—Stephen Hawking — Cosmic Tragedy [UPDATED — Hawking Fake Science...]

By on

[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.

 
Hawking made the following assertions concerning God and the universe:
 
[My detailed thoughts are interspersed below in brackets.  R.A.B.]
 
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 false disjunctions) 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” (which itself is an impossibility), 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 “Big Bang” is not a fact, but a dishonest, science-fiction 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 (or maybe it is a euphemism for “sophisticated theoretical liar”).  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 did the stars and atoms on a macro-cosmic and micro-cosmic level, exist before time.  Does he even define time?  Is time on a planet with 2 suns and 7 moons the same as time here on earth?  Which time is followed in any discussion?  Well, I assume even as we us 4:00 EST, etc.  But it gets more complicated on other planets in which the days are different lengths of time in comparison to “earth days”.  Time existed before matter: God then calibrated that matter to time.  Scripture says that God created the earth (and left it unformed, barren—most probably, frozen) for some undisclosed period of time until He then determined He would complete His Plan of Creation.  God said, “Let there be light” on the first day, but did not create the sun, moon, and stars until the 3rd day.  God created energy and matter and the laws that govern them and used them as the “stuffing” with which he would fill other things that He created, and calibrate those formed bodies and forms of life to the laws that He already created (including time).
 
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 (especially since he’s their “champion” whom no one will challenge since he’s disabled).  
 
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.  In fact, the peanut butter syllogism above is far closer to being a valid argument, because it at least has the term “peanut butter” properly distributed in the premise and conclusion; whereas the elements in Hawking’s assertion have no relation to one another and are dangling assertions.
 
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, 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.  Furthermore, 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 who are intellectually challenged and who don’t realize that Hawkings smug assertion 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.  THOUSANDS* of different manuscripts have survived antiquity and any differences* between them constitute a very tiny percentage of the entire document as a whole (and none of the differences are in matters of importance).  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.  Furthermore, what “evidence” or “logic” does Hawking have to assert that time did not exist before the Big Bang?  The Big Bang itself is a fool’s fantasy.  How can everything (or even something) come from nothing...?  If energy and matter (which are different forms of the same thing) exist, does not time have to already exist?  Are not energy and matter forms of motion...?  Can motion exist without time?  Is not all matter and energy comprised of atoms, with electrons spinning at specific rates within the shells of the atom?  Are not all the movements of atoms and electrons measurements or more properly “intervals” of time...?  How then can energy or matter exist without time?  How can nothing blow up and become energy and matter?  The whole argument is neither rational, nor empirical.  It is neither philosophy, nor science.  What is it then? —it is Hawkings fantasy religion.
 
[* See additional note at the end of this article (before the “UPDATE”).]
 
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 disability 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 ask Him to remove the blindness and hardness that keeps them unrepentant and in rebellion against their Maker.  But Hawking certainly 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 recognize 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?  Faith does not replace knowledge—it is the authorization that enables you to enter the halls of true understanding.
 
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—which is a euphemism for Satanism).
 
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 (let alone out of his wheelchair and disability).  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” (of terminology).  Hawking, being anti-intellectual and hating God (for making him a cripple), refused to define his terms and he refused to define what “god” meant (in his mind) when he used that term.  Thus, the unspoken reality and result of his statement, if truly expressed,  is, “You believe in God ‘A’.  I believe that no god ‘B’ exists because I refuse to believe it; therefore, your 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, after, eventually, he tripped over it himself (since no one else had the heart to challenge him; which would have been like stealing candy from a baby or pushing down an elderly person); 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—and thinking that he has accomplished something.   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 ones 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, 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 to 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 a “probably” 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 homicide of the everlasting soul 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 this 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 something like, “No, I'm sick of this life, I am actually hoping to step on a landmine.  I want to die”.  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 copies of this short paperback in stock, 106pp., 7.00 + P&H.]
 
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—in the face of a universe in which he is not even a flea—and his followers blindly assumed that Hawking did not base his “science” upon his own personal opinion of what he wanted reality to be.
 
Hawking’s 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 atoms do not exist and black holes do not exist (and there are some very intelligent scientists who do not believe that blackholes actually 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, self-contradictorily, when it was easier to simply believe that blackholes don’t exist.
 
He then shows his own double-minded confusion (or deceit) 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 random, chaotic “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, although 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?
 
It is obvious that 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 or Pelosi), 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., and confusion and the inference that he thinks that everyone should believe what he believes (based not upon fact, but 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.  This is anti-intellectual; like a 3-year old playing hide-and-seek, closing his eyes, thinking no one can see him.  This is the same purpose of the Empirical Cosmological “natural theology” THEORY as well as the SECULAR Rationalist theory that attempts to prove God APART from Divine Revelation / Holy Scriptures.  Empiricism attempts to prove God (or a Divine Being, Higher Power) based solely upon experimentation, observation, what can be proved by the senses.  Secular Rationalism* attempts to prove from man’s intellect alone that God exists.  However, the purpose of these two attempted methods of proving God’s existence is to deny the need for the Bible, based upon the notions that we do not need it, and that we can discern by our senses, or by our own humanistic rationalization, all that God would want us to know.  While it is admirable to want to prove that God exists, and admirable to look for His Fingerprints in His Creation, which indeed exist—it is not honorable to demand that if man cannot prove God, then therefore, God does not exist; and it is not honorable to then reject the Word of God that contains God’s Commands in how we are to live—which is the ONLY source of morality.  Morality cannot be sensed or rationed; concepts of morality can be, but neither Empiricism nor Rationalism is capable of any argument to prove that anyone needs to follow such “morality”—and any attempt of “governments” of man to enforce such “morality” is sterile of authority and is totalitarianism and is illegitimate and immoral; it is based upon force and based upon the current whim of those with power.
 
[* Not to be confused with Logic that is based upon Divine Revelation, and is also a form of Rationalism, in that it is founded upon Rational Propositions, without which no truth can be known.  The Bible is not a senseless book.  It is PERFECT in its logical arguments.  Logic is Truth.  Jesus is called the Logos (two short os as in hop) and the Greek word Logos is whence we derive all our words, logic, logical, logarithm, analogy, etc.  See Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s, A Christian View of Men and Things, Three Types of Religious Philosophy, and Essays on Ethics and Politics (for starters).  Inquire.  All of Dr. Clark’s books are in stock.]
 
However, Hawking’s hatred of God itself (whether conscious or subconscious) is hypocritical, for if God does not exist—as Hawkings asserted—then it is “Evolution” that is responsible for Hawking’s unfortunate physical handicap / burden—and therefore, Hawking should hate evolution and refuse to believe that evolution exists.*  But that is not the case.  This is an inexplicable contradiction and hypocrisy (well, if the rest of Hawking’s position were actually logical and rational, it would be inexplicable; but since much of his thinking is logically flawed, then clearly he did not base what he declared to be “truth” upon reality, but what he wanted reality to be, based upon his own bias, prejudice, and other emotional dynamics).  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”.
 
* Thus, it would seem, that the reason that Hawking did not hate and refuse to believe in Evolution, is because he viewed Evolution as a benign, indifferent, passive, aloof, ill-concerned, “hands-off”, non-authoritarian Master.  Whereas, atheists (like Thomas Huxley’s descendents) refuse to believe God exists, because if they admitted that the Biblical God exists, the next logical implication is that they must admit that they were then dutibound to obey all that God commanded.
 
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 “nothin’ ” blown up (if nothing exists, nothing could not be blown 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 on their own 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.  Nothing ever came into existence on its own—and God’s creation didn’t just “go bad” on its own, the result of faulty creation.  God planned all that has happened for His Own Glory.  Whether we like it or not or agree is immaterial (that’s why He is God and we are not—and it is THAT VERY FACT that humanists don’t like).
 
People watch movies in which cars and buildings are blown up and in which people die, especially in war movies.  They know that some author penned that script and the director directed each scene.  Yet they do not doubt the type of reality that 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 and all of history 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 (allegedly) know more 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:
 
Sun in comparison to Planets in our solar system:
http://www.wwu.edu/planetarium/a101/101/solar3.jpg
 
Sun in comparison to Arcturus
http://www.wwu.edu/planetarium/a101/101/solar4.jpg
 
Betelgeuse, Antares, and other planets / stars
http://www.wwu.edu/planetarium/a101/101/solar5.jpg
 
Other stars (there are many similar illustrations all over the internet: do an internet image search).
 

 
 
[Imagine the size of Hawking’s brain compared to any of these planets / stars (after realizing the size of the earth in comparison to far-greater heavenly bodies, and after realizing the size of Hawking himself in comparison to the size of the earth: and did Hawking have the power to change the tides, the tilt of the earth, the sunrise, the seasons, the rotation or revolution of the earth...?) — and then consider the size of Hawking’s brain in relation to entire galaxies themselves.  If anyone is not dwarfed and humbled by such thoughts, such a person is the epitome of arrogance.  “We are fearfully and wonderfully made.”  Yes, some are made shorter, weaker, sickly, less intelligent, less wealthy—but such unfortunate things do not change reality, do not change the effects of sin, and are no excuse to refuse to believe in God—and such hatred and refusal to believe in God is actually impotence itself.  The disciples asked Christ whether a certain man, whom they passed on the street, had been born blind due to any sin of his own (which is anti-intellectual) or sin of his parents.  Christ replied, neither, but that God might be glorified when he was healed—and Christ healed him.  Imagine, Hawking might have been healed had he submitted and given glory to God (and then he would not have been in a perpetual state of Judgment after his painful life ended on earth).  Cosmic tragedy indeed...!]
 
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 foundationless assertion, not fact.  God did not “light any fuse” and blow things up!  The “blue touch paper” and the “lighting” of that fuse is itself a smokescreen 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?  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]