—Stephen Hawking — Cosmic Tragedy

By on

 

[my detailed thoughts interspersed below in brackets.  R.A.B.]

 
Stephen Hawking 1942-2018, theoretical physicist and cosmologist died at his home in Cambridge, England at the age of 76.  He suffered for over 2/3s of his life with a debilitating disease that rendered him paralyzed and eventually could only communicate with a computerized speech-generated voice.
 

Hawking made the following assertions concerning God and the universe:

Stephen Hawking:

“When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise.”

[This is the statement either of a moron or a liar.  It is not that the question makes no sense, it is that Hawking did not want to recognize the validity of the question.  For someone who was supposedly a genius, and since the Philosophy of Logic is essentially MATHEMATICS, I find it extremely hard to believe that an expert theoretical physicist (who must certainly understand extremely complex math) could make such elementary logical blunders.  Therefore, it seems that the only explanation is calculated dishonesty.  His statement above is replete with numerous non sequiturs (begging the question and missing middles) and is itself based on false assumptions that anyone who can think logically is expected to simply overlook (because if you don't have a Ph.D. then you have no right to question someone with a DOCTORATE, when he says that 3 + 3 = 33).  Hawking and his ilk bank on the fact that small-minded persons who have low self-esteem and star-dust in their eyes will be in awe in Hawking's magnificent intellectual presence, and never even attempt to think or scrutinize what Hawking says, but merely hang on every golden word that drips off his computer-speaking device.

1. "Time did not exist before the Big Bang."  This is an assumption based on humanism and "faith in nothing", not based upon any fact.  Faith in nothing is not intelligence or science, but a mental void, an intellectual vacuum (not like a vacuum cleaner, but a chamber in which all matter has been removed).  There is no proof of Big Bangism, therefore, to claim that time did not exist before it is not a fact, but opinion.  Now, I could be wrong, but I assume that a "theoretical" physicist is one who thinks up ideas that "could be" true but which he cannot prove.  It then seems odd to seek such a person for answers concerning truth.  Furthermore, the stars and atoms are used to "measure" time—but they do not cause time to exist.  Did time exist before the invention of the first wristwatch, grandfather clock, hourglass, or sundial?  Of course.  So also are the stars and atoms on a macro-cosmic and micro-cosmic level.

2. "Time did not exist before the Big Bang" has no relation to the proposition "did a God create the universe?".  This is bald attempt to deceive simple minds.  Anyone with an inkling of understanding can see through this; but of course, those who hate God refuse to believe that He exists, therefore, they will remain silent (in support of this illogic and deception) for two reasons,

1. the falsehood coincides with their own agenda;

2. they don't want to embarrass the unfortunate disabled "genius" in the wheelchair. 

Saying "Time did not exist before the Big Bang therefore God did not create the universe" is like saying peanuts didn't exist before peanut butter was invented, therefore, jelly predated peanut butter—the propositions (which are not even true) have nothing to do with the conclusion (which is invalid).  It is Hawking's false presuppositions and his false conclusion that make no sense.

3. His notion of asking directions to the edge of the earth has nothing to do with whether a god created the universe.  This is a shamelessly dishonest distraction.  I could likewise say, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:12)—therefore evolution is a fraud.  However, while my first proposition is true, the conclusion is invalid; though true; but my premise did not prove the conclusion.  I can say "the earth's atmosphere is 21% oxygen, and therefore water freezes at 32 degrees F."  Both the premise and conclusion are true, but the premise did not prove the conclusion true and are unrelated, and therefore the argument is invalid.  East and West never meet.  This is common sense.  The earth, if it is an orb, clearly would have no edge; however, that statement serves as a distraction to those are intellectually challenged and who don't realize that it is a smokescreen to avoid actually discussing the topic at hand.

4.  God is Immutable and Omnipotent; He is not affected by or dependent upon anything external to Himself.  God Eternally pre-existed before time.  God created time itself which is exterior to / outside of Him.  John 1:1-3 says, "ALL things were made by Him".  That includes time and the laws of the universe.  God exists outside the box of time in which we were created.  Here Hawking tries to "steal God's thunder" by claiming that his god Big Bango predated time (which is begging the question, a fallacy of logic, assuming that Big Bango even exists—and since he claims that God does not exist because there is no "proof", then it is perverse for him to expect anyone to believe that his god Big Bango exists, without any proof.  There is no evidence of his god Big Bango, only the authoritarian opinion of the self-appointed high priest of Big Bango who presumes: "I am a 'professional guesser' so you have no right to question my omniscience").  Scripture (both in the New Testament and in the Old Testament) tells us that God predated time—God created time.  Biblical records date back thousands of years, with THOUSANDS* of different manuscripts (and any differences* between them constitute a very tiny percentage of the entire document as a whole).  So unless Hawking can find thousands of 1,900 - 3,000 year-old Big Bango manuscripts, Hawking (no pun intended) has no leg to stand on.

[* See additional note at the end of this article.]

