Religion, is quoted as saying his biggest problem with Hawking's theories is that they present the public with "a choice - either science or religion."

Fr Brian Lucas
''Among scientists there has always been discussion about the origins of the universe and discussion about cause and effect..

There are still two questions for the scientists to answer. Where did the laws of physics come from that led to the spontaneous existence of the universe and the second question is why is there a universe at all?''

Professor Paul Davies
"Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

...Although cosmology has advanced enormously since the time of Laplace, the situation remains the same: there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off. But when it comes to the laws that explain the big bang, we are in murkier waters." 

Brother Guy Consolmagno.
Brother Consolmagno, told CNA how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of “nothing,” as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

“God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about,” he said.

Br Consolmagno said Hawking's dismissal of God was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as “nothing,” but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of “god” in which Christians do not believe.

“The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn’t believe in, is one I don’t believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge.”

Br Consolmagno said: “God is the reason why existence itself exists.” 

Fr Robert Spitzer
Former president of Gongaza University Fr Robert Spitzer, said Hawking's dismissal of God reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists - "both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it." 

Although Hawking talks about the universe “creating itself from nothing,” he is presupposing that this “nothing” somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr Robert said.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, Fr Robert explained, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of “spontaneous creation” from “nothing.”

FR Robert writes: “Let’s take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above – the law of gravity. It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'.”

“Now if we rephrase Dr Hawking’s statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something,” by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity."

He concludes: "In my view Dr Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing.”

Grabs a seat

Like I mentioned in the other thread . Hawking's BS claim has been refuted by all and sundry in the science world . Mi bro winner01 just did a perfect job in drilling reality into Joshuabase 's skull .

Who sees a difference between scientist John Lennox's statement and this :

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

KingEbukasBlog:


The alien bullshit leaves me transfixed . They certainly know its an intelligent design . They know abiogenesis is shiiit , they now opted for that aliens must have been responsible . There are no evidence for aliens but these same idiots speculate that these extraterrestrial beings MAY have sent space seeds to create life here on earth .

If they could come up with such things in 2015 , what happens to proof life can come from the non living - abiogenesis ? Its obvious they know there is no such likelihood and have now turned their attention to directed panspermia .

But these intelligent beings that orchestrated directed panspermia cant be God ! There are no questions asked where these intelligent beings got their intelligence from or even their origin .

Just recently , scientists discovered cluster of genes , M1 and M2 responsible for reasoning , memory , attention , processing speed . And these are controlled by master regulator switches . Now researches are on going to know if one's cognitive ability can be modified through the knowledge of these genes . This is just recent o ! And shallow people believe through blind faith that this super complex design is a result of primitive natural processes or aliens whose source of intelligence we can't account for .

Welcome to rational reasoning 101 : nothing -> laws of nature -> something -> natural process -> everything

Ok, let's say for one second that Hawking made a big mistake.

This does nothing to validate your christian creation myth. First the sequence is completely different from how things came to be.

Secondly, your argument of who put gravity in place requires a fair amount of special pleading to work because it falls apart when you are asked who the creator of this creator is. You may say the creator is self-existing but we have evidence for this.

Third, I want you to consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means that we know of and we know that all matter is made up of 'condensed' energy so it is possible to say that the universe expanded from a singularity (or point) of near-infinite energy.


PS: I want you to understand that gravity doesn't have to be put in place, it is merely a dent in the fabric of space-time caused by a particle that has mass.

Theists have a hard time understanding simple concepts.

Did you know stephen hawking is working on a model of an eternal reality? Wondered why?

Matter and can be created from quantum fields. These fluctuations happens at the quantum scale where the universe is probabilistic.

Cause and effect fails.

Quantum fields just like space are infinite and pervade the entirety of reality. Something that's infinite can't have a beginning it would've always existed.

Most people mis-interptete the big bang theory. Matter was created at the big bang. Space was already there.

Speaking of nothing creating something, I have a meme for that.

CoolUsername:
Ok, let's say for one second that Hawking made a big mistake.

Oh he did

This does nothing to validate your christian creation myth. First the sequence is completely different from how things came to be.

