Stephen Hawking and Spontaneous Creation: 'The Universe Can and Will Create Itself From Nothing' (By Abu Iyaaad) What is a Self-Evident Truths (Bayyinaat) ?

 

Muslims against Atheism

المفضلة  · ‏٢٣‏ س  · 

Stephen Hawking and Spontaneous Creation: 'The Universe Can and Will Create Itself From Nothing' (By Abu Iyaaad)

What is a Self-Evident Truths (Bayyinaat) ?

The knowledge that man did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which his creation and coming into being is enabled is a self-evident truth as every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being (19:67). This extends also to all living things, they did not originate themselves. And likewise the knowledge that he did not create the universe in which he resides is a self-evident truth (52:35), just as the knowledge that the universe did not create itself (without an external force) is a self-evident truth, and likewise the knowledge that multiple universes do not come into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self evident truth (52:36). All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive and necessary and not does require any empirical evidence. When all of that is established and cannot be challenged or denied, there are only three possibilities left. Either "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created something else". This is what the matter ultimately reduces down to. So the ultimate question is: Is it sounder in innate intuition, sensory perception and reason to believe "nothing created something" or "something created itself" or "something created what is other than it"? All people of sound mind (even the atheists) will say the latter, that "something created something" (something can only be created by other than it). Once we have established that asserting "something created something" is sounder in reason, then knowledge of the something that created what is besides it is evident from the reality and nature of the something that was created by it. This is undeniable. Just like the particles and forces are asserted to exist through their observed effect (athar) (even though no one sees them directly or even understand how they work), then similarly, the heavens and earth are the effect (athar) through which the existence of the "something" that is behind can be said to be true and real. Up to this point there can be no real dispute, and it is here where the battle really begins. And all people of sound mind, honesty and integrity see design, order and purpose in the universe, on Earth, and in living things, in their interactions, their inter-dependence, the various faculties and features found within living things and the complex information systems underlying them that surpass all known computer systems and architecture. That is undeniable. It is first-hand direct evidence of the existence of an originator and the qualities necessary for such an originator (knowledge, will, power, wisdom). It is here where we start to see the haughtiness and arrogation of those who speak of only the "illusion" and "appearance" of design (in order to undermine the actual design that is so clearly evident). This is because once design, order and purpose is clearly established through observation (whether by the layman or the scientist) then the logical, rational conclusion necessarily follows and this cannot be undone. This is why it is said that belief in an originator is fitriyy (innate) and dhurooriyy (necessary), and this is why all the sent messengers said, (قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ), "And their messengers said: Is there any doubt concerning Allaah, the originator of the heavens and the earth." (14:10). As such, the knowledge that the existence of the universe, earth and all life forms necessarily indicate an originator is a self-evident matter. This is a necessary conclusion through the sum of all human perception and experience. It is a matter so clear and is rooted in the innate disposition, in the human psyche. It is why no one, not even an atheist, can avoid using teleological language (which implies design) in the study of the universe, the phenomena therein and of all living things. The signature of design is blatant and evident and teleological language (even if unintended) is found in millions and millions of research papers written and published in the fields of physics, astronomy and biology. The rational investigability (the fact that the universe can be studied rationally at all) and the unavoidable teleological language used by atheists in describing what they see in their studies falsifies their naturalistic belief and indicates arrogance when they characterize what they study as an "illusion" and "appearance" of design. They would not have been able to logically and rationally study the universe and life therein had it not been designed. Thereafter, all of their arguments to the contrary (no matter how sophisticated or complicated) reduce down to a) "nothing created something" or b) "something created itself" or c) if they affirm "something created something" (which is unescapable) then that is explained with what is laughable: an already existing "law" of gravity created the universe or the blind forces of physics created the first living cell through pure chance which was then guided to the current diversity and homology of life by Natural Selection acting on random mutations in genetic material. In reality, this is affirmation of a creator on their behalf except that it is not an all-knowing, willing, purposeful creator but a blind, purposeless creator (a "blind watchmaker"), and really reduces back to "matter self-organizes and creates." All of this is revilement of intellect, pure conjecture and arrogance in the face of self-evident truth. These claims and explanations arise as a consequence of prior assertion of materialism, not because scientific observation, experimentation and data have proven that blind physical forces create complex living organisms (that is a matter of blind faith and a revilement upon reason).

أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ أَمْ خَلَقُوا السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بَل لَّا يُوقِنُونَ

Were they created by nothing. Or were they creators (of their own selves). Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, they have no real certainty. (52:35-36)

Thereafter, it is upon the atheist to prove that the universe, (in all its order, magnificence, balance and harmony) and life on Earth is not the handiwork of an all-knowing, willing, able creator, since that is the rational, axiomatic default, innate in human nature. The contrary explanations they bring are based upon a prior commitment to naturalism (materialism) which they have chosen due to psychological reasons, not rational ones. As such all of what they bring to invalidate this rational necessity such as multiverse theories, complex genetic reproduction systems arising miraculously from a primeval soup by blind forces of nature, mystical M-theories, imaginary time, Natural Selection acting on random mutations in genetic code (which actually require the prior existence of complex genetic reproduction systems that are more complex than the most purposefully designed computers and for whose origin they have no explanation) along with the variety of philosophical tricks and psychological word games - all of this is pure conjecture (and they know it).

Allah, the Most High, said, (قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ), "Their respective Messengers said, 'Is there any doubt about Allaah, the Originator of the Heavens and Earth?'." (14:10) and He said, (فَلَمَّا جَاءتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَرِحُوا بِمَا عِندَهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ), "And when their messengers brought self-evident proofs, they exulted in the knowledge they possessed" (40:83) and He said (وَقَالُوا مَا هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَا إِلَّا الدَّهْرُ وَمَا لَهُم بِذَلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ), "And they say, 'There is nothing but the life of this world, we live and we die and nothing destroys us but time.' But they have no knowledge of that (whatsoever). They do but conjecture." (45:24) and He said (إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَخْرُصُونَ), "They do but conjecture (give opinions) and they do but guess" (6:116) and He said (ذَلِكَ مَبْلَغُهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ), "That is their sum of knowledge" (53:30)

The true and real perspective of the atheist battleground is that they are trying to fight the sensory, intuitive and rational necessity because they have chosen materialism as the default for what are really psychological reasons (not rational ones). Their subsequent use of philosophy and science is to make their psychological denial appear to be rational, and hence what we have is circular logic that runs as follows: "In observation and study of the living things, the world and the universe, we will never observe God. We've studied living things, the world and the universe and never found any sign of God. God does not exist." And in another way, "Darwinian Evolution must account for life otherwise the alternative is a purposeful designer and creator which is unacceptable because naturalism is the truth (prior assumption). Hence, in a naturalist, materialist world, the only possible explanation is evolution of inorganic matter to organic matter to living organisms, and since naturalism is the truth, then evolution has to be the truth and only explanation for life." This tautological, question-begging, circular reasoning is driven by a prior commitment to naturalism.

In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking makes the following assertions (p. 180):

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

The above can be simplified to say "We can explain why the universe exists through the claim that things come into existence, spontaneously (without premeditation or external stimulus)." This is revilement of innate intuition (fitrah), sensory perception (hiss) and reason (aql) and clashes also with sound authentic revelation, just as it clashes with the scientific method which cannot exist or function without the premise that all events have causes. And also (p. 180):

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

The above can be simplified to say "To help justify the pure conjecture that things come into existence, spontaneously we are going to invoke a law like gravity and claim that it must exist." And also (p. 181):

We've seen that there must be a law like gravity, and we saw in chapter 5 that for a theory of gravity to predict finite quantities, the theory must have supersymmetry between the forces of nature and the matter on which they act. M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity. For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. If it is finite - and this has yet to be proved - it will be a model of a universe that creates itself. We must be part of this universe, because there is no other consistent model.

The above should be read as conjectures, fancies and whims based upon other than empirical, physical evidence, the aim of which is to propose an intelligent sounding theory the essence of which is the claim that intelligent, complex things and systems come to be from nothing and without nothing, with "nothing" being both "nothing" and "something" at the same time.

