[My detailed thoughts are interspersed below in brackets. R.A.B.]
[The updated portion of this Rumination appears after the word "UPDATE" which can be easily found with search [find] function control + f .]
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.
As I wrote in my, God, Man, and the Universe:
[Another famous evolutionist / agnostic, a grandson of Thomas Huxley, 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,
“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? Based upon what laws did it happen? How can such illogic, fantasy, and lurid “theory” that cannot be substantiated, be passed off as “reason” or “science”...? When painted into a corner, the most-eminent evolutionists will admit that there is no evidence or proof of first cause [without which it cannot exist] in evolution: Big Bang “must be accepted by faith” and then built upon—and that my friend is religion. See The Signature of God, by Grant Jeffrey, 354p. pb., 14.00 + P&H. I stock all books and DVDs that I mention. However, it is a false religion, because that which is built upon it is as invalid as Big Bang itself.
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. God often hides truth from the arrogant, opposing them; giving more grace to the humble (which explains why the majority of the greatest advances in science were at the hands of god-fearing men). True Laws (that is, those not invented by man) 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 a few miles 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 to replace it. 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. The problem is arrogant man’s false perspective or refusal to admit the truth. If a person is a passenger on a ship at rough sea, with an erratic pilot, steering the ship as if he is going through an obstacle course, and the passenger is attempting target practice with a rifle, at a stationary bouy, when he continues to miss, the problem is not (even if in his hurt pride he so claims) that “the bouy keeps moving”.
Dr. Gordon H. Clark also superbly shows in A Christian View of Men and Things, Historiography: Secular and Religious, Essays on Ethics and Politics, and Christian Philosophy (containing his 3 previously separate works, Religion, Reason, and Revelation; Three Types of Religious Philosophy; and An Introduction to Christian Philosophy) 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. Anyone who has not read at least the above-mentioned books by Clark, has never truly thought and never thought truly. Take the challenge. Inquire for a special price on the above package.
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 (since he was Hispanic and a leftist). 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 someone simply had to purchase one at any price; they were as good as gold, the perfect investment, “priceless art”. 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, literature, “poetry”, filmography, cuisine, advertising—which have all become propaganda / methods of brainwashing). We, in Christendom, had been for a few decades 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 Anti-intellectualism, Confusion, and Perversion”. Society cannot long survive such an “age” (which, in reality, is the last signs of “terminal life span”, and leads into to “The Age of Post-Civilization” if left on its own to naturally “progress”). This is why Christ shall soon return and destroy this corrupt age, destroy all His enemies, destroy even all those of His own people who have sided with the enemy in their lies, rebellion, and perversion, and Christ will 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”.
[Imagine the current traitorous politicians of the past century or more. They are interviewing people to be the “watchman on the wall” to warn the nation when the enemy is approaching. After numerous candidates are interviewed, one man stumbles into the room, knocking everything over. When asked why he has knocked everything over and what he has to say for himself, he arrogantly replies, “I am totally blind and don’t give a *&%#@! about anything”. The politicians look at each other, with a sort of telepathic understanding, and the one in charge declares, “You’re perfect for the job! Congratulations, you’re hired!”]
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. Being such a “genius”—why didn’t Hawking devote the remainder of his life to becoming a research scientist and finding a cure for ALS...? —because then he would have had to deal in REALITY, not fantasy. Which itself begs the question: Why would such a “genius” devote his life to fantasy and not reality? devote his life to destroying peoples’ faith in God instead of actually finding a cure for a dreaded disease? He certainly had money and would not have even needed benefactors to fund his research. 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. That would be a fitting irony, if a black hole was discovered and named after him.
* —especially from a subverted university, in a bogus department, and with a degree in “THEORETICAL” anything. Would you hire a “theoretical” carpenter, security guard, or chef...? And all those people with “Ph.D.s” in “Black studies”, “Chicano studies”, “LGBT studies”, “Women’s empowerment”, etc. —who on earth would ever hire them but other bogus, subverted institutions like the ones that gave them their degrees? What do they produce for society other than the continuation of perversion delusions?
“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. Dictatorships eventually implode (leaving decades of carnage and misery and waste and debt in their hubristic wake). 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 the result of accidental, random chance. 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 these subverters have infiltrated and undermined our culture and institutions, 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 (upon which our society, culture, and nation were founded) that modern subverted “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, socialist, intolerant, violent, mentally deranged 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 Mind, by English philosopher, Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew and India-born Roy Abraham Varghese (who converted to some form of what is considered Christianity), 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 good, used copies this title in stock, as well as: Intellectuals Speak Out about God, Varghese; and I also have a supply of good,used copies of Life Itself by co-discoverer of DNA Dr. Crick (though he posits a ludicrous notion of “Panspermia”, that life came from another planet, which simply “delays payment” or “passes the buck” and does not answer where that life originated... but he was a renown scientist and he did reject evolution). I also have in stock new copies of 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 (any creature) 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 (those times for politicians being true Christians seems to be gone). Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were ministers and Bible scholars. Secretary of the Continental Congress (1774-1789) Charles Thomson. translated the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) into English [which I stock; inquire]; 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 (and said that he never noticed any contradiction). 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 and perversion are proliferated by those who reject the Bible in favor of humanism. God created all that exists (what appear to us to be) “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 actual “flaw” is a figment of the imagination in those minds that God has not ordained unto life; for which reason they reject the truth, thinking their own foolish notions to be superior—often having never actually studied logic and not understanding how to think, and having rarely ever actually studied 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 on Bible Numerics; 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.