The creation story is true and the sequence of events checks out

Secondly, your argument of who put gravity in place requires a fair amount of special pleading to work because it falls apart when you are asked who the creator of this creator is. You may say the creator is self-existing but we have evidence for this.

The creator is conscious , intelligent and eternal . You might well explain how matter provided self awareness in humans .

Third, I want you to consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means that we know of and we know that all matter is made up of 'condensed' energy so it is possible to say that the universe expanded from a singularity (or point) of near-infinite energy.

Some scientists proposed that the universe is eternal with claims that there is no singularity .

Joshuabase:

Speaking of nothing creating something, I have a meme for that.

Your memes are always dumb . It is impossible to bring something from nothing except through supernatural intervention in respect to the genesis of the universe . ONLY through supernatural intervention that life came from the non living . Comprende ? ou etes-vous malade dans la tete?

CoolUsername:

Secondly, your argument of who put gravity in place requires a fair amount of special pleading to work because it falls apart when you are asked who the creator of this creator is. You may say the creator is self-existing but we have evidence for this.

infinite regression
*face palm*
https://www.nairaland.com/2816262/god-created-everything-created-god

CoolUsername:

Third, I want you to consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means that we know of and we know that all matter is made up of 'condensed' energy so it is possible to say that the universe expanded from a singularity (or point) of near-infinite energy.


PS: I want you to understand that gravity doesn't have to be put in place, it is merely a dent in the fabric of space-time caused by a particle that has mass.

@ bolded, just one problem, the atheist seems to know all the means, and is sure God is not one of them.

Joshuabase:

Cause and effect fails.

But you used cause and effwct in your dumb analogy

Joshuabase:

Most people mis-interptete the big bang theory. Matter was created at the big bang. Space was already there.

Speaking of nothing creating something, I have a meme for that.

Space is something, not nothing.
Why did it have to be there.
Why does anything have to exist.
You are as dumb as your memes.

winner01:
I keep wondering why atheists want to create a non existent bridge between science and religion christianity.
Well the reason is not far fetched. No one will listen to them if they didnt back their beliefs with science.
Not that science can prove that creation came out of nothing, but the atheist desperately clings to it cos he realises how irrelevant he and his opinion will be if he didnt talk about science.
Not only does he need science to stay relevant, he also needs religion to stay relevant. This explains why most nairaland atheists swarm the religion section day and night.

Firstly,there is nothing religious or christian about the Old Testament. There Hijacked ancient text, copied and pasted them into the Bible. Therefore,you are defending a plagiarized history book. None of the Old testament stories belonged to the Jews. They had all their names edited to weak minds like yours. The Jesus's story is obviously not true as he shared the same story with older historical figures and this puts a big question mark on the Bible.

In reference to the thread joke an atheist recently created;
https://www.nairaland.com/2827519/comprehensive-break-down-stephen-hawkins
I want to quickly point out the ignorance and unintelligence of the atheist.
He emphasized stephen hawking's quote on why something can create something.
The issue of the quote has already been overflogged, wonder if dude lives underground
Its funny that the atheists dont care to know why such a law as gravity exists. They prefer to build on this premise without probing it.
Why should a law exist?, why should anything even exist?.
Some atheists even go ahead to say "we are here and thats all that matters". And then they want to build every other thing on such premises.
I seriously wonder what they smoke when they pass off such stupid1ty as logic.



Then he made the most unintelligent analogy ive ever seen.
Read the bolded severally.
He says "If I would force stones into a bucket". Meaning "he" would be a cause to which an effect will follow.
Not only has this dude forgotten that "he" as used in the above is an external force, a greater force and an intelligent being.
He has forgotten that he is an intelligent being that added stone to a bucket to quicken a desired effect.
And he expected the mods to take this joke to the front page? . seriously??
To further pile up his woes, one can ask him why there is a bucket, water and stones. Did they jump into existence from nothing too

In the long joke, he further tried to explain something as nothing by talking about gravity.
I wonder what type of person does not know that gravity is something.
The big question is why existence should exist? Why gravity should even exist, and not how things can spring up into existence because of gravity.