Hawking takes attributes of God and projects them onto his pseudo-scientific god.  Those who are intelligent and honest who could have easily refuted him were kept from public debate, and those who are intelligent but dishonest and refuse to believe in God keep their mouths shut and neither agree nor disagree (in case the religio-political wind ever shifts, or in case they would ever be forced to publicly defend such statements as those that Hawking makes, by remaining silent and letting Hawking make such statements, then they don't have to worry about having their ignorance exposed).  Thus, they quietly agree to let Hawking champion their anti-intellectual position because no one in a "professional" environment would ever ridicule "Forest Gump".  This is little different than using pictures of impoverished, bare-foot, dirty children with sad eyes to elicit an emotional rather than intellectual response. 

[—and for that very reason Hillary's and Pelosi's endless mental stupidities have never been challenged.  However, hypocritically, in contradistinction, if someone is a straight, white, Christian who holds traditional values upon which all of Christendom has been founded, well then, it is "open season" on him and he is not only subject to free, wholesale ridicule, but he is immediately removed from his position (political office, academic chair, etc.) because clearly he is "unfit for anything".  On the other hand, every form of perversion and anti-intellectualism that attacks the values upon which Christendom was founded, is put on a pedestal and worshipped.]

God existed before time itself existed, even as time existed before the first coo-coo clock was invented (to which Hawking should be able to relate*).  Time itself existed before the first pocket watch, pendulum time-piece, sand-filled hour-glass, or sundial existed.  All those instruments for "keeping" (track of) time are also attempts of man to understand and be in harmony with the time that already exists—to actually be in submission to time, not attempt to violate it.  That itself is an interesting observation upon which it seems this theoretical physicist never ruminated. 

[* Note: I certainly do not make fun of him for the tragic suffering he endured.  I refer to his unscholarly notions that he pawned off as intelligent thought.  Since he showed that he could rise above his suffering and accomplish things that made the world notice and admire him, he certainly could have risen above his personal illogical opinions, not disseminated them as fact, and applied himself to understand the true Christian faith which is responsible for civilization and the Golden Age of Christendom (rather than contributing to its continued destruction) and he should have prepared to meet His Maker, rather than insult Him worldwide.  If he was wrong and the Word of God is True, then his torment now is so great that he wishes he were again trapped within that painful prison of a mangled body captive in a wheelchair.  That is saddest of all.  Maybe that thought will cause others, regardless of their condition, to put their own hatred and opinions aside, fall on their faces before God and ask for His Forgiveness and to remove the blindness and hardness that keeps them unrepentant and in rebellion against their Maker.  But he knew at least in a general idea the traditional concept of God and Judgment.  He thought that the odds that the Bible is not true was worth the gamble.  I for one do not.  I have suffered tremendously my entire life.  I've suffered enough in this life; I could not imagine it being worse, and for eternity.  I don't believe out of fear, however, but out of concentrated study of about 4,000 hours a year for 28 years. But even if I was not convinced, I would not gamble with eternity.]

Another gem of contemplation upon which the intellectually constipated geniuses have never meditated is the fact that nothing can approach the speed of light (if anything attempts to, time actually slows down and matter shrinks) that part they know; but what they do not realize is the profound sublimation when we realize that Scripture tells us that God is Light and that He will not share His Glory with another, that no flesh should glory in His Presence, that He is all in all that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.  Christ (Who is God Himself) said that He was the Light; and the converted elect of God's people are said to be children of light of the Father of Lights.  Of course, all this sounds like foolishness to those perishing in their own delusions and they need to humble themselves before God and ask His Forgiveness, before He will reveal anything to them.  There is nothing wrong with honesty.  All that they have to do is pray, "God, I really don't believe You exist, but if You exist I would be a fool not to believe You, humble myself before You, and beg Your Forgiveness for all my sins through the Sacrifice that Christ Jesus made for me, and I ask You to please reveal Yourself and Truth to me as I read the Bible; open my eyes, my heart, my mind to understand and believe and obey You".  What person is so deluded or conceited or hateful that he could not honestly and humbly pray that prayer?

Man, if he is honest, admits that time exists, and then tries to make sense of it by uncovering laws; not by fabricating fantasy.  But can time itself even be proven? —or can man merely demonstrate the calculations of what he wants to believe is something called time?

Unfortunately, the same applies to all false religions in terms of man's relation to God and in sinful man's attempt (apart from God's self-revelation) to make sense of God.  This includes the majority of subverted Christian denominations who espouse Arminianism (which constitute probably 95% of so-called Protestant denominations) and atheism itself (which is a form of "humanism", in which man considers himself to be his own god)

All "nominal Christians" will admit that God exists (even if they reject the traditional and true concept of God) but they then go about "inventing their own notions" of what God "has to be like" based upon their human imperfections which they project onto God. This clearly shows that their "religion" is not actual faith.  True faith is based upon the unchanging doctrine of the Word of God.  The "faith" of most "Christians" is actually superstition and a psychosis: an altered state of reality, a pseudo-spiritual delusion resulting from their denial of the facts of God's Word (because the carnal mind is incapable of being in submission to God and rejects God, while hypocritically wanting to retain the superficial appearance of being "spiritual").  Thus, most Christians invent and live within this pseudo-reality in their own minds.  They imagine reality to be the way that they want it to be because they refuse to acknowledge God's Sovereignty.  Thus, the majority of Christians have more in common with Hawking than they realize; they either just don't have the courage to blatantly declare it, or they are so anti-intellectual they don't even realize the ramifications and ultimate conclusions of what they actually claim to believe (a pseudo-spiritual form of humanism).