My S.T.E. Commentary series, Apologetic Exposition series, Does God Repent...? and other books clear up an incredible amount of what people thought were “contradictions”; which were not, but are confusion in the minds of “Christians” (and nonchristians alike) who think that God “changes”.
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 with itself 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, modernistic 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 children’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.
Some of the greatest people of the world confessed:
“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:
[From my book God, Man, and the Universe, pp.49,50.]
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 as evidence that the Bible was right all along. 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 STP’s catalog or email or send SASE for info. No archaeological discovery has ever proved the Bible to be wrong—it has always proved the skeptics and atheists to be wrong.]
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 (once challenged to by one of his students) 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, some often frequently made statements that prove they had changed their opinions—including two of the greatest proponents of Evolution: Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley.
[I also have this in stock: 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 / title), 193pp., pb. (inquire).]
----------------------
UPDATE — Hawking Fake Science...
Someone emailed me the below link so I have added my comments to refute these other declarations by Hawking.
‘There Is No God’ Physicist Stephen Hawking Claimed in Final Book, But Said Aliens and Time Travel Might Be Possible
https://christiannews.net/2018/10/22/there-is-no-god-physicist-stephen-h...
----------------------
My comments:
Herein, Hawking continues his anti-intellectual self-contradicting, unscientific opinion which he passes off as “science” (which he apparently defined by what his mind or will considers reality to be).
In his posthumously printed Brief* Answers to the Big Questions, he pontificated:
[* Yes, the answers have to be brief, because they are unsubstantiated (even contradictory) opinion, not science or valid thought. Those who spew falsehood, like liars, the more they say, the more loose rope the leave to hang themselves. It is also self-serving to label the questions as “Big” which offers a false sense of legitimacy to the questions themselves. Yes, from a small mind, indeed the questions appear “BIG”, even as merely two- or three-steps in a split level house, to a toddler, seems like a full flight of stairs; even as a toddler views himself hopping up onto a rock 1 inch off the ground as a super accomplishment. RAB]
Below in quotations are various assertions that Hawking made, followed by my comments in brackets.
Stephen Hawking:
“There is no God. No one directs the universe...”
[Opinion. No offer of evidence. No philosophical argument. No scientific proof to corrobrate the bald assertion. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God. I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature.”
[No. If anyone believed that all disabled persons were disabled because they were “cursed” by God then he was a fool. Here we see the danger of consulting fools about the Bible or theoretical science or any of the “Big” question of the universe of eternal magnitude. Christ clearly explained to the disciples that a man blind from birth was not blind for anything of his own doing or because of any sin of his parents, but for the Glory of God when Christ would heal him. While indeed, some extremely rare individuals may be cursed by God, in vivo (such as Canaan, Esau, Moab, Benammi, etc.) the majority do suffer for their own sins post partum (Ahab, Jeroboam, Gehazi, King Saul, Ananias and Sapphira, etc.).
However, God also uses hardship and trials and even suffering to strengthen and refine those who actually turn toward Him (rather than against Him). However, in Hawking’s case, his reaction to his disibility will be used as evidence of his wickedness and he shall have no excuse. If Hawking could accomplish all that he accomplished despite his profound disability, that is evidence that such an (for lack of a better word) unfortunate condition could be sublimated; and yet like Italian composer Antonio Salieri in the superb movie Amadeus, (due to his own sour grapes) chose to become the enemy of God and attempted to destroy God’s Work; rather than humbling himself and seeking his place in God’s Plan. Hawking shall have the greater damnation.
God also calls and blesses certain individuals from the womb, such as Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Blessing may not always appear as blessing in the early stages (consider Moses being set adrift in the marshes of the crocodile infested Nile in a small basket; and consider Joseph, a century earlier, being sold by his brother into slavery, and then being cast into prison due to a false accusation while in Egypt).
As Job said to his wife (who seeing him in his misery, covered head to toe by boils, probably as a form of “mercy killing”, said to him, “Curse God and die”) in the midst of incredible trial, having lost everything:
“21And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.” (Job 1).
“But he said unto her, ‘Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” (Job 2:10)
Hawking would have done better to read the Book of Job rather than imagine theories and issue biased, unsubstantiated opinions that have nothing to do with reality. Escapism (with an aire of “professionalism” or not) only works for a short time (until reality kicks in).
Hawking “preferred to think” —yes, that indeed is “scientific” all right. GENIUS! RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“No one created the universe and no one directors our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no Heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking...”