Well, the remainder of the thread will involve some submissions from great scientists on stephen hawking's god quote.

Sensible submissions are welcome too.


cc: timonski, vooks, KingEbukaNaija, efficiencie, CoolUsername, SirWere, plaetton, Maamin

The Bible itself copied from ancient scientific and Sumerian books. Was it not said that Samyaza, Azazel other Extraterrestrials taught humans the art of Science,Astrology,Mathematics,Physics,the art of writing,Knowledge of the cloud,technology etc of which you are benefiting from by writing this ridiculous text. Praise be to these guys for opening humans eyes.

Pay attention to science and be a good student. You have no reason to defend a monstrous creature you call god whom you do not benefit a dime from.

It takes a curious mind to want to understand how gravity works. Something you cannot explain even with the bible,can you? Rather than fight or argue with those who are trying to understand how the universe work,make yourself useful by learning from concrete facts and not superstition.

winner01:
Matt Slick's submission:

I must throw caution to the wind and address what I see as a serious problem of logic in what Mr. Hawking has said. From the above quote he said, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

In order for something to create, it must perform an action, but if it performs an action, it must already exist. This is a logical problem. Does Mr. Hawking know something we don't about logic and the universe? Is he privy to information about physics and the ontologically prior existence of whatever-it-was-that-created-the-universe that we don't have? I don't know, and the article doesn't tell us. It is certainly probable that he in his brilliance is able to see things the average person cannot when it comes to the origins theories. I will defer to his knowledge in this area. However, logic is not something he can violate, no matter how smart he is, and be expected to be taken seriously--at least on this issue. Therefore I, a mere mortal, must take umbrage with Mr. Hawking's statement. It just doesn't make any sense and cannot be true.

There are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the existence of the universe: personal and impersonal. This is called an antonymic pair. It is a set of opposites and encompasses all possibilities within its category. Something is either personal or impersonal in its essence. Therefore, we have two worldviews from which we can derive possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Furthermore, if there are only two possibilities and we negate one of them, by default the other is validated. This is logically necessary.

So, we must ask ourselves how an impersonal cause, the universe, can bring itself into existence. Aside from the obvious logical problem I've already cited above, how is it that an impersonal, non-existent "stuff" can spontaneously create? Again, it can't since it doesn't exist by which it would then have the ability to perform an action such as creation. 

But, let's not stop there. Let's take a look at the idea that there is a cause of the universe that is other than the universe and is itself impersonal.

In order for something to bring about an effect, it must have the necessary and sufficient conditions. Let me illustrate. Let's say I want to move a small boulder. It is too big for me to move without a lever. Therefore, I apply a lever to the rock and move it. The necessary conditions to move the rock are 1) my existence, 2) the existence of the rock, 3) a lever, and 4) a fulcrum (something the lever must press against). The sufficient condition is that I must have enough strength. Therefore, when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the rock can be moved. But, I am a personal being, and I must decide to apply the lever to move the rock.

In the case of an impersonal cause of the universe, there must have been necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence. But, the question is if the pre-existence stuff that brought the universe into existence had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then it would automatically have brought the universe into existence. In the case of the lever and boulder illustration, if a "necessary rock" of "sufficient weight" were placed on the end of the lever, it would spontaneously move the boulder. When impersonal conditions that are both necessary and sufficient exist, the result is automatic.

If the necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence were impersonal, then the universe would have been spontaneously formed an infinite amount of time ago since the necessary and sufficient conditions would have existed for eternity. If the universe was brought into existence an infinitely long time ago, there would be no usable energy left in the universe (entropy). But since there is usable energy left in the universe, the universe is not infinitely old. Because the universe is not infinitely old, the theory that an impersonal cause that is both necessary and sufficient brought the universe into existence cannot work.

It would seem more logical to say that since the universe is not infinitely old, that there must have been a personal cause that brought it into existence. Furthermore, Hawking's statement that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" is incoherent. It is illogical and not possible.