#Universe #StephanHawking #Nothing #Gravity #Conjecture

Comments and Notes

#Science #Cosmos #Atheist #Atheists #ATHEISM #Refutation

Firstly, don't be baffled by all these terms "M-theory" - its all pure speculation (mysticism) disguised as science. They are inventing philosophical explanations and then using fancy terms for them, terms whose meanings even they don't know, "No-one seems to know what the 'M' stands for, but it may be 'master,' 'miracle' or mystery.' It seems to be all three." (pp. 116-117 in the same book) - and then they disguise all of this as science when they do not have any empirical science behind these propositions, but simply a whole bunch of assumptions (upon which they might conduct experiments, but the results are always interpreted upon the basis that the assumptions are correct). By M-theory they simply mean to propose a single over-arching theory, an umbrella theory into which they can throw all the theories they currently have to explain the universe and find ways to patch them alltogether. These theories in turn are based upon often undisclosed assumptions (based on conjecture) that are required to make the theory or model hold. Secondly, what this very smart and intelligent theoretical physicist - [read that as being in contrast to an empirical physicist] - is really saying is that nothing (as in no agent and no entity) creates something, except that it is worded as "something creating itself." But "nothing" to Hawking includes "a law of gravity" which is assumed to already exist (external to the universe that will create itself). So we do not really having "nothing" (and nor something creating itself). Further, Hawking insists that the law of gravity "must exist" to help the universe create itself. What he describes as the law of gravity is simply a mathematical representation of what is observed. The law itself is not "gravity". There is "gravity" and then there is "a law of gravity" which describes what is observed when gravity is in effect. Laws do not make anything happen, and if we accept the law is describing a force, then such forces (described by laws) do not come to be on their own. To put it another way: The argument of Hawking is as if he is telling you that the law of speed restriction on roads is what makes drivers adhere to the speed restriction. In other words the consideration in the mind of the driver of an abstract law (the existence of a law) that restricts speed on a road and which is indicated as being in existence and in force by physical signposts is what makes a person follow the rules and elicits a certain type of behaviour. Hawking does not want your thought to go beyond the mere acceptance that the law exists and its effect. He wants to explain the effect of the law (adherence to the speed limit) by necessity of the law itself and stop you from asking about the origin of the law in the first place. So he wants and needs the law of speed-restriction (to be the end-point explanation) and also wants and needs it to be "nothing" at the same time, such that it can be said, speed restriction is inevitable, all we need is a law. Similarly, the universe can and will create itself, all we need is a law of gravity. The law of speed restriction, as a law, does not actually do anything. The law actually alludes to other things: consideration, intelligence, thought, wisdom and so on all of which are conveyed through the law, in order to put a particular understanding in the mind of the one who is subject to it, such that a particular behaviour is demanded from that person. It is not possible for just a law to exist, just like that. Rather, a (verbal, written or physical) law is merely a reference to something else, a phenonemon or process which is being described or characterized by the stated law, and that phenomenon or process itself demands other explanations, such as its origin and purpose. So where did the law of speed restriction come from, who devised it, and what is the consideration behind it?

Now, when you get past all the complicated and fancy scientific terminology used to make claims appear credible and get down to the real basic, fundamental reasoning being employed (to support those claims) you see the hoax and the fickleness involved, it is simply child's make-believe. "We are committed to materialism, because we have chosen it as the default truth. Due to this commitment, we can only assert that things create themselves. To make this believable we will rig the definition of science (see here) and make our conjectures appear to be facts."

My five year old daughter knows that the refrigerator in the kitchen did not create itself, something more feasible (probabilistically) than the universe (with all its subsequent order and complexity) creating itself. My five year old daughter is not a theoretical physicist, she has not been through any formal education, she has not been to school, college or university. She is not an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, nor a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and has not received any medals. In fact, its just her innate intuition (see here) - basic common sense. The knowledge man did not create himself or create the means (reproduction) through which his creation and coming into being is facilitated is a self-evident truth as every person knows he never brought his own self into being from non-being. And likewise the knowledge that he did not create the universe in which he resides is a self-evident truth, just as the knowledge that the universe did not create itself (without an external force) is a self-evident truth, and likewise the knowledge that multiple universes are not brought into existence except with a force external to the sum of them is a self evident truth. All of this knowledge is innate, intuitive and necessary and not does require any empirical evidence. Hence, "nothing" (as in, no causative agent) did not create the universe and the universe did not create itself (that's impossible). You do not have to be a renowned scientist to know these most basic and elementary truths, they are innate and intuitive, children are born with the ability to recognize and acknowledge these simple truths. It is strange and laughable therefore, when you get passed all the apparent sophistication, that grown men with such credentials are trying to pass these fancies and conjectures as "knowledge" in the name of "science."

If in the reason (aql) of Hawking (or Dawkins) it is plausible and permissible for a universe (or universes) to come into existence from nothing (without prior matter) and by nothing (without an originator), then how have they made it impossible in reason for a universe to come into existence whether from nothing (no matter) or something (prior matter) through an originator? In other words if it is acceptable in reason for the universe to come to be from nothing and by nothing, then it is more reasonable for it to come be (whether from nothing or something) through an originator. However, Atheists have a prior commitment to naturalism and materialism and this commitment arises out of psychological denial. As a result, an originator, a purposeful designer is eliminated (through mere definition and word-play) from the pool of plausible explanations right from the very beginning, at the very outset. Sound reason does not allow millions of universes coming to be from nothing and without an originator and without any reason or cause for them to come into existence to be more reasonable than a single universe coming to be (with or without prior matter) from an originator through a reason or cause that brought it about at the point it was brought about. Out of psychological denial, atheists choose that which is further away from reason and they rig the definition of science, stating "science is only that which explains through natural law" to feed that psychological denial so as to ensure all explanations remain strictly materialistic. All of this indicates that a philosophical, metaphysical belief has been decided already which then defines (or confines) the field of scientific inquiry and its conclusions.

Source: AboutAtheism(dot)Net

٩أنت و٨ أشخاص آخرين

تعليق واحد

أعجبني

تعليق

مشاركة