False religion, truly is the opiate of the masses; true religion (the True Reformed Christian Doctrine) is a drug-rehab program for those who prefer reality and obedience to God, rather than delusion and rebellion against God.

5. That "there is no time in which a God could make a universe" is invalid because the term "time" is not present in his premise and therefore, it cannot appear in his conclusion, for it is an undefined and unrelated element.  Hawking's logical blunders are so elementary and so transparent it is amazing that he could get away with such intellectual fraud.  Again, he had a lot in common with the Hillaries, Pelosies, and McCains, and Ryans whose ignorance is exceeded only by their arrogance, dishonesty, and evil.

6. The assertion that "there is no time in which a God could make a universe" is also invalid because it presupposes a god—like Hawking himself—who is weak, disabled, with limited intelligence, and who can't think himself out of tissue-paper boxes of flawed logic.  That type of mythological god, with human frailties and weaknesses, is certainly limited by a myriad of factors.  But this is the "bait and switch".  Hawking, being anti-intellectual and hating God, refused to define his terms and he refused to define what "god" meant when he used that term.  Thus, the unspoken reality and result of his statement is, "You believe in God "A".  I believe that no god "B" exists because I refuse to believe it; therefore God "A" does not exist"; or "You believe in the True GOD.  I don't believe mythological gods exist; therefore there is no True GOD".  No matter how you try to make sense of what Hawking actually meant, it is illogical.  He was careful enough not to say too much that would provide enough rope to hang himself; so he spoke blunt one-liners that sounded authoritative to those whose minds were too undeveloped to realize the fraud.

7. That there is "no time in which a God could make a universe" is itself an impossible notion, because Hawking is attempting to discuss the ability of something that he does not even believe exists (based upon concepts that he does not even understand).  However, that does not seem to have ever stopped him from expressing his confused opinions in situations in which his "professional guessing" (and non-logic) will be confused as evidence toward the conclusion that he wants people to believe.  But note clearly, he does not attempt to prove his position with logic.  He makes illogical assertions and simply expects people to accept what he says, being overawed by his superior intellect.

When Hawking says, "When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense" he thinks that he has slain the dragon of Christianity, but he is more akin to a 5-year old writing an explanation of the world, or Don Quixote elaborately battling windmills in his mind.   RAB]

 
Stephen Hawking:
“We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is: there is no God. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate.  This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either.  We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”

[I find it sadly humorous and telling that such a "profound genius" would settle for the "simplest" answer concerning a question of such astronomical and eternal magnitude.  The first clause, his first proposition (upon which the others are feebly based) is itself not a fact, but an assertion.  The statement itself is in denial of the existence of God and His Sovereignty and Determinism and thus it is circular reasoning to base one's conclusions on his self-serving unproven premise.  Why would such a "genius" settle for such a simplistic answer? —because like his premise, his conclusion is an assertion, an opinion, the "anti-religion" that he wants to believe in.  This is 5-year old thinking.  "Spankings are unfair because I say so." 

As I wrote in my, God, Man, and the Universe:

Further, it is only modernly that most scientists now believe in the
“theory” of Evolution, as if it is a fact (which it is not). Most modern
scientists believe in Evolution, not because there is more “proof” that
has been discovered (which there is not; there is no proof); but because:

1. They refuse to believe God—because if they admitted that God
existed, they would have to admit that He knows best, that He
is the Boss, and that they need to submit to and obey Him;

[Another famous evolutionist / agnostic, a grandson of Thomas Huxley,
— 64 —
was Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1875), who was also a famous
biologist. Julian Huxley was shockingly honest (not
recognizing his own shame). He declared,

“[I suppose the reason that] we all jumped at [believing] the
[Darwinian] Origin [of the Species, thereby embracing Evolution]
was because the [very] idea of God interfered with our
sexual mores.*” [brackets added by me for clarity.]

* Mores (a Latin word pronounced like the eels,
morays) are “folkways or customs of central importance that are accepted
by society without question, which embody the fundamental moral views

of society.” Mores also entail the recognition of societal taboos. Taboos
are particularly vile forms of immorality. Sadly, as our society becomes
less and less Christian, as we absorb pagan peoples, what were once
universally recognized as taboos, are now considered, “perfectly normal
lifestyle choices”).

What an astounding confession!

