On: "Stephen Hawking comes out: ‘I’m an atheist’ because science is ‘more convincing’ than God"

Stephen Hawking comes out: ‘I’m an atheist’ because science is ‘more convincing’ than God.

Read the linked article first.

Look, what was Stephen Hawking doing, reading the creation story in Genesis literally? Well, that's a quip. Let me delve in a bit.

Stephen Hawking hasn't discovered the "origins of the Universe." Anyone who thinks that the Big Bang satisfies the question of the origin of the Universe is thinking rather shallowly, to say the least. What was before the bang? The astrophysicists posit that it was an extremely dense, small mass compared to what the Universe is now. Okay, but how long was it like that, and where did it come from? What was its origin? Even answering those questions via extrapolating from the "scientific method" won't necessarily satisfy.

That alone should tell you that no clear-thinking "scientist" would ever rule out God. That's because no such scientist who understands the most fundamental principles, the philosophy of "the method," would fail to leave room for being that is beyond being forced via the scientific method to reveal itself.

Stephen Hawking even said that he's sure there is other "intelligent" life in the Universe. I completely agree with him on that. However, how does he know that such life, that may have been at our level of intelligence billions of years ago, hasn't already arrived at the point where Stephen's Earthly physics can't force them to reveal themselves? He definitely can't rule it out.

In fact, I'm positive such beings exist. I have faith in it even more than Hawking has faith in the odds that other intelligent beings exist.

Hawking made the emphatic statement that there is no God. He declared himself an atheist. A good "scientist" would never be more than an agnostic: claiming to have no knowledge of God, not certainty as to the nonexistence of God and especially not based upon the Genesis creation story being more than a spiritual statement, being something to be taken as literally, in the so-called modern vernacular, as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

No matter how much new information is gained that enhances and refines the theory and goes on to unify large areas together, it won't mean Einstein was basically wrong or that there was no Einstein.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Even though the exact same thing may be said of the Genesis "Universe" creation story, something more may be said of that story. We don't know from a Hawking-type scientific standpoint what every allusion in the story refers to. When I read about the waters in the Universe and the waters in Genesis, when I read about the dust of the Cosmos and the dust in Genesis, I'm left with a deep and profound feeling and wait for and want more such revelation.

To me, Hawking's Universe is much smaller than mine, extremely so, and his genius has been severely overrated.

Read Genesis as spiritually inspired, not as God's limited ability to teach us about his creation and especially not because he doesn't exist and we know it for sure.

  • 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.