Proving the existence of God and killing Atheism pt4
How can m-theory prove God? By introducing Supersymmetry to Bosonic String Theory, we can obtain a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter which make up the universe, and it is the theory of superstrings.
Nothing Created Everything (Atheist Logic)
What this goes to show, ladies and gentlemen!
is that nonsense remains nonsense,
even when it’s talked about by world-famous scientists and Stephen Hawking was interviewed by the Guardian, and he said: “Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark”, I heard a similar comment by John Lennox “atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light”.
Physicist Stephen Hawking around the world their headlines were full of it,
Stephen Hawking says physics leaves no room for God and so on and on with many variations, and these headlines were referring to the publication of his book co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, often titled The Grand Design.
The book went straight to the top of the bestseller charts, and I want to go straight to the heart of the book the grand design with this central claim because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing, now perhaps the first question to ask is? What is Hawking mean when he uses the word nothing!
The universe can and will create itself out of nothing because notice the assumption in the first part of that statement because there is a law of gravity that is an assertion of existence because there is something the universe will create itself out of nothing it’s a very odd way to start isn’t it,
Hawking assumes that there is a law of gravity,
but the main issue surely is this gravity or law of gravity is not “nothing” if Hawking is using that word in its usual philosophically correct sense of non-being if he’s not,
he should have told us,
so the heart of this book appears to be an assertion that the universe is simultaneously created from nothing and from something which I do not regard as a very encouraging start,
now, of course, I am aware that when physicists talk about nothing, they often appear to mean a quantum vacuum which is manifestly not “nothing”, and Hawking alludes to it later in the book we are a product he says of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe I’m very tempted to suspect that a lot of this is a bit too much about nothing.
Now I know it’s late in the morning for logic ladies and gentlemen, but I just pointed out to you what I think is the first level of self-contradiction in Hawking statement, but I believe there to be three,
let’s analyze it a bit further the universe can and will create itself now if I say X produces Y,
I’m assuming the existence of X in order to bring Y into existence that is what the word means,
so if I say X creates X, I am presuming the existence of X to account for the existence of X.
Well, this is obviously self-contradictory, and it’s logically incoherent even if we put X equal to the universe to presuppose the existence of the universe to account for the existence of the universe sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.
Now that’s a second distinct level of contradiction,
the first one you will recall is the universe created out of something which is nothing,
the second is that it creates itself, but then the notion of the law of gravity that both natures explain the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory since a law of nature by definition surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature purports to describe, and I shall come back to that later.
What this goes to show, ladies and gentlemen!
is that nonsense remains nonsense,
even when it’s talked about by world-famous scientists but what it serves to obscure,
what serves to obscure the illogicality is the fact that the statements are — made by scientists,
and it seems to me in the whole contemporary debate,
and one of the dangers a real danger is that we confuse a statement by a scientist with a statement of science, not all statements by scientists are statements of science, and therefore they do not enjoy whatever authority you ascribe to — science itself.
Now the worrying thing about all of this to me is that this illogical notion of the universe creating itself out of a nothing which is or something by a law of gravity that appears to exist without — gravity itself possibly is not a peripheral point in the book the grand design it’s the key — argument,
and if the key — argument is invalid in one sense,
there’s little left to say, but if scientists didn’t put the universe, there neither did their theories nor the laws,
and yet Hawking seems to suggest they did!
is the unified theory so compelling he wrote in a brief history of time that it brings about its own existence,
there is the self-contradictory self-reference again, you see the point?
Now, much as I find it hard to believe,
hawking claims that all is necessary to create the universe,
is the law of gravity, and when he was — asked on Larry King Live, which I believe is an American TV program where gravity came from, he answered m-theory, so gravity comes from a theory that’s where it comes from well to say that a — theory or a physical law could bring anything into existence is surely to misunderstand what’s a theory is!
Scientists construct theories involving mathematical laws to describe natural phenomena, but on their own, those theories and laws cannot cause anything let alone create it.
