scientists who become atheists (or atheists who show scientific proofs) are some of the most stupid people on earth. laws of matter / physics, start with the basic laws written down by Newton: First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. (or let's say : Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed) ; (source - Wikipedia). SO......... 1. if a body cannot start moving or stop moving ON ITS OWN, without an external force, how did the entire cosmos start moving, without some force having acted upon something to cause the BIG BANG? 2. if a body cannot start moving or stop moving ON ITS OWN, without an external force, HOW DID IT GET CREATED? On its own?????
And we have this scientific paper: http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=382 A bit more: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html
God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope Thu Jan 6, 10:05 am ET VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said on Thursday. Read more here http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/lf_nm_life/us_pope_bigbang [ I think a better word would have been God's "Plan" or" will", instead of "mind".]
Ah! "Spontaneous Creation" - such a convenient term to sweep all objections under the carpet! "Scientists" have long struggled to get around their own formulated, immutable "Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy". How could something come out of nothing without violating the above law? Viola, out they pulled the "Spontaneous Creation" rabbit out of their hat and solved the most vexing problem! Hawking is simply resorting to gimmick and grand statements to sell his book. He hasn't sold much after the "Brief History of Time"; what better way to have one last swan song. Similar in theme is man's quest to demonstrate that something can be created out of nothing. Until the time human beings have created a Perpetual Motion Machine, they have no right to doubt the necessity of Creator. Well so far they haven't! --------- Another silly and blabbering apologia for hawking.
people like this always dodge the question, "where did matter originate from?/how did matter originate?" idiots find it fashionable to quote this retard because of the dajjalic times we live in, but when asked one hard-hitting question, they say, literally, "why do you have to go that far into so much depth?" so we're supposed to listen to hawkings' ramblings only because it's chick and not cross-question the status quo. apparently he has come up with an "answer" to this question in the form of the most random comment like "because there is such a law as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". that's just shear arrogance and effectively reads "you're supposed to follow me without any questions and it doesn't matter what idiotic rubbish i blab. i said there's no god and that's final. no one asks me for any proofs or correlations between my propositions." to be honest, a 10 year old can give a better, more logical proof for Allah's existence than this random nonsense of his that the media is advancing.
Do they explain who created these "bits of matter"? What is the definition of Universe in this statement, as per Stephen Hawkins?
Casimir Force, which arises directly from the bits of matter spontaneously popping in and out of existence - aka "vacuum fluctuations". Their argument A Universe from Nothing
and a somewhat ignorant editorial of the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/03/stephen-hawking-in-praise-of-god --- what a silly analogy of household equipment coming 'itself' to life. somebody programmed it to do that, silly.
so stephen hawking thinks that God did not create the universe. the guardian (among many, if not all, news-sites) reports: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator and someone compounding those fallacies even more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap also another article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19391-hawking-hasnt-changed-his-mind-about-god.html ---- i haven't read the book yet (apparently 7th sep is the launch date), but the article says: okay, but where did the 'laws of gravity' come from? who ordained them? so there was nothing (except law of gravity - among other laws) and the spontaneous creation obeyed that law? but what suggests that the law of gravity is eternal? another assumption made is that these 'laws of physics' are immutable. just who has the data to verify that it is true is not known. why can't the 'laws of physics' have evolved? perhaps the universe behaved differently a million years ago, than now? and what about the law of conservation of mass/energy? everything came from nothing by itself? [kalam students, take note: the claim of ancient philosophers that the universe is eternal and the subsequent radd of ulama.] ---- the same mistake dawkins makes - they are refuting the weak argument of the christians; and dare i suggest, latent racism. apparently, these people think that if they refute christianity (and/or its proponents) they have refuted all religions. if not, why the sweeping statements? for example, we muslims did not say that this earth (or solar system) is the only 'perfect' combination; nor did we say that the age of the earth is only 6000 years; nor did we claim 'pleasing humans'. though, we believe that humans were given an honor, not given to other species. alHamdu lillahi rabbi'l 'aalamin - the Lord of Worlds. and we have always believed that Allah ta'ala transcends time and space: Eternally He was and there was time, nor space; and He is now as He always was.* ---- also, believing in alien-life and other 'universes' is okay even if there is no proof or indication: 'must be out there somewhere; we do not know.' but, god-damn sure that God does not exist. al-'iyadhu billah. the other fallacy is that, just because hawkings is a physics/math professor, what makes him an expert on the origin of the universe? why is proof by induction accepted when mathematicians propose it and is rejected when a theologian makes it? ----- one interpretation of a hadith of portents 'and people will believe in stars' could be this. wAllahu ta'ala a'alam wa 'ilmuhu atam.