[Again, opinion stated as fact. He cannot prove his assertion. It “leads me to a profound realisation”... would be more-honestly expressed, it “leads me to unsubstantiated imaginative fantasy that I prefer to believe in, than what may be reality...” It is a false disjunction and TERRIBLY confused, illogical thinking that there is “probably” no afterlife or Heaven because of his assertion, devoid of factual basis, that “no one created the universe”.
It is interesting that he specifies that there is “probably” no Heaven. Really? The concept of Heaven is impossible without, is inseperable from the concept of God, so this merely demonstrates his own internal confliction and confusion (and dishonesty) in declaring that there is ABSOLUTELY no God (the one whom Hawking hates because he believed the false notion that such a God cursed him into being a disabled person) but that there is only “probably” no afterlife or Heaven.
Of course, Hawking was only thinking hopefully of an afterlife “of bliss”, not an afterlife of even greater cursing: Judgment (Hell). Many people (including “Christians”) who don’t have a Ph.D. in “scientific guessing”, think that they dispense with the reality of Hell by merely wishing it away (or employing anti-intellectual argumentation / opinion). His declaration “belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking” is itself wishful thinking. He declares, “I think there is no Heaven” (based upon WHAT EVIDENCE, of course, he does not share; because it was not based upon scientific evidence, but personal prejudice). He did not declare, “There is no Heaven...” or “I can prove that there is no Heaven”, or “I know that there is no Heaven”.
Most such scientists (and scientific theoreticians) prefer delusion to reality. It is supreme hubris for scientists to think that they can tell us what happened billions of years ago even on earth, let alone millions of light years away to places that they have never been and never seen. Man’s arrogance is a delusion that causes him to believe the most absurd notions—ANYTHING but the truth (which requires humility before God and the confession of sin—and repentance, which is turning from what God forbade and doing what He commanded). Believing and teaching anything (no matter how absurd) as long as it is not the truth, encapsulates the problem of and that which is caused by all pseudo-governments and so-called institutions of learning (pseudo-academia). American philosopher and military strategist, Homer Lea, delcared,
“The Judgements of men are formed, not from facts as they are, but as they wish them to be. They root through tons of good wheat to find three pieces of chaff, if the chaff lends weight to their belief and argument. It is not that they want others to know the truth, but to have them believe as they do. Beyond this they do not care. The conceit of man ordinarily forms his criterion of truth.”
“The greatest derangement of the human mind is to believe because one wishes it to be so.” —Louis Pasteur
“The majority of men prefer delusion to truth. It soothes. It is easy to grasp. Above all, it fits more snugly than the truth into a universe of false appearances...” —Friedrich Nietzsche (even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then)
Hawking’s declaration that no one dictates (or directors) our fate shows the pathology of his atheism, which is the pathology of all atheism and all humanism and all false doctrine spuriously called "Christianity"—sinful men reject God's Sovereignty because they demand to have the right to be in control of their own destiny (and yet they then form governments that control nearly every detail of their destiny, including how many gallons of water their toilets can hold and what type of faucet they can have on their showers...!). RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“I’m not religious in the normal sense...”
[No. You are not religious in ANY sense. You are religiously senseless. If tied down, he would declare his religion to be Big Bangism / Evolution—both of which are unscientific and require faith to believe that they are true, and only once you believe, then you build upon that “faith” a foundation of anything that seems to support what you want to believe via “wish-fulfullment” (another form of escapism). RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”
[However, here he actually states TRUTH (though it also contradicts other things that he said). However, his inference is a non sequitur, in that, what he says here has nothing to do with religion and does not contradict Scripture.
Yes, the universe is governed by the laws of science. However, this does not mean that man has actually discovered very many of those laws, because the “laws” that man thinks that he has discovered are continually changing. This changing of what man thinks are “laws” that man thinks that he has discovered exposes man’s paradigms as being in error; because true scientific law does not change but is Constant (K). Man (scientists), for the most part, has discovered “approximations” of law; not law. In many cases the scientists hit the target, but are far from the bulls-eye (and yet are full of bull).
He shows his double-mindedness (or convoluted duplicity, like someone who has told so many lies he can’t keep them all straight) in confessing that the scientific laws that govern the universe “may have been decreed by God”—the God whom he already said does not exist and despite the fact that he said that no one created the universe (which would include the laws that govern energy and matter).
It is also true that God does not intervene to break those laws. Upon what scientific evidence does he make such a declaration? However, that neither disproves that God is in control, nor that He does not intervene. God does indeed, intervene, but intervention does not necessitate breaking laws; that is a false inference / false disjunction. When a rocket bursts forth into space, that does not violate the law of gravity. Those who think that it does have cramped and constipated minds and need a mental laxative. When a rocket bursts forth into space, it appeals to a higher set of laws: lift, thrust, propulsion. Similarly, the light of the sun shining during the day (on one side of the earth) does not “violate” the light of the moon—because the moon actually has no light of its own but merely reflects, due to its albedo, the light of the sun—so how could the sun violate its own light? When Hawking makes such disjointed opinionated statements he shows how very little he actually understands. His forte is “theory” (not really good theory, either) not reality. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“[T]here is no God. I am an atheist. Religion believes in miracles, but they are not supported by science.”
