Stephen Hawking makes perhaps one of the dumbest forays by a scientist into philosophy that I have ever seen:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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.
Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions. The blue touch paper lit itself, and there is something called "nothingness" which contains that blue torch paper as well as laws governing it. Perhaps this is all, in some Deepak Chopra sense, true. But it is not "the answer of modern science." It is purely speculative, and whether we want to use the word "God" to describe the mystery of spontaneous generation or leave it at a nothing containing the seed of spontaneous generation seems to be a semantic distinction, with the latter in no way naturalizing or demystifying the former.
Of course, when Stephen Hawking makes such a pronouncement, it widely covered by the media as if a scientific Moses has descended from the mount with a single, definitive commandment: nothing. The face of the tablet is pristine, smooth. The worshipers are usually not familiar enough with the (actually irrelevant) cosmology that seems to support this claim, not to mention the (actually relevant) philosophy that would help them evaluate it. But they can take it as a matter of faith, if that's the faith to which they happen to belong. And so the matter reeks of anti-intellectualism (as an attempt to foreclose on deeper, less sophomoric philosophical inquiry about the subject), and is fundamentally bad science, worse philosophy, and entirely anti-rational, even as it marches under the opposite banner.
By: Wes Alwan
Well, I’ve already shown today that my understanding of QM is f**ked, so I have little choice other than to acquiesce to a spontaneous apparition theory of matter…
Didn’t Suskind win the argument over Hawking’s claim that material entering black holes disappears from the universe?
Perhaps spontaneous creation of matter is Hawking’s way to win the argument from the opposite direction.
I’ll preface by noting that I love the podcasts and really appreciate all the work done here at Partially Examined Life, so there is no malicious intent behind me suggesting that while Hawking most likely is not well versed in philosophy, a two year crash-course could probably catch him up. His understanding of QM, Relativity, and the mathematics underlying science’s best descriptions of the universe to date, however, would probably not be so easily acquired by the majority of us.
“Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions.”
The above seems to be the same ill-informed invasion into scientific territory for which you criticize Hawking of executing upon philosophy.
E.C. — thanks for the compliment, keep listening; Mark and Seth will keep me in check.
Regarding Hawking etc.: You’d have to show me how this is ill-informed and what role God and Nothing can play in a physical theory. I have some familiarity with cosmology, and worked at the Naval Research Laboratory to calibrate the satellite instruments that collect gamma ray and other data in support of the field. We expected these to detect a variation in cosmic background radiation indicating the effects of the big bang. I was surprised to see in the newspapers later on, once that variation was indeed detected, a major physicist quoted as saying that he had “seen the face of God.” Apparently the face of God looks much like TV fuzz.
You can call something in your theory “God” if you like and something “Nothingness” and something spontaneous creation. But I’d like to see how they are mathematically expressed, what’s observed, and what’s predicted. If “God” turns out to be background radiation and “Nothing” turns out — as I suspect it would — to be nothing at all, then I’m not going to be very happy.
But one need not have any familiarity with science to observe the phenomenon of wide disagreement among scientists themselves. Many would reject not only Hawking’s speculations concerning God and Nothingness and spontaneous generation of universes, but the very speculative cosmological theories on which he bases them. These theories –such as string theory — are fought over tooth-and-nail by cosmologists, because they are currently not falsifiable, testable in any way, and have no predictive power. In fact, string theory has been ridiculed by some physicists. Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow is a famous skeptic. The criticism is that these sorts of theories are just fancy math unhinged from reality.
Only this month did physicists at the Imperial College London and Stanford University come up with a theory-related-to-string theory that is testable. (Google News it). Even if these tests are performed and are positive (for the idea that string theory might model an aspect of quantum entanglement) — they won’t test string theory as a theory-of-everything that reconciles general relativity and quantum mechanics. And then there are some physicists and mathematicians who object that such experiments wouldn’t even test it as a theory relevant to quantum entanglement. One has called the very hypothesis “absurd” and sees a basic feature of math cropping up in both string theory and quantum entanglement without any essential relationship. So again, you see how math may get unhinged when it becomes unhinged from something testable and predictive.
So Hawking is making a) unwarranted philosophical speculations based on b) a theory that is currently untestable, non-predictive, and not widely agreed upon by scientists. He bases his speculations on M-Theory, which adds one more dimension to string theory’s 10. And if his bad philosophical speculations actually did follow from these untestable, non-predictive theories, it would simply be a decisive factor against them.
Incidentally, Hawking in the past has popularized ideas — such as the “Big Crunch” — that are now universally rejected by cosmologists (including himself).
One more thing — I didn’t mean to give the impression that we should blindly defer to experts in their fields. We can critically engage areas in which we don’t have the time to be professionals, and there are all sorts of epistemic clues — internal consistency, for example — which make this possible even before we get the textbooks out. Like I said, the debate among physicists themselves is another such clue. Naturally, we have to use such clues all the time to accept or reject claims over which we have no direct evidence. I’ll never directly verify whether there really was a Christopher Columbus, but it does seem psychologically implausible that he is a historical hoax foisted upon us by some conspiracy. There are lots of good reasons to believe that there was a Christopher Columbus, but direct verification is not one of them. At the point where someone in some field uses their reputation and expertise to ask us to abdicate such standards — including especially that of internal consistency — we should know that something is up.
Thanks for the thorough response. I don’t think I would disagree with any of it.
I guess the whole, ““Well that settles it. Something spontaneously arose out of nothing. No need for an explanation of that. Move on people, nothing mysterious here, stop asking questions,” comment left me thinking maybe there was something more to his arguments then their apparent ridiculousness.
How would you distinguish a scientific claim from a philosophical one? I’m curious what criteria you would use.
