Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow, a Caltech physicist, claim there was no need for a creator, as the law of gravity assures that the "universe can, and will, create itself from nothing."
The authors rely on the concept of a "multiverse" â that there are many universes in existence, and the universe in which Earth resides is a statistical accident that survived while others did not.
"Just as Darwin and Alfred Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit," the authors contend....
The multiverse theory is a tacit admission that our universe is uncannily fit for us. Atheists referring to an unseen entity to explain design. The irony is rich!
Kent Hovind is good, but he hasn't come up with any new material for a while. He hasn't come up with any for the last few years particularly, because he's presently incarcerated. His son tries to fill his shoes, but all he does is take his dad's material (and his jokes) and deliver them poorly.
As far as I understand, Stephen Hawking is respected for his work on black holes which he completed decades ago, but that he is not well regarded for anything he has done since. His popular image far outruns his credibility among physicists in 2011.
Chris Perver wrote: It's just more verbal diarrhea. It's interesting that when creationists talk about God, they are lambasted for not being true scientists, but athiesm seems to give its adherents a 'divine right' to talk about spiritual things of which they know nothing.
I like that "verbal diarrhea" thing. A descriptive that gives them a run for their money.
It's interesting that when creationists talk about God, they are lambasted for not being true scientists, but athiesm seems to give its adherents a 'divine right' to talk about spiritual things of which they know nothing.
Joe the Protestant wrote: Gravity (which is an effect of matter) created matter? Interesting! The effect causing the cause.
It kind of fits their narrative, doesn't it? After all, these two people, and many more like them, truely believe that man created god (or at least--in their eyes--the "concept" thereof), while the rest of us believe God created man.
Nice that reality favors our--er--God's narritive over theirs, no?
Lurker wrote: --- Edit: Good morning, Mike. Just noticed your post. Isn't it interesting how a couple simpletons like thee and me noticed the same thing at the same time!! And without a degree from MIT!
Good Morning back, Lurker. It does make you shake your head in wonder at how far some will go to defend the indefensible.