How I wish you could apply logic to the miracles the Bible claimed Jesus performed. Hawking is only apply scientific possibilities and facts. The universe is an illusion. You just wanna stick everything to the bible god which obviously doesn't exist. The universe is only the work of the mind.

Ok, I've gone to do some research and I'm back.
First of all, Science is "the knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical worlds, based on facts you can prove, usually by experiment"
Now, the bolded above conflicts with religion which tells us a deity is in the sky and angels, demons, and all that stuff.

Science is not Atheism. As a matter of fact, atheism began with philosophy. An atheist is someone who can look outside the box and see the world for what it truly is. I think for one to become an atheist, one must weigh the facts in history, logic, philosophy and yes, science.
Science is closely tied to Atheism because Science further illuminates to us mystifing phenomenas that we attributed to deites. The Vikings once thought a flash of thunder means Thor is striking his anvil. Now we know it's due to eletrical charges. The bible says that a grown man slept three nights in the belly of a whale; now............ I think we all know the truth.

Science further conflicts with religion because religion ascribes natural events to supernatural causes. An illustration: A bird hoots 3 times and falls from the sky

Science: Find out why it hooted three times, see if the hooting is related to its demise. Draw a conclusion and postulate an hypothesis.

Religion: The bird was a demon. The sign was to tell man that the world is ending. Praise God.
I hope you see the problem now.

Science keeps finding out more and more facts, pushing the idea of God smaller and smaller. First it was : God the All creator. Then it was God the creator through evolution and big bang. Now it is God of the gaps. Slowly, the mystery which has boggled mankind is being revealed. It's just like Degrasse Tyson said "The Christian God is an ever increasing pocket of ignorance. The more we know, the less we need of him"


As for Hawkings, he postulated a theory. I'm yet to read his book but the reviews have been quite enlightening. Hawkings is postulating a new and different theory. In the next 50 years, he could easily become the Newton of quantum physics (Get it, Newtonian physics). Of course there will be criticism. Who likes having their neat little God of the gaps fantasy ruffled The first critic you mentioned, Matt Slick, is a waste of time. It does not befit me to even talk about him. He is an Islamophobic, Calvinistic, Jehovah Witness hater, conspiracy theorist. Mentioning him honestly dampened my eagerness to read this through.
As for the second scientist John Lemoux, one only has to read the article to see he isn't seeing Dawkins Point of View. The clincher was when he said that he takes his belief on faith, not facts.

As for the other critics you mentioned, let them say what they want: they are like vultures picking on the bones of a giant.

Whew!


Cc winner01, joshuabase (hope I tried), platteon, CoolUsername and all the rest.

winner01:
But you used cause and effwct in your dumb analogy
Space is something, not nothing.
Why did it have to be there.
Why does anything have to exist.
You are as dumb as your memes.

In order to explain quantum phenomenon, I had to use a classical analogy. I'm so sorry you're that dumb.

It exists because the universe is infinite. Google it.

KingEbukaNaija:


Your memes are always dumb . It is impossible to bring something from nothing except through supernatural intervention in respect to the genesis of the universe . ONLY through supernatural intervention that life came from the non living . Comprende ? ou etes-vous malade dans la tete?

So first you establish a law,
"something can't come from nothing"

Only to later break that law

"something can come from nothing through divine intervention"

. Wtf!!! I give up

CoolUsername:
Ok, let's say for one second that Hawking made a big mistake.

This does nothing to validate your christian creation myth. First the sequence is completely different from how things came to be.

Secondly, your argument of who put gravity in place requires a fair amount of special pleading to work because it falls apart when you are asked who the creator of this creator is. You may say the creator is self-existing but we have evidence for this.

Third, I want you to consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means that we know of and we know that all matter is made up of 'condensed' energy so it is possible to say that the universe expanded from a singularity (or point) of near-infinite energy.


PS: I want you to understand that gravity doesn't have to be put in place, it is merely a dent in the fabric of space-time caused by a particle that has mass.

Who says that Hawkins made a big mistake?
What mistake?

The real problem is that Hawkins argument cannot be understood by the pedestrian minds of homo religilous.