@E.C. — Thanks; I think the basic distinction is that in the hard sciences the data come from the senses, and so are “empirical.” That despite the fact that observations may be indirect and models highly abstract. (And so, I might draw conclusions about the chemistry of stars — the kinds of elements they contain — from the kind of light they’re emitting; or create a model of an atom that I’ll never be able to observe but which is predictive of other observable phenomena). And so such models (as hypotheses) are falsifiable.
I take a philosophical claim to be one of two sorts: the first is a more modest, higher level reflection on some existing domain of inquiry. So while science busies itself with observable phenomena, philosophy of science makes its datum science itself. This datum is not strictly speaking “observable” in the sense that a philosopher of science will think about the nature of scientific explanation, theory, and causality. These are abstract rather than empirically observable entities.
I’m not someone who thinks that philosophy of science will change the way science is done, nor that it needs to in order to be worthwhile. And if science didn’t help us better our lives via technology, I still think it would be worthwhile (and of course there are lots of scientists who devote themselves to branches with little practical bearing on anything, including cosmology). And the question of utility of course could be broadened: if William James is right, the pleasure I get out of the pursuit of truth is just as legitimate a pragmatic consideration as curing cancer.
Incidentally, philosophy is not the only branch of non-empirical inquiry: mathematics and logic are two examples. Claims about the necessity of empirical observation to inquiry fail to take this into account. And these branches of inquiry are highly relevant to philosophy one of philosophy’s roles is dialectical: that is, to find inconsistencies within a body of commonly accepted beliefs. Thrasymachus may find out — via Socrates — that his idea that might makes right is entirely inconsistent with some of his other beliefs. Incidentally, I think the field of psychology is a borderline case — it cannot be empirical in the same sense as the hard sciences, and so falls in between philosophical reflection and empirical science.
So while I think there are data for philosophy, and philosophical theories can be put to various sorts of tests, those data are abstract and those tests are dialectical: the best you might hope for in arguing out a philosophical disagreement is to tease that basic underlying assumptions about which you and an interlocutor agree. But in my view, coming to terms with those assumptions means learning something new and worthwhile, and could disabuse one of some cherished belief that on reflection doesn’t make any sense.
Wow great thinking…you guys have amazing talent for analyzing a problem and provide clear explanations. If everyone took the time to express their ideas like this, life would be awesome.
@Simon — thanks very much.
Friendly suggestion re: “How would you distinguish a scientific claim from a philosophical one? I’m curious what criteria you would use.”
When I was reading about Hawking’s latest proclamation — and E.C.’s entirely fair question above — I couldn’t help but think of Karl Popper: “Scientific theories, if they are not falsified, forever remain hypotheses or conjectures.”
The problem with many public declarations of scientists lately is that they are treated by the media not as intelligent theories (i.e., the best explanation available to date, but subject to possible future revision), so much as incontrovertible statements of “the law.” Cue Pee Wee Herman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5s9lMzMhAU&feature=related
Even Hawking’s reference to the “laws of gravity” as opposed to the “theories of gravity” give me pause. Einstein proved Newton’s “laws of gravity” almost 100 years ago, which kinda makes reference to them as “laws” laughable. And who knows if Einstein’s own “law” of gravity will hold up 500 years from now? But it’s precisely the flip use of terms like “laws” (the “laws of quantum theory”? really?) that enable certain scientists to monopolize popular debate on Big Questions.
Though Wes’s response was right on point, I think E.C.’s question would be an excellent opportunity to conduct an episode on Karl Popper. I think Popper’s coming more into vogue now, thanks to Nassim Taleb’s rising star, and NT’s outspoken praise for Popper’s theories re: empiricism.
Wes, you strike me as particularly well-read (or at least well-spoken) on the philosophy of science. Whaddayathink re: a Popper episode?
Daniel– would love to do a popper episode.
‘God ,Nothingness And Stephen Hawkins’
Hardev Singh, Jammu
Few weeks ago, Stephen Hawkins, making the headlines of the news sheets, told the world that this universe did not require God for its creation. Rather, in contrast, he says: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” Stephen made above statement depicting the theme of his forthcoming book ‘Grand Design’. Undoubtly, he is a great scientist. However, even the most brilliant scientist is bound to talk in terms of philosophy where scientific analysis ceases to proceed. He becomes hypothetical and subjective and some of his efforts may be far-fetched.
No doubt, Stephen Hawkins has produced this hypothesis comparing scientific laws with some religious conceptions which had been attempting to explain the ‘nature of God’ and His relation with the creation. But does Stephen is familiar with the philosophy of Guru Nanak on this aspect? This question is important and interesting as well. Beyond any doubt, Stephen has never been to the philosophy of Guru Nanak. He is not at fault as he does not know about it. This is our own lack of understanding as we could not reach out to the world with this treasure. However, this is pertinent for any physicist to understand, that there may be something somewhere in the realm of philosophy pointing towards the existence of God differently in a logical way. Nanak brought the ‘nature of God’ out of prototypes Hawkins appears to be contending upon.
The understanding about God is not something to understand apart from the ‘forms of God’. God is an understanding, about His ‘formless’ existence to all ‘forms’ created by Him. He is not apart but omnipresent. He is not aloof from the physics, the law of gravitation and their effects but all these laws are within Him. This is the depth of the philosophy of Guru Nanak. If Stephen Hawkins could know this, surely, he would have gone interested to think upon it.
The ‘Grand Design’ is not released so far but Stephen Hawkins is found to be saying; “universe can and will create itself from nothing”.
Let’s proceed with this ‘nothingness’. Sunn (Nothingness) is an important word used in the hymns of Guru Granth Sahib which means ‘nothingness’ or ‘celestial void’. It is used in different contexts. But here, in this discussion, we will try to analyze it in the context of a particular situation when the universe was not yet in existence. Meaning thereby, a situation of complete nonexistence of matter and anything related to it such as gravity.