[Another false inference / non sequitur. Assuming that when Hawking used the word / concept “miracle” he only thought of it in terms of a violation of the laws of science; which again shows his disabled mind, constricted to a wheelchair of thought, in his narrow-minded, cramped assumption (not good qualities in a “theoretical thinker”) that reality could only be as he incorrectly assumed it could or should be.
More specifically, Christianity believes in miracles. False religions believe in “magic”. It is dishonest for him to confuse Christianity with false religion and shows either that he never studied comparative “religion” (or that he did not understand the difference between Christianity and false religions) or he is simply being deceitful in lumping various discordant “religions” together and falsely inferring that their concepts of what he considers to be “miracles” are all the same thing; when they are not.
That Biblical miracles are not supported by science is a false statement. The true statement would be, “modern science as governed by disbelief in God is unable to prove Biblical miracles”.
Of course, occultic abnormalities, pagan superstitions, and Catholic “paranormal” events are not the same thing as Biblical miracles. However, science’s inability to substantiate does not infer (much less “prove”) that miracles or God do not exist. The truth is two-edged, which such atheists dishonestly avoid expressing. Although he says, “miracles are not supported by science”, what he means is “Science cannot prove God”. But the greater half of that truth is, “Science cannot DISPROVE God”. The lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.
Just because you cannot find something does not mean that it does not exist. Surely he played “Hide and Seek” before his disability crippled him, or games like Scavenger Hunt, or picture games like “Find the hidden objects in the picture”. Surely he had lost something during his life and was unable to find it. Simply because something is lost does not mean that it no longer exists and it certainly does not mean that it never existed. What is actually presupposed is that the “Hider” is more clever than the seeker; which is another clue why conceited people refuse to believe in God.
That is the crux of Hawking’s psychological gripe with God. Hawking, having lost nearly complete control of his body, did not want to accept the fact that someone could also control his thoughts*... and he therefore must reject at all cost the notion that there is someone more clever than himself actually in control of his destiny. God is in control. God is Omnipotent.
{* It also must be realized that at some point later in Hawking’s life, it is possible that his mind was not really there and he was not communicating, but various handlers were communicating what they wanted the public to believe that he was communicating, and that may explain the very low-level of thought in these statements from the book that he allegedly wrote. The same subterfuge seems to have been likely in the case of Hellen Keller; another terribly disabled person to whom greatness may have been exaggeratedly attributed.}
Even as the statement falsely attributed to Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin about being out in space and not seeing God anywhere was invented by a socialist State in the anti-intellectual attempt to deceive simple-minded people from believing in God, likewise, the atheistic, Talmudic “scientific community” and so-called “academia” has seized upon Hawking and draws a false inference that because he may have been intelligent in some areas (which remains to be proven) then therefore whatever he said was intelligent, true, and valid. This of course is a spurious notion.
God can only be “discovered” if He Self-discloses and Self-reveals to man. This is mirrored in the events of Christ’s Resurrection in that He did not reveal Himself to everyone, but only to an elect, select few.
The false statement spuriously attributed to Gagarin was probably invented by Khrushchev for communist-atheist propaganda purposes. It shows how ignorant the Soviet leaders were and also how stupid they thought the Russian people were. That would sort of be like me walking into the next room or outside and declaring, “Well, I don’t see any air here, so air must not exist”. That is the basic argument of “scientists” concerning God. They refuse to believe in God, Creator of the universe, because then they would have to admit their duty to submit to and obey Him; which they refuse to do. Leave it to a simple poet to discover and express what scientific geniuses missed altogether: “All nature is but an effect whose cause is God.” —William Cowper (the foremost poet of the generation between Alexander Pope and William Wordsworth) RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science...”
“If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn’t take long to ask: What role is there for God?”
[This statement is replete with anti-intellectualism one is hard pressed to know which foolishness to address first. First of all creation presupposes a Creator. Therefore, he dishonestly kidnaps valid words from the Bible and then invalidates them by using them spuriously within his own unscientific and illogical paradigm to confuse simple minds. Why did he not use the word “evolved” or “appeared” or “spontaneously came into existence”...? —because his purpose seems to have been deceit because his position is indefensible. Does this not make him a sower of confusion? an author of deceit? He may truly believe that things are as he says; but without any “scientific proof” is it not deceitful even to himself, to believe such? It is nonsense that anything—let alone everything—came into existence from nothing.
It violates the foundational Law of the Conservation of Energy and Matter (the First Law of Thermodynamics). It is also nonsense to claim that everything came into being out of nothingness “according to the laws of science”—for when nothing existed those laws of science did not exist either; and therefore, nonexisting laws cannot govern nonexisting space, nonexisting energy, and nonexisting matter somehow coming into existence out of nothingness in an orderly (or any) manner (and then, contradictingly, “nonchangingly” / “fixedly”).
