Sunday, 22 May 2011
-
Stephen Hawking, Kirk Cameron and Debates About Heaven
By Matthew at Jesus Needs New PROnce again, something Stephen Hawking uttered aloud has ruffled the angel feathers of Christians. Last week, during an interview with Britain’s Guardian, the famous physicist called the idea of believing in Heaven or an afterlife “a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Hawking also said that a God wasn’t “necessary” for creation. For some reason, those opinions led to a 2-day “Stephen Hawking” social media frenzy. Atheists and skeptics shouted “amen” (or something like that) while Christians (as well as members of other religious groups) cried “What the hell?” (<-wording varies).
Why did Hawking’s opinions about the afterlife and the existence of God–views he’s held and talked about for years–spark such media attention? Because nobody was surprised by this, right? Still, Christians responded. Some with essays. Some with Tweets. And some in interviews with media.
The responses from influential Christians–both written and verbal–offered few surprises. Nothing that I’ve heard or read has offered any true rebuttal to Hawking’s ideas. Most Christians simply questioned why Hawking is talking about heaven, a topic that is outside of his expertise.
Even Bishop NT Wright’s response for Washington Post, while thoughtful and inspirational to the believer, offers much less substance than what I’ve come to expect from his work. I love Wright. He’s a brilliant thinker in my opinion, and usually, when he enters a debate, he brings with him wisdom that is calming, refreshing, and containing at least a few “aha” sentences. But this piece seems to have been written quickly because it lacks Wright’s usual vibrance. Perhaps his strongest point was how he ended the piece, by questioning how the debate itself gets packaged:
Of course, the old set-up of the ‘science and religion’ debate was itself deeply influenced by this same worldview, and needs realigning. In fact, the ancient Christians would have been shocked to see their worldview labelled as a ‘religion.’ It was a philosophy, a politics, a culture, a vocation… the category of ‘religion’ is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Author and well-known conservative Christian Cal Thomas wrote this regarding Hawking’s opinion: How does Stephen Hawking know ‘there is no heaven’? He has never been there. But the One who has came from Heaven to tell us about it. What’s more, he told us He is the way to get there. I will go with Jesus and not Hawking.
And yes, that is Cal’s entire statement.
Kirk Cameron expressed his thoughts and opinions about the matter to TMZ (I wish that was a punch line. But as far as I can tell, it’s not.) Cameron told the online gossip magazine that “Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.”
While his opinion isn’t new or all that insightful, it’s also not cringe-worthy. And for Cameron, that’s saying something. Of course, right after that quote, TMZ adds this line: “The former teen heartthrob steamed to TMZ, which leads into Kirk quote, “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?” That’s why you don’t talk to TMZ, Kirk. After that, Cameron falls off the “non cringe-worthy” wagon by mentioning John Lennon’s thoughts regarding Heaven and comparing them to Hawking’s.
All of this begs the question: Why do Christians respond? Do we feel like we have to respond? Is it because somebody has asked us to respond? But sometimes a response doesn’t make sense.
While I find debates about facts, theologies, Bible verses, issues, etc. between atheists and Christians to often be fascinating, even helpful, I find that most debates about the more macro aspects of faith–i.e., the existence of God, heaven, etc–to often be unhelpful to either side.
For one thing, both sides usually come to these kinds of conversations with far too much emotion, story, passion to be fully capable of thoughtfully listening and respecting the opposing view. And while that reality certainly plays out to varying degrees in debates about smaller topics such as whether or not The Flood actually happened or debates about the pros and cons of stem cell research, it almost always plays out when the topic or idea or belief being debated is a bigger (more macro! more unbelievable?!) concept. When the topic at hand is “provable” only by faith, the less helpful and constructive, in my opinion, these types of conversations become.
Why? Because the reasons people believe and the reasons people are skeptical are personal and often complicated and are usually very difficult to explain. And when we’re debating big topics like God and heaven, it’s easy to become so caught up in our own story and belief and passions that we forget to consider the story and beliefs of the one we’re debating.