Guru Nanak says:-
“In the celestial Void (Nothingness), the Infinite Lord assumed His Power. He Himself is unattached, infinite and incomparable. He Himself exercised His Creative Power, and He gazes upon His creation; from the celestial Void, He formed the mind soul.” ||1|| ( Guru Nanak, Rag Maru,Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
In the same hymns Guru Nanak wrote further:-
“From this celestial Void (Nothingness), the earth and the skies were created. He supports them without any visible support, by exercising His True Power. He fashioned the three worlds, and the rope of Maya; He Himself creates and destroys. ||6|| From this Void, came the four sources of creation, and the power of speech. They were created from the Void, and they will merge into the Void.” ( Guru Nanak, Rag Maru,Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Scientific discoveries have proved many of religious faiths as superfluous. By telling that sun does not revolve around the earth, the ‘logic’ has proved that the claim made about it was wrong. Thus one of the ignorance, related to the religion, got vanished. But a rational religious person, while accepting this logic, understands that within the law of nature, earth revolves around the sun and that is the arrangement of God. Earth revolving around the sun does not mean that God is not there. Rather such things make us to understand what God is and what ‘He’ is not.
Atheism is old. However, Hawkins’s name may brandish some old arguments in a new fashion. But rejoicing minds need to contemplate that some illogical definitions of God and religion do not necessarily mean what they are. Whether it is religion, economics or politics, all are useful and also exposed to go abusive. The struggle of mankind is to make good use of all these notions and not to deport them from human mind. We know with certainty that, most of miseries are primarily inflicted on the civilizations by economics and polity using religion as a tool. Even though, we can not imagine of a world without economics and political systems. There we all talk of reforms. But why some rationalists are not ready to accept a reformative understanding of religion? They need introspection.
Scientists tell us that the universe began to come into being about 15 billions years ago. The beginning, necessarily refers towards a situation of ‘not being’. For example, beginning of my existence establishes that at a point of time I did not exist. Yes, of course, there were the elements which caused my existence. The scientists are agreeing that the universe is expending. If the proofs of the expansion of the universe are based on the scientific conclusions then, beyond any doubt, expanding universe itself is an unchallengeable proof that it had a definite beginning. If, logically, we reverse the process of this expansion, then it will appear coming back to a point of the beginning. It would also reveal about the reality that, once upon a time, even this point did not exist. There comes the ‘nothingness’ where Hawkins has reached. Then, definitely, the cause of this ‘beginning point’ was the ‘first one’ of the chain of the cause and effects. Meaning thereby, a ‘cause’ which was ‘Self-Existent’. Evolution of the entire existence is a part or form of this ‘Self-Existent cause’ and it is continued. This evolution is not the evolution of everything. Rather this evolution includes the devolution of many things. This is natural, positive and negative as well. This is something which is not to be supposed otherwise.
The attempts to investigate this ever expanding universe have accepted the theories of ‘Big Bang’ and ‘Black Holes’. Such theories are put forward by scientists. But investigation of the existence of Black Holes also demands the answer to the question that: the matter which caused the existence of the black holes was not the predecessor of the black holes? The scientists should contemplate on this question for logical scientific scrutiny. These investigations are still at the level of hypothesis but the human mind, while looking into the formation and existence of black holes and thinking of possible big bang would definitely go to the idea of a situation before the black holes. And when it happens, logic points towards a situation which is referred in Guru Granth Sahib as Sunn i.e nothingness or celestial void. Means complete non existence of anything like matter. Neither matter, time nor space.Here space means the distances among the things. In this context, during his philosophical discourses with Sidhas (Learned Ones) Guru Nanak explained some important things while answering to their questions during philosophical discourses (Sidh Ghost)
Question of Sidhas regarding the creation of the universe:-
“What can you tell us about the beginning? In what home did the absolute void dwell then?” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Reply of the Guru Nanak:-
“We can only express a sense of wonder about the beginning. The absolute void abided endlessly deep within Himself then.” ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
And
From His state of absolute existence, He assumed the immaculate form; from formless, He assumed the supreme form. ( Page 940, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
There is need to understand the matter, time and space. Guru Nanak has pointed towards the existence of God before matter, time and space (distances). No doubt, our understanding about the beginning of time and space (distances) is related to the beginning of the creation universe i.e. a point from where the scientists like Stephen Hawkins contemplate about the creation of the universe on the basis of available forms, scientific facts and ideas.
But when mind, logically, thinks of an ambience, when there was nothing like universe, it finds itself standing within a ‘time’ and an empty ‘space’. In a time, where there is no reference to go back further in the time and, in a space, where there is no existence for any reference of matter. Here the space does not mean distance. This is a ‘timeless’ and ‘non-existent’ situation. At that time, entire forms of existence we see or imagine, appear to be like the needles of smaller watches moving within a ‘great timeless and amazing watch’ and expressions of the moments occurring within a timeless and uncalculated situation. When scientists prove that the universe started coming into being 15 billions years ago, then they appear to be talking about a time span and things within a timeless set of circumstances. But if we talk about the situation like 30 billions years ago, then the time, being not associated with any reference of existence, appears to be timeless because we don’t find anything as reference for the investigation or analysis of that timeless situation. This set of circumstances is referred by Nanak as Sunn. This is continuous because this is the only which is beyond the time. This Sunn, being timeless and formless is conducive to produce the time and forms. This capacity has a cause, a first cause. Meaning thereby, the cause of the all other subsequent causes and their effects. This cause is revealed as God and His Hukam (Order) by Guru Nanak.