The main problem , as I always emphasize , is quality education.. Someone who barely went through integrated science in junior secondary school is not expected to grasp the complex nature and properties of gravity at the quantum level, as explained by a certified genius and physicist, Steven Hawkins.

It still shocks me everyday when I see kingebukasblog, winner01, etc, whose last science lesson was in junior secondary school, come out to passionately attack scientists and scientific ideas, all in defence of magic.

WTF is the will of god?

Why doesn't he dare to call it the will of the Toothfairy or the will of the mysterious ?

Joshuabase:


So first you establish a law,
"something can't come from nothing"

Only to later break that law

"something can come from nothing through divine intervention"

. Wtf!!! I give up

so, are you saying the law of gravity caused the universe or what ?

Joshuabase:


So first you establish a law,
"something can't come from nothing"

Only to later break that law

"something can come from nothing through divine intervention"

. Wtf!!! I give up

Bros,

The level of convoluted logic we see on display here is astonishing.

Religion in the African mind is the equivalent of a neutron bomb,..it destroys every thinking neuron, while leaving a zombified carcass.

malvisguy212:
so, are you saying the law of gravity caused the universe or what ?

No, the law of gravity proves all the matter in the universe came from nothing. (technically fluctuations in the quantum fields)

Nothing causes these fluctuations, they just happen of their own Accord, the big bang created 99.89% of all the matter in the universe today. What created the remaining 11%? Quantum field fluctuations that happen randomly everyday, everywhere in all parts of observable space.

ifenes:


Firstly,there is nothing religious or christian about the Christian Old Testament. There Hijacked text copied and pasted into the Bible. Therefore,you are defending a plagiarized history book. None of the Old testament stories belonged to the Jews. They had all their names edited to fool weak minds like yours. The Jesus's story is obviously not true as he shared the same story with older historical figures and this puts a big question mark on the Bible.



The Bible itself copied from ancient scientific and Sumerian books. Was it not said that Samyaza, Azazel other Extraterrestrials taught humans the art of Science,Astrology,Mathematics,Physics,the art of writing,Knowledge of the cloud,technology etc of which you are benefiting from by writing this ridiculous text. Praise be to these guys for opening humans eyes.

Pay attention to science and be a good student. You have no reason to defend a monstrous creature you call god whom you do not benefit a dime from.

It takes a curious mind to want to understand how gravity works. Something you cannot explain even with the bible,can you? Rather than fight or argue with those who are trying to understand how the universe work,make yourself useful by learning from concrete facts and not superstition.

Sorry comrade.

This is far above his thinking grade.
Besides, the walls of his brain are firewalled against that mode of thought.

Like PastorAIO said, these are special needs children with learning disabilities.

Joshuabase:


No, the law of gravity proves all the matter in the universe came from nothing. (technically fluctuations in the quantum fields)

Nothing causes these fluctuations, they just happen of their own Accord, the big bang created 99.89% of all the matter in the universe today. What created the remaining 11%? Quantum field fluctuations that happen randomly everyday, everywhere in all parts of observable space.

Good try.
But, you have to know these peeps don't come here to learn science.
They come here to promote and self-validate their superstitions.

The bright spot is that they are only a small and dwindling minority out of all that read these posts.

plaetton:


Good try.
But, you have to know these peeps don't come here to learn science.
They come here to promote and self-validate their superstitions.

The bright spot is that they are only a small and dwindling minority out of all that read these posts.

The ignorance prevalent in this thread is enormous, I agree theists just come here to tell other people about their delusions in order for it to be real to them.

That's why they have to go to church every week.

Joshuabase:


The ignorance prevalent in this thread is enormous, I agree theists just come here to tell other people about their delusions in order for it to be real to them.

That's why they have to go to church every week.

That is it.

What good is a delusion if it's not shared ?
The more a delusion is shared , the more real it appears.

This why religion depends entirely on converts( through blackmail or force) to exist.

This is shy the Christian god is literally crying, begging and threatening you to accept his love.

This why Jesus is begging you to accept his voluntary deicide for your own good.

An acceptance of the delusion appears to validate the delusion.

