A Matter of Gravity: A Response to Stephen Hawking

"God, The Universe & Stephen Hawking" by John Lennox.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Stephen
• Hawking
• John
• Lennox
• Grand
• Design
• Leonard
• Mlodinow
• God
• Universe
• Multiverse
• Theory
• Gravity
• Nothing
• Physics

[ThinkTank255]

This guy is full of it. (Yes, I know his name.) He doesn't even believe his own lies. Dawkins has cornered him before, and he knows quite well the watchmaker argument and irreducible complexity are wrong and frankly laughable. To him and many religious people, life is stage, and lies are tools for controlling the characters. Is that not sick and perverted?

[piprod01]

Just a matter of curiosity, how'd ya' get hold of this video?

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 I was reffering to when somebody proposed a hypothesis and model of the universe to napoleon and he said "Your theory leaves little room for God" and the man replied "Well yes my theory works perfectly well without a God involved in the process" (Not word for word but along those lines)

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger My model is. Matter exists in the space container Cosmos for ever. In the Cosmos countless processes take place. Our universe appears as a result of these processes in Cosmos as explosion (big bang), or as implosion (black whole), or local inflation of energy-matter. We do not know yet why this had happened so our universe was created. Did you see the word god in my explanation? Napoleon was an atheist. Another Napoleon's famous remark is "All religions have been made by men."

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 Are you suggesting a book for me to read or telling me anything fits into your model, (Sorry for not understanding your exact meaning) I would like to ask you though, in the fabled words of Napoleon Bonaparte, "does god fit into your model?". hope you get the humour : )

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger Read "Any theory firt to my philosophical model" as Any theory FITS to my philosophical model.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger RE: No that is incorrect as a "Theologian"

I did not talk about universal laws but of gravity instead. My model: Matter existed in the Cosmos for ever, where a bubble explodes (big bang), or a black whole, or local inflation occurs (we do not know yet why) and our universe was created. I am not physicist therefore I do not need to adhere to any theory. Any theory firt to my philosophical model.

[HebrewTiger]

@cosmopolite66 No that is incorrect as a "Theologian" I hold the idea of "Something comming from nothing" as a logical fallacy and I do not know any theologian who accepts this as viable. I was asking you if you subscribe to the big bang theory not asserting that you do. If universal laws existed prior to the universe itself then the universe was not created it foes not follow, the 2 are mutually exclusive points. you cannot say the universe itself came into existence via universal laws.

[cosmopolite66]

@HebrewTiger; you are the ignorant one. The Big Bang theory is not the only one that exists. See references to Cosmic Inflation theory, Multiverse theory, etc.

Even if the big bang was the truthful one it does not say there was nothing before the expolision. The idea that our universe was created out of nothing at the big bang is a THEOLOGISTS IDEA - not a scientific one.

[PrinceWalter]

Modus tollens.

If P, then Q.

Not Q.

Therefore, not P.

If multiverse theory is false (P), then Christ's Kingdom exists finitely in this kosmos. (Q)

"My Kingdom is NOT of this kosmos (Gr.)." John 18:36. (Not Q)

Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT false. (Not P)