Guru Nanak says:-
“You yourself are the Cause of causes, You Yourself are the Creator.” ( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib) And:
“You are wonderful! Your creative potency is amazing!” ( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
When there was nothing there was Sunn (Nothingness). A complete celestial void! But we need to contemplate about the ‘capability’ which had the capacity to produce something like universe within the womb of nothingness. Science is not able to establish anything firmly about this nothingness because, as discussed before, it has no base in its hands conduct a scientific investigation to determine about celestial void. Here comes the point, where science itself requires a philosophy, based on logic, which may keep it alive to analyze the secrets which are yet beyond human understanding. Logic is the father of science. We talk about God. Even atheist talk about God. To abandon the quest for God after reaching to a state of nothingness and logic of its capacity to produce ‘existence ‘would be like the declaration of ‘death of science’. Would Stephen Hawkins like to write its obituary?
Besides this, if the matter was self existent in some form, was there a consciousness within that form of matter which kicked off the process of evolution of universe? Talking in terms of hypothetical ‘faith’ in pure materialism a materialist needs a deep contemplation on the question that; is the behavior of chaotic matter was not the basic consciousness of matter? Isn’t this the ‘seed’ of non evolved consciousness which, after reaching its zenith, had assumed the evolution of human mind? Certainly, we can not deny the behavior of matter. Atom itself is bound within a specific behavior. Obviously, it is the behavior of matter which becomes the necessary precondition for integration and disintegration to hold them together with in a universal system. Then the questions, behavior preceded or the matter places new challenge before us. Here the contention that matter precedes or gravitational force needs the answer. Was it the gravitational force which did all or God’s hand allowed all this to happen by way of matter and its gravitational force?
No doubt, the achievement of a stage of like human mind is possible only through body. Body is the base of such a realization. But what is the base of the behavior of atom? A possible answer to this tedious question can be the argument that the atom and its behavior are dependent on each other. Meaning thereby, if there is no behavior there is no atom and vise-versa. Apparently, reply appears to be having an answer to this complex question. But referring matter as self existent, a materialist appears to be dropping his weapon of cause and effect used by him against the existence of God.
But philosophical leads of Nanak make us towards strong logic to analyze this complication. Thereby, we find a situation like Sunn when there was no existence of matter as we see. But, on the other hand, definitely, there was something as consciousness within the womb of that celestial void. This consciousness was outside the matter and it had the capacity to produce matter out of nothingness or what we may call celestial void. Sunn and the consciousness was a formless stage falling out side the realm of time which starts only from our understanding with reference to the matter and its forms. That is why this is timeless. Logically, we can be aware of it, but we can never have the information of its beginning. We can only identify it by means of forms created by this consciousness and accept the proof of its existence. And we can definitely accept the philosophy of Nanak when he says:-
“You are wonderful! Your creative potency is amazing!”( Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
Here the logical conclusion points towards a One Timeless, Formless and Super Conscious Existence. This is beyond birth and death but able to reflect and run within all forms. Here Nanak does not describe God in slices. He talks about the nature of God in His entirety.
Nanak says:-
From His state of absolute existence, He assumed the immaculate form; from formless He assumed the supreme form. (Page 563, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
This is nothing but the existence of God whose form has been described, by Nanak, as a proof of His existence:-
“O Nanak, the True One is the Giver of all; He is to be identified through His All-powerful Creative Nature. ||8||”( Page 141, Adi Guru Granth Sahib)
God exists and Identity of His existence is this entire Nature which produces brings up and destroys. Can Stephen Hawkins deny above identification? No doubt, he can not!
This is the proof of God as described in the Sikh Philosophy. God being present in every form transcends beyond every form. We can only feel His consciousness which has provided the capacity, within the empty womb of nothingness, to produce the existence (Universe)
On this issue, further dialogue may take place after ‘Grand Design’ of Stephen Hawkins and his ‘associate’ surfaces.
“God” IS a theological concept, regardless of how some scientists and religious people uses it – an embarrasing fact for any scientist who include it in their theorizing reasoning. This shows us how even the most eminent scientist is as human as anyone, thus subjected to historically and socio-cultural formed worldview, which in this case can be understood with the quotes: “Equating etymology with epistemology they have disregarded the possibility of change in the referent [“God”] itself, and therefore in the meaning and human understanding of the concept.”
…or:
“both fundamentalists and liberal-sceptical cynicism [Hawking etc.] SHARE a basic underlying feature: For both of them, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept them as such, while skeptical cynics mock them.” (Zizek)
in other words: Hawking is here a fantastic example of not distinguishing, and not being aware difference of: cultural-ideological beliefs (that are part of the secular modernity) so firmly internalized in his view, from: the natural science’s METHOD of explaning the natural and material world.
Refer to the website address at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy pertaining to dark energy.
The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’:
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.
As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.
The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’:
The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..
E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since 0 is multiplied by c2 always equal to 0. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance. Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy could exist even though there could not be any matter existed prior to the formation of the universe.
Refer to the website address at: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html pertaining to the law of universal gravitation. The following is the extract of the definition of law of universal gravitation:
Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)//r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.
Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.
Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.
If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.
Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly put quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.
Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses. As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.
Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.
Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:
The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity
From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.
Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.
Refer to the website here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 There are about 100 known galaxies that are in blue shifts. As there are so many blue shifts, it is irrational to use many red shifts that have been discovered through Hubble telescope to conclude that this universe would be expanding. The following are the reasons why it is irrational to conclude that the universe would be expanding to support Big Bang Theory:
a) This universe might have been extended up to infinity in the past and there would have no place currently for further expansion since the space would be in infinity without boundary currently. If that would be so, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this entire universe would be expanding.
b) Even if this entire universe might have a boundary, many red shifts than blue do not give the implication that this universe would be expanding due to these blue shifts might reflect there could be some galaxies that would have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of universe for their return. As some of these 100 over galaxies could have travelled pass the corner of the fixed boundary of the universe for their return and yet many still struggling behind in advancing and would have not reached the corner of the universe yet due to the expanse of universe and it would take many and many years for galaxies to reach its corner of the universe for their return, these would have turned up to be more red shifts than blue.
