God not needed for creation: Stephen Hawking

[Mtazamaji]

Ok huyu mtaalamu anaweza kupata maelezo ya kisayanasi ya creation of the universe. je anaweza kutupa maelezo ya kisayansi Juu ya creation of Life(Uhai)

• How did a a first organisms/man came into being?
• How the first man/woman came into being
• Why cant human recover life after their brain of heart size to operate?
• how did a first femle or first male came into being?
• What is the original source of life?

Ukweli sayansi haiwezi kueleza majibu ya kila kitu na hivyo hivyo issue ya mungu ni imani. Everything can be challenged because god gave human being brains to do so. Its bcs of those intelligent brains created by the wish of god we can even challenge his/god existance.

 

[Kiranga]

Ok huyu mtaalamu anaweza kupata maelezo ya kisayanasi ya creation of the universe. je anaweza kutupa maelezo ya kisayansi Juu ya creation of Life(Uhai)

• How did a a first organisms/man came into being?
• How the first man/woman came into being
• Why cant human recover life after their brain of heart size to operate?
• how did a first femle or first male came into being?
• What is the original source of life?

Ukweli sayansi haiwezi kueleza majibu ya kila kitu na hivyo hivyo issue ya mungu ni imani. Everything can be challenged because god gave human being brains to do so. Its bcs of those intelligent brains created by the wish of god we can even challenge his/god existance.

Ukweli kwamba sayansi haina majibu ya baadhi ya maswali, haumaanishi kwamba majibu yake ni mungu.

Ukweli kwamba hujui unapokwenda, haumaanishi kwamba lazima unapokwenda ni Kariakoo. Ukweli kwamba hujui 10 + 11 = ? Haumaanishi kwamba jibu lake lazima liwe 25. Inabidi unionyeshe kwamba, ingawa mimi sijui ninapokwenda, unaposema kwamba nakwenda Kariakoo umejuaje hivyo, labda umepata kuiona tiketi yangu iliyoandikwa "Pugu Kariakoo" au ushahidi mwingine kama huo (nimeamka tingas mpaka nimesahau kila kitu tuseme). Unaposema kwamba 10 + 11 jibu lake ni 21 na si 25 nategemea unionyeshe kwa kutumia number theory umepataje hilo jibu la 25.

Kama unataka kusema kwamba kwa vile sayansi haijui maisha yameanzaje, basi maisha yameanza kwa kuumbwa na mungu, inabidi unionyeshe kwa nini nikuamini. Ama sivyo wewe na mimi wote tutakuwa hatujui, na mimi nitakuwa nina afadhali kwa sababu nishakubali kwamba sijui, ila wewe unayesema kwamba maisha yametoka kwa mungu bila kuweza kunionyesha kivipi utakuwa ni sawa na mtu anayeniambia 10 + 11 = 25 bila kutaka kunionyesha kivipi.

Sayansi mostly imekuwa wazi kabisa kwamba inachojua ni nini na isichojua ni nini.

Hakuna aliyesema sayansi inaweza kueleza majibu ya kila kitu, na huu ndio uzuri wa sayansi. Sayansi ina reason kiasi cha kujua mapungufu yake, kisha inayafanyia kazi mapungufu hayo na pole pole kuyapunguza.Ndiyo maana kila mwaka watu wanakesha kwenye maabara kutafuta mambo mapya, kila mwaka wanapata ma Nobel Prizes. Kanuni ya kwanza ya Sayansi ni kwamba "kuna vitu ambavyo hatuvijui, lakini tunaweza kufanya uchunguzi na kuvujua". Kama sayansi ingekuwa inasema inajua kila kitu ingekuwa dini.

Ukisema mungu katupa mbongo, mimi nikakwambia mungu hayupo, utaweza vipi kunipa empirical evidence kwamba mungu yupo na ni yeye aliyetupa mbongo hizi ?