I had an argument with a Christian last Sunday, where, I argued that faith is the extreme end of unbelief. I argued that faith itself is unbelief guarded by confusion and fear. I invoked the popular terms "prayer, special prayer, intercession, seed sowing, tithing, night vigils and fasting" as evidence that these are only desperate acts of confusion and fear, because, the person of faith is not sure which works and which will work for him/her.

So, people gather nin churches, house fellowships, etc, as often as necessary to pat themselves and console each other that their delusions are real.

ifenes:


Firstly,there is nothing religious or christian about the Christian Old Testament. There Hijacked text copied and pasted into the Bible. Therefore,you are defending a plagiarized history book. None of the Old testament stories belonged to the Jews. They had all their names edited to fool weak minds like yours. The Jesus's story is obviously not true as he shared the same story with older historical figures and this puts a big question mark on the Bible.

Yawns!!!
All claims, no proof.
Whose words are more credible? ifeness or these great men https://www.nairaland.com/2499498/quotes-famous-men-bible

ifenes:

The Bible itself copied from ancient scientific and Sumerian books. Was it not said that Samyaza, Azazel other Extraterrestrials taught humans the art of Science,Astrology,Mathematics,Physics,the art of writing,Knowledge of the cloud,technology etc of which you are benefiting from by writing this ridiculous text. Praise be to these guys for opening humans eyes.

Just tell us what you smoke.

ifenes:

Pay attention to science and be a good student. You have no reason to defend a monstrous creature you call god whom you do not benefit a dime from.

Im a far better scientist than you and your friends.
If he dosent exist, why do you call him a monstrous creature. Its clear. You hate Him

ifenes:

It takes a curious mind to want to understand how gravity works. Something you cannot explain even with the bible,can you? Rather than fight or argue with those who are trying to understand how the universe work,make yourself useful by learning from concrete facts and not superstition.

Learning concrete facts from dolts?.
Yeah right.
The only people I argue with here are people who desperately need me not to believe in God.

ifenes:


How I wish you could apply logic to the miracles the Bible claimed Jesus performed. Hawking is only apply scientific possibilities and facts. The universe is an illusion. You just wanna stick everything to the bible god which obviously doesn't exist. The universe is only the work of the mind.

You are a spiritualist, or better still a solipsist not an atheist.
Why are all of you, even satanists too who claim to worship themselves against Christianity.
Arnt y'all supposed to be against religion.

Of course, i wont expect y'all to concern yourselves with lies.

plaetton:


That is it.

What good is a delusion if it's not shared ?
The more a delusion is shared , the more real it appears.

This why religion depends entirely on converts( through blackmail or force) to exist.

This is shy the Christian god is literally crying, begging and threatening you to accept his love.

This why Jesus is begging you to accept his voluntary deicide for your own good.

An acceptance of the delusion appears to validate the delusion.

I had an argument with a Christian last Sunday, where, I argued that faith is the extreme end of unbelief. I argued that faith itself is unbelief guarded by confusion and fear. I invoked the popular terms "prayer, special prayer, intercession, seed sowing, tithing, night vigils and fasting" as evidence that these are only desperate acts of confusion and fear, because, the person of faith is not sure which works and which will work for him/her.

So, people gather nin churches, house fellowships, etc, as often as necessary to pat themselves and console each other that their delusions are real.

Its bewildering, can't they see the truth?

Joshuabase:


In order to explain quantum phenomenon, I had to use a classical analogy. I'm so sorry you're that dumb.

It exists because the universe is infinite. Google it.

Google it?
How old is this guy?

Google: Jesus is evil and see if you wont get what you seek, something convincing.

A classical analogy that involved an intelligent being?

What kind of stup1d are you ?

The universe is infinite
KingEbukaNaija, come and see chumchin oo

winner01:
Google it?
How old is this guy?

Google: Jesus is evil and see if you wont get what you seek, something convincing.

A classical analogy that involved an intelligent being?

What kind of stup1d are you ?

I'm serious, stop quoting me. Your stupidity is so great it's annoying. Just stop, my 8 year old brother is probably more educated than you.