Julian’s younger brother, Aldous Leonard Huxley
(1894-1963) was a famous British author, moralist, humanist,
and philosopher. He too made a rather amazing
confession (revealing the hopelessness and ignorance
of those “experts” who have rejected God):

“It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all
one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice
than ‘Try to be a little kinder.’”

What an understatement...! That’s like telling someone who is dying
of cancer, “Try to feel a little better” or someone in prison: “Try to feel a
little freer.” Julian and Aldous rejected the Word of God because their
grandfather doubted its Divinity. Even as a leak in a dam or a dyke starts
as a small trickle, it will eventually erode and weaken the edifice until it
bursts forth in destruction. So also it is with doubt, disbelief, sin, and
immorality. Those who reject God and His perfection, have no hope.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof
are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they
have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1)

“...if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14)

Hawking here talks in a cluster of confusion: "profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either".  Tell me, how can a mere "probability" based upon nothing other than wanting to believe that something does not exist... how can that be a "profound realization"...?   It is profound stupidity.  Furthermore, he simply expects others to believe with him his unscientific opinion that if we jump off a cliff it won't hurt and that there is no life hereafter.  That's a pretty big gamble.  If one wants to play Eternal Russian Roulette with his own soul, he may believe the delusion that it is his free will to do so, but it is spiritual homicide to put that gun-thought in the minds of others who are easily misled following someone whom they think to be a genius. 

This reminds me of the perfect illustration by Merlin Carothers in his booklet Prison to Praise.  Carothers was a young kid, newly enlisted in the war (Viet Nam? Korea? I can't recall which).  He was wet behind the ears and didn't want to appear to be a coward, so he just decided to do what he observed a seasoned soldier do.  One time they were sitting having their mess and enemy mortar fire starting coming near.  His first instinct was to jump into his foxhole, but did not want to appear to be a coward.  So he followed the cue of his surrogate, who, nonplussed, finished his meal and never ran for cover.  Carothers assumed that seasoned veteran who had seen several tours of duty knew what was best and Carothers assumed that the other soldier somehow knew by experience that the enemy shells did not pose a threat at that time, or clearly he would have jumped in his own foxhole.  A few more incidents happened like that, then one day they were walking along a road on a patrol and Carothers noted the seasoned soldier simply walking without care straight down the road.  Carothers finally sheepishly asked, "Shouldn't we be checking for landmines?" to which the reply was, "No, I'm sick of this life, I am actually hoping to step on a landmine".  At this Carothers was shocked to his soul and said to himself, "And I have been following THIS GUY...?!!"  When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch (or landmine). [I still have some of this small paperback in stock, inquire.] 

Those who follow someone like Hawking are no different... they just assume that Hawking is a genius and they just assume that it is his genius with which he makes such decisions of Eternal consequence, not based upon his personal opinion of what he wants reality to be.

His next statement, again, is  circular reasoning based on an unproven premise, which he then finishes off with confusion about what he actually claims to believe: "We have this one life."  That is an assertion based upon his personal opinion in that it is "simplest" thing to believe that there is no God and no afterlife.  It is also the simplest thing to believe that black holes do not exist (and there are some very intelligent scientists who do not believe that they even exist); yet Hawking went to great length to try to convince others that black holes exist.  He was double minded in that he believed what he wanted to believe in the absence—even defiance—of the facts; especially when it was easier to simply believe that they don't exist.

He then shows his own double-minded confusion by referring to "Grand Design" which itself is impossible without a DESIGNER.  Random chaos is not a designer; random chaos does not produce a design.  Random chaos may produce what appears to be a "pattern"; but it cannot produce design.  Hawking does not appear to have even understood the English language; or he was purposely attempting to contaminate people's minds with error so that they could not recognize truth since he spoke with undefined and confounded vocabulary.  RAB]

 

Stephen Hawking:

“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.”

[Hawking is here again purposely contaminating the meaning of words; purposely sowing confusion so that simpler minds will think that he is talking about the same thing as what those words mean in the minds of others, when those things are not the same; and he dishonestly uses words in violation of what they actually mean.  How can anyone trust someone in any area, if he is so dishonest or ignorant in such simple areas? 

There can be no creation (or creature) without a CREATOR.  Here, Hawking is trying to join the concept of creation as if it is one and the same with evolution.  Hawking talks nonsense, like Hillary, talking in circles without saying anything valid, hoping that the majority of ignorant people will think, "Well, he is a genius and I am stupid; I don't understand a thing that he just said, so he must be right and I am just dumb; who am I to question him?"  That "spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist" is utter nonsense.  It is not an explanation of anything.  It is an intellectual red-herring.  It is not a logical proposition or syllogism.  It proves nothing.  It expresses no truth.  It is 100% assertion, opinion, B.S. that he thinks everyone should believe because he hates God and refuses to believe that God exists. 

