I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
TF,
You began your post with not one, but two logical fallacies. First you presented an False dichotomy, presenting something from nothing, and your Creator as the only two options for the beginning of the universe. These are not the only two ideas currently floating around, so it possible both of these are wrong, and some other idea is correct. It's for this reason that even if Krauss's universe from nothing is dis-proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the correct answer is your God.
Next you committee the fallacy of equivocation. You claim the title is a lie, but Krauss clearly defines what, in scientific terms, he means by "nothing". It's very common for terms to have different meaning in science then they do in common everyday usage. Another example of this is the different definitions of the work "theory" that we've discussed before.
As for your discussion about the laws of gravity, again you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Our scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE, they are not PRESCRIPTIVE. Nobody passed a law in congress and said "this is how the universe shall act". Instead, Scientist observed the natural world and wrote laws that DESCRIBE what they observed. The universe does what it is going to do, we just have methods to describe it.
So we can rephrase your quote of Hawkings as "given our understanding of gravity",....
As for your grade school understanding of gravity, there is a lot more to it then that. As a couple of examples, gravity can act in strange way within a singularity, and gravity can produce negative energy. This negative energy from gravity, couples with a flat universe, is one of the necessary conditions for the current "universe from nothing" hypothesis to be mathematically plausible.
Next you strawman that "concepts" of distance and mass are required before the big bang, however a concept is just an abstract idea. The mass of empty space if real, regardless of whether we are here to conceptualize it or not.
As for energy, I guess you missed the part where gravity can create negative energy. What happens when you have the same amounts of both positive and negative energy in the universe? The result is a Universe with zero total energy. According to our current models, such a universe could be self creating, because it would be consistent with the principle of conservation of energy, since no energy is either created or destroyed. As I understand it, these are the condition leading to spontaneous creation discussed by Hawkins.
So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. These scientist are not proving the Bible with the Bible, they are supporting a current concept with past observations.
Really, you whole post if little more then one long argument from ignorance, which you wrap up with an argument from personal incredibility, and it the process you present zero evidence for your God.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