Last week, when I posted my piece about May 21′s coming judgment, LRA (a frequent commenter at this blog and somebody I believe would identify herself as atheist–correct me if I’m wrong, LRA!) posed a question. And it was a good question. Most of her questions are good and valid. And usually, I find that most of our debates/conversations are amazing, helpful, and insightful. I’ve gleaned as much from LRA’s presence at this blog as I have from any believer who leaves ongoing comments here. Yes, she can be feisty! But I’ve come to love her for that passion.
Now I’m paraphrasing her question, but it went something like this: “How is Camping’s belief in ‘Judgment Day’ any different (or crazier) than one’s belief in Jesus resurrecting from the dead?”
I still haven’t responded. I wanted to respond. In fact, I tried responding numerous times. But I never pushed the “comment” button. Every one of my responses sounded silly or it seemed like I was “trying too hard.” And too, I thought she had good point.
I’ve thought about that question a lot this last week. While I think there are several differences between Camping’s belief in the “The End” and my belief that Jesus rose from the grave, the one core difference, the real reason I couldn’t come up with a decent response is the fact that Camping’s belief meant nothing to me and the other belief is something I’ve thought about daily since I was four-years-old. It’s a belief that changed my grandmother’s life. It’s a belief that is rooted in my family and culture and state of being. It’s a belief that, for some crazy reason, I can’t escape or leave behind or forget or “unbelieve”. And not because I’m afraid not to believe it. But because it does something to me.
But I have no proof that Jesus rose from the dead–nothing physical or scientific or measurable or anything that would impress somebody coming from LRA’s perspective. And so, I can see why some people think my belief in Jesus’s resurrection is as crazy as Camping’s belief in “Judgment Day” or somebody else’s belief in fairies or leprechauns or aliens.
So why debate a fundamental difference? Because even though I fully respect LRA’s opinion and believe her question was completely valid, I’m also fighting tears as I write the last few sentences of this post. But those tears only mean something to me. They don’t prove anything (except maybe that I’m as cheesy emotional as a full-blooded Pentecostal deep down).
When we get down to it, NT Wright (and Kirk Cameron) can’t prove that heaven exists.
And yes, Stephen Hawking can’t prove that it doesn’t exist.
And chances are, neither of them can offer one bit of reasoning that would change the other one’s mind.
Which is why, when trying to prove that Heaven isn’t a “a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” remaining silent might actually offer more proof of that than anything we might say or write.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: JesusNeedsNewPR
- Name: Matthew Paul Turner
- About Me: Matthew Paul Turner is the author of ten books and a contributor to several others. He is also the former editor of CCM, a popular Christian music magazine, and a past contributor to crosswalk.com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 98 Views: 0 73183 Comments: 0 1245 View all posts by JesusNeedsNewPR
Comments (23)
I think it's rather interesting how much we esteem certain people's opinions, to the point of feeling fear and panic if they disagree with us. Stephen Hawking is obviously a brilliant mind that is an authority on physics, so when someone asks him a question about physics he's assumed to be correct (though most certainly there are physicists disagree with him. People don't seem to be aware of how often scientists disagree). Therefore, if he says something about God and the afterlife, people think his opinion has the same weight.
If Stephen Hawking gave you his opinion on marital relationships, would you be just as likely to believe him? Or on which NFL team he thinks is the greatest? What about whether Megan Fox or Angelie Jolie is hotter?
I know those last few thoughts are more subjective, but so many of our thoughts really are just as subjective. They're just our own thoughts. The only time we really have objectivity is with empirical data: the earth is a planet, dogs have fur, people have noses. Beyond that we all have our own experiences, and thus biases, that help us interpret all of that empirical data in a meaningful framework, but it doesn't mean that what we believe about it is true. You might be able to eliminate other beliefs through falsification, but many of these grand, sweeping statements are merely one person's speculations based off of the data that they have observed. There's certainly data each one of us has not observed.
What I mean by all of this is that I value Hawking's and anybody else's opinions about God and the afterlife, simply because it's an opinion that they've come to. However, there's no reason to assume Hawking is more right on this than Kirk Cameron is. Hawking presumably has thought about it more and may have a better case, but it ends at his own speculation. He, and every other notable intellectual, does not own an exclusive hold on truth, and Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. that fear his opinion, as well atheists/agnostics that support him, need to realize this.
