Stephen Hawking's - Brief Answers to the Big Questions

JMJ

So Dr. Hawkings is making a bit of a splash from beyond the grave with the publication of his last book.

Here's some quotes and my comments:

"If there were such a God, I would like to ask, however did he think of anything as complicated as M-theory in eleven dimensions," Hawking wrote.

Something interesting about editing, one version of this quote made it sound very proud. In this version what becomes obvious is that Hawking is simply ignorant in this regards. Simply put, M-Theory is an expression of an understanding of reality, but as any model it is not a complete expression.

I was curious as to what M-Theory is ...

M-theory is a theory in physics that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. It's probably not the question most other people would ask a Supreme Being, but then, Hawking was one of a kind.(C-Net)

So ... moving on.

"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."

This is an assertion - Dr. Hawking's appeared to believe that the constrained theories actually explain the reality. That is a wee bit of a stretch.

"For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God," he adds. "I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature."

I wonder where he learned this? I'm not familiar with God inflicting a 'curse' upon Mankind. Adam is the one who gave us Original Sin.

"There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."

Is not God a form of intelligent life? What Hawking's denies is that there are other orders of beings that we know of because they have either revealed themselves or being revealed: God, Angels and Demons.

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "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?"

Well, that is a question - how does something come from nothing in the material world?

In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom.

It is amusing that the Big Bang Theory was the result of the work of a Jesuit searching for the moment of creation (ie something coming from nothing).

To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

Obviously they haven't dealt with Dark Matter fully yet ... and if/when they do ... something else will pop up because the Universe is not as simple as they would like to think it to be!

"If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence,"

How is that a definition of God. It would be a result of God's action not a definition.

"We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe," Hawking concludes the first chapter of his final book, "and for that I am extremely grateful."

Ok - so the Universe has a design. Therefore it must have a Designer. The problem with scientists who specialize themselves into knowing more and more about less and less is that they tend to believe that what little they know explains everything. I would like to know how biology evolved to create various systems that can't evolve. Like eyesight.

"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."

Well, frankly there are a lot of things that science can't explain and ... frankly science is in large part just theories.

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Ok so for all their intelligence, I guess they haven't figured out that God is outside of time.

I guess they haven't thought this through very well.

Aside from the Mercy of God, given his background, I don't give much chance for the salvation of Dr. Hawking.

He is most likely in need of prayers.

P^3

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/health/stephen-hawking-final-book-intl/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/stephen-hawking-claims-no-possibility-god-last-book-ncna921806
https://www.cnet.com/news/there-is-no-god-stephen-hawking-writes-in-final-book/

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

+ JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'. This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium. If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

+ JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas. After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP. Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Tradicat

Search This Blog