As the universe might not be expanding as a result of the exceptional cases of above, it is irrational to use many red shifts than blue to conclude this universe would be expanding so as to support Big Bang Theory.
What is Big Bang Theory? The following is the definition of Big Bang theory that has been extracted from the third paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, under the sub-title of ‘Big Bang’:
‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, THE UNIVERSE WAS ONCE IN AN EXTREMELY HOT AND DENSE STATE which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a SINGULARITY, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.’
As the phrase, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state, is mentioned in the definition of the Big Bang theory, it implies that something would have caused that universe to be once in an extremely hot and dense state. If nothing would have caused the universe to be extremely hot and dense state, how could the universe be in hot and dense condition? Or in other words, there must be something that would have caused the universe to be hot in order that Big Bang theory could be triggered off. This certainly contradicts Stephen Hawking’s theory that supports that something could be generated from nothing. This is by virtue of Big Bang theory requires heat and dense state instead of nothing in order to trigger off Big Bang theory and yet the phrase, something could be generated from nothing as suggested by Stephen Hawking, implies the absence of anything and this includes also heat and dense condition.
The phrase, After its initial expansion from a singularity, as mentioned in the same paragraph in the website address above gives us the impression that Big Bang theory is the continuation theory of General Relativity.
The following is the extract from the first paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Timeline of the Big Bang’:
‘Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GENERAL RELATIVITY yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. THIS SINGULARITY IS SOMETIMES CALLED “THE BIG BANG”, but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the “birth” of our Universe.’
Both phrases, general relativity, and , singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”, as extracted above give us the idea that Big Bang theory is meant for general relativity.
What is General Relativity? The following is the definition of General Relativity as extracted from the second paragraph under the sub-title, Introduction to General Relativity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity:
‘General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Eistein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.’
The phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, as mentioned in this definition gives the implication that the general relativity has their derivation from three elements and there are masses, space and time. It is only at the existence of masses that has been coordinated with the warping of space and time that these would contribute the gravitational attraction.
As mentioned early that Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity and yet the General Relativity is only at work among masses, space and time. As masses have to be needed to be in existence in order to have the creation of General Relativity and yet Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity, it gives the implication that the masses of substances have to be present in order to generate Big Bang theory. As the existence of masses of substances would then generate Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking’s theory that Big Bang theory would create something out of nothing would be wrong. This is by virtue of it is the must to have masses of substances to interact with time and space so as to generate Big Bang theory.
Now a question has to be raised. As it is a must to have masses of substances in order to generate Big Bang theory that would result from their warping of space of time and yet Big Bang theory requires nothing to generate something, all these point to the fact that the Big Bang theory itself is unscientific and contradictorily and cannot be reliable.
Does the absence of cosmological constant from Einstein Field Equation supports this universe could be created to be something from nothing?
The following is the extract under the sub-title, Einstein Field Equations, from the website address, http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cosmological_constant:
(…where G is the gravitational constant. .. This “cosmological constant” was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, and it is given the symbol Λ .
R μν －1/2 Rg μν + Λ μν =8πGT μν (2)
When Λ is positive it acts as a repulsive force. )
As the phrase, the ‘cosmological constant was what Einstein added in order to achieve a static universe, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that Einstein presumed that the universe should be in static stage and that was why he inserted Λ μν into his equation.
At the absence of cosmological constant, Λ μν, from the above equation, the universe would turn up not to be static universe and the equation should be:
R μν －1/2 Rg μν =8πGT μν
From the equation above, the space time as expressed by (R μν －1/2 Rg μν) has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant.
What is gravitational constant? The mathematical formula of gravitational constant could be located in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation, under the sub-title, Newton’s law of universal gravitation as indicated below:
{F = G (m1 m2)/(r) the power of 2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}
From the above formula, it is obvious that F, the force between the masses, has a direct influence upon G, the gravitational constant. If the gravitational constant is zero, the force between the masses should be zero too. Or in other words, there should not be any gravity at the absence of masses. This certainly would not support Stephen Hawking’s theory that mentions that gravity could exist at the absence of masses so as to generate something out of nothing.
As gravitational constant has to deal with masses and the Eistein Field Equation, i.e. R μν－1/2Rg μν=8πGT μν, has to deal with gravitational constant, it gives the ultimate conclusion that Eistein Field Equation has to deal with masses despite the absence of cosmological constant. Or in other words, in order that Eistein Field Equation to be at work, masses of substances must be in existence in order to generate General Relativity. Thus, it opposes the theory that supports that universe could be generated to something out of nothing.
Stephen Hawking mentioned before that the universe would be formed through Quantum Theory.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Vacuum State, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state:
‘According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.’
As the phrase, vacuum is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned above, it implies quantum vacuum could never be empty. Instead, it consists of electromagnetic waves as well as particles. Questions have to be raised. What would have caused electromagnetic waves to exist? If nothing should have existed prior to the creation of quantum vacuum, why should there be electromagnetic waves? What should thing have existed to give rise to electromagnetic waves in order to generate quantum vacuum? The electromagnetic waves give the implication that something should have caused the waves to rise or else there should never be any electromagnetic waves to be generated. As there would be particles that pop into and out of existence at the function of quantum vacuum, it implies the existence of particles in which something must have created them into beings.
Thus, the above explanation objects the explanation that quantum vacuum could create something out of nothing since the existence of electromagnetic waves would give the information that something should have created it or else why the waves should be in existence. Besides, the existence of particles that pop into and out of existence in the quantum vacuum gives the implication of the existence of matter in quantum vacuum condition. If one comments that quantum vacuum could create the universe, who then should be the one that would create electromagnetic waves so as to trigger off quantum vacuum then? Besides, who was the one that would have created particles that would have popped in and out of existence in quantum vacuum condition?
