Is this theory proof that God created the universe from nothing?

[ibiskos]

Hello.

I've looked around and seen threads about Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose's theory that gives proof that the universe was created from nothing. If that's so, then wouldn't that also prove that the Bible was right? That God created everything, just as Genesis says?

Thanks.

Ibiskos.

[Churchwork]

Yes.

The best proof I have ever seen for God existing and creating the universe from Himself (not out of nothing) is the following. If there was the alleged infinite regress of cause and effects of nature then by that definition we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And we would never exist because a past eternity would go on forever, thus, never reaching this point now. These two aspects of eternity are independently false and contradict each other. That which contradicts itself is false! Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom we call God. Thus, the idea of a past eternity is a man made concept. The next question is Who has the correct claim on God? We can talk about the Christian God vs. other faiths after we realize the uncreated Creator exists.

[ibiskos]

Oh, thank you for confirming that Hawking and Penrose scientifically proved the origin of the universe from nothing, Churchwork.

Do you know where I can find their theory, so that I can see it for myself?

Thank you.

Ibiskos.

[Churchwork]

I don't have their information.

The Bible doesn't say the universe was created from nothing, but rather that it was created from God Himself. Something can't come from nothing.

[ibiskos]

Ok, thanks for that correction, Churchwork.

So, if the Hawking - Penrose theory is scientifically proven, then that must mean that science agrees with and confirms the Bible, right?

I've found their theory, btw. Can I post a link to it when my post count reaches 5?


Thanks.

Ibiskos.

[Churchwork]

Of course. Hawking considered himself an atheist so he didn't believe in God as creator of time and space. He said, "if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

https://time.com/5199149/stephen-hawking-death-god-atheist/

How can Penrose-Hawking provide a proof through science God exists and yet not be a theist?

As far as I can tell they claim the universe started spontaneously from nothing, which of course is false, since something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always comes from nothing. We exist, therefore, we are something.

[ibiskos]

Hello again Churchwork.

I'm sorry, but I can't really say why Hawking remained an atheist, even after he co-wrote a theory that agrees with the Bible.

Thank you.

Ibiskos.

[ibiskos]

Oh and thank you for confirming that I will be able to post a link to the Hawking - Penrose theory when my post count reaches 5.

[ibiskos]

Here it is, Churchwork.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021)

Thank you.

Ibiskos.

[Churchwork]

Hello again Churchwork.

I'm sorry, but I can't really say why Hawking remained an atheist, even after he co-wrote a theory that agrees with the Bible.

Thank you.

Ibiskos.
Since he is quoted as saying he is an atheist, the burden is on you to show otherwise if you want to claim otherwise.

I don't think he wrote anything that agrees with the Bible since he taught something from nothing, whereas the Bible teaches nature comes from something. No spontaneous generation.

Let's quote what you said, "Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose's theory that gives proof that the universe was created from nothing."

I don't see how their theory proves something from nothing, so I will leave that up to you display if you want, leaving the burden on you.

Remember, the Bible teaches and PROVES the universe was created by the uncreated Creator. Period! Not something from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything; non-existence can't produce existence.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20 KJV).

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God" (1.20 NLT).

The proof is embedded in verse 20, you just have to think it through. How by observing nature do we know God exists? What is it about nature that proves God exists and something in nature can't come from nothing?

There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that since nature always has a cause (we observe this over and over trillions of times and no hard evidence to the contrary) nature needs a cause outside itself outside of time and space being uncreated, because an infinite regress of nature is impossible and something in nature can't come from nothing. The reason an infinite regress of nature is impossible is because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So anyone who wants to claim an eternal regress of cause and effects of nature and past eternity of time contradicts what we know scientifically.

In our interaction, I said "The Bible doesn't say the universe was created from nothing, but rather that it was created from God Himself." You responded, "Ok, thanks for that correction, Churchwork." So instead of observing that correction, you made the same mistake again by saying "he co-wrote a theory that agrees with the Bible." What you are essentially saying is you think Hawking-Penrose agree with the Bible yet you fail to observe the "correction" that the Bible does not say something comes from nothing.

I realize you may be confused by what I am saying, but it is perfectly clear to me.

[ibiskos]

Yes Churchwork, I did say that "Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose's theory that gives proof that the universe was created from nothing."

However, if you refer back to post 5 I thanked you for your correction. If it wasn't clear what I was thanking you for, then I apologize and I will now make it clear. I thanked you for pointing out that the Bible doesn't say that the universe was created from nothing. Those were wise words and I now see the truth of them. I now agree with you. The universe was not created from nothing.

The point I was trying to make about the Hawking - Penrose theory was that it agrees with Bible in the very same as you outlined in post 2 - that the universe cannot be eternal. That there had to be a definite beginning, just as described in the book of Genesis. This is where the theory and the Bible agree. The theory proves that the universe cannot be eternal, exactly as you pointed out and exactly as the Bible says.

So, it looks like Hawking and Penrose got it right, when they said that the universe isn't eternal, but they got it wrong when they said it was created out of nothing. Please note that what they think and what I think are two different things. I've agreed with you about the universe not being eternal and I've agreed with you that it wasn't created out of nothing.

Thank you.

Ibiskos.

[Churchwork]

Well said. I agree. :peaceful:

What are we going to do about Hawking and Penrose that they refuse to accept the uncreated Creator and prefer instead to believe the universe came from nothing? It seems like such an obvious mistake that they can't accept, and frankly seems absurd their claim something from nothing. How can such smart people be so blatantly obviously wrong? But then if you really think about it, how else are they going to reject God without invoking some weird idea, since the very premise of rejecting God is itself absurd?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14.1)

Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. (Heb. 11.6)

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3.19-20)

[Churchwork]

Premiered Oct. 4, 2019

This is so much better than formal debate structures because they can interact personally and ask each other questions and give immediate answers.

Primrose still considers himself an atheist as pointed out by the host. But further along in the discussion at 37:30 he concedes God might exist, but he is not sure yet. At 1:13:45 he said he is Agnostic. Agnosticism is really just pretentious false humility in light of all the evidence cited.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y

Interestingly enough Bart Ehrman says he is no longer an Atheist, now leaning towards Agnosticism.

Primrose made some interesting statements: he does not agree with Hawking and that Primrose believes the big bang was not the beginning and that the big bang came from something (not nothing as you previously alluded he believed).

Primrose said the reason he can't accept a Divine Mind is because it is not very specific like his math formulas. But what I was thinking when he said that was at some point along the way you are going to have to accept the mystery extends behind our intellect, because the Creator is infinitely greater than us. You can keep searching back but you won't be able to search beyond a certain point because that is information privy only to the Divine Mind. And no matter how vague you think the connection is to our understanding as unsatisfying, only the Divine Mind can satisfy and support the 3 mysteries of the physical, abstract and and mental.

Essentially the mistake Primrose is making is through his own righteousness, self-exaltation, and arrogance is that he is demanding ultimately to know if God exists he himself must be God all-knowing which is necessarily impossible. That is the requirement he is putting on. His own constant searching beyond blows up, because it's error is found when he asked the question where does God come from? You can't look beyond the uncreated since it doesn't exist. That's self-contradictory.

[Churchwork]

This is all very fascinating to me because Primrose keeps bringing up one objection after another. That's what Hell is the place of eternal rejection of God in endless rebellion and contention to His will and design. For example, after solving the 3 mysteries, Primrose questions the ethical consideration of God. But these are as well originating from God Himself with objective truths that are unchanging.

[Churchwork]

By the way William Lane Craig is not a Christian. He is what is called an Arminian which teaches a person can lose salvation once saved. But the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. So Craig worships a false Christ and sadly is going to Hell. The reason for his stance can be found in his own pride in all the great work he does as an apologist. What he doesn't realize is that those who truly give their lives to Christ is to give your life to the God who will keep and never let go. That's the God Craig refuses to subject himself to.

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand" (John 10.28).

[Churchwork]

Primrose asks why he should be driven to accept God, but that's where religion comes in, and not any religion, but the one true Religion that starts off by pointing out we are sinners which needs a solution which only the Creator can fulfill.

Primrose's contention that this God postulated is too much like us degrades Him. Yet, the Bible says we are made in the image of God so aspects of conscience, free will, intellect, communion, intuition seem to be fair aspects of God's being. And since He exists outside of time and space, who created time and space, God is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and all knowing.

If Primrose complains about these aspects of our being similar to God, nonetheless they are the highest orders of our being so should not God have similar qualities? There are no other higher orders to mention.

[Churchwork]

Primrose talks about eons referring to endless universes and that our universe was created by a previous eon, etc. The reason though this is not possible is because if there was this alleged infinite regress of nature, by that definition you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Again, Primrose is postulating ideas to get rid of God. The end result is God gets rid of Primrose by placing him in Hell, to be eternally separated from God and His people, where we are told he is forgotten.

[Churchwork]

Primrose's mantra is to keep repeating "we know so little" to know if God exists. What stands out glaringly when you make this comment, is you could maintain the stance for eternity always saying you don't know enough to know if God exists and whether fine tuning is really fine tuning. To me this is the ultimate excuse for rejecting God's existence, but as lame as lame can be. And notice, therefore, all centers on Primrose in taking this position. This is arrogance, self-exaltation. God has no use for such people.

[Churchwork]

Hawking said "there would be nothing on the other side to greet him." He is as atheistic as atheist could be, since if God exists there would be something on the other side to greet him, except that that greeting is the doorway to Hell. Because God is a moral being this must be true, because a person deserves the right to have the right to eternally separate himself from God for we are maximally great beings.

[Churchwork]

Hawking says free will is just an illusion. Hawking believes in scientific determinism. He also said, there is no objective reality. So that means you can do anything and it would be just as valid as anything else. Is Hawking going to Hell? Of course, without a doubt.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tVO0-zYAvE