« I'm doing the "work of Our Lord." Surprise to me. | Main | Got to share some poetic hate-mail insults »

February 16, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My own particular "take" on "nothing" is the way that I felt for the 13.7 billion years that I did not exist (sic!).

The peace that passeth understanding.

Willie R
Is it only 13.7 question mark. Here in Nicaragua nothing feels much more.

What I want to know is how Willie R felt BEFORE the 13.7 billion years he did not exist.

The following was my critique of Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design. I think it would be appropriate here also.

How did the scientists come to know that an entire universe could come out of nothing? Or, how did they come to know that anything at all could come out of nothing? Were they present at that moment when the universe was being born? As that was not the case at all, therefore they did not get that idea being present at the creation event. Rather they got this idea being present here on this very earth. They have created a vacuum artificially, and then they have observed that virtual particles (electron-positron pairs) are still appearing spontaneously out of that vacuum and then disappearing again. From that observation they have first speculated, and then ultimately theorized, that an entire universe could also come out of nothing. But here their entire logic is flawed. These scientists are all born and brought up within the Christian tradition. Maybe they have downright rejected the Christian world-view, but they cannot say that they are all ignorant of that world-view. According to that world-view God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. So as per Christian belief-system, and not only as per Christian belief-system, but as per other belief-systems also, God is everywhere. So when these scientists are saying that the void is a real void, God is already dead and non-existent for them. But these scientists know very well that non-existence of God will not be finally established until and unless it is shown that the origin of the universe can also be explained without invoking God. Creation event is the ultimate event where God will have to be made redundant, and if that can be done successfully then that will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that God does not exist. So how have they accomplished that job, the job of making God redundant in case of creation event? These were the steps:
1) God is non-existent, and so, the void is a real void. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist, it cannot be concluded that the void is a real void.
2) As virtual particles can come out of the void, so also the entire universe. Our universe has actually originated from the void due to a quantum fluctuation in it.
3) This shows that God was not necessary to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going, as because there was no creation event.
4) This further shows that God does not exist.
So here what is to be proved has been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved. Philosophy is already dead for these scientists. Is it that logic is also dead for them?
Giving death-sentence to an already-dead God is a joke perhaps!

Udaybhanu, a more valid critique can be addressed to those who believe in a creator God without any evidence.

The scientists know a "creative vacuum" exists. It's activity has been observed and modeled accurately mathematically. But where is the evidence for God?

If something has existed eternally (assuming that word even makes any sense when talking about the entire cosmos, why not assume that what we can observe now has been present forever? Where's the need to imagine a creator God, in addition to the creative laws of nature?

If God exists, who created God? Where do we stop with acts of creation? Somewhere. So why not make "here" the "somewhere"? It may not ever be possible that God doesn't exist, just as it may not ever be possible to prove that fairies don't exist.

Evidence, though, needs to be positive, not negative. You can't prove that I'm not God. But there's no reason for you to believe this, so you don't. Ditto with religious Gods. There's also no evidence for them, so there's no need to believe in them.

"If God exists, who created God?"

This question has already been answered in the following link:

Scientists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence M. Krauss say that as total energy of the universe is zero, so our universe can create itself from nothing, whereas we the God-believers have shown that if total energy of the universe is indeed zero, then it becomes damn easy to answer the question "Who created God". So it is for the kind information of all the atheists on earth that it is a most welcome news for us God-believers that total energy of the universe has been found to be exactly zero.

For evidence of God's existence you can also go through the following links:

One more evidence has also been given in another article that is going to appear in the February issue of the online journal Scientific God Journal (http://scigod.com).

The February issue of the online journal Scientific God Journal has come out in which the article mentioned in my earlier post of February 23, 2012 giving one more evidence for the existence of God has appeared, and it can be read from the following link:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.