Usitake ku assume tu kwamba kwa sababu hatuna majibu ya vitu fulani, basi jibu lake ni mungu. Utakuwa kama wale watu wa zamani walioamini kwamba radi ni sauti ya mungu anaongea nao, watu walipokuja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme kwenye mawingu mungu akakosa kazi moja, pole pole tunavyozidi kuuelewa ulimwengu wetu mungu anakosa kazi, sasa Hawking anatuambia kwamba hata kazi ya kuufanya ulimwengu haikumuhitaji mungu.

Hivi tunangoja nini ili kujua kwamba mungu hayupo ?

 

[Mtazamaji]

Ukweli kwamba sayansi haina majibu ya baadhi ya maswali, ahaumaanishi kwamba majibu yake ni mungu.
Ok unaona kuwa hata sayansi haina majibu yote hivyo hvyo mambo ya mungu ni imani ambayo kwa akili za kisayansi mambo mengine ya uwepo wa mungu hayaelezeki?Mungu kampa binadamu akili ya kuelezea na kufafanua n kivitumia vitu alivyoumba.

Ukweli kwamba hujui unapokwenda, haumaanishi kwamba lazima unapokwenda ni Kariakoo. Ukweli kwamba hujui 10 + 11 = ? Haumaanishi kwamba jibu lake lazima liwe 25. Inabidi unionyeshe kwamba, ingawa mimi sijui ninapokwenda, unaposema kwamba nakwenda Kariakoo umejuaje hivyo, labda umepata kuiona tiketi yangu iliyoandikwa "Pugu Kariakoo" au ushahidi mwingine kama huo (nimeamka tingas mpaka nimesahau kila kitu tuseme). Unaposema kwamba 10 + 11 jibu lake ni 21 na si 25 nategemea unionyeshe kwa kutumia number theory umepataje hilo jibu la 25.
Sasa kama hujui unapokwenda au hujui hesabu huwezi kubisha hata nikikwambia unakwenda Mbagala wala huwezi kuna mansingi wa kubisha hata nikisema 10+11=50. Na kwa msingi huo huo siwezi kukuthibitishia uwepo wa mungumoja kwa moja.Kukuthibitishia uwepo wa mungu nitakuuliza kiini cha uhai ni nini? Rejea maswali yangu hayo ndiyo yananifanya Niamini uwepo wa mungu

Kama unataka kusema kwamba kwa vile sayansi haijui maisha yameanzaje, basi maisha yameanza kwa kuumbwa na mungu, inabidi unionyeshe kwa nini nikuamini. Ama sivyo wewe na mimi wote tutakuwa hatujui, na mimi nitakuwa nina afadhali kwa sababu nishakubali kwamba sijui, ila wewe unayesema kwamba maisha yametoka kwa mungu bila kuweza kunionyesha kivipi utakuwa ni sawa na mtu anayeniambia 10 + 11 = 25 bila kutaka kunionyesha kivipi.
Inabidi uamini uwepo wa mungu sababu hata kisayansi kila kitu kina malezo ya chanzo chake. Mungu kampa bianadamu akili zaidi ya tembo,sungura ndio maana leo hii tunaweza kuelezea theory kama za plate tectonic, magnetism ,solar sysstm, etc lakini maelezo haya yana ukomo. Na ukomo wa maelezo ya kisayansi ndio kiashiria kuwa kuna Nguvu zaidi zinazo control hizi theroy na law tunazosoma

Sayansi mostly imekuwa wazi kabisa kwamba inachojua ni nini na isichojua ni nini.
Hakuna aliyesema sayansi inaweza kueleza majibu ya kila kitu, na huu ndio uzuri wa sayansi. Sayansi ina reason kiasi cha kujua mapungufu yake, kisha inayafanyia kazi mapungufu hayo na pole pole kuyapunguza.Ndiyo maana kila mwaka watu wanakesha kwenye maabara kutafuta mambo mapya, kila mwaka wanapata ma Nobel Prizes. Kanuni ya kwanza ya Sayansi ni kwamba "kuna vitu ambavyo hatuvijui, lakini tunaweza kufanya uchunguzi na kuvujua". Kama sayansi ingekuwa inasema inajua kila kitu ingekuwa dini.