It’s delightfully ironic, isn’t it that it was — done other than William Paley who pointed this out a long time ago he’s speaking of the person who just stumbled on a watch from the heath, the famous story he says that such a person would not be less surprised to be informed that the watch in his hand was nothing more than the result of the laws of metallic nature!
it is a perversion of language to assign any law as the efficient offerings of a cause of anything a law presupposes an agent for it is only the mode that’s according to which an agent proceeds it implies power for it is the order according to which that power acts without this agent without this power which is both distinct from itself the law does nothing is nothing,
and surely that is obvious from Hawking’s own examples:
The very first example he gives us our physical law is this, the sun rises in the east and sets of the west that is a law it is an observed regularity in that sense it is descriptive and predictive, but the law that the sun rises in the east,
are sets in the rest doesn’t move the sun, and it certainly didn’t create the sun did it!
So the very example the man gives Newton’s law of motion has never in the whole of the history of the universe called a snooker ball to move over a — table it’s a person with a cue that does that the laws will describe at least for the first couple of bounces before chaotic effects set in what’s going to happen,
but laws don’t cause anything nor create anything, so what can Hawking possibly mean by saying the universe arises naturally from physical law!
Now his book is called The grand design and what I find so interesting in it is that he finds the impression of design to quote someone else is so powerful that he spends a couple of chapters on it and then decides to explain it away,
our universe and its laws, he writes a peer to the design that it both is tailor-made to support us and if we are to exist leaves little room for alteration that is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way.
The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand — designer,
and that is not the answer of modern science,
our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.
Now the interesting thing is that Hawking spends a lot of time giving evidence of the grand design,
and he calls it an old idea, of course, this is a very — simple philosophical trick because it’s old of course it’s irrelevant and false that’s nonsense he doesn’t even consider it’s a truth he only calls it old and he says it’s the answer of modern science.
Now that is going miles too far what he might say that is not the answer of some modern scientists because so far as I can say science has not got a unified view on the matter,
now a — Lane Craig has done me a great favor in going into the multiverse thing in detail,
and one of the very interesting things is that Hawking advances the multiverse and m-theory and all of the rest of it as an alternative to God, and he falls into the very same mistake he did at the lower level earlier, God or the multiverse, but if there is more than one multiverse how was that an argument against the existence of God!
God could create a multiverse, couldn’t he! Now in the times when Hawking’s book appeared there was a letter from a very distinguished student of his called Don Page, who’s a professor of theoretical physics has written a number of papers with Stephen Hawking,
and he distances himself from Hawking’s conclusion and Don page is actually a Christian, and I quote what he said: “I certainly would agree that even if m-theory were a fully formulated theory which it isn’t yet, and were correct which of course we don’t know that would not imply that God did not create the universe”.
So arguments about the status of m-theory are in a sense irrelevant to us this morning the only thing I would point out is that Roger Penrose, an equally distinguished mathematician working in Oxford, said that: “m-theory is very far from any testability it’s a collection of ideas hopes aspiration” and referring directly to the book he says: “the book is a bit misleading it gives you this impression of a theory that’s good to explain everything it’s nothing of the sort it is not even a theory” indeed in Roger Penrose estimation m-theory was “hardly” science and perhaps you should note that Penrose is a member of the British Humanist Association.
There’s a wonderful review of Hawking’s book given by Tim Radford goes like this: “in this very brief history of modern cosmological physics the laws of quantum and relativistic physics represent things to be wondered at but widely accepted just like biblical miracles, m-theory invokes something different a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere this force cannot be — identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction, and yet it contains all possibilities it incorporates omnipresence omniscience and omnipotence, and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of anybody?
Stephen Hawking was interviewed by the Guardian,
and he said: “Heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark”, I heard a similar comment by John Lennox “atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light”.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I will keep posting other parts from a different perspective every week/month, so be sure to check it out ✌️.
M-theory invokes something different a prime mover, a begetter, a creative force that is everywhere and nowhere this force cannot be — identified by instruments or examined by comprehensible mathematical prediction and, yet it contains all possibilities it incorporates omnipresence omniscience, and omnipotence and it’s a big mystery. Remind you of anybody?
If you want to know more about who is that God, then read the holy Quran, you will find answers subjective to you,
you can’t apply it to all people,
every person will find answers subjective to him (and I mean reading the book cover to cover 600 pages long)
if you want more, read the biography of the prophet Mohammed (PBUH), and everything will make more sense.
God bless you and keep you safe and healthy, “amen.” 🙏
Feel free to ask me any questions ✌️.
Also, you may like: