Stephen Hawking: Physics Leaves No Room For God [and no one will answer the door when someone else knocks]

Tom Usher commented or added the following:


On her Facebook Wall, Laura Abraham repeated a common quote of believers:

"Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."

I left a comment, and thought I'd share the whole thing:

"Is Stephen Hawking a dinosaur there? It seems so.

"The thing I never hear from defenders of God is that God has directly impacted upon them in ways that don't fit with atheism. That's the case with me. I've had the personal experiences. Imagine someone saying to Peter, John, and James that the Transfiguration couldn't happen by supernatural means.

"In absolutely no place do scientists not need God. Without God, they wouldn't exist."

Here's the whole bit from Channel 4 News:

Channel 4 News 02 September 2010 From The Times: Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain's most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe. In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no". Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist," he writes. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going," he finds. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/509756-updated-transcript-from-the-god-debate

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • richik kashyap

      "Because there is a law such as gravity"...where does this law comes from?????
      "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing".....Why spontaneous reaction occur? why nothing always have the property of automatic spontaneous reactions?
      is there any region of nothing where this spontaneous reaction does not happen????
      How NOTHING has the intelligence to create the intelligent brains of Einstein, and Stephen hawking(i doubt)??????
      i think Stephen hawking should retire from his work.......he is misguiding many physics scholars and students....but not like me .

    • Cyriac Lukose

      "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,"

      this statement itself creates confusion. "Nothing" has no being, no existence, no form, no mass, no shape, no motion, no dimension, no place in time, no chemical and physical reactions and in fine NOT EVEN A SPONTANEOUS REACTION.yet, in his mind "nothing" has the power of self creation.
      Stephen' is a scientist and not an spiritual expert.
      I think his mind has become now completely outdated and he is now in utter frustration. Sorry but i have to say that.

      • You two are putting forth the same argument Nikola Tesla used against Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However, Tesla was using the term "space" as synonymous with "nothingness." Therefore, your argument is more understandable than Tesla's.

        God can create where nothing existed before. Beyond that, no human being knows. Hawking though is speaking in an all-inclusive sense in which Aristotelean logic will not hold up. Correct me if I'm uninformed about his full position, but Hawking has been represented as meaning "absolutely nothing," including God, and not just space-time. His mind cannot grasp that conviction if he does in fact attempt to hold it.

        Gravity itself is dependent upon mass for gravitation to be detected. Where is there gravity to measure for Hawking where there is not mass? Where is mass "nothing" in Hawking's universe? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a perfectly reasonable question.

        Regardless, why he feels the need to be so arrogant vis-a-vis God escapes me. One wonders whether he hates God because he, Hawking, is wheelchair bound.

        The only reason I wonder whether or not he's been misinterpreted is because he knows that the Big Bang starts with density and not "nothing."

    • richik kashyap

      Alright i need to say something about the embarrassing physics equation which is really creating havoc amongst the today's Astrophysicists . Also i will try to throw some light about 'what is right' and what is wrong' with Stephen.
      I am just a post graduate student of physics and i stand nowhere before Stephen and so apologize for making any comment against Stephen, but i have to do that as his statements really hurt my divine sentiments. I will not use any symbolic interpretation of constants /parameters but simple literature so that everyone seeing this article can understand. HERE AS FOLLOWS:

      Curvature(Gravity) = Energy/Momentum + Cosmological constant.
      But, Curvature = Energy of Nothing
      therefore, Energy/Momentum + Cosmological constant = Energy of Nothing.
      the above equation is still not completely understood because of the term 'Cosmological constant' i.e the Dark energy and also how dark energy contributes to about 70% of Total Energy of Universe. It is the dark energy which is expanding the universe against the gravitational pull of visible matter and Dark energy.
      Stephen is RIGHT in the sense that the Universe needs no Initial Sum Total Density of Matter or Energy to start the process , otherwise the above equation would not have end up in Energy of Nothing.
      But Stephen is WRONG in the sense that the process will start automatically because some type of supernatural unscientific force( i meant to say not any kind of natural physical force if we require not to disturb the equality of the balancing equation) has to be there to start the process. This is really hard to understand but i will try to explain it little bit in my way....please don't expect that i would be able to correctly explain it but i find no other way other than this..... Consider the following Arithmetic:
      if i have 1 initially, then i can write 1=0.5+2-2+0.5+7-7+6-6+......-......and the process continues...here just the simple equation is 1=0.5+0.5
      But what if i have absolutely nothing. Mathematically i mean '0'
      then i will write 0=+1+2+3+4+5+6-1-2-3-4-5+@-@+#-#+$-$+*-*+.......
      i.e 0=(+1-@)-(+2+3)-(+5+#-@)+(+2+3+#-*)+.....-..... thus many INFINITE combinations can be made .....
      See in the first equation of 0...everything is elementary , while in the second, terms in the brackets are different forms of mass, cosmic energy, dark energy,dark matter etc. all sum up-to zero. SO I REQUIRE NO INITIALS IN MY LEFT HAND SIDE TO HAVE THE TERMS IN MY RIGHT HAND SIDE AND THE EQUATION IS FULLY DESCRIBED MATHEMATICALLY. ............BUT to write this equation simply ,somebody un-mathematical un-symbolic human being like me is required to initiate the process.
      thus GOD must be there to initiate the process although i Agree fully that ' if u start with 'nothing' in Quantum Mechanics then u will always have 'something' finally'

      • Curvature = Energy of Nothing

        We had already run into the limitations of our shared language, but now we have hit the semantical wall and epistemology/Theology.

        "Curvature = Energy of Nothing" is completely contextual. It is not a statement I endorse above other ways of viewing and interpreting phenomena.

        Within Stephen Hawking's language, gravity is force dependent upon mass/matter. As you know, Hawking is not appealing to metaphysics.

        Something has been lost in the translation, or he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's simply conjecturing while calling his speculations self-evident (to him) scientific laws.

        I still believe that regardless of his inability to translate his position (which I don't believe is the problem), he is still extremely arrogant and unjustifiably so.

        I will leave this conversation there as to go into it further I would need to study the complete language of the theoretical physicist (something I would gladly do were I to have the time and place it above other more immediate interests) and fact check up and down the entire language while also translating it within the context of the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ. No sooner than I were to arrive at that point, I'd still not be understood -- likely even less so.

        Peace, and thank you for your comments.

      • BTW: Is this you: http://twitter.com/#!/INNova007 ?

    • richik kashyap

      Oops!..i think i have gone in a wrong way to prove Stephen wrong .....i think this is a religious website and my statements have gone terribly scientific and uninterpretable. I m sorry for this but we, the science students even believe God not just because we feel Him everywhere but also we argue it logically and scientifically. And now we believe in God not just by heart but also by mind.
      However as a student of physics i have to point out a very common mistake made by many non scientific readers.......Note: Gravity is not a force but it is a space-time curvature effect arises in presence of Matter.Gravity always exists...if it would be a force then it would have been decayed one day.....google search 'spacetime curvature' to properly understand it. Nice talking with you Tom...thanks.

      • No, I understood your points. I also understand that "force" is a lay term as I used it; but I also often use lay terms when discussing Theology. It should not be taken as a sign of ignorance.

        However, I will say that you cannot rightly say gravity was, is, and always shall be. It's only knowable from God's perspective. Let me know when you get there. Maybe I'll be waiting for you. We'll see (or not). In addition, one would not be wrong in stating that within a given context, gravity does not exist/manifest without matter. I wasn't speaking of emanation, per se.

        This is what I meant by saying that we've ran into semantical difficulty. I wasn't referring to my lack of scientific reading. I read science. I understood space-time curvature and mass. I've been aware of that since the 1960's. It's actually rather common knowledge.

        I took a number of science courses and also worked in engineering some. The bleeding edge of theoretical physics though is not something I've pursued, obviously. It's interesting, but Life/God did not steer me in that direction as a career.

        It wouldn't matter though how many physics courses one has taken or taught, etc. The issues would still be there. It remains a matter of perspective/semantics.

        As for not knowing God with my mind, that's a strange notion. Actually, I know God experientially. I know God with my mind, with reason, with logic (divine logic), and with intellect, etc.

        It is important for me to say to you at this point though that by definition, "science" as you use the term, will never tease God out or disprove God. God will always have the upper hand in such matters. Humanity is not going to theorize and test its way where it will ever usurp God. Humanity may join God on God's terms. That's the way of it.

        Let me add that the limits of the metaphysical are not confined to a theoretical 11 dimensions or what have you.

        Peace, and may your studies go well for you,

        Tom

        P.S. You didn't answer as to whether that's your Twitter account.

      • In your comment you said, "This is really hard to understand." However, it isn't at all for me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a given. "Spontaneity" has its source. The ultimate source is God, who (so far) passeth all understanding, including Stephen Hawking's, yours, and mine.

      • I have not yet read your two (no three) most recent comments, Richik. I simply noticed they are there. I want to address some things first for the sake of others before possibly being sidetracked.

        Up to this point, you have been putting forth the age-old issue of a prime-mover. You mentioned that Hawking is correct that there doesn't need to be a "Sum Total Density of Matter or Energy to start the process." There needs to be God. This, of course, raises the "God of the gaps" debate.

        For those who are unfamiliar, the prime-mover would be that thing and/or being that started everything. There are notions that a prime-mover was never necessary, as there was no beginning, per se, but that the system or universe (or multiple "universes") has/have simply always been. Aristotelean logic will not answer the question. The closed-loop testing of hypotheses won't either.

        The "God of the gaps" is simply some people's way of saying that the then limits of science are always suggested to be bounded by God -- that God is the reason for whatever science can't explain at the moment and that each time science offers up an explanation including with testing results in support thereof, the Theists simply retreat and point to the remaining unknowns and say that God is still there.

        However, this is not the only way of viewing these things. Even when "science" (an assumptive misnomer, as the term means knowledge and can't rightly assume there is no knowledge outside the ability of its method to hold) offers up theories and what it calls laws, that does not negate that God's hand is supportive of all things -- that without God, there would be no "knowing" or so-called scientific testing and whether or not human kind is confused over such matters. When Hawking says God isn't necessary, he not only discounts this concept, he dispenses with its possibility. He ignores it. For Hawking, there is no God, of the gaps or underpinning everything, including Stephen Hawking's very existence.

        There are a number of other questions that are often posed concerning the existence of God and about Jesus. Some people go so far as to emphatically state that Jesus never existed. Of course, the exact same "reasoning" they use in promoting that position can be applied to nearly all historical figures, such as Socrates and even Aristotle, whose logical method I mentioned.

        The reason they do that is because of the implications of Jesus's miracles as concerns the "scientific method" as it is presently limited by anti-metaphysics, which is to say spirit.

        A retort might be that if there is "spirit," it is only a matter of time until humanity, if it survives, will discover or uncover the technology behind it. Well, who would be revealing what? Would spirit be allowing, or would humans be forcing and thus in control over the spirit? When would "spirit" no longer be metaphysical? Many "scientists" would probably take the position that if it exists, it isn't metaphysical. This is an unreconciled paradox for them, considering the notion put forth that gravity exists in absolute nothingness. Where such latent gravity would be is on the other side of the boundary where the "God of the gaps" is right now. Only I don't hold with that type of thinking.

        An interesting argument used against the Fundamentalist/Literalist Christians concerns the rainbow. The anti-Theists point to the old Deist position being put forth by many Fundamentalists, known as Intelligent Design (the clock-maker position of Deism), and remind people about how it used to be that people would point to rainbows to say that God must be doing it while "science" then explained the prism effect, as if that explains away the God who was therefor once in that gap in knowledge and understanding. However, that the rainbow does what it does surrounded by, and dependent upon, everything else, things no less intricately interdependent, and regardless of finding the prism effect, does not negate God where God is not tied to that notion of "gaps." My God is not tied to any such thing. My God is why I exist regardless of how much anyone or group "learns."

        What about aliens? Aliens could have created humanity? Well, Jesus was an alien but he wasn't a shape-shifting grey. He was a human being. His "Father" created everything including Einsteinian time even if there was no beginning because God has always been. That is a paradox that is reconcilable when understood as revealing what I call "divine logic." This is something Hawking doesn't want to grasp.

        I think that's enough for now, although I'll read and possibly reply to the newer comments. I'm trying to avoid the "scientific" language so that those who aren't fluent in it (I'm not professing to be fully fluent in it) may still follow the logic that is not dependent upon that language.

    • richik kashyap

      "I understood space-time curvature and mass. I've been aware of that since the 1960's. It's actually rather common knowledge".........these statements really shocked me because a very few physicists( smart scholars) in the world can understand Einstein's General Relativity at that time due to lack of knowledge of proper mathematical tools. This seems to me that you are one of the few smart highly intelligent Astrophycisists of today and still hiding ur real name from me and the world. I am quite new to science and my age is just 24. To understand physics properly is to digest almost all related mathematical complexities.....even scientist like Edward Witting took a long to unfold the mystery of 5 string theories into just 1 in 1995...which is the M theory combining both quantum and classical.
      "It should not be taken as a sign of ignorance".....no no ...you cannot be ignorant and i have never used this word against you......sorry if my statements hurt you.
      "It's interesting, but Life/God did not steer me in that direction as a career"....sorry i don't find any interesting here....its a very common thing...everybody choose his/her work which satifies his/her soul...even i got a top job in a mnc company after my graduation in Engineering but again return back to science and took physics as my career...

      ""This is really hard to understand." However, it isn't at all for me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a given. "Spontaneity" has its source"...once again sorry if my statements hurt your sentiments and ego. But here i am not pointing my finger towards 'Spontaneity'....What is hard to understand (not for you i know this time) is how 0 spits up into different terms ...the terms which does not exits before....as for my example is concerned , 0 is itself present in a number system and so it is easy for me to split it up to other terms present in the number system ...so my example is not quite correct because when it comes to BigBang, absolutely nothing exits before this time....so if we add all energies of universe we get something that even doesnot exits....and that is really hard to understand. Yes i do agree God is the ultimate source but He must have kept some room for our proper understanding of His Own Universe. We have just stepped in Space Physics (not even 100 years) ...1000 years to go if by God's grace.

      • Well, we are certainly seeing the confirmation of my original statement that we have run into semantical difficulty. The case in point here concerns "understand." You are using the term as inclusive of all the underlying mathematics, which is fine. However, it is not necessary to be able to do all the underlying math that one may "understand" the basic equation and that it has been borne out on the macro level (planetary level as opposed to the atomic and subatomic, etc. -- hence the rise of quantum mechanics).

        As for the idea of hurting my feelings, you didn't.

        everybody choose his/her work which satifies his/her soul

        Many people would not agree with you. Many people are not free to pursue whatever they want. In my own life, many of the things I began which interested me greatly where thwarted by circumstances such that I knew of no way at the time to overcome the obstacles before financial and other difficulties made matters impossible. (Those were mostly before my full conversion to Christianity.)

        As for "Spontaneity," you must understand that you then went on to say that before the "Big Bang," there was nothing. Now, I wasn't using the term "spontaneity" in simple lay terms there. If there was absolutely nothing, as you've proposed, then the Big Bang was spontaneous, at least in Aristotelean terms, in which you've been discussing these matters all along here with the few exceptions of the times you've alluded to God. However, we don't yet know if we believe in the same God. My God is not dependent upon Aristoteleanism.

        As for your application of zeros, it all seems rather obvious. Since you are prone to thinking in terms of hurt feelings, I will say that I don't say that with any intention of hurting feelings. Frankly, I believe when discussing these matters, one should be more interested in getting at truth than in being concerned about one's ego being bruised.

        I do not know the bleeding edge of theoretical physics. It doesn't hurt my feelings in the least that that is known. What concerns me are those things I've been discussing, namely the misunderstanding about God vis-a-vis the "science" that is ultimately solely based upon testing to which God does not have to subject God (at God's sole discretion).

        Belief in and know of God truly is a matter of faith in the end no matter how much "scientific knowledge" one has or hasn't. It's going to remain that way too until God reveals God in an way indisputable by even Stephen Hawking. Stephen's soul will regret his arrogance. Beyond that, I'm not in a position to say. I have my desires though.

    • richik kashyap

      "It wouldn't matter though how many physics courses one has taken or taught, etc."......yes i agree because proper understanding depends not on the number of subjects taken/taught but on proper digesting the concepts.
      "The issues would still be there".....i completely disagree...As i have already said God must have kept some room for our understanding His Universe. God has created His Universe, He has also created Scientific laws without which everything will be random and chaos and unrational.And finally He has created our powerful mind to understand His Universe. So the issues will not remain there always because He has given us A Mind(the most powerful creation of God) and He himself want us to understand His Universe. Our physics is still now at an infant stage and it will not help if u just purchase physics texts from market or study physics by highest number of electives.Einstein himself was a great example. No physics text books of his time pointed out Spacetime as something related to relativity but it was his own powerful imagination (by God grace) which created a new dimension to modern physics. So powerful imagination of our powerful mind(which God Has Gifted to us) will solve our issues one day because God Himself want us to understand Him and His Universe both heartly and logically. Physics text books stand nowhere before His Powerful Creation 'the Mind of us'. Thanks once again Sir Tom.

      • "The issues would still be there".....i completely disagree...As i have already said God must have kept some room for our understanding His Universe.

        To clarify, I was speaking/writing contextually in terms of Stephen Hawking's current position and not for all "time." However, I can see how you took it otherwise. Such is the nature of conversation and fleshing out concepts, etc. It requires great patience and perseverance, doesn't it?

        I was also making the point that taking courses does not, in and of itself, remove the debate about God's existence for everyone. God could reveal God in a way that only one last soul remains unbelieving.

    • richik kashyap

      "that by definition, "science" as you use the term, will never tease God out or disprove God. "..........strange comment!
      I have never questioned on God's Superiority and Existence. Infact on the contrary (even being a science student) i was hurted by the comments of Stephen, which i have mentioned already before.
      Why Science will be going to tease God or Disapprove Him???????????????...it is the ignorance of those people who does not understand the genuine meaning of the term 'Science' and uses it as a tool or even as a weapon to question the existence of God....those are just Smart Idiots....Why we always keep God on one side and Science on the other?????????????
      Science is just a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION of His Universe.Where Science stops , God's spirituality starts. We leave this world and we enter fully into God's Spirituality leaving behind all desires and intellects.......HOW CAN A PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSE(i.e science) BE SUPERIOR OR COMPARABLE TO ITS CREATOR..??????????
      No one...no physics,no chemistry, no mathematics, no common human, no scientist , and not even a scientifically advanced Alien world can be superior to its Creator 'GOD"

      • "that by definition, "science" as you use the term, will never tease God out or disprove God. "..........strange comment!

        Slow down please.

        "as you use the term" does not mean "as you hold." I was referring to science, not to you.

        Where Science stops , God's spirituality starts.

        That's the "God of the gaps" position.

        As for the rest of what you wrote. I largely agree. There are things I would qualify but won't go into those just now. I must attend to other matters.

    • richik kashyap

      Yes Sir Tom, i WILL slow down completely this time. But before leaving i want to say these words...... i am not a Christian , yet i believe in Jesus. This happen just because i believe in One God, even my religion is Hindu. Science has given me the power to rationalize things practically and now i have stepped above one's own religion to believe that all ..... Jesus for Christianity, Allah for Muslims , Shiva for Hindus etc are just different names of One God. I HAVE NOT SAID THAT SCIENCE IS ONLY THE WAY TO KNOW GOD....BUT ONE WHO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE BY ITS TRUE SENSE WILL MOVE ONE STEP FURTHER CLOSE TO GOD..BELIEVE ME.....I WILL BE HAPPY THAT DAY WHEN PEOPLE WILL KEEP BOTH GOD AND HIS CREATIVE PRINCIPLES i.e Science ON ONE SIDE AND NOT OPPOSING EACH OTHER.....BTW 'God of the gaps ' does not confuse me BUT i will not try this time to explain my comment BECAUSE I HAVE SLOWED DOWN COMPLETELY FOR THIS TIME.

      • Well, I'm sure you'll understand the difficulty in one saying that one is a Hindu while not believing in Shiva or Vishnu or Brahma or any "Hindu" gods or God. The Christian will tell you that you can't believe in Jesus while not being a Christian. Here again, it's semantics.

        There are levels upon which I agree that the various names you mentioned are meaning my God. However, there are distinctions within the minds of people such that their god or God by another name is not my God. Zeus is and is not my God depending upon what one has in mind when one is referring to Zeus.

        Paul referred to Zeus as Yahveh but within context and not inclusive of every myth told concerning Zeus or attributed to Zeus. I believe Paul's point or analogy was apt even while I don't agree with every of his characterizations over Jesus's own. I follow Jesus over Paul, always.

        I hope this helps you.

        What is your intention regarding your education? Are you a top student headed for pure research or teaching or both or what?

        Peace and the blessing of my God upon you,

        Tom

    • richik kashyap

      "that one is a Hindu while not believing in Shiva or Vishnu".....Tom u have compelled me again to comment on ur comments. Why don't i believe in Shiva or Vishnu??????...i have to believe in Shiva. I have never said 'not believing'....on the contrary i said i believe in all Shiva , Allah, and ur Jesus at the same time. Why should i just believe in Jesus? Jesus took birth in jerusalem not in India! We are from Indus Civilization which is much more older than christianity. But yes if any Christian ask me to be a christian before i should believe in Jesus, then i think he/she has misinterpretated my words and his/her mind is now completely outdated.....Mark my words..>One God, One Milkyway, One Earth, and One me!......i dont care about that Christian who ask me to be a Christian before i have to believe in Jesus and at the same time i will respect all Jesus,Allah,Shiva without caring about the definitions of Chistianity or Hinduism.Please dont misinterpretate my statements otherwise i have to waste my time again in clearification.

      • I'm sorry that my statement confused you. It was not my intention. When I wrote it, I considered using the terms "flipping" and "reversing" but figured that would be overkill in stating the obvious.

        You did not understand the point in my saying, "I'm sure you'll understand the difficulty in one saying that one is a Hindu while not believing in Shiva or Vishnu or Brahma or any "Hindu" gods or God" while you said you believe in Jesus but are not a Christian. It is at once a mirror image but also reversed. Why you took it that I hadn't read your earlier reply with care escapes me. I did not say that you don't believe in Shiva. You said you did. I was making a larger point, which you missed. You will note my use of the term "one" rather than "you." It matters.

        Anyway, I believe it is time that you leave off commenting for a time. I will say that I'm a bit put off (not much -- just a tad) by your failure to answer or even address my polite questions concerning the twitter account and your post-advanced degree plans.

        As for my mind being outdated, Hinduism has held with multiple gods/ways/paths and not Jesus's one narrow way (Jesus) for millennia. Your position is far from new. Most newly minted atheists would find your position outdated. The truth though is never outdated, and we shall see whether Jesus was as he represented himself to be.

        I believe in him in that way. You should understand that you do not. You do not believe in his name as he meant it when he said it, which is usually (almost always) what is meant by the expression "believing in Jesus." If you think otherwise, I will assume you have either never read the Gospels or read them but did not comprehend or absorb his thrust. If you did read them, I suggest you try again, as perhaps you were much younger. If you read them recently, then I would suggest you plan to re-read them in a few years after you've done a bit more living.

        "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

        Mohammed did not believe that. So, who is Allah vs. Yahveh in that sense? They are not the same and never shall be.

        If you believe that Mohammed believed in Jesus's Father-God as being one and the same as Mohammed's Allah, you are mistaken. Have you read the Qur'an? If you have not, you should read it and directly compare the Gospels. If you think that Allah of Islam and the Muslims is not as defined by the words of Mohammed (his mind), you are much looser with the name than am I. However, I did explain that there is a place where Allah can mean God/Yahveh just as Zeus can be used in such a sense. The attributes of Allah as defined by Mohammed though preclude Allah being Jesus's Father. That should not be over your head. I'm sure it is not. I'm sure it is clear to you.

        Now, please take a break from commenting. You are more than welcome to return after you've digested and reflected. If that offends you, so be it.

        Peace,

        Tom

        • richik kashyap

          sorry for commenting again but this time with complete peace and nothing else....first i answer your two questions:
          Yes thats my account on twitter which i created long ago but i never used it and completely lost its password from mind.
          And yes i am interested in research in Cosmology(unification of physics).i am also interested in Microwave Engineering(M.S) which i plan to do in latter future...Microwave spans a lot in space physics..thats the reason.
          Tom i m really sorry for my harsh comments but today i have learnt something from it.....My world is completely different from others, and i agree many people don't think like me...i am neither the head nor the tail of a coin...i always take things in a different way and waited and hope that my thinkings will be accepted...but none of my friends,not my uncle/aunt and not even my parents do agree with me....(but yes my scientific ideas are always rewarded, i can solve most of the problems in Physics of my standard)......people of my religion hates me because i have close friends in muslims,christians...in our society they are always treated with tea/cofee in isolated utensils....and this thing really upsets me....yes i have not read fully the 'Bible' and not even my 'Gita'....but a strange spiritual feeling of peace comes to my mind and heart when i hear or read the word 'Jesus'...'Jesus God'...Wow! ....'Shiva God...Vishnu God'...i watched television shows of Jesus and Shiva and Vishnu....every show creates a feeling of joy in me......i have no time to read the whole of Bible or Gita...but even one eposide of the show puriifes me.....i have seen a very common thing in these shows....they always show the path of truth and sacrifice for humanity....these two things mean a lot to me AND I AM ALWAYS BUSY IN PRACTICING THESE TWO THINGS (REALLY VERY VERY HARD TO DO IN PRACTICAL) THAT I HAVE NO TIME TO READ AND PRACTICE THE OTHER SAYINGS......
          THATS what i have said that i dont care about their definitions,their customs,culture,etc(i know my language is harsh again but please don't take it in the other way)...and i believe in all as a One.........But ok...i take my words back this time ...i was wrong....what i think is completely my problem and other people will not accept with me...i know i m a sick person ...who has some other dream world completely unrealistic....i always get frustated when people take me differently...Really nowadays i am going to learn from many that my mind is very immature and unfit for all times....So from today i will just concentrate on my studies and nothing else.finally on the right track.....
          Btw i have not directly indicated u as an outdated...i said if......Now i can understand that Not yours but my own mind is outdated and one day my scientific ideas will be also outdated.....i am a sick person and so please forgive me. Bye and Wish Jesus(and Not my Hindu God) shows You the Right path To Peace.

        • I asked you, Richik, to digest and reflect. You did neither. You came back quickly and only made matters worse for yourself.

          I've already addressed everything of any substance you've had to say.

          The only thing of semi-substance (misleading) I will address in this reply is "outdated." I clearly stated that you don't believe in Jesus as Jesus spoke of himself. I said one cannot believe in Jesus without being a Christian. You turned around and referred to that (albeit awkwardly, considering your use of the term "before" in conjunction rather than simultaneously) as being "outdated." The fact that you said "if" is irrelevant to your statement concerning me in terms of whether it was direct or indirect. You said you hold that my view is outdated because your premise was based upon what I had said: that a believer is a Christian. There are no believers in Christ who are not Christians. That's just how it is whether you care about definitions or not.

          I'm not interested in the sarcasm concerning your being sick. This is no place for that kind of talk. This blog is about bringing forth the Christian Commons. It is not for Hindus to feign "woe is me."

          If you are truly emotionally disturbed, I suggest you convert to Christianity. I suggest you begin by reading the New Testament. You can then read the Old Testament to discover the cross-references.

          If you are not interested in Jesus's actual words, you can hardly love him or even begin to believe in him.

          You don't know who he was or is and don't appear to give a damn. You appear to be self-absorb.

          Another Indian wrote to me today to ask me to pray for his father and to help financially if I'm able. Do you see the difference?

          If I could, I would make all his financial worries disappear. He takes care of many, many others before he takes care of himself. He also has bothered to read the Bible, although doing so is a joy for him.

          You on the other hand, are in an elite school where you have no higher responsibility than to do your school work, but yet here you are whining.

          Find someone you can help to help someone else. Then maybe you'll start to get it. That will be a blessing.

    • richik kashyap

      i do also believe in Shiva,Vishnu,Brahma and all the 330000000 Gods of my Hindu religion.....yes we have a big number of types of God....But the difference lies in the fact that i believe them to be just 1 having different names and shapes at different times and places....which to my surprise exactly matches with sayings of Hindu's Holy 'Bhagavad Gita'. Yes i agree 'GITA' didn't mentioned about Jesus or Allah but i still have to believe in them also...once again without caring their individual definitions.