From the above analysis, it would come to the conclusion that quantum vacuum is not the creator of the universe since how quantum vacuum could be able to create something out of nothing especially there are particles in quantum vacuum.
Some might argue that the word, mass, as mentioned in Newton’s principle or General Relativity might not refer to substances but energy since there is mass for energy. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Definition and basic properties, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.’
The word, matter, as extract above gives the implication that the word, mass as mentioned in General Relativity is meant for objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph under the sub-title, Geometry of Newtonian gravity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity:
‘A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein’s elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard an accelerating rocket generating a force equal to gravity.’
The phrases, elevator experiment, and, dropped ball, and accelerating rocket, as mentioned above gives the implication that Einstein has performed the General Relativity on matter instead of on energy. Thus, the matter as mentioned in Einstein’s theory is meant inevitably for substances or objects instead of for energy. As Einstein has performed his General Relativity’s experiment successfully on matter, it is obvious that the word, mass, in his General Relativity’s theory is meant for substances or objects instead of for energy.
The following is the extract from the third paragraph under the sub-title, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation in the website address, http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l3c.cfm:
(But Newton’s law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton’s law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton’s place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers.)
The phrase, ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction, as mentioned above gives the conclusion that Newton referred the word, mass, is his definition to be objects or substances instead of energy.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Law of Universal Gravitation, from the website address, http://schools.wikia.com/wiki/Newton%27s_Law_of_Universal_Gravitation, gives an absolute truth that universal gravitation has its derivation from the discovery from an object, i.e. apple, instead of energy:
(Many people know the story of Issac Newton sitting under an apple tree; when an apple fell on his head, he suddenly thought of the concept of gravity. It is actually much more complex than that; the situation brought about Newton’s law of universal gravitation.)
As the word, apple, is mentioned above, it implies that universal gravitation has its derivation from objects instead of energy. Thus, the word, mass, in his theory refers to objects or substances instead of for energy.
Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
(The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
(The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.
http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/stephen-hawkings-grand-design/
a)What is the impact on mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2) and energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete? Should the law of conservation of mass and energy be abandoned? Should we abandon the law of conservation of mass and energy to accept Big Bang Theory since there are contradictory?
Indeed, all the things in this universe are in the operation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. The following is the possible scenario if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete:
All chemistry and scientific formula could never be equal due to the possible and unexpected creation and/or destruction of mass and/or energy if the law of conservation of mass and energy is obsolete. Let’s give you an illustration. As we know H2 + O = H2O (water). What if there would be a destruction of oxygen, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2. What if there would be a creation of nitrogen in the interval, the equation would turn up to be H2 + O = H2 + O + N. The absence of the law of conservation of mass and energy would turn up to be that H2 + O could never be equal to H2O. As the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, H2 + O would turn up to be equal to H2O. Let’s give you another illustration. E = MC^2 (mass –energy equivalence). If the law of conservation of mass and energy does not work on mass-energy equivalence, the equation could never be equal. What if there would be a destruction of energy, the equation would turn up to be E – E1 = MC^2. What if there was a creation of mass by 10000 times during the process, the equation would turn up to be E = 10000*MC^2. What if there was a destruction of mass by N, the equation would turn up to be E = (M-N)C^2. What if there was a destruction of energy by 80%, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2*20%. As mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the equation would turn up to be E = MC^2. If the law of conservation of energy and mass is not at work, the General Relativity’s formula could never be established as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv. What if the energy would be destroyed by 80%, the equation would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = [(8 Pi G/c4) Tuv.]*20%. Besides, as we know G = gravitational constant and gravitational constant has been established as {F = G (m1 m2)/(r) ^2, where F is the force between the masses, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first mass, m2 is the second mass, and r is the distance between the centre of the masses}. If substance could be destroyed completely in the interval, the equation would turn up to be F = G(m10)/(r)^2. What if there would be a sudden creation of m3 in the interval, F =G(m1m2m3)/[(r1)^2*(r2)^2*(r3)^2]. Note: r1 is the distance between m1 and m2; r2 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m1 and m3; and r3 is the distance as a result of the sudden creation of m3 between m2 and m3. All these would alter the result of gravitational constant and have direct influence upon the equation of General Relativity. What if there would be a creation or destruction of energy, T, the General Relativity would turn up to be as Ruv – (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv + or – T. Or in other words, the mathematical formula for mass-energy equivalence could never balance if the law of conservation of mass and energy has become obsolete. It is upon the law of conversation of energy and mass that the formula has turned up to be equal due to there would not be any creation or destruction of mass or energy.
Mass-energy equivalence expresses that E = MC^2 and that implies that matter could be converted to energy. However, this equation does not imply that energy may be converted to matters. There is no evidence from scientists that energy can be converted to matter currently. As energy could not be converted to matter, how could Big Bang Theory support that the creation could start up with energy from a very hot condensed state in a very tiny point whereby the energy could be converted to mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this modern universe as if that mass could be created in which the law of conservation of mass states that it cannot?
b)How could the density of the hot condense state in a very tiny point as suggested by Big Bang Theory be greater than the density of rock of any planets? If the density of the hot condense state could not be greater than the density of rock of any planets, how could the mass in this very tiny point be equal to the total mass of all the planets and etc. in this modern world? This is by virtue of the total mass that would be in the hot condense state must be equal to the total mass of all the planets, stars and etc. that are among all galaxies since the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created.
c)Some might comment that the particles in the space might not carry much mass. As we know there is electromagnetic wave in the space and each wave carries much particles. As much space in vacuum state implies more particles for much electromagnetic wave, much space implies much mass and carries more weight.
d)If you might know the experiment that has been carried out through Large Hadron Collider at CERN, you should have known that it serves no purpose to convince the world that universe in the very hot dense could produce a mass of a huge planet. This is by virtue of we have heard of the production of matter and antimatter through it and yet none of the experiments have come to our mind that it could produce a big planet through this machine and not even a small little sand. For instance, if LHC could be so efficient to create an environment that would meet the condition that is required by Big Bang Theory, the experiment should show a creation of a planet or a small little rock instead of a tiny particle. Some might consider the existence of 6 dimensions to be at work. Why is it that the possible existence of 6 dimensions could not cause LHC to generate a piece of rock instead of tiny small particles currently when this system has generated the environment that seems to meet the condition that Big Bang Theory should be? If LHC could not create a piece of rock but small particles, how could we be sure that the very tiny point that has been assumed by scientists in Big Bang Theory in the beginning could create the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of planets and etc. in this current universe?
e)Would there be possible that LHC could create new particles?
