Stephen Hawking's new book "The Grand Design"

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I was a bit underwhelmed by the new announcement by Hawking, as I don't think it really comments on God's existence per se. Hawking, if I understand correctly, is saying the "Laws" are eternal and therefore would have brought about the universe as we know it without the need for guidance from a Divine Hand. This begs at least 2 questions:

1. If there are Eternal Laws, from where did these Laws come?

2. If the existence of these laws in and of themselves made it a given that a natural universe (or universes, to Hawking) would occur, what took the Laws so long to start creating? After all, the universe is a pawltry 15 billion years old. This doesn't amount to anything when we are thinking in terms of eternity.

Hence, the basic quandry still stands and nothing is answered.

Regards, Brenden.

[steve7150]

1. If there are Eternal Laws, from where did these Laws come?

2. If the existence of these laws in and of themselves made it a given that a natural universe (or universes, to Hawking) would occur, what took the Laws so long to start creating? After all, the universe is a pawltry 15 billion years old. This doesn't amount to anything when we are thinking in terms of eternity.

Hence, the basic quandry still stands and nothing is answered





Good points. There is an answer of course but many academics can't accept a solution that can't be figured out.

[backwoodsman]

The old defenses of God's existence are deteriorating under new understandings of the universe and textual study of the Bible.

That may be true in some cases, but the same increases in scientific knowledge consistently prove the existence of God. This is not a recent phenomenon; if one looks back through history, it's clear this has been going on as long as there's been scientific knowledge. The more knowledge man has, the wilder must be the theories of those determined to deny God.

Regarding textual study of the Bible, we need to be sure our beliefs are based on our understanding of the Bible, and not the other way around, as is all too common.

It's counterproductive and unnecessary for Christians to use arguments that can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. I would encourage you to take a good look at Hugh Ross's group, which Darin mentioned. it's called Reasons To Believe, http://www.reasons.org . They're scientists in several disciplines, and have many books, papers & podcasts that explain the most recent science from a thoroughly Christian and creationist viewpoint. As it turns out, Psalm 19:1-4 is correct after all -- an honest look at honest science, from the "big bang" on down, really does prove the existence of an intelligent Creator beyond any shadow of doubt.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." -Psalms 19:1-4

-Dan

[jeffreyclong]

Regarding textual study of the Bible, we need to be sure our beliefs are based on our understanding of the Bible, and not the other way around, as is all too common.

What do we base our understanding of the New Testament on? The authors of each book of the New Testament, including the gospels, did not give their own works any of the attributes that the church gave them. Why did the church later know that Paul was in inerrant, when Paul himself didn't state that he was?

[darinhouston]

Regarding textual study of the Bible, we need to be sure our beliefs are based on our understanding of the Bible, and not the other way around, as is all too common.

What do we base our understanding of the New Testament on? The authors of each book of the New Testament, including the gospels, did not give their own works any of the attributes that the church gave them. Why did the church later know that Paul was in inerrant, when Paul himself didn't state that he was?

I don't believe in classic innerancy, but instead I believe simply in the authority of the Apostles and depend on the reliability of either their understanding guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised or the historicity and proven reliability of their words/accounts (or both). With Luke, it is largely its historicity and reliability to which I defer as he was not an apostle.

[mattrose]

Regarding textual study of the Bible, we need to be sure our beliefs are based on our understanding of the Bible, and not the other way around, as is all too common.

What do we base our understanding of the New Testament on? The authors of each book of the New Testament, including the gospels, did not give their own works any of the attributes that the church gave them. Why did the church later know that Paul was in inerrant, when Paul himself didn't state that he was?

It seems to me that a lot of what you are struggling with (having trouble believing/defending) is overly fundamentalist conceptions of inspiration. There are a number of ways that people view inspiration. I made a list of 7 such ways that help me distinguish...

The Stork Theory
Some view the Bible as a completely divine book without any human influence

The Trance Theory
Some view the Bible as a basically divine book
but with a nominal human role

The Fundamentalist Theory
Some view the Bible as a perfect book in all areas
God made sure that all details stayed intact

The Authoritative Theory
Some view the Bible as a divine/human book
Authorized people wrote Spirit-led truth

The Message Theory
Some view the Bible as a perfect book in its area
God made sure that the message stayed intact

The Passion Theory
Some view the Bible as a basically human book
But with a touch of moderated divine participation

The Human Theory
Some view the Bible as a completely human book without any divine influence

I suggest that you may be arguing against the first 3 theories b/c that's what you've heard from most evangelicals. But if you view inspiration as something closer to 3/4/5 you'll probably see most of the issues fade away.