This is not science, but dishonesty. He wants to replace God by “scientific” law, but his intellectual powers of logical argumentation were on the level of a 5-year old; a dishonest 5-year old (if, indeed, these are actually his thoughts and not thoughts spuriously attributed to him to support an anti-Christian, atheistic “scientific”, political agenda). Few scientific laws have been discovered that could even remotely be thought to be able to replace God—much of what are considered “laws” are in a state of flux, and thus, are not “law” and also actually refute Hawking’s notion of fixity. Indeed, the laws of nature are fixed, but the very name itself begs the question of WHO “fixed” them. Now, of course, fixed does not mean “repaired from being broken”, but that God “shut the door” or “nailed them down” so that they do not move / change. How could random chaos “fix” anything? How can random chaos stop being random chaos? What is to keep it from continually changing...? —nothing! (other than Evolutionists’ wishful thinking). The evolutionary model itself fails based upon the law of fixity as well as homeostasis. Entropy leads to homeostasis, which is complex to simple, orderly to chaos, life to nonlife. Things don’t build themselves to completion on their own; but they do decay to completion, on their own. The only thing that “fixes” anything on its own (and even then, “on its own” is not even true) is entropy: Once something deteriorates and decomposes and separates into its most basic components, individual atoms. How can evolutionary natural laws be fixed if everything tends toward entropy? Laws themselves would “break down”: gravity would operate like an old light fixture that sometimes fizzles on and sometimes fizzles off; atoms would stop bonding according to known laws of chemistry—and the whole universe would have some form of mutating molecular cancer in every form of matter and energy. Matter and energy themselves would not be immune to ceasing to exist; if they magically came into existence on their own. Fixing implies a fixer, which implies Intelligence, Purpose, Design, and Control—which invalidates Hawking’s very assertion that God does not intervene to break the laws that He created: TO THE CONTRARY, He holds them in their fixed state! They are not fixed to Him, only to us; like the “user end” of the Matrix program that we see and in which we operate, whereas, He is on the “back end” of the program, and in control of it at all times. If He wants to “pause” any element (like having the sun stand still for 24 hours, parting the Red Sea or the Jordan River, etc.), He does what He wants (and He controls the consequences, the fall out of energy and matter when one part of the cosmic machinery is stopped—such as the flooding out of the Canaanite towns north of where the Jordan River was parted so millions of Israelites could cross into the Promised land to begin the Conquest). This also destroys Hawking’s unscientific notion that the fixed laws of nature leave no room for God in the universe; to the contrary, if God were to cease to exist everything would fall apart; even as one could not expect the light and heat of the sun to continue to perfectly bathe earth, if the sun were to burn out like a cheap light bulb. What Hawking meant was it leaves no room for God in Hawking’s mind.
He does not explain BASED UPON WHAT EVIDENCE does he “accept” what he believes. His answers to these “Big” questions, are merely a bunch of biased, unsubstantiated opinions held together with globs of cheap glue in the form of quasi-scientific words every now and then. His entire presentation of “Faux Physics” is then given a nice shiny coating as a result of his “larger than life” persona (from which cannot be separated feelings of pity) whereby, the general public is in awe.
He also again engages in non sequiturs of logic, missing middles that require you to put on your 10-league jumping boots (or rather 100-million-light-year jumping boots), in order to become an Galactic Olympian to astronomically leap from his disconnected vaporous premises to magically (“a miracle”—which is not supported by science) arrive at his invalid and untrue conclusion.
Accepting that the laws of nature are fixed (that is the very nature of “laws”—they are fixed, constant; this is a smokescreen attempting to lose the less-astute readers in the blue hazy fog of confusion) does not then cause a person to ask (regardless of the time factor that it takes the question to appear in ones brain) “What role there is for God?” That question is completely irrelevant and is a paper tiger. The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. Hawking already confessed that God may have created the laws of the universe—so, what, once God created a Fortune-500 company His own board voted Him out of the company? By creating laws God then sealed His own fate of no longer being needed in His own universe? Does that not violate the law of logic that one cannot confer on someone else authority greater than he himself has / one cannot create a being greater than himself? Hawking (self-imagined creator of his own universe) “creates god” who has no place in Hawking’s universe, and then Hawking (adding insult to injury) actually poses the specific question (without honestly wording it so), “What place does such a god have in such a universe?” —that is, in Hawking’s fantasy universe! Hawking already claims (when he is not contradicting himself) that he does not believe in God, so in reality his question (when stripped of subterfuge and lingering bits of anything that makes sense) is, “What place is there in my universe for that which I claim does not exist?” However, Hawking imagines a mythical god or a nonexistent God, and then asks his self-serving question.
This is utterly dishonest and unscientific. The more appropriate question for Hawking to have asked would have been: “What role in the universe is there for a God-hating quadriplegic who thinks that he knows more than God?” The only answer, tragically for Mr. Cosmos, is “Hell”.
“It is appointed unto men once to die and after this the Judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27)
You can refuse to believe that it does not exist. Next time you are confronted by a criminal or a vicious dog or wild animal, or a shark in the ocean just close your eyes and pretend it does not exist. See how well it works.