The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/What+is+the+LHC/11833.aspx:
(The LHC accelerates two beams of atomic particles in opposite directions around the 27km collider. When the particle beams reach their maximum speed the LHC allows them to ‘collide’ at 4 points on their circular journey.
Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide and detectors, placed around the collision points, allow scientists to identify these new particles by tracking their behaviour. )
As the phrase, Thousands of new particles are produced when particles collide, is mentioned above, it implies the new particles could be generated from LHC. However, question has to be raised about the two initial beams of atomic particles in opposite directions before the collision. Where should they be after the collision? It seems to be that the initial two beams should have vanished. The two initial beams should have been transformed into these thousands of new particles after colliding instead of being treated as new particles are created out from nothing. This is the same logic as why a new product, water, should be formed when hydrogen is burned in the air.
Exactly Wes, lets just say the universe willed itself into being from nothingness, so we can kid ourselves that we don’t have anything to explain. Its just like the physicalists who deny the existence of consciousness and the hard problem because its easier than trying to understand or explain it.
Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.
In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.
The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:
a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.
b)The creation of sun:
According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:
Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.
As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.
c)The creation of stars:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.
As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.
The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.
How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?
“How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?”
Process Theology?
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/07/07/emergence-panenthesim-science-process-theology-with-joseph-bracken-s-j/
Some Old Age Creationists interpret the word, day, to be a thousand years or more due to the following reasons:
The word, day, in Hebrew is Yom and is defined by Strong Concordance to be:
1)day, time, year a)day (as opposed to night); b)day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day’s journey c)days, lifetime (pl.) d)time, period (general) e)year f)temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow
The word, Yom, in Hebrew could be translated as time in Genesis 4:3, Deuteronomy 10:10, 1 Kings 11:42 and Isaiah 30:8. The word, Yom, could be translated as year in 1 Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 and Amos 4:4. Besides, the word, Yom, could be translated as age in Genesis 18:11, 21:2, 21:7, 24:1, 47:28; Joshua 23:1, 23:2; and Zechariah 8:4. The word, Yom, could be translated as ago in 1 Samuel 9:20. The word, Yom, could also be translated as always in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23; and 2 Chronicles 18:7. The word, Yom, could be translated as season in Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7 and 2 Chronicles 15:3. The word, Yom, when used with the word, dâbâr, can be translated as “chronicles”. The word, Yom, when used in conjunction with kôwl, could be translated as continually. The word, Yom, could be translated as ever in Deuteronomy 19:9 and Psalm 23:6. When the word, Yom, is used in Deuteronomy 28:29 in conjunction with kôwl, it can be translated as evermore.
Some Old Age Creationists even mention that the words, evening, and, morning, do not refer to sunset and sunrise respectively since they mentioned that the sun was created on day four.
Discuss.
Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
The phrase, the light, in Genesis 1:5 implies the brightness of the day and the phrase, the darkness, in this same verse implies total darkness. If sunlight were not created in Genesis 1:5, why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If evening and morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should not refer to the darkness on earth and the light that shone on it, why should the phrase, the light Day, correspond to the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 and the phrase, the phrase, the darkness, in the same verse corresponds to the word, evening? The reason is simply that there should not be light and day if God did not create sunlight to govern the earth in Genesis 1:5.
Could the word, a day, be viewed from God’s way as a thousand years or etc.? No, it should not be since there is no day and night to govern God and that is why He treats a thousand years to be a day. To God, there is no evening and morning or even day or night to govern His activity. As the phrase, the evening, and, the phrase, the morning, are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, He spoke from human perspective point of view since there are nights, evenings, sunrises and sunsets to govern entire human race in this world.
Could the word, a day, be treated as a thousand years instead of restricting it to be a day? No, it should not be so since the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 is in singular tense. Unless the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 are in plural tense, we could treat them to be more than a day. This is by virtue of there are many evenings and many mornings in a thousand years.
If the sunlight were created only on day four, why should the phrase, the light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? This is by virtue of the entire heaven and earth in this world would be in total darkness if the sun were not created in Genesis 1:5. Why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5 when the entire world was filled with darkness as a result of the sun was not created in this world?
Should we assume that God should have created sunlight on the fourth day? No, it should not be so since Genesis 1:3, “(mentions that) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” If God should have created sunlight on day four, why should God mention the phrase, Let there be light, in Genesis 1:3? As we know all the light in this world is the reflection of the light from sunlight. Could we locate any substance that could give light by itself without depending upon sunlight in this world? If the light as mentioned in Genesis 1:3 should not refer to sunlight, what kind of light should it refer to that could stand alone to give light by itself without relying upon sunlight if the sun should have been created on day four then? Undoubtedly the light as indicated in Genesis 1:3 should be none other than sunlight.
Could we use Genesis 1:1 to support that God’s creation could be from a billion years and mention that the Bible is not inspired by God since it contradicts against Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that mention that His creation should be within six days? No, it should not be so since the phrase, the beginning, in Genesis 1:1 could be interpreted as the beginning of the first day. If that could be so, the creation of the heaven and the earth should fall within a day and there is no contradiction with the Bible. The following are the extracts:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Exodus 20:11, “For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Exodus 31:17, “It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
Nevertheless, the word, day, in Genesis 1 should refer to none other than a day instead of more.