Hii kanuni binafsi inananipa imani zaidi ya uwepo mungu . Kwa akili za kibadamu alizotupa mungu zimezama kwenye physical/ chemical properties and characteristics.Na mungu na uhai ni zaidi ya hivi vitu.Tutamjuaje mungu kisayansi wakati hana physical wala chemical properties. Kwa nini watu wakifa wasirudishiwe uhai ili watu wengi wazidi kuamini kutokuwepo kwa mungu.

Ukisema mungu katupa mbongo, mimi nikakwambia mungu hayupo, utaweza vipi kunipa empirical evidence kwamba mungu yupo na ni yeye aliyetupa mbongo hizi ?
Uwepo wa mungu ni imani kama unavyoamini phsysics chemistry,biology. tofauti iliyopo ni unaweza ku proove kwa sense organ sayansi za kibanadamu. Lakini ukiendelea kudadavua baadhi ya theroy za kisayansi ndo unatakiwa kuelewa kuwa kuna kiiini na chanza hata cha haya maelezo ya kisayansi. Ni mungu.

labda wanasema mungu hayupo watupe empirical evidence kwa kujibu maswali yyangu yale juu. Source ya uhai ni nini?Sorce ya mwanamke/ mwanaume wa kwanza ilikuwa nini?

Usitake ku assume tu kwamba kwa sababu hatuna majibu ya vitu fulani, basi jibu lake ni mungu. Utakuwa kama wale watu wa zamani walioamini kwamba radi ni sauti ya mungu anaongea nao, watu walipokuja kugundua kwamba radi ni umeme kwenye mawingu mungu akakosa kazi moja, pole pole tunavyozidi kuuelewa ulimwengu wetu mungu anakosa kazi, sasa Hawking anatuambia kwamba hata kazi ya kuufanya ulimwengu haikumuhitaji mungu.

Nita assume mungu yupo mpaka pale hayo maswali fulani yatapopatiwa majibu. Ni kama wewe unavyoamini mungu hayupo sababu hakuna physical or chemical evidence.Ukisema imani potofu hata sayansi imekuwa na baadh ya theory potofu kwa kipindi fulani

Hivi tunangoja nini ili kujua kwamba mungu hayupo ? Tungoje mpaka sayansi itakavyolezea kila kitu

Hawking ana challenge uwepo wa mungu from limited scope ndio maana nimesa hata yeye inabidi ajue hiyo akili yake ya kumchanllnge mungu ni sababu yeye ni binadamu na alipewa akili kuliko viumbe wengine.

 

[Kiranga]

Hawking ana challenge uwepo wa mungu from limited scope ndio maana nimesa hata yeye inabidi ajue hiyo akili yake ya kumchanllnge mungu ni sababu yeye ni binadamu na alipewa akili kuliko viumbe wengine.

Wewe hata hujui Hawking kasema nini masikini.

 

[Kiranga]

Unaweza kuwa hujui unapokwenda ni wapi exactly, lakini ukajua kwamba unaenda muelekeo wa kusini , mtu akikwambia unaelekea Kaskazini, hata kama hujui exact destination yako ni wapi utaona kaskazini siko.

Unaweza kuwa hujui square root ya mbili ni nini, lakini ukajua kwamba mtu akikupa jibu la kwamba square roots ya mbili ni sita, hili si jibu sahihi.

Similarly, unaweza usijue maisha yalivyoanza, lakini mtu akikwambia yameanzishwa na mungu ukajua kwamba si sawa.

 

[Utingo]

Similarly, unaweza usijue maisha yalivyoanza, lakini mtu akikwambia yameanzishwa na mungu ukajua kwamba si sawa.

Na pia akitokea mwingine akakwambia "God not needed for creation" utajua ni mwongo na pengine amechanganyikiwa!