It is odd that some people who have the unfortunate burden of suffering severely, respond by hating God, which is the reason that they then childishly refuse to believe that He even exists, because if He exists then He is responsible for their condition of suffering, and since Hawking hates such a God if He exists, Hawking refuses to believe in Him.  However, hypocritically, if God does not exist, and it is "evolution" that is responsible for Hawking's unfortunate burden, then Hawking should hate evolution and refuse to believe that evolution exists.  But that is not the case.  This is an inexplicable contradiction and hypocrisy.  The carnal mind is irrational—it is self-destructive.  Christ, the Personification of Wisdom cries out: "He that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they who hate Me love death".

Hawking here also flaunts his profound ignorance.  Blue touch paper was an early type of paper fuse used to detonate explosives.  Have you ever seen someone lighting a fuse of TNT and after the detonation took place the explosion produced life or order out of chaos?  I've seen on video many buildings blown up and imploded.  I've never seen "nothing" blown up (if nothing exists, nothing could blow up and nothing could not blow up some other nothing) and when the dust settles I've never seen a brand new building as the result.  I've seen animals on video shot by hunters or burned in a forest fire; I've never seen new creatures emerge out of a fire fueled by nothing that burned nothing. 

Order does not arise out of chaos.  All things follow the Law of Entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  All things decay, disintegrate, move from complex to simple, fall apart, break down, tend toward homeostasis.  Devolution is what nature follows; not evolution.  God created things to occur exactly as they have, for His Own Good Pleasure.  It is His Drama.  Nothing happens by accident or chance.  Nothing takes Him by surprise.  He makes no mistakes.  Nothing thwarts His Will. 

People watch movies in which cars and buildings are blown up and in which people die, especially in war movies.  They know that the author penned that script and the director directed each scene.  Yet they do not doubt the type of reality which the movie portrays, because whether based on a real-life story or not, such things do happen.  But they refuse to bow before God and realize that the entire universe is His Drama and He wrote the Script and He is the Director Who directs it exactly as He determined it to be.  They use their sinful, fallen, damaged, imperfect, limited minds and think that they can "out-think" an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Perfect God.  We know more (allegedly) about the surface of the moon than we do about our own ocean deep.  Earth in comparison to our sun, is but a tiny pea next to a basketball.  However, our sun in relation to the size of stars in other galaxies, is not even the smallest speck that a sharp pencil could make on a piece of paper. 

See: (the first three below are links that you can click on for enlargement to actually see the planets/stars)

The Planets to the Sun
Planets and Sun
The Sun to Arcturus
Sun to Arcturus
Betelgeuse and Antares
Betelgeuse and Antares

 


Yet sinful, deluded man thinks that he better understands the universe of which he is utterly ignorant (and much of what he thinks that he knows is actually wrong) than God Himself does.

That nothing could blow up into something, and a complicated something from which life would emerge is a psychotic myth of the most-feeble mind.  This is also another false premise and false conclusion based on a polluted notion of creation and based upon a foundationless assertion, not fact.  God did not light any fuse and blow things up!  The "blue touch paper" and "lighting" of that fuse is itself smoke and mirrors to distract people from thinking about the facts of reality and the elements that would entail a true argument or intellectual discussion on the topic.  Those who believe that the smoke and mirrors are "reality" are little different than children who are captivated and delighted by a puppet show; who think it is real and cannot see through the fraud.  Hawking's concept of creation is polluted because his concept of God is polluted.  Again, as illustrated above in the quotations by the Huxley brothers—sinful men invent their own fantasy of reality because they refuse to believe that the TRUE God of the Bible exists and that the account of Creation in the Bible is true, because if such a God exists they would have to admit that they are DUTY-BOUND to obey Him.  R.A.B.]

 
Stephen Hawking:
“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason.  Science will win because it works.”

[But what Hawking does not tell you is that evolution is not science, but religion.  When was the Big Bang observed and by whom?  Has it been tested? replicated? demonstrated?  How can such illogic, fantasy, and "theory" that cannot be substantiated, be passed off as "reason"...?  When painted into a corner, the most-eminent evolutionists will admit there is no evidence or proof of first cause in evolution, it must be accepted by faith and then built upon—and that my friend is religion.  See The Signature of God, by Jeffrey, 354p. pb., 14.00 + P&H.  [I stock all books and DVDs that I mention.]

Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the most-eminent philosopher and theologian and logician of the modern era, superbly shows in his Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, that the lofty, worshipped "Scientific Method" is not scientific, but flawed.  Man has found very few scientific laws; this does not mean that such laws do not exist, but that man is not clever enough to discover them.  True Laws don't change.  What scientists find are approximations of law which, like that little spare donut tire in your trunk, is only useful for hobbling home or to the nearest garage.  It will quickly wear out—is unstable and even dangerous for anything other than a short trip at a slower speed—and another is needed.  That is what has happened to physics, it is not evolution and it is not science "changing"... it is man unable to successfully jump on to the moving merry-go-round and hold on for any length of time without being slung off.  Clark also superbly shows in A Christian View of Men and Things, Historiography: Secular and Religious, and Essays on Ethics and Politics, that secular man's theories of philosophy, ethics / morality, and historiography are all seriously flawed and untenable.  Clearly Hawking never read Clark, or Hawking might have learned how to think logically, instead of daydreaming in his illogical pseudo-scientific fantasy. 

