Scientific Lie About The Theory Of Everything And The Denial Of God
Stephen Hawking, born 1942, is a well-known English physicist, cosmologist, and mathematician. In 1962 he was diagnosed with ALS, an incurable disease that affects the nerve cells and slowly paralyzes the body in a debilitating process of many years.
Doctors concluded that he had only two years to live but that assumption, like many assumptions about the origin of the creation of our universe, was wrong because Hawking reached the age of 76.
Because Hawking couldn't speak he communicated using a specially designed computer program. For example, he wrote his book 'The Universe', which became a bestseller. In 2014, even a film about his life was made. This film; "The Theory of Everything" went on September 7, 2014, and had its UK premiere on January 1, 2015.
Professor Hawking is best known for his theories concerning black holes and the origin of the universe. He is convinced that everything started with a Big Bang and that humanity has evolved that far without the need of any God. At that time one could explain nothing else than by creating ourselves a Supreme Being or a God who was the foundation of our creation.
Did God create anything out of nothing?
The contradiction between Hawking and Gleiser
According to Stephen Hawking, there was once a situation without time, space and matter. More importantly, there was neither spiritual life nor spiritual dimension. But what if this conclusion is undermined by finding the fifth dimension in the near future?
Although Hawking proved that God can not exist, because nothing can exist outside of time, space and matter, not even God, he comes back later on by the almost death experience of his brother. For in this event he establishes that God and science can indeed co-exist.
The most popular string theory (M-theory) led Stephen Hawking in his book; "The Grand Design" to the statement that there is no creator. According to him, the M-theory shows that universes can arise spontaneously.
But in contradiction to Hawkings' claim, Marcelo Gleiser is not impressed by this finding. According to him, string theories have to do without any experimental evidence. Gleiser also states that Hawkings' idea of a "Theory Of Everything" is fundamentally incorrect. Because how can we draw up such a theory without knowing everything?
Our knowledge of the universe can never be complete, if only because we can not see the entire universe. Some parts are so far away that the light from those regions can never reach us. So how can it be that two extremely brilliant people so fundamentally disagree with each other?
Higgs Boson and the elusiveness of God
It would be so beautiful: one physical theory that elegantly encompasses everything that can be found in the universe and where God is an established fact. All particles, all forces, condensed into one formula. Or forward, a set of formulas. But is it realistic to hope for that? Should not we first find the Higgs Boson and that perhaps the coldest temperature in the universe is not -272.15 degrees Celsius but -275?
It is not very unreasonable to think that there is a theory that explains everything. After all, it has already been successful a number of times to bring scientific phenomena that seemed to have had little to do with each other under one common denominator called Unification.
But is that search of scientists in vain and above all that they have traded their traditional Western desire for one God for a desire for one all-encompassing theory, which we will never find in reality simply because the furthest light will never reach us and we will never be able to measure the endpoint of the universe?
String theory is a difficult theory. In a nutshell: electrons and quarks are not objects, but one-dimensional strings. The way a string vibrates determines how the string looks. Just as a violin produces different tones, strings produce different particles.
In addition, according to string theory, the universe has more dimensions than four (length, width, height and time). The M-theory, an overarching description of various existing string theories, even starts from eleven dimensions.
How do you test eleven dimensions?
According to Professor Mike Duff of Imperial College London, the current technology is capable of testing eleven dimensions in a laboratory. Duff was present at a conference where his eyes fell on some mathematical formulas with regard to quantum entanglement. The formulas were very similar to those that Duff had developed a few years before to describe black holes with string theory.
By using string theory, Duff found a pattern with four quantum particles intertwined. This can be investigated in a laboratory. The final results will be decisive or string theory in the refrigerator or not. The Large Hadron Collider also offers hope.
This particle accelerator can detect supersymmetric particles, an element of string theory. Or maybe the Large Hadron Collider will succeed in placing a graviton in a higher dimension or even finding the Higgs Boson. GOD?
Is God Nothing!
Because we can not think outside space, matter and time, nothing does even mean emptiness, because emptiness can only be in space. But at the beginning of creation, there was no space, no time, and there was no matter. And yet everything has arisen from this nothing in a period of billions of years.
In accordance with the ideas of Hawking and his followers, the universe has an iron law of cause and effect, causality. However, Professor Hawking wants us to believe that this does not apply to the most crucial moment in the history of life, namely; "The beginning of everything".
And it is precisely there that there is no cause, according to Hawking. Spontaneously and out of space, time and matter arose in a nanosecond our universe. But Stephen, where did that nanosecond come from? After all, there was no time? Why does the law of cause and effect suddenly apply from that moment on and not before? Dear scientists, is that logical? I don't think so anyway?
Moreover, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and Marcelo Gleiser agreed the creation of universe happened within a “split second or nano-second,” but they also agreed also time doesn't exist? So, then where is this nano-second come from? Is it a lie about time instead of accepting there is a creator above there “Theory's of Everything.” GOD maybe? Or is it simply put our assumption.
“A Scientific Lie About The Theory Of Everything And Denial Of God”
Why suddenly so much coincidence?
According to all theories, 'everything' must have happened accidentally from 'nothing' and in a nanosecond. That means that countless events must also have happened properly. That seems to me almost impossible unless something, or if you want someone, directs this.
I do not know where Professor Hawking's philosophy came, which he thinks it is true. To me, however, it seems the other way around, not everything 'accidentally' goes well but wrong. After all, out of chaos never happens 'accidental' order, no, on the contrary, if you do not do anything about it, it quickly and automatically turns into chaos. What did Murphy say again; "If something can go wrong, things go wrong too"?
Stephen Hawking cannot prove his theories in any way, even though his creative theses are still so strong, they remain assumptions just like his two-year lifespan. After all, Hawking bases his opinion on personal conviction with unresolved "black holes." And why is this controversy between science and God that they themselves so eagerly want to play?
Hawking's unproven theory will now have to be explained by other scientists and in particular how everything could originate without cause and how it is possible that everything happened to life as we know it. The simple fact that science simply does not want to believe in God is also an assumption or option. Yes.
“Creation is and I am ...! And we would not be here without that creation...!”
With my belief in God's presence during my near-death experiences through the perception of "That Light" far behind the horizon of the universe, I was given the opportunity to create my Supreme Being or God. What a fantastic experience for my life.
“That Light,” doesn't reach the earth anyway. “That Light,” which is created in the brains of famous scientists while they agree it could never reach earth, used for explanation of the creation of the universe and that wasn't God but a “Nano-Second”!
There must have been a force that is infinitely greater than we can ever imagine. Time, space, matter, four, five or eleven dimensions ... Dear scientists, this is where intellectual quibbling really stops. Whether or not to choose a loving God has enormous consequences for you and our existence.
If you opt for the assumptions of science, there is no moral authority that goes far beyond your life. You can not count on spiritual encouragement because according to them it is not. And with that, life ends as it once started, with a black hole, in which everything disappears forever.
The creation mystery
The Bible; "The Book" of books.
Perhaps for science, the testing of the creation is in the Bible. It is even described that "Smartness is a form of stupidity."
For dear scientists, in the letter from Paul to the Romans, it says: "For that which can not be seen of him, his eternal power and divinity, is seen through his understanding since the creation of the world" (Romans 1). : 20). You have enough.
Then why do not you want to see and accept the truth that is so obvious? Or is it just stubbornness because you do not want to believe in God?
Paul has written something about the mind: "To be wise, they have become foolish" (Romans 1:22). With all due respect for scientific thinking, I would like to ask you: is that Paul's statement perhaps meant for you? Because certainly, scientifically you have more than sufficiently proven that Smartness must be a form of stupidity.
Disclaimer: "The views/contents expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not neccessarily reflect those of Modern Ghana. Modern Ghana will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article."
Reproduction is authorised provided the author's permission is granted.