God created the light in Genesis 1:4. The following is the extract:
Genesis 1:4, “And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” (King James Version)
God’s accomplishment in His creation of light is spelt out in Genesis 1:16 as below:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”
The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 does not give any sense of the travelling of light in reaching the surface of earth. Instead, it implies God’s completion in His creation of light in Genesis 1:16 especially the word, made, is in past tense.
It is rational for Genesis 1:16 to mention with the phrase, God made, to be in past tense to refer to the light that He had created in Genesis 1:3.
The additional light that was created in Genesis 1:16 was starlight since stars were created in Genesis 1:16 so as to reflect the light from sun as spelt out below:
Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.” (King James Version)
Nevertheless, two great lights were created and one is from sunlight and another is from starlight. Thus, it is rational for the scripture to mention that God made two great lights in Genesis 1:16 so as to refer to the stronger light that He had created in Genesis 1:3 and lesser light in Genesis 1:16. Remember! The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 is in past tense. It certainly refers to the work that God had done in the past.
As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.
If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.
That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.
Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
■for the last 475 million years, land plants;
From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don’t tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.
Genesis 1:30, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.
Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?
When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:
Genesis 1:11-12, “God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.” (New English Translation)
The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.
In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.
The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:
for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
for the last 475 million years, land plants;
for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
for the last 200 million years, mammals;
for the last 150 million years, birds;
for the last 130 million years, flowers;
In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.
Genesis 1:29-30, “Then God said, “…to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.” (New English Translation)
As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.
The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds had to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.
a) As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?
b)Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mention that all fall into sin by one man?
c)If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them? Should Jesus Christ die for all creatures especially a single cell since all of them would have the same forefather, i.e. single cell?
Did God take more than a day to create the heavens?
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
By the word of the Lord were the heavens were (Psalms 33:6) he spake, and it was done (Psalm 33:9). Meditate the phrase, he spake and it was done. Super fast!
God finished all His creations and these should include the formation of stars (Genesis 1:16); the formation of land (Genesis 1:9) and the creation of all living creatures at the end of six days.
The heaven (excluding stars since its creation is only metnioned in Genesis 1:16) was created in the beginning of the first day in Genesis 1:1. Whereas, the earth was created to be filled with water (Genesis 1:2), without land (Genesis 1:9), without plants (Genesis 1:11-12), and without any living creatures in the beginning of the first day (Genesis 1:1) and that was why Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was created initially without form and void.
The verses that support that He created the heaven at the time He finished His speech::
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Certainly the above verses should refer to Genesis 1:1. The heaven was created without stars since their formation was only in Genesis 1:16.
Thus, God did not include the creation of stars when He mentioned the heaven was created in Psalms 33:6 and 33:9.
As the timeline table has been found contradictorily as mentioned above, the reliability of the various means of dating methods, i.e. carbon-14 dating method and etc., has to be placed into question. This is by virtue of the timeline arrangement does follow the dates of fossils in which they were examined and computed by means of various dating methods. If the various dating methods were accurate, the whole timeline table would not turn up to be contradictory against nature and also the scripture. How could Christians treat the datum that have been computed through various dating methods to be the truth of God and to use their findings to conclude to uphold that they are correct and the interpretation of scripture must be wrong?
Zuma–
This is a philosophy blog.
Your Christian pronouncements simply continue to give Christians a bad name.
Showing no respect is not Christian, and you lost your audience a long time ago.
Please cease and desist–Wayne.
Wayne Schroeder –
If you feel that the logic is wrong, try to defend yourselves so as to prove you are right. This should be the way that a man should behave!
32.Wayne Schroeder –
Great philosophy but unfinishing words:
Stephen Hawking makes perhaps one of the dumbest forays by a scientist into philosophy that I have ever seen:
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something (God) 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. (Let me add a few words for the unfinishing words from Stephen Hawking so as to beautify his sentence.) Apparently God did not light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, but rather He created it going. If God set the universe going, He did not do anything but just to let it goes by itself.
Prove to me that Stephen Hawking does not mean as above.
The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:
Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.
The following are the extracts:
Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?
Was Eve formed from Adam?
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?
Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
zuma–
Once again, this is a philosophical blog, not Christian. Please be respectful of the purpose and intent of individuals on this site, and stop giving Christians a bad name by preaching instead of speaking the language of those you would like to speak to. Like Paul, you can do your homework and speak of the tomb of the unknown God. Most on this site are actually against Stephen Hawking for putting science above philosophy, etc. Thanking you in advance for your respect, Wayne.
As mentioned in the statement above from Stephen Hawking that the recent advance in cosmology suggests the laws of gravity and quantum theory to allow universe to appear spontaneously from nothing. This extracted statement has been found contradictorily in the sense why Stephen Hawking should mention that this universe would appear from nothing when the laws of gravity, that he uses to support his theory, need masses in order to generate something. Whereas, quantum theory needs time and space in order to generate something instead of out of nothing. Or in other words, both of these theories need something, such as, masses or time and space in order to generate something. Thus, his statement is simply contradictorily without logic.
Newton’s first law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. It may be seen as a statement about inertia, that objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion.
Let’s relate this Newton’s first law with Eistein’s Theory of Relativity. As supported by Newton’s first law above, time and space would remain at it was before from generation to generation unless external force causes them to change and to warp in order to generate something. Or in other words, if there would have no external force to influence, time and space should remain as it was before and there should have no changes from time to time until external force to influence. Thus, the assumption that Stephen Hawking has that God is not necessary for the creation of this universe should not be true since external force has to be needed in order for the universe to be created.