 

[Shingo]

Mungu siku zote hutumika kama mfuniko kwa vitu visivyojulikana watu wanapotaka kuondoa usumbufu wa kufikiri. Sayansi inakulazimisha kuangalia mambo halisi vile yalivyo. Jambo hili ni gumu sana kwa baadhi ya watu na ingawa wanajaribu kutumia sheria za sayansi wanapofikia mahali ambapo wanalazimika kusumbua vichwa vyao huishia kwenye jibu rahisi - Mungu.

Haiwezekani mungu awe jibu la kila kisichojulikana, kikishajulikana waamini mungu wanahamisha magoli. Sheria nyingi zimegunduliwa kinyume na matakwa ya hao wanaoamini mungu, na baada ya kuonekana kuwa sheria hizi ni ukweli wao hulazimika kutafuta sheria nyingine ambazo bado hazijajulikana vizuri ili wapate mahali pa kumweka mungu. Ni jambo la kusikitisha kwao kuwa mungu ni wazo tu linalofikirika, mungu anatengenezwa zaidi na ubongo kuliko kuwa halisi.

Mbali na kwamba Mungu hajaweza kuttatua tatizo lolote hapa duniani, Mungu ameleta matatizo kibao na naweza kusema Mungu ni mojawapo ya tatizo kubwa la dunia ya leo si kwa sababu yupo, ila kwa sababu hayupo. Angekuwepo asingekuwa tatizo, asingehitaji rundo la watetezi, bali angeonekana katika kazi zake, kama sheria za sayansi zinavyoonekana bila kuhitaji kuaminiwa kuwa zipo. Kazi ya sayansi hata hivyo si kuwashawishi wanaomuamini wasimuamini. Kazi ya sayansi ni kuwafumbua watu macho kwa kuweka ukweli wazi. Ni wazi kuwa wale ambao ukweli halisi haujawafikia, wataendelea kuamini visivyokuwepo.

Huhitaji kuamini kuwa gravity ipo, utaiona tu. Huhitaji kuamini kuwa dunia inalizunguka jua, n.k. ila ukweli unabaki kuwa hivyo.

Ukweli kuwa mungu ni wazo na si halisi ndo unaofanya kuwe na mamilioni ya wajasiriamali waliojiajiri katika kuelezea kuwa mungu yupo. Ndo maana wajasiriamali hawa wako tayari kutumia kila mbinu kuhakikisha kuwa watu wanawaamini (including kuua, kutisha, kuharibu, n.k.).

 

[Utingo]

Mbali na kwamba Mungu hajaweza kuttatua tatizo lolote hapa duniani, Mungu ameleta matatizo kibao na naweza kusema Mungu ni mojawapo ya tatizo kubwa la dunia ya leo si kwa sababu yupo, ila kwa sababu hayupo.
Huhitaji kuamini kuwa gravity ipo, utaiona tu. Huhitaji kuamini kuwa dunia inalizunguka jua, n.k. ila ukweli unabaki kuwa hivyo.

mamilioni ya wajasiriamali waliojiajiri katika kuelezea kuwa mungu yupo. Ndo maana wajasiriamali hawa wako tayari kutumia kila mbinu kuhakikisha kuwa watu wanawaamini (including kuua, kutisha, kuharibu, n.k.).

Mbali na kwamba Mungu hajaweza kuttatua tatizo lolote hapa duniani, Mungu ameleta matatizo kibao na naweza kusema Mungu ni mojawapo ya tatizo kubwa la dunia ya leo si kwa sababu yupo, ila kwa sababu hayupo.

In red you are just showing your desparation.
In blue I can ask you where did gravity or earth came from? Jibu utakalokuwa nalo ikiwa ni natural force or nature, or whatever or anything which caused it to happen which you yourself can not see - ndiye Mungu mwenyewe.

Other people call God Upper mind, Intelligent designer etc. Stephen Hawking na walevi wengine wengi, are just anti-christianity. Stop sailing katika akili ya walevi.

In green unaonekana kuwa na chuki na viongozi wa dini tu and going ashