Conversations with Stephen Hawking: Can God Exist?

stephen-hawking-Many of us have seriously pondered the existence of God or a Creator in light of our own selves. Each ancient society has its myths regarding the existence of the Universe, with our current society being dominated by Judaistic thought and their ancestral myths.

Many of us who have delved into various forms of spirituality outside of Christianity know that all of these forms of spirituality work, hence there is a part that the human spirit plays into the God concept and working of miracles.

In Stephen Hawking’s final book, Brief Answers To Big Questions, published post-humously, he tackles the concept of the existence of God using the laws of the Universe, Quantum Theory and Physics as his explanation.

In this blog, I will counter some of the concepts of this book, as well as  statements he has made in interviews and speeches with a common sense approach and New Thought.

I know Stephen Hawking was a brilliant man and his thought has actually helped me to believe in God.  I promise NOT to use the Bible to support any of my premises.  I will precede Hawking’s statements with the initials SK and my own with the initials RT:

SK:  “If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn’t take long to ask: What role is there for God?”

RT:  Though it may appear that the laws of nature are fixed, it is more likely that they have changed in humanly inobservable ways within our own lifetimes.  Many of the laws have been disproved, however due to the acceptance that a scientific law will be perpetuated if it works ‘most’ of the time, the laws are still called laws and the tiny windows of opportunity for error are not entertained.  It is easy to assume that laws exist to correct current physics assumptions, and that this current cycle of humanity has not yet perceived or recorded these unknown laws.

“What One Believes is Irrelevant in Physics.”  SK

RT:  I would venture to say you are putting a lot of weight on finite observations.  What one studies in physics is even more irrelevant than what one believes in light of the numerous changes, advancements and discoveries that have occurred in the field over the last couple thousand years.  I.E. it was determined that Avagrado’s Law regarding gases was only an approximation.  I will speak to the Law of Gravity later in our conversation. The basis of science is that there must be a finite answer to everything, and this is not the case, which is currently being disproved with modern technological advances.

SK:  “Under Extreme Conditions general relativity and quantum theory allow time to behave like another dimension of space.  This removes the distinction between time and space and means the laws of evolution can now determine the initial state.  The Universe Can Spontaneously Create Itself Out of Nothing.”

RT:  I agree with you in a sense. New Thought also states time is not linear, it actually is a point in space behaving like another dimension of space so to some extent, everything exists within an oasis-like vacuum.  In New Thought this is exemplified when the spirit realm, which is not subject to time, interacts with the physical realm, which with current laws of physics is impossible.

Evolution once involved a theory of forward or linear motion, hence the root word ‘to evolve’.  If in fact this concept is irrelevant, due to the fact that linear time is irrelevant’, then any law of physics based on forward or reverse motion is also irrelevant, precluding the laws of gravity, especially when this law is not constant in the presence of energy/life.

In a nutshell, we do not live in a vacuum so scientific experiments that only work within a vacuum do not apply to us.

Additionally, the laws of evolution determine myriad possibilities.  Scientist are finding out that whatever you want to see in an experiment, you likely will see, which helps to explain a general law of the placebo/faith effect and how human interaction plays into the God-effect. Therefore, though I may agree with you in your aforementioned statement, it is not for the same reasons as you that I agree.

SK:  “The Earth Was Formed 4.6 Billion Years Ago and was probably too hot for the 1st 1/2 billion years.  So life appeared on Earth within 1/2 a billion years of it being possible, which is short compared to the 10 billion year lifetime planet of Earth type.” 

RT:  It is extremely presumptious to make statements based on hypothetic logic regarding what happened millions of years ago.  This is not only because of the difficulty of understanding the billion quantity in terms of years, but also light years seems to be a term that was made up because it was the only way to explain certain other concepts.  If a mathematical assumption exists because it cannot be disproved, is it in fact relevant?  What does my previous statement mean for artistic renderings of space?

When we realize the ‘Oasis Concept’, which states that whereever there are geographic, emotional or spiritual conditions that are unliveable, there exists a place within said condition that is liveable, i.e Earth within the Milky Way; meditation within a prison, etc.  Therefore, we can determine that some form of Life has always existed within an ‘Oasis’ space, which could well be the God life form.

SK:  “If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence.” 

RT:  Thank you for making that presumption as it helps me to further prove my point.  Statements aforementioned by me have indicated these are not laws, but placebo-effect-like premises that were necessary to explain what a particular scientist observed at a point in time.  We know by looking at the flukes of nature and miracles of faith experienced by modern man, that a firm non-belief in the so-called laws is more than ample proof that God does exist as an avid and first NON BELIEVER.  This not only proves God’s existence, but the likelihood that He never existed alone.

SK:  “The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature.”

RT:  This is the very reason that explains that unknown laws trump any that we can theorize today.  God can exist because of the simple fact that something can just ‘pop’ into existence.  This pushes the argument that there are no ‘true’ or ‘hard-fixed’ laws of nature, therefore anything or Anyone could happen and as an Alpha or First, would have not been constrained by modern day thought of what is NOT possible, but would have immediately began to use the non-laws or unknown laws as the first NON BELIEVER of what we call modern physics to set into motion the world we see today, thereby acting as a human ancestor or progenitor of scientific experiments.  Therefore to believe in nothing means anything is possible.

SK:  “For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in.”

RT:  Dear Sir, if there was no time in the the beginning, and then time later existed, then it stands to reason that time could easily become nonexistent again and that time (or something like it) exists in cycles, resulting in our current existence in a natural oasis that we call Earth.

Also, based on the ‘evolution’ we now see, and based on your previous premise that current evolution explains the initial state of a thing, then there must have been an ‘oasitic’ pocket where a concept close enough to time did exist in the beginning, otherwise time is likely still not a true concept, meaning you and I are able to exist without it, therefore, so could God.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s