Picasso reportedly on his deathbed confessed his great prank.  He admitted that he was not a real artist; not in the true sense, as the true masters (Rembrandt, Van Gough, Titian, Rubens, etc.).  Picasso admitted that early on, when he produced some of his odd artwork on a lark (as a whim), he was stupefied when the liberal “experts” and socialites began to fawn over it and him.  He then decided to produce the most grotesque paintings that he could imagine—and then laughed inwardly all the way to the bank when rich fools would pay any price to purchase his paintings because some "expert" declared his work to be "all the rage" and anyone who (thought that he) was anyone simply had to purchase one at any price.  Picasso was also a card-carrying Communist until the day that he died; in fact, in 1962 he was awarded the International Lenin Peace Prize (which itself is an oxymoron). 

This "Picassoization of Christendom" has occurred in nearly every facet of our modern corrupt age, in beauty, in morality, in science, in philosophy, in "religion", in politics, in law, in economics, in history, in all forms of "art" (music, sculpture, architecture).  We had been in what I called, "The Age of Irresponsibility", but somewhere in the past decade we moved in an accelerated rate at exponential factors into "The Age of Perversion".  Society cannot long survive such an "age" (which would lead to "The Age of Post-Civilization" if left on its own) and that is why Christ shall soon return and destroy this corrupt age, destroy all His enemies, destroy even all those of His own people who sided with the enemy, and uproot every plant that His Heavenly Father has not planted, every form of corruption and perversion of His creation.

Hawking seems little different than Picasso: he "rode the wave to success" because he was an original fantasy thinker clothed with scientific garb (garbage) who spouted the anti-God notions that the destroyers of Christendom wanted to hear.  Therefore, he was declared "an expert".  Clearly, anyone with a white lab coat, who has pens in his breast pocket, and a degree on the wall, and even a university position is (clearly those are the only qualifications for) "an expert".  Those who actually cling to truth, which is considered "outdated" are "blacklisted" (discriminated against) or culled / purged from all positions of influence in all sectors of life (government, universities, science, the media, entertainment, etc.).  The wave of success that Hawking rode was not a wave of creation, but a mud tsunami that destroys all in its path.  He was quite the "poster child" for a godless paradigm.   In 1963 at the age of 21 Hawking was diagnosed with ALS / Lou Gerhig's disease.  Doctor's told him be would probably die before the age of 23.  The fact that he lived so much incredibly longer is not as much testimony to Hawking's will power, but demonstrative of the fact that quite often all doctors do is guess; and it is also testimony to the fact that a LARGE amount of money can squeeze more life out of a dying body; but it cannot really give any greater quality of life.  Hawking is called "Science's Brightest Star" (I won't be surprised if they name some new star or galaxy after him); but more realistically he was Science's most-darling Blackhole.

"Science" (whatever that meant in Hawking's mind) will not "win" because "it works".  The Greatest scientists (Newton, Kelvin, Faraday, etc.) confessed their full faith in the Bible and that it does not contradict science at all.  If the "science" that the modern world believes "wins", it will not win (temporarily) because it is science (much of it is not) but because it is protected by a totalitarian monopoly of control in which those who dare express faith in God and traditional values and morals are blackballed and bulldozed out of the "scientific" community.  Like medicine and a corrupt Judiciary and Legislature, what "wins" is those who have the power to vote and declare the only reality that is allowed to be believed.  See Ben Stein's excellent DVD documentary:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, dead-pan, monitone-voiced Jewish actor / lawyer / analyst / commentator Ben Stein does a good job showing the totalitarian fraud and deception and scientific bigotry of the "professional" establishment.  90 min. DVD  (out of print, good used DVDs for 12.00 + P&H) Stein travels the world & learns awe-inspiring truth that bewilders him, then angers him, then spurs him to action...  educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired for the crime of merely believing that there might be evidence of Design in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance. To which Ben says: “Enough!” And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.

It is also amazing, ironic, hypocritical, that those who once championed "equality" and "tolerance" after they obtain power in any area, then become the most intolerant and discriminating and persecuting and hateful of anyone.  Their mask of egalitarian humanitarianism was only to infiltrate and then destroy from within.  They deride the Puritans and the successful Christian society that the Puritans established, because the Puritans and Founders had such "rigid rules", that only white, christian men who professed Christ Jesus could partake in government or any role in church or education.  However, now that they have infiltrated and subverted, they now discriminate and bar from professional society or government, any straight, white, male who is a Christian and who dares believe old antiquated values that modern society has declared to be public enemy #1.  If a person happens to be a true Christian, he is considered unfit for any public office—yet Satan worshipping homo-perverts whose lives are one long trail of corruption and crimes and perversion are held up as the glorious standard to which all should aspire.