“The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone: which is the Second Death.” (Revelation 21:8)
Again, you can choose to believe that it does not exist... but if life was as unpleasant for 60 or 70 years on earth as a quadriplegic, imagine what Eternity would be like in Hell. That’s a mighty big gamble. You would think that a theoretic physicist would better understand the law of probabilities and risk. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?”
“I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator.”
[The question itself is flawed, pre-supposing that the Big Bang is reality. Hawking also does not define “compelling”. He also does not define what substantiates his “I think” as scientific authority. Presumably his belief that everything came from nothing and order magically appeared out of disorder (or more properly, “non-order”) is more “compelling” to him than Intelligent Design of a Divine Creator, to which all of creation points, because Hawking refuses to believe that God exists. Thus, his anti-science is supported solely by his anti-theology. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“In an infinite universe, there must be other occurrences of life...”
“It’s time to commit to finding the answer, for the search for life beyond Earth. We are life; we are intelligent; we must know.”
[This statement is predicated upon the false assumption that the universe is indeed infinite; which itself is not consonant with Scripture. If the universe were infinite then God Himself could not know it and how could God not know that which He created? God Himself is not infinite or He could not know Himself and God is Omniscient, if one believes the Bible, which I do.
However, even if his predicated assumption is true, that the universe is infinite, it does not naturally follow therefore, that there must be life elsewhere. Of course, his model is based upon Big Bangism and that is the only type of “miracle” (miracles, which, hypocritically, he says are NOT supported by science) that he believes in. The conditions for life are so tender and precarious that their even occurring on planet earth defies all statistical probability;* and yet for some strange reason he believed that it was almost certain that they had occurred elsewhere (also predicated upon the false assumption that life spontaneously arose on its own on earth out of nothingness).
* As I wrote in, God, Man, and the Universe (pp.221-224):
“French biophysicist and philosopher Pierre Lecomte du Noüy {pronounced doo-nwee} (1883-1947) declared that any number in which the probability was greater then 1050 (10 to the 50th power) would simply never happen—even cosmically. ....
“Therefore, 1050 (or 10 to the 50th) would be a 1 with 50 zeroes after it. Is it not much easier to read it as 1050, than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000”...?
“Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after an enormous amount of time and calculation (and probably many, many cups of coffee) arrived at the number representing the statistical probability of life having evolved on its own by chance. Understand, they gave evolution “the benefit of the doubt” and gave evolution 15 to 20 billion years for this to happen (even though evolutionists claim the earth is only 4.5 billion years old). Now, remember how big a number 1050 is and keep that in mind. Remember also that du Noüy said that any statistical probability larger than 1050 was impossible. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe determined that in order for just one single cell to spontaneously come to life, it would require 1040,000 years (10 to the 40,000th power years). This is a number we can never even begin to comprehend. In fact, on the previous page, it required 4 7/8 inches [in the original text of the printed book] to write out 1050. Well, to write 1040,000 with the same size print would require 325 feet (25 feet longer than a football field). These 3 world-famous scientists clearly show that it is impossible for life to have just happened on its own.”
And these scientists dealt in reality, not merely “theoretical science”.
Hawking’s comments are nothing more than blind believe-ism. They are more what one would expect to hear at a political pep rally; not in a scientific discussion. It MUST be so—because Hawking wants it to be so; and he thinks that he is the god of his universe, and therefore it has to be so. Where he is now, unfortunately, he is experiencing life beyond life, but it is not the life that he had hoped for—because he rejected the Lord of Life.
Hawking’s declaration, “We are life” is unscientific and illogical. No, we are not “life”. We are living creatures, but we are not life itself. Is he here confessing that he is a panentheist? His “we are intelligent” is true (relatively); but it would not have been true had he said (as he said of life), “We are intelligence”. How can a theoretical physicist not understand logic or even simple language? Such things are not mistakes; they are brainwashing hot buttons. Furthermore, while indeed “we are intelligent” (individually, to one degree or another), it does not follow that, therefore, “we must know [whether there is other life out there]”. Not all things are knowable and much of what we think we know we misunderstand. Regardless, “we must know” that is, “we must attempt to learn”, ignores the realities of all the problems that we actually have that need to be solved—but instead, we should just ignore all the problems of reality and focus on doing things just to do them. Hawking would have been the perfect politician: Ignore duty and waste time and resources on anything else. The more properly constructed statement in the English language would have been, “as living creatures we should want to know and we should strive to know”; but that does not improve the logical validity of his assertion. Just because we are living creatures does not infer that we should want to or try to know if there are other living creatures on any other planet in a universe so vast that it takes light hundreds of millions of years (travelling at 670,616,629 m.p.h) to traverse several galaxies. Whether there is life elsewhere in this vast universe is something that Hawking’s mind wanted to know—but it is not a logical inference that every other mind “should” want to know what Hawking’s mind wanted to know any more than because Hawking was a quadriplegic atheistic millionaire that everyone else should want to be a quadriplegic atheistic millionaire. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“Travel back in time can’t be ruled out according to our present understanding...”
Hawkings theorized (his speciality, “prejudicially guessed”, would be another way of expressing it) that since there have not been any visitors to earth from parallel universes from the future, that, therefore, time travel is only possible in a forward direction, not backward, at least for now.
[The concept of “at least for now” shows the utter presposterousness of his entire assumption before that phrase... because reality in the future (if it exists as a parallel universe, which it does not) would not be dependent upon reality in the present; therefore, to speak of time travel in the future not having the capabilities with which we are currently hamstrung in the present, is highly flawed “theoretical” thinking.
It is also a non sequitur to assume that the only reason that (theoretical) people living in a parallel universe in the future would not time travel back to our day would be because they are incapable of it. It is also a false disjunction that because we have not observed time travellers from the future (with the exception of those persons who make the front page of the National Enquirer) that there have been none (which parallels Krushchev’s assumption that because astronauts in space never saw God, that therefore, He does not exist. Now, I do not believe in aliens, nor do I believe in time travellers from the future (though the t.v. series Quantum Leap and other similar t.v. series, and movies are indeed fascinating and called “science-fiction”, the are actually merely “fiction”). However, the issue is Hawking’s continual false assumptions. Scripture says that we may entertain angels unawares. Similarly, if spies were going to reconnoiter a village, they certainly would not be wearing t-shirts saying, “We’re spies and we are spying on you”. One can only assume that time travellers would be equally as cautious, if the did not want to get stuck in the past among inferior and hostile creatures who would want to kill them and steal their time machine.
Maybe people in some “alternate dimension” in the future are so-far advanced that they know how stupid we are and that we have nothing to offer them and no one wants to risk the chance of being stuck here, even as most people from our day would not want to risk being stuck in 5500 B.C. Air conditioning and heat pumps and modern travel (and pizza) and technology in most cases are not to be gambled away on a lark of what it might be like to be a dinosaur’s to be chased through the jungle by a hungry dinosaur.
Maybe those in the future passed laws against time travel realizing that it could jeopardize their existence if things changed from the way they are.
Maybe we have had time travellers but it was an enforced law that all time travellers abide by that they not reveal that they are from the future so that they do not disrupt our civilization.
Now, I do not believe in time travel or aliens, but, these are all thoughts that a “theoretical genius” should actually have thought of, before coming to his unscholarly conclusion that time travel — “for now” (which itself is an illogical concept when dealing with the future) — is only a one-way street.
Maybe Hawking refused to imagine that time travel to the past was possible: for then he would have no reason to travel to the future and find a cure for his disability, if he could not return to the past and implement it when he still was young.
Most surely time travel is not possible in either direction; though it makes for very interesting science fiction movies; “Frequency” with Jim Caviezel and Bill Paxson being a superb example! and the original “Time Machine” was a classic. RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“A possible way to reconcile time travel with the fact that we don’t seem to have had any visitors from the future would be to say that such travel can occur only in the future...”
[This is not clear; as most of his thought is not clear; clear thought can be refuted; vague thought is harder to tie down and gives plenty of “wiggle room” to the claimant.
Does he mean that time travel is only possible to people who live far in the future from our time? or does he mean that time travel is one-way affair and even when time travel is discovered and perfected you will only be able to go forward in time and not backward?
Attempting to reconcile what “seems” to “not” be, is not scientific. Again, lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary and simply because man may venture a guess does not mean that the guess is correct.
I do not believe in any life except on earth—excepting the angelic life that God created (fallen and not) and God Himself. The only difference between my not believing that there are extraterrestrials and Hawking believing that there are, is that I don’t claim my believe to be “scientific”. While these quotes by Hawking are just piecemeal, I would venture a guess that Hawking probably did not preface any of his comments by first saying, “Now, please understand: I am not speaking as a scientist. I do not claim that my answers are scientific. I am speaking from my own bigoted personal opinions based upon how I want reality to be.” RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“In this view one would say space-time in our past was fixed because we have observed it and seen that it is not warped enough to allow travel into the past.”
[“Fixed” by whom or what..? fixed random chaotic chance...? How can random chaotic chance “fix” anything... does it not remain lawless and unfixed and chaotic? what is to keep it from continuing to “evolve”—or go backwards and devolve? RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“On the other hand, the future is open. So we might be able to warp it enough to allow time travel...”
“But because we can warp space-time only in the future, we wouldn’t be able to travel back to the present time or earlier.”
[Here it seems that the previous statement is clarified and thus his intention was “time travel can occur only in[to] the future”. Unfortunately, a warped mind, I believe, is the real issue. Upon what scientific law does he claim that space-time into the future is “open” and “warpable”...? only because it hasn’t happened yet, therefore, anything is possible? if that is the case, is it not also possible that all known laws can simply fall apart like a data storage device that has been demagnetized? Just because the future has not happened yet, does that mean that a cow (or hippo, or rhino) may eventually be successful in jumping over the moon? If the future hasn’t happened yet and you can’t know what will happen, how then can you know that you “warped” anything?
