Search This Blog

Loading...

Friday, September 10, 2010

Nothing Cannot Create Everything: Answering Stephen Hawking

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going" (Stephen Hawking: The Grand Design).

"I never quite understood the conviction that creation requires a creator" (cosmologist and spontaneous creation advocate Lawrence M. Krauss).

"Something can only create if it already exists (where ‘already’ indicates logical rather than temporal priority). Nothing does not have the power to create, or to do anything else for that matter, because nothing is quite literally no thing. So the universe could only create itself if it already existed; but if it already existed, it would have no need to create itself!" (James Anderson: proginosko. wordpress.com).

Hawking’s notion of calling upon gravity as a purposeful force with causal agency is absurd and would leave the world unintelligible. Gravity is an element of the material cosmos subsequent to its initial commencement and not previous to the origin of the universe.

"God didn’t create the universe; it was created spontaneously" (Lawrence Krauss).

"He who does not believe in God will believe in anything" (attributed to G.K. Chesterton).

Anderson goes on to ask: “How could there be laws of nature without nature itself? Surely the laws of nature—the law of gravity included—presuppose the existence of the natural universe. If there were no universe, to what would the laws of nature refer? This is one reason why I find it prima facie implausible that the law of gravity or any other physical law could even in principle explain the existence of the universe. The laws of nature presuppose the existence of nature, just as the laws of Scotland presuppose the existence of Scotland.”

"There are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence that our universe arose from nothing" (Lawrence Krauss).

"Philosophy is dead" (Hawking: The Grand Design).

"The “laws of nature” are mere abstractions and cannot explain anything. What exists in the natural order are concrete material substances with certain essences, and talk of “laws of nature” is merely shorthand for the patterns of behavior they tend to exhibit given those essences" (Edward Feser: The Last Superstition).

Anderson exposes Hawking’s philosophical practice of ditching philosophy when he asserts that if “Hawking thinks there is some law or principle that explains the very existence of the universe, he must have in mind a metaphysical law rather than a physical law. Unless I’m much mistaken, the law of gravity is a physical law. It appears that Hawking intends to leave behind physics (a subject on which he is eminently qualified to speak) and enter the realm of metaphysics (a subject on which he has no particular expertise, so far as I know). It’s more than a little ironic therefore to find Hawking declaring on the very first page of his new book that ‘philosophy is dead.’ If philosophy is dead, why is Hawking now turning his hand to philosophy? No, philosophy is in very good health, despite its frequent mistreatment at the hands of scientists.”


That Which Doesn’t Exist Cannot Cause the Cosmos


No lie is of the truth (1John 2:21).

The universe could not create itself no matter how small or large it becomes; it is not possible to make itself. For the universe to make itself it would have to be and not be at the same time in the same manner, which contravenes the Law of Non-contradiction and necessitates a dive into the illogical.

• The cosmos is composed of the entire realm that is natural.
• When the cosmos is not present, there is nothing natural.
• The universe was once not present.
• The non-presence of that which is natural is not a natural cause.
• Hence, the creation of the cosmos was not natural.
• Therefore, the creation of the cosmos was anatural (supernatural).

The anatural cause of the cosmos is not wholly reliant on matter, light, space, gravity, and energy: the natural. An anatural creation excludes the possibility of a creation by nature forasmuch as nature did not yet exist before its creation. Something rather than nothing created the cosmos (God). The cosmos does not subsist as a consequence of mere natural design, but the grand designer is God, an anatural (supernatural) cause.


Choose God and Account for Rationality


"Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything; they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own—but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved" (John Lennox).

Moreover, this volume has established that a materialistic view of the cosmos undermines the possibility of rationality. Dr. Lennox adds: “Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God? Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.”


Precommitments Direct One’s Worldview


We take the side of science … because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Richard Lewontin).

"This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth" (John Lennox).

Everyone has presuppositions—primary belief patterns that color all one’s thought and rational viewpoint. Reason is only consistent with Christian presuppositions. Hence, the real battle is between presuppositions. Hawking and spontaneous creation activists presuppose and advocate the absurd notion that nothing created everything. The Christian presupposes the Creator God who raised Christ from the dead and provides all the required a priori truth conditions for the laws of logic that allow one to investigate anything, including cosmology.



See my apologetic book that contends for Christian truth:
[["The Necessary Existence of God: The Proof of Christianity Through Presuppositional Apologetics"]] type in ASIN#:1419620355
or
Moral absolutes contending for theism:
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies

For a book that refutes atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism utilizing the doctrine of the Trinity see: One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions
and
God Does Exist!: Defending the faith using Presuppositional Apologetics, Evidence, and the Impossibility of the Contrary