QUOTE ME and I'll discuss it. But don't make shit up and tell me to defend it, chief. What I said was that Hawking was qualified to discuss the creation of the universe.
This I agree with. It is precisely the point I am making. And whether it was seven days or a trillion years is irrelevant to the act of creation. He is justified to say there is no God. But not in his role as a scientist. In his role as a mortal man then feel free...but his position is, in my opinion, a weak one.
This is true, but that was a misinterpretation of various aspects of the material world. The focus of my argument is that science is excellent regarding clarification of material relationships but it is impossible to apply science to immaterial things. God is immaterial so science has nothing to say about God. Nothing....zero.
I'm not going to waste my time going back through your posts to satisfy your technique of argumentation. I'm sure you remember saying that because Hawkings had such a great understanding of how the universe was created that he is qualified to say there is no God.
True. I guess the difficulty here is that Christianity has applid God to material things. In the early day of Christianity there were many different views and beliefs. Through Councils those beliefs were argued and voted on. As our knowledge of the material world grew, Christian teaching changed. Now, trying to understand God as immaterial only, it is much more Buddhist than original Christianity. Except in Buddhism, there is no God. It is all energy. As our knowledge of particle physics grows, it is all energy.
Well, some of that I agree with but I have to ask, which Christian teachings changed? Limbo is the only one I am aware of that changed.
I think timing is relevant scientifically. Current research indicates that the universe was created in an instant, 13.8 billion years ago. The article made misleading insinuations including the title. Hawking was quoted about the creation of the universe and gave a scientific opinion. In a separate quote he said that he was an atheist, which is not a scientific statement. Both are truthful and entirely justified I'd like to hear why.