There is an important point people seem to be missing when Stephen Hawking says what he says (especially when the religious try to make rebuttals). He doesn't say these things for no reason. Its based on quantum physics that everything is random and the result of probability. Probability is what caused the universe, that is what the evidence is. We have experiments to show this (namely the dual-slit experiment). So yes, Stephen Hawking can assume god didn't create the universe, since the evidence says otherwise. We are a result of probability. For any god to exist, they must be within this probability and under the influence of the laws of physics (and therefore not all-powerful), or be outside probabilty and therefore impossible. All that is left to discover is quantum gravity. Scientists may disagree on the details, sure, but the general consensus agrees with what I've described.
@Spectrophile@xanga - "For any god to exist, they must be within this probability and under the influence of the laws of physics"
Not if God is assumed to be outside of the realm of physics, which I'm sure you're aware practically all theists believe.
I don't know why people respond. Although I think Kirk actually had a very note-worthy statement; but it's not new.... then again, why does something have to be new to be valid?
I agree with KK_grayfox. A lot of people make base assumptions about when in reality God is infinite and all powerful. Say that he has to fall within the realm of physics is to limit his power, which negates his deism/deity claim.
On the post, I've always hated debates. When someone like Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Ravi Zacharias or other "insert famous apologist/preacher" debates an agnostic (still don't think someone can say "there is no god" without proof) it's mainly them taking a bunch of information from other sources and using it in the talk. If someone debates me, for example, what they get is thoughts I read from Zacharias, MacArthur, and others since i'm not a professor, i'm just a guy in his late thirties working a boring office job. I do study apologetics, but I'm not a master.
And sadly, some people assume if the person they are debating doesn't have the answer. As if we can be all knowing just because we believe in the source of all knowledge. I witness to people often, but I try to avoid getting in lengthy debates because most of the time they get nowhere. As Ray Comfort said, "you get a lot of fat happy fish when you just give apologetics and no law, no witnessing...". Staying silent seems like the best course so that "...those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." Sometimes saying nothing says everything.
I believe evidence of the existence of both Heaven and Hell is in the people who have visited and lived to tell about it. In the movie "Contact", Jodi Foster's character was invited to take a trip to another world. She was the only person on Earth who got to go so after word the only evidence, other than 17 hours of recorded static, was her word - her testimony. The event was known worldwide but the people had to make a decision whether or not she was telling the truth. It's like the Bible in some ways. We were not there but we as believer's, believe. In a way, that is evidence, too.
I'm not understanding the big upset...
Hawking has spent his whole life understanding this plane of existence, of justifying it and calming the chaos, giving us answers where we need them. So of course he's not going to be supportive of another plane of existence. Did general relativity physicists accept quantum mechanics at first? No. Because that would invalidate their whole life's work--or so that would seem.
I think the idea of a life after death, of a plane of existence beyond our own, seems like it would invalidate our existence here. In fact, I think that's the arguing point of most atheists. They--being atheists that use that argument--don't quite understand that our life overlaps both of these existences, so it's all one way or another with them.
So why would Hawking's support the idea of a life after death? It's a threat to him, in his head, if it exists. But don't argue with him and others that use that argument. Just live your life, show that someone can be happy and productive in every plane of existence, and be a good example.
@kk_grayfox@xanga - My point is that quantum mechanics shows evidence that nothing exists outside the realm of physics (which covers all existence, including parallel universes and dimensions). This is because the realm of physics is controlled by probability. If god exists outside the realm of physics, he exists outside the realm of probability, which literally means he is impossible. The reality of quantum mechanics is infamously hard to comprehend, so the fact the average person doesn't understand the basics of it straight away is not surprising. I encourage you to read a contemporary book about it. Make sure you read a scientific book though, as there are many spiritual groups who have twisted quantum mechanics for their own means like Deepak Chopra.
quit a piece. i just want to comment on what you wrote about LRA. I'm surprised you had no answer to her question which to me is a very easy question to answer. camping's belief in the judgment day does not align with what is in the scripture while the belief in Christ's resurrection is in perfect alignment with scripture. scripture states that no one except the Father knows the day or the hour(as against what camping said) and the same scripture clearly states that Christ was resurrected from the dead.
@Spectrophile@xanga - I'm admittedly not well-versed in quantum mechanics (though I try to read up on it whenever possible, though nothing by Chopra yet), but what is the evidence that nothing exists outside the realm of physics? Perhaps you could share a link? It just seems odd to say that something in the physical world could imply that nothing could exist outside of the physical world. By saying the realm of physics covers "all existence, including parallel universes and dimensions", you seem to be controlling the outcome of the argument by your definitions. Who says the realm of physics covers it all?
Also, I'm not understanding how God existing outside of the realm of physics would mean He's "impossible" just because the realm of physics deals with probabilities. Before quantum mechanics was realized, the universe in the classical physics framework was thought to be governed by determinism, not probability, and that certainly didn't throw any kinks into the possibility of God. Why could God not exist in a realm where there is no probability? Perhaps in that realm things just 'are'.
I'm keeping in mind that I'm not as well-versed in this as you are, but I am trying to understand what you're saying. Interestingly enough, I've never heard anyone raise this argument before nor heard counter-arguments, so I'm curious how novel this idea is.
C'mon everyone. Off the cuff, most of this is physics 101. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, but can be transformed.
Let's
gather the materials to create a flashlight. Metal for the body, glass
for the lens and bulb, chemicals for the battery. Now let's energize
the battery and put it into the flashlight.
Let's go outside,
stabilize the flashlight on some surface so it can point straight up
towards the sky, then turn it on so its beam shoots straight
up into the sky.
It's beam, though you cannot tell is traveling further and further, though you cannot tell.
You wait and wait, and eventually the flashlight's batteries weaken and its light goes out.
One might believe the beam is gone. This is were science comes into play.
Though the flashlight has died, the beam continues on, and if not ever blocked by an object, it will go on forever.
That
exact beam of light has been around forever. It has no beginning and
has no end. It was once raw materials and minerals found here on earth,
and if one is so inclined, was once a part of the gaseous cosmos of
what many believe are the Earth's beginnings. The materials were put
together to make the flashlight and transform it's energy, which has
always existed, into a light beam, and though the flashlight died, it's beam continues on, virtually, forever. This is science, Mark.
We
have energy
running through us too. It leaves our bodies when our bodies cease to
function. This is also science. When it leaves us when we are aware we
exist, it's commonly referred to as the soul.
The human body is
unique to all living things on earth. It is not naturally adapted to
live like our animals friends. It is relatively in much more need.
People often ask why is life so very hard, so sad, at sometimes even
horrifying. I want you to imagine being born without a single challenge
in life. No pain, no problems, no wants, no needs, no challenges, no
problems, nothing negative. What would happen to you? What would
happen is you would never develop a consciousness. You would never come
to know joy or love, security, etc. you would not even know that you
exist. Remember the 'raw energy' I spoke of? No matter how old you got, it would remain raw energy and would
never develop in to a soul.
Sometimes we cannot see the forest
for the trees. We fail to look at the human body and the laws of
physics together and realize their function. There function is take raw
energy and transform it into a relatively sophisticated form of energy
called a consciousness or a soul. The human body and the laws of
physics work in perfect harmony to attain this state of being. When we
pass on, or when our 'flashlight' dies out, we only transform, with the
same energy we had the day we were born, but now that energy is much
more sophisticate and is aware of itself and other things...
So
let's equate ourselves with the flashlight. Raw energy in, transformed,
then sophisticated energy out. We are still in the science mode.
Why?
Many people would wonder 'why all this?' First, keep in mind our
bodies are our souls (or 'energy') in an animated state. Ultimately we
are judged by its actions here in its 'flashlight state'. The
consciousness, the soul...they are as diverse as night and day. You
have your Ted Bundy's, then you have your Mother Theresa's. This is
fact. Where does the good energy go? It goes to where it belongs and that is with its creator, and let's face it, that could only be interpreted as the 'best place', as apposed to the worst place...a place where the creator of that energy is not... This is fundamental science.
The following is not science but rather a combination of
logic and faith, probably not useful in any 'duel' with Dr. Hawkings.
