Skip to main content

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/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him...

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...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3