Many former professed atheists have jettisoned evolution for belief in Intelligent Design or a Higher Power, realizing the foolishness of evolution.  There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mindby English philosopher, Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew and Varghese, 256pp., pb., 15.00 + P&H; “In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, announced that he now believes in God.  In this book, a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker reveals where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.”  Now, this does not mean that Flew's notion of God is Biblically sound, but it is a step in the right direction (he passed away in 2010).  I have this title in stock, as well as Intellectuals Speak Out about God, Varghese; I also have a good used supply of Life Itself by co-discoverer of DNA Dr. Crick (though he posits a flimsy notion of panspermia that life came from another planet, that simply delays payment and does not answer where that life originated... but he does reject evolution).  Buried Alive: Startling Untold Story About Neanderthal Man, Cuozzo, 350pp., pb., 14.00 + P&H; an American orthodontist goes to France and studied the dental records.... and his shocking evidence blows apart the evolutionist conspiracy.

God created the laws of science by which the universe operates—and He holds those laws in place—whether creation is aware of them or not.  The leaders of science and the arts and government during the Golden Age of the Republics of Christendom believed the Bible.  The Prime Minister of the Netherlands (1901-1905) Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Dutch Reformed theologian.  Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were ministers.  Secretary of the Continental Congress (1774-1789) Charles Thomson. translated the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) into English; published posthumously in 1808.  The greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, who developed several whole sciences upon which many other sciences today are built, was a firm believer of the Bible, read it every day of his adult life (and considered it part of his scientific research) and wrote over a million words in notes from his Bible reading.  See also, Scientists of Faith: 48 biographies. (I have this in stock, inquire.)

The post-golden era to which our nations have fallen into debt and decay and chaos are proliferated by those who reject the Bible in favor of humanism.  God created all that exists (flaws and all, to demonstrate His Sovereignty and Redemption and Determinism and that nothing can resist His Will; see my Does God Repent? — Can God Change His Mind?)  all things were created by Him, and for Him: "And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." ... "it is in Him that we live and move and have our being".  The doctrine of the Word of God is 100% Logical; the only flaw is those minds that God has not ordained unto life reject the truth, thinking their own foolish notions to be superior—often having never actually studied truth and logic and not understanding the Bible at all. 

God will rarely reveal Himself to someone seeking to disprove Him, because such a person is unworthy of knowing the truth--unless that person is honest and is willing to believe whatever the facts reveal.  A few great minds like the Russian, former atheist, nihilist mathematician Ivan Panin (see my collection of his works; inquire) and Scottish Structural Engineer, former atheist Adam Rutherford, and Simon Greenleaf, American jurist who wrote the book on "Evidence", after whom a Law school is named, were converted after trying to disprove the Bible when their intensive study caused them to realize that the Bible is true.  The doctrine of the Bible is 100% flawless logic if one follows the simple rules of Biblical Interpretation: God cannot change; cannot lie; cannot change His Mind, have a better idea, break His Promise, make a mistake; and therefore His Word cannot contradict itself and if you think that it does you are the one who is confused.  Those who easily dismiss the Bible as being full of contradictions have not even begun to think, and it is amazing they have been able to be a success in any area of life that requires problem solving. 

However, the real reason that they don't understand the Bible is because God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts and closed their minds so that they cannot see or believe.  If they truly desire to know the truth, the starting point is, "God if You exist I humble myself before You.  I want to believe in You and obey You if You exist, so please reveal the Truth to me as I read Your Word". 

The Bible is 100% in harmony and the majority of the Bible is easy to understand if you are not distracted by humanistic notions and if you use Scripture to interpret Scripture—not  your "feelings" or humanistic notions in thinking that God would not be "fair" or "good" if He did things that you do not like or do not agree with.  Goodness is not determined by what man thinks God should be, but by what God is and what He decrees.  The child's game "Simon Sez" may be confusing to those who don't know the one simple rule".  Once it is learned it is hard to be fooled.

“The Bible is no mere book but a Living Creature with a power that conquers all that oppose it.” Napoleon Bonaparte

“If once the Deity of Christ be admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision of algebra.” —Napoleon 

“It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” Horace Greeley

“The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.” Andrew Jackson

“The Bible is the source of Liberty.” Thomas Jefferson

“The Bible is the secret to Great Britain’s greatness.” H.M. Queen Victoria

“The foundations of society and government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings should cease to be practically universal in this country.” Calvin Coolidge

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” George Washington

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.” Sir Isaac Newton

“I have known ninety-five of the world’s great men in my lifetime, and of these eightyseven were followers of the Bible. The Bible is  stamped with a Specialty of Origin and an immeasurable distance separates it from all competitors.” William E. Gladstone (British
Statesman)

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go prospering and to prosper, but if we and our posterity neglect the instructions and authority in this book, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overtake us and bury our glory in profound obscurity.” Daniel Webster

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or
neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” Noah Webster

“The American nation from its first settlement in Jamestown to this hour is based upon and permeated by the Bible.” Supreme Court Justice Brewer, 2/29/1892 (in court case Holy Trinity Church vs United States, 143 U.S. 472).

The above are just a few selections from my series: America, Christianity, Liberty & Truth (inquire).  R.A.B.]

-------------------------------

additional note: R.A.B.

 
No other ancient work contains the same amount of manuscript evidence as does the Bible. The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors spanning 40 generations and 1,500 years; yet it is consistent, coherent, and entirely reliable.  Never has science or archaeology ever disproved a single thing in the Bible—and the Bible
was right thousands of years far in advance of secular understanding in many matters of history and science.  Modern science and archaeology only serve to prove the Bible.  The amount of evidence proving the reliability of the Bible is overwhelming.*  Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, himself declared that scientific work serves as a method to prove the Bible true.
    * See archaeology titles in the book list in the back of this book.

There are more complete Bible manuscripts than there are of the works of Shakespeare.  The 37 plays written by Shakespeare in the early 1600s all contain missing text which forensic experts had to “guess” to “fill in the blanks” to complete the plays.  It is also significant to realize that even if all of the Biblical manuscripts had been
lost, it is possible to recreate the entire Bible by piecing together Biblical quotes from the early Church Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.—all for except 11 verses out of the 31,102 verses in the Bible.  That is staggering in significance!  There are 24,000 existing Greek New Testament manuscripts (complete or partial) and 5,366 complete Greek New Testament manuscripts.  The books of the New Testament were written between the years A.D. 40 to 90.  The earliest-known existing copies of New Testament manuscripts date to the year A.D. 125—which means that they were copied only 35-85 years after the originals; which means that even without God overseeing their copying, the chance of them being accurate is much higher than if the first copies had been made centuries later.  In contrast, there are only 643 existing Greek manuscripts of the Iliad of Homer, which was first written in 900 B.C., and the earliest existing manuscript was copied 500 years (c.400 B.C.) after Homer
wrote it.  On top of that, these existing copies are incomplete and there are 764 disputed lines of text in Homer’s Iliad, while there are only 40 disputed lines in the New Testament.  The New Testament and the Iliad are roughly the same size.  The New Testament has 7,957 verses of 179,011 words.  The Iliad has 15,693 lines of about (an estimated) 154,000 words.

Similarly, the works of Aristotle were written between 384-322 B.C., yet the earliest-existing manuscript is 1,400 years old (copied around 800 years after Aristotle died) and only 49 manuscripts of his works still exist.

Dated much closer to the time of the writing of the New Testament, Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” was written c. 58-50 B.C., yet the earliest-known existing manuscript was written nearly 1,000 years later (c. A.D. 900) and only 10 known manuscripts are in existence.

“The absence of evidence is not proof to the contrary” is the dictum of logic, which modern God-hating scientists have violated, when they have claimed the Bible to be wrong because evidence of a certain town or historical person had never been discovered.  If you are on a ship crossing the ocean and your ring falls off and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, the fact that no one can find it again does not mean that your ring never existed and that you are a liar.  While the lack of evidence did not prove the Bible to be wrong, in time, every single one of those false accusations themselves was proven to be in error, as new discoveries always prove the Bible true.  Though the Bible is not a science manuel, when it speaks, in every area in which the Bible speaks, it speaks with authority and it speaks truthfully.

Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. (Physics) expressed:

“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”


Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist the world will ever know, studied the Bible daily every day of his adult life (writing down over 1 million* words of notes), and declared:

    {* 1,000,000 words would amount to 8 400-page books.}

“No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible.”

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
profane history.”

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), is considered one of the greatest jurists {legal professionals} of the U.S. (The London Times declared that more light on jurisprudence came from him than all the jurists of Europe combined).  Greenleaf knew that Anglo-Saxon law and religion cannot be separated from each other, because Anglo-Saxon law is derived from ethics and morals and those ethics and morals were derived from the Bible.  Greenleaf “wrote the book” on the rules of legal evidence. Originally a non-Christian, he followed his own dictum of never making ones mind up about any significant matter without first considering the evidence.  Therefore, he set out to investigate the New Testament claims of Christ’s Divinity and in the process had to declare the New Testament to be legally unimpeachable testimony that was true and that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God. Greenleaf declared concerning evidence:

“Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

No one has ever proven the Bible not to be true.  No one has ever proven that the Bible is a forged document.  In fact, as we have shown all the evidence proves that the Bible is a thousand times more reliable an ancient document than any other ancient writing.  Many atheists or agnostics spoke casually about the Bible being unreliable, without any real study, when younger, with immature minds.  However, later in life, they frequently made statements that prove they had changed their opinions—including two of the greatest proponents of Evolution: Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley.

[From my book God, Man, and the Universe, pp.49,50.]

I also have this in stock below,

The Jesus Papyrus: Most Sensational Evidence on Origins of Gospels Since Discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls (2000), Thiede; (foremost German papyrologist)/D’Ancona (authors of Eyewitness to Jesus; which I believe is the same book but a different edition), 193pp. pb.(inquire).