An Atheist’s Desire – Nothing Almighty
It is many an Atheist’s desire that nothing "spontaneously" created everything; our universe, our galaxy, earth, life, and even us. This is such a desire by some atheists that they diligently and persistently overlook the obvious including omitting common sense.
Stephen Hawking (an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist) has been credited to being, “Britain's most famous living scientist,” “arguably the greatest scientific mind of our time” and “the most revered scientist since Einstein” writes in his book, The Grand Design, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Hawking adds, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing." (1) (2) (6) (7)
Have you ever seen “nothing” create anything? I’ve not. I guess Hawking would say that it takes millenniums for nothing to create something or that nothing is creating things all around us but we just cannot see it happening. Or even more likely Hawking may say that nothing is creating things we just cannot see yet. Just how gullible does Hawking think people are? Well, it seems as if there are a lot of gullible people out there who actually believe Hawking when he says everything is created from nothing.
The “grand design,” says Hawking, is to be found in M-theory, an idea launched in the mid-1990s. “According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god,” the book says. “Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law.” (3)
My question to Hawking is, from where did physical law come? Obviously physical law has to come from something or someone… or is Hawking saying that they are eternal and have always been? Hum, something eternal and has always been that empowers nothing to create everything we know about. Seems like a far sided stretch of an over reactive imagination of someone ignoring the obvious to me.
“M-theory is not a theory in the usual sense,” Hawking writes. “It is a whole family of different theories.” According to M-theory, “ours is not the only universe,” he says. “Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing.”(6) Isn’t is amazing how supporting ideas come into people’s minds when they are out to prove something that they so want to believe in? The notion of multiple universes (which has no supporting evidence at all showing they exist) brings forth philosophy that God isn’t needed to create the universe. How convenient for an atheist to model such a system of concepts that have no evidence of proof.
But Mr. Hawking and Mr. Mlodinow (Hawking’s coauthor on The Grand Design, a fellow physicist who has also worked on “Star Trek: The Next Generation) assert that “their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.” Hawking and Mlodinow say that our universe “doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each with its own probability.”(6) I wonder why this so much reminds me of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation; Season 7, Episode 11: Parallels?
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes going on to write "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going,"(4) Here Hawking is displaying his atheist’s desire that God not exist.
If nature is governed by laws, argue Hawking and Mlodinow, then three questions arise: 1) What is the nature of those laws? 2) Are there exceptions to the laws (for example, miracles)? 3) Is there only one set of possible laws? "The Grand Design" sets out to answer these questions, demonstrating how we are dependent on models of reality that, with investigation, can sometimes change.(5)
The obvious fourth question which Hawking and Mlodinow didn’t let arise is: 4) From where did the laws of nature come? If everything came from nothing as Hawking states, then in reality, the laws of nature had to come from something or did they too think Hawking, come from nothing?
"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," Professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary.” "If we finally find the Theory of Everything and why we are here, it will be the result of the joint work of many people over many years," Hawking told ABC News.(7)
Science is merely a tool that people use and on its own does not “make” or “create” anything nor does science “say” anything. People “make” and “say” what their interpretation of their scientific methods. Also, seeing that Hawking admits that “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist,” shouldn’t one be seeking to determine if God actually exists? With such drastic differences between Heaven and Hell described in the Holy Bible where everyone will spend an eternity in one or the other, reality to me says obviously the wise thing to do would be to seek the truth.
Let’s do some simple mathematics against Stephen Hawking’s theory that “nothing” spontaneously created everything. From grade school we learned that zero (nothing) multiplied to anything is, nothing. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If we add nothing to nothing for 15 billion years and multiply that by nothing for another 15 billion years, we have nothing. So mathematics disproves Hawking’s “nothing” spontaneously created everything.
Let’s do a simple scientific experiment. Take nothing and put it in a sterilized glass which can hold nothing. Let gravity hold the glass with nothing in it for five years. Shake it from time to time to have gravity impact the nothing in the glass for five more years. Repeat this process for as many years as you feel it is necessary for nothing to turn into something. What do you have at the end of this experiment? Nothing in a glass which can hold nothing because nothing creates nothing because nothing never has created anything.
Per Stephen Hawking, “nothing” spontaneously created everything… there is by far more faith required for someone to believe that than for me to believe in Christ Jesus. How about you? Do you honestly believe nothing has the power to create everything including you? I don’t.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7
How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing And fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22
For the waywardness of the naive will kill them, And the complacency of fools will destroy them. Proverbs 1:32
Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is good will. Proverbs 14:9
The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly. Proverbs 15:14
Like the legs which are useless to the lame, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools. Proverbs 26:7
Like a thorn which falls into the hand of a drunkard, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools. Proverbs 26:9
`Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You, Jeremiah 32:17
Thus says the Lord GOD, "Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing.” Ezekiel 13:3
For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Galatians 6:3
For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. 1 Timothy 6:7
Tom, Rosa will not even answer my question to her: “From where did this “singularity” come which “you [Rosa]” say the universe derived?”
Rosa even said that my question to her wasn’t “civilised” and thus she didn’t post it.
Rosa’s sub-prime singularity, ad infinitum, renders absurd her prime cause hypothesis. This thus makes Rosa prone to not answer the questions which she has no answer to such as from where did the “singularity” come which she insists the universe is derived.
Tom, I started reading Rosa’s article but couldn’t get past a B science fiction story she wrote. It’s full of speculations and farfetched imaginary stories which are purely gibberish that only a fool would want to believe so as to say God does not exist.
Rosa said, “Quantum mechanics tells us” and what you need to know is that “Quantum mechanics” doesn’t “tell us” anything. That’s right; “Quantum mechanics” can’t speak so it cannot “tell us’ anything. People tell us things because people can speak. So what you really are saying when you say, “Quantum mechanics tells is” is that “people tell us from their limited understanding of Quantum mechanics, that a single particle takes all possible paths through space-time.”
Rosa didn’t say from where her “singularity” comes which she “said” the universe derived. You do know that another word for “singularity” is “miracle” don’t you? Rosa’s sub-prime singularity, ad infinitum, renders absurd her prime cause hypothesis.
Also, as you noted, my sample simple scientific experiment is as you stated, “just plain silly and doesn’t even make sense.” This is because it is based off the same principles that Hawking and Rosa used in their writings, it has nothing to do with reality and truth.
By far more faith required for someone to believe Rosa’s rubbish and Hawking’s babblings than for me to believe in Christ Jesus.
You should read this, it’s beautifully written, about the Big Bang explained by Quantum Mechanics:
“What Makes You So Special?” (Why you are special) by Rosa Rubicondor: http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-you-are-special.html
Note: Your paragraph beginning with “Let’s do a simple scientific experiment. Take nothing and put it in a sterilized glass which can hold nothing. …” is just plain silly and doesn’t even make sense.
The air in the jar is not nothing. The jar is not nothing. And has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics or M-theory.