The Atheist's Worst Nightmare

Stephen Hawking has been fighting against Big Bang for most of his working life. It's no secret why. Big Bang is the atheist's worst nightmare. In a “Brief History of Time” Hawking states,

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator (the cosmological argument). But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

To make such a scenario work, the atheist enters fantasy land. Again, Hawking, “Maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.”

No one really knows how Hawking justified imaginary time, nor does anyone know where his M-theory came from. The result is that Hawking says M-theory explains why we don't need God to explain our universe, and according to Hawking we don't need to account for M-theory either.

That's probably why Roger Penrose stated, “What is referred to as M-theory isn't even a theory, it's a collection of ideas, hopes and aspirations.” I'll say. The aspiration is to live in a universe without a Creator to which each and every one of us will one day be held accountable.

That fact is, there is no evidence that supports a material universe. Not a single one of the Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies are workable.

As mathematician Granvill Sewell explained, “It is interesting to see how those who for many years have criticized the creationists for inventing an agent external to our universe to account for the appearance of man, are now reduced to inventing other universes to explain our existence.” 

“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

Stephen Hawking

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.

Stephen Hawking

That is why it is imperative for atheists to believe Sagan's refuted but deeply held atheist dogma that the cosmos is all that is or ever was and ever will be.

This is essentially the long discredited Steady State model which is still upheld by modern atheists since the only alternative is Creator God. 

The god of Atheism

At blog Makarios I wrote about the Triune god of atheism: Science, Pride and Intelligence. Atheists actually believe that technology and intelligence can save us. 

Stephen Hawking and like minded atheists take the absurdity one step further. They think that all we need to do is inhabit a different planet to save our species. 

These people can’t seem to figure out that where ever we go, we and our inherently flawed nature will go too.

These men can't see that our problems lie a little deeper than where we live. I'm not surprised. They can go no deeper in search of solutions than to invent machines to help us move further away from our neighbours.

When you only believe in the material, well, the material is all there is to save us. Atheists believe that we can think our way out of our problems, but on atheism, our beliefs and in fact our thinking is based upon determinism.

Oh sure, atheists would like to borrow from the Christian concept of free will and believe in our ability to be rational, but on atheism that is simply not allowable.

“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? Why does the universe go through through all the bother of existing?”

Stephen Hawking

He could have asked, Where did the equations find their origin? His problem with a purely natural option is that the universe is made up of everything that physically exists. A natural/ material / scientific explanation has to involve a physical cause. But a physical cause of any type is by definition part of the universe that is being explained. A more circular argument would be hard to find.

Did He Really Say That?

I saw an article that claims Stephen Hawking’s book states the universe “created itself from nothing.”

“Created itself from nothing” was in quotes.

Does anybody know if Hawking really says this?

To say that matter has always existed is one thing. Your average run of the mill stupid atheist might actually believe the material infinite can exist.

To say that there can be an infinite regress of cause is one thing. You average run of the mill stupid atheist might believe this is possible.

But to say that matter can bring itself into existence - out of nothing - well - what do you do with something like that? Even by atheist standards this is profoundly absurd. I could understand if a statement like that came from your average run of the mill stupid atheist. In fact I've heard it many times. But from Hawking?

I know this guy once said that the universe came about in imaginary time and imaginary space. And I know that run of the mill atheists, your average stupid atheist might say that everything came from nothing by nothing, but Hawking?

Did he really say that?

Hawking says that gravity plays a role in the creation of the universe; gravity acting on mass and energy, space and time. Fine, but is he calling that nothing?

I know that run of the mill atheists, your average stupid atheist might describe nothing as a “really tiny bit of mass / energy surrounded by a really tiny bit of space" (Yes! I've heard more than one atheist say that), but is Hawking trying to make us believe that mass and energy are nothing?

Did Hawking really say that?

As ludicrous as all the other Atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies are, everything coming from nothing by nothing - everything bringing itself into existence - the universe creating itself from nothing really tops them all.

As big as finding Higgs Boson would be, to have Stephen Hawking make statements this stupid would be even bigger.

Did he really say these things?

After thinking about this some more, it makes me wonder. Hawking saying something this ridiculous is perhaps residue from when he left his Christian wife for another woman. That kind of emotion, perhaps him resisting feelings of real guilt would make a little bit of sense. The kind of mental turmoil from doing that to your wife, especially where two opposing world-views were at stake, opposing world-views that were debated at length between the two of them might explain in some way such a ridiculous statement as the universe brought itself into existence from nothing - that God was not needed. Maybe he just can't stand to lose an argument to his ex and is still pushing the issue to the point of joining your average run of the mill stupid atheist.

No Wheelchair Ramps In Hell

Stephen Hawking has told us that God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe. Instead - gravity did it! Or so say the news reports.

Hmm, this is the same man who said that because we humans display a tendency to destroy one another, in order for humanity to survive, we must colonise other planets.

His thinking being, I guess, that human nature would not travel with us to other planets?

Since early reports are suggesting that gravity was the creative force when:
. There was nothing which gravity could act upon, and
. Gravity itself did not exist until the Singularity,

I’ll wait for the book and hope that it's just the news coverage that is lacking in clarity.

Or perhaps Hawking's brain has already left for an exploratory expedition on another planet.