God created Angels and some, including his favorite turned against him,
which hurt him dearly. Then God made Adam and Eve,
whom he loved and gave them free will. Eve disobeyed him and
ultimately influenced Adam to do so as well. This, too, hurt him
dearly. After banishment, God gave Adam and Eve the ability to
reproduce. The reason? Simply to separate then eventually destroy the
energy that caused Eve to eat then offer the fruit to Adam and what
cause Adam to go along with it, from the 'obedient' energy. The Lord does not destroy the good with
the bad, be they Angels or
People. When I say 'destroy' I mean exactly that. The Lord can
suspend the laws of physics, therefore can destroy energy, or in this
case, souls.
Free will is a Catch-22 created by the Lord for the Lord. It was after Noah's Ark
and its failure to produce a world of God loving people that the Lord
decided to become human himself. With that he came to understand the human condition
and blessed mankind with salvation, not through being giving and
cordial but by choosing to be obedient to his will, key word being
'obedient'.
Many people believe they were dealt an unfair blow
blaming the situation they were born into, but if they were to trace the
'soul guided' physical actions of their ancestors back to Adam and Eve
they would understand that the adversity they are born from is
situation set up for their souls to overcome or accept, be it good or
bad. Make no mistake, everyone has problems and in one
way or another is worse the 'other guy'. It's all about decisions...to
obey or disobey. Tests, trials...its all a weeding out process as well
as a consciousness building process.
Life after death?
Do this...try to imagine not being. You will find whatever you imagine
still translates to 'being'. Try this. Imagine how high is the sky
and if you come up with a finite conclusion, ask yourself what is beyond
that, be it space or solid. Something's after that and how far does
that go up?
So we know the body is a machine to turn raw energy
into a soul, as are the laws of physics set in place by God. That soul
moves on, after the body gives out, to a place set aside that it will
appreciate, and be with the ultimate entity that created it.
Dr.
Hawking is tired and not thinking well. Pity him, pray for him. I would love to think about all this and prepare myself to debate Dr. Hawking, any atheist or any pro Darwin folks out there. But I don't think they'd want to debate me...
@kk_grayfox@xanga - The likes of Stephen Hawking and other physicists who share this view don't seem to publish their work online, rather in best-selling books, so unfortunately I can not provide you a link (or at least can't find a link where their work has been plagiarised, lol). I suggest you read "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking. Borrow it from a library if you don't want to buy it. Its explains what I am trying to over a couple of hundred pages (not much, considering).If you want another perspective, there are numerous other theoretical physicists who have their own books. They may disagree on details and have different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which will not be solved until we discover quantum gravity, but agree on the premise that sub-atomic particles exist out of probability. Its the basis of quantum mechanics after all, and is observable (dual slit experiment). I guess you could research quantum mechanics online, wikipedia for example? I'd love to answer all your questions, but it would take paragraphs, and I will likely be incorrect on details. Its best you go to the source.
Quantum physics and quantum mechanics are both creations themselves. They can explain some things but God will not be defined and put into a box. I don't think we will ever know how God created other than through, by and for Jesus Christ. Time and space are creations, also. God can certainly step outside his creations just as He stepped into His creation when He sent His son Jesus Christ. Did you hear about when some scientists sent a particle from one place to another and it arrived before it left? Or have you heard the DNA of a Mute Swan put to music? My point is that God is trying to tell us something - that we will never be able to create something from nothing and what He has made is wonderful and in some way will give Him all the glory. He wants a relationship with us. He is giving us everything to use and marvel in awe of Him. We can use all our knowledge to understand God's creation but God...is Love. The great meditation of my life is what does it mean to Love? When someone needs Love what do you do? When you want to feel love what do you do? Can you put Love in a box or really understand God's unmerited favor?
@kk_grayfox@xanga - I completely agree with your comment. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is even big news. So a really really smart guy doesn't believe God exists. Haha whats the big deal? There was another physicist that did believe in God, named Einstein, and I heard he was pretty smart also. Like you said, I also respect Hawking's opinion, for the simple fact that he obviously put some thought into the question. But, at the same time, I think we can only put so much weight on one person's opinion.
Frankly, I find Hawking's assertion a little odd myself. If anyone knows that it's impossible to disprove God, its a physicist....to which Hawking does admit it is impossible to prove such a thing. The reason for his belief is that he believes it is possible for the universe to have created itself. Now, first off, this is a pretty controversial view, one that cannot possibly be proven in the near future. Secondly, as a physicist, the philosophical landscape within physics has changed much over the years, so it seems odd to me for him to make such a bold and definitive statement ...simply based on his own belief. And finally, even if , lets say 500 years from now we finally learn that the universe is capable of creating itself......EVEN THEN , it wouldn't prove God doesn't exist (although it will definitely give people a good reason to stop believing in God).
One also has to wonder how much of Hawkings metaphysical views, as well as his worldview influences this belief. Hawking has suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease for 40+ years. So its possible that so many years of suffering confirms to him the coldness of the vast universe. (Much like how the death of Darwin's daughter caused him to question the existence of God.).
@Spectrophile@xanga - Um...I can barely understand what you are even talking about. Seems like you are just throwing around phrases without knowing its meaning. Quantum mechanics doesn't say everything is based on probability....but that subatomic particles exhibit randomness based on probability. On the other hand, the wave-like aspects of a photon do not display randomness at all...but follow uniquely and inevitably in a very deterministic and predictable fashion. The dual slit experiment you are referring to shows how a photon can exhibit a particle-wave duality. (The idea of randomness and probability goes back much further). And while the dual slit experiment can have philosophical implications, specifically on ideas of causality and determinism......it says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.
As far as your argument ..."For any god to exist, they must be within
this probability and under the influence of the laws of physics (and
therefore not all-powerful), or be outside probabilty and therefore impossible.".
I have no idea what you are even saying. In fact, I had to copy and paste your argument because I couldn't even paraphrase it in a way that made sense. Its quite ridiculous to say everything must exist within the realm of physics...or probability (whatever that means). How does physics explain the existence of cognition? or the existence of love? or beauty? or morality? Physics can tell us a great deal of what the world is like, but its not as comprehensive when it comes to the why questions. Physics can tell us that the universe is mathematical in nature.....but it can't tell us why this is so. Physics can't even tell you why math exists, or why 1+1=2....but it presupposes these mathematical truths and axioms to be true. Frankly, I can go on and on about things that exist outside the realm of physics....so I don't see why its difficult to comprehend that God would exist outside of the realm of physics (and the physical world)...especially when, by definition He must do so.
@wizexel22@xanga - You don't understand what I'm saying, so I must be wrong. Of course! What are the odds (no probability pun intended... at least initially). You don't even understand Stephen Hawking's argument properly. It certainly isn't just "God doesn't exist because the universe can create itself". Read his book. He explains rather well that god can not have ever interfered with the universe based on evidence we already have, which involves the probabilistic nature of sub-atomic particles. Oh, but you think that's ridiculous.
How is saying "Sub-atomic particles exhibit randomness based on probability" any different to what I said? Yes, waves make useful predictable patterns on larger scales at least, but as I'm sure you are aware under magnification the waves are fuzzy due to wave-particle duality. They do not just start and stop, but rather fade into and out of existence. This fuzziness is certainly not predictable, so technically nor is the wave.
I concede abstract values exist outside the physical realm. An abstract value created the universe though? Evidence is all that matters in science. Where's yours? Oh, wait, you have none. There are numerous laws and logical arguments that would also contest your idea. Shame. Your question on cognition is a good one, but cognition is coincidentally bound by physical systems. That should be clue enough. Love is a chemical reaction, which is a result of physical laws. Beauty and morality is a construct based on the perceivers nature and nurturing, which is a result of physical laws. Why is mathematics? Well, if god exists, why is god? Both questions are senseless.
@wizexel22@xanga - "There was another physicist that did believe in God, named Einstein, and I heard he was pretty smart also."
Einstein viewed God as a "human weakness" and said that the "man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant."
What Einstein described as God is a definition that he would share with a tiny minority of religious people. He wasn't a theist, nor a deist, and whether we was a pantheist is up for debate. God, to him, was a poetic perception of the inner workings of the universe - not a conscious, metaphysical entity.Don't get me wrong - I find the discussion of who-believes-in-what to be utterly irrelevent to whatever matter is at hand (a sentiment that your post seems to agree with), but what Einstein believes in is frequently abused and warrants correction.