It also seems that his mind is handicapped by his own biased paradigm. He does not believe in God and Creation, but in Big Bangism. Thus would not time travel itself into the past be a descent into chaos; and if the “laws” of science “evolved” and became “fixed”, would not time travel into the past possible “unfix” those laws and the time machine itself stop working and Hawking devolve into an amoeba? However, in order to actually time travel into the future, likewise, does that not also necessitate the risk that the future is actually no longer there? Just because reality is here now and reality has existed for the past (we can at least agree upon) 6,000 years, if all space, matter, and energy and laws that govern it all simply evolved out of chaotic nothing, what is there to guarantee that all will all not simply fall apart? Just because an airplane has flown across the Atlantic 1,000 times does not mean that the 1,001st flight something will not go terribly awry and the engines or wings fall off. Entropy governs all physics and therefore, based upon an evolutionary, Big Bangoid model, are not those laws themselves subject to Entropy also? If one travels into the future and the future is not there because everything ceased to exist* (which the Big Bang model itself posits, that like a ball tied to a rubber band can only expand so far, all energy and matter will eventually slow down, reverse, and implode upon itself into the Anti-big Anti-bang) would the one time travelling not also cease to exist in a non-parallel anti-universe in which no matter or energy existed?
{* —or at least was reduced into chaos. However, to be consistent with their “theory” would not everything, in order to come full circle, have to not merely fall into chaos and disorder, but also to then cease to exist...? all space, matter, energy, and the laws that governed them “tidying up” behind themselves and leaving reality into nonexistence, closing the door behind them? Of course, that scenario makes as much sense as everything having spontaneously come into existence out of nothing—which is no sense at all! (it is not logic; it is not science). And yet the majority of supposedly intellegent (or at least “educated”; that is, academically programmed with propaganda) believe it to make perfect sense, because that is all that they have ever known, that is what they have been taught from childhood, and they have never attempted to think outside of the academic trough with which their minds have been slopped.}
Therefore, does the concept of time travel not also necessitate the Constancy of the laws of science as we know them so that the time machine does not hit a “bump of turbulence” and disintegrate once some point in the future is reached at which those laws that randomly spontaneously developed out of chaos and chance will randonly spontaneously crash into chaos and chance and everything fall apart? Not only does Cinderella’s stage coach turn back into a pumpkin at midnight—it falls apart leaving a trail of pumpkin seeds and slop until it all disintegrates into individual atoms, which then themselves implode and cease to exist. With such a paradigm, how can there be room “in such a universe” for anything other than existential, psychotic hedonism?
Meaning, morality, and hope are only offered through the Biblical model. Any other paradigm will only offer a “dog eat dog” world (with some gentler dogs offering the only altruistic philosophy that they can muster up: “Can’t we all bite each other just a little less...?”). Of course, the self-deluded “optimists” and “altruists” maintain that because man is intelligent that he can aspire to some type of life morally superior to that dog-eat-dog world; but they can offer no justification for and no proof of it. Like communism, it may work “in theory” on paper—if all of the laboratory factors are rigidly held to (and not only can all the factors not be held to, but scientists cannot anticipate every single factor) and if everyone in the universe “coöperates”. However, immorality of the sinful human heart and mind will gnaw away and undo the best-laid plans of mice and men (and dogs). If one person who works to 100% of his ability gets paid no more than a person who works 1% of his ability, what is to cause anyone to work 100%? —especially if the majority consistently work at 1%? The very fact of the deplorable welfare system in the U.S. alone demonstrates this. The very fact of the corruption in all levels of government by those persons claiming to be altruists wanting us all to aspire to a higher level of existence, demonstrates the bankruptcy of this secular position.
Those truly interested in truth, reality, and eternity, consider ordering Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s, A Christian View of Men and Things, 251pp., 10.25 x 7.25, pb., 18.00 (reg. 22.00); Hb., 25.00 (reg. 30.00) + P&H (and other titles of his, already mentioned herein). In this work he utterly demolishes the false philosophies upon which all political science has been based (Aristotle, Rousseau, Spengler, etc.) and shows how their models are antichristian, socialist, and bound only to fail.
Consider also my, Does God Repent...? Can God Change His Mind...? [And an Utter Demolishment of the Humanistic Myth of Man’s “Free Will” and Arminianism], 506pp., 25.00 + P&H. It dovetails nicely with my God and Evil and The Sovereignty of God.... Lively, profound, revealing, thought provoking, convincing thought, logic, Scripture. Exposes the subversion of true Christian faith in counter reformation re-introducing false theology of Origen and Pelagius and corruption of modern church by Jesuits and crypto-jews and terribly deceived humanists such as Scheiermacher, Kierkegaard, Barth, Schweitzer, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and the Marano Spinoza, and many more, including the undermining of the Puritan church by Solomon Stoddard, and much more; also dissects the false theology from one chapter of two different books; one by Dr. Normal Geisler and one by Brother Andrew. RAB]