@Spectrophile@xanga - I didn't read Hawking's latest book...so no I don't know his exact argument. But what I stated isn't false either, since he verbally said it in an interview. I never said it was his exact argument, but it is the simple essence of his argument. (Again, I think its safe to think this, since he said it.)
So, what is the actual argument? Or at least the essence of it?
"He explains rather well that god can not have
ever interfered with the universe based on evidence we already have,
which involves the probabilistic nature of sub-atomic particles. Oh, but
you think that's ridiculous."
What is this evidence? (And no, the dual slit experiment is NOT evidence that God doesn't exist). Also, I'm curious, you keep bringing up the dual slit experiment as evidence. Can you explain in what way it is evidence?
And no, I never said the probabilistic nature of sub-atomic particles was ridiculous......considering I said exactly that it wasn't.
"How is saying "Sub-atomic particles exhibit randomness based on probability" any different to what I said?"
It's not. Which is proof that I don't think its ridiculous. Our difference is, you seem to think that the results of this experiment is evidence that God cannot exist. So please explain why.
"Yes, waves make useful predictable patterns
on larger scales at least, but as I'm sure you are aware under
magnification the waves are fuzzy due to wave-particle duality."
No that's not correct at all. WAVES are predictable on all scales..... it is a photon that exhibits fuzziness, or quantum jitters...due to its wave-particle duality. But the wave-picture (or wave aspect) is perfectly predictable. And I mean PERFECTLY predictable, not just a very very very close approximation......which is actually now the case for even a particle. Physicists can now very very very closely approximate the particle function of a particle using mathematical techniques which account for quantum jitters for all three of the non-gravitational forces.
"I concede abstract values exist outside the
physical realm. An abstract value created the universe though? Evidence
is all that matters in science. Where's yours? Oh, wait, you have none."
You're right, evidence is all that matters in science. But I'm not making a scientific claim....and neither is Hawking. To say God does or does not exist is a metaphysical claim....not a scientific one.
"There are numerous laws and logical arguments that would also contest your idea. Shame."
Which idea are you talking about. (I must know so that I feel the full weight of my shame.)
" Why is mathematics? Well, if god exists, why is god? Both questions are senseless."
Huh?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga -
"Einstein viewed God as a "human weakness"
I'm not familiar with that quote. Do you have the full quote?
" the "man who is convinced of the truth of his religion is indeed never tolerant." "
True, but what does this have to do with Einstein's view on God?
I totally agree that "what Einstein believes in is frequently abused and warrants correction.". Christians, atheists, agnostics, and pantheists all seem to want to claim Einstein into their group. I disagree with your take though. I do categorize Einstein as a theist. First, we can rule out that he was atheist, agnostic, or pantheist....since he explicitly stated he was not any of these things and in fact was angered that people would say he was. It is probably his own fault on the pantheism front, as he basically said that you could see his views as a form of pantheism...but given the context of the statement, its a weak argument at best. Aside from the fact that he said he was not pantheist. He many times indirectly and directly makes it clear that while he believes "God" manifests "himself" in nature, he was very clear that he doesn't believe God IS nature or that God is IN nature.
I also believe that Einstein believed in an actual metaphysical entity, as he often uses the terms "God", "supernatural being", and "superior mind". Though I agree, it seems he also does not see God as a "conscious being......but that is because he refuses to describe God in any anthropomorphic or anthropopathic way. But it still seems to me that this God , while having no personal attributes whatsoever, is still some sort of metaphysical entity....but one that can only be described by nature.
"Don't get me wrong - I find the discussion of
who-believes-in-what to be utterly irrelevent to whatever matter is at
hand (a sentiment that your post seems to agree with)"
In any case, given the complex nature of Einstein's religiosity......I think that his views can be up for some debate. But thanks for the heads up and thanks for not using a tangental point to be used against me as if it were the crux of my point (which seems to be a very common tactic/occurance on Xanga). I think you and I can both agree then that Einstein's conclusions are VERY different than Hawking's most recent claim that God does not exist. And so you get my point, which I think we agree on, that the religious or metaphysical views of someone else is not evidence for anything. (Though I will say I do respect greatly Einstein's views, as he was not only an imminent scientist/physicist , but also a deep thinker who was also well versed in philosophy. But again, to use this as evidence is not only irrelevant , but logically fallacious).
@wizexel22@xanga - I think we're getting somewhere, though I feel like I'm repeating myself
. I've told you what the essence of Hawking's argument is. He provides the dual-slit experiment as an example that shows the nature of sub-atomic particles, The dual-slit experiment is indeed unimportant to the argument if you understand the nature of sub-atomic particles: That they are a result of probabilty. Nothing can cause probability. Such an idea makes no sense / it is illogical. 
. Probability just 'is'. Probability is all-encompassing and self-sufficient in the physical realm. This is why concepts like 'before' or 'after' spacetime (that which is a result of forces that sub-atomic particles are assigned) make no sense. It is outside probability. If god interacts with the universe, he wouldn't be abstract. If he interacted with the universe, he would be physical (due to the nature of probability), and there would be evidence of it. That is what Hawking argues. If it still don't make sense, read The Grand Design where he explains it at far more length (and perhaps more accurately) than myself. It would be more productive and less time-consuming than arguing here, that is for sure.
The question of god is a scientific one when the evidence shows the universe can't be created by one. They have to be a part of it (past, present and future) or not at all. Its not proof, but it is evidence. I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise, and if I have I am mistaken.
When you speak about the wave-like aspect, do you refer to how you can exactly measure the velocity, but not the mass, or measure the mass, but not the velocity depending what you are looking for? That is the only thing I know about sub-atomic particles that can be exactly measured. You can not measure both mass and velocity at the same time though. If that's not what you're talking about, perhaps you should explain more examples, if this point is particularly important any more.
The other arguments as to why god can not cause the universe are things like the law of conservation: There has always been the same amount of energy in the universe, which can not be created or destroyed, but merely converted. All 'logical' arguments for god generally beg the question or some other fallacy. You need only look at critiicisms of all such arguments (like the various forms of the ontological argument). If you have an argument that you think has not been defeated, feel free to share, and I will point out the fallacy. You said physics can't explain the 'whys', so I showed you why the whys are not necessary / pointless.
There were hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Christ and it is recorded in the New Testament.
That's different than believing you know the day of judgment when the Bible says no one does.
hi,
( nancy4god@ymail.com )
My name is Nancy,i saw your profile today at (revelife.com) and became interested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am and tell you more about myself, here is my email address ( nancy4god@ymail.com ) i believe we can move from here. I am waiting. (Remember that distance or color does not matter but love matters a lot in life) reply me, please don't write to me in the site thanks, Nancy.
In times like these, it's good to remember that the Bible teaches that 1) everyone knows God is the author of life because he himself has shown it to us and 2) he holds the hearts of everyone in his hands and can turn it like a stream wherever he wills! So glad that's a reality.
In the beginning, Earth was a sterile world, completely devoid of life. I am very much surprised that a mind like Hawking does not have the common sense to see that all these myriad forms of life on Earth could have formed from nothing.
Even a genius can lack plain old common sense.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
<w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true"
defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99"
latentstylecount="267">
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false"
unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"/>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
The following are the evidence to
prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in
which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create
something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac
Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory: The following is the extract of the
second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main
subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy: According to General Relativity, the
pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for
other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical
quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the
Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a
substance and its pressure and viscosity. As the phrase, the physical quantity
that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the
extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter
has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other
words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at
the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies
that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical
quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which
dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark
energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of
matter. The following is the extract of the
third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main
subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy: The simplest explanation for dark
energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of
space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological
constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek
letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since
energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity
predicts that it will have a gravitational effect.. E = mc2 has been used to be related
to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General
Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the
dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is
always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other
words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance
(the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in
the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though
there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of
the universe. Refer to the website address
pertaining to Isaac Newton’s theory pertaining to The Unversal Law of Gravitation: ttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html Every object in the universe
attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for
the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the
gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the
separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant.
From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of
dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of
the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly
opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could
exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this
energy or gravity could create something out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that
Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong. However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the
time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe
could be formed initially. To jump into
the conclusion that the gravity could be created from something out of nothing
is simply out of his own imagination.
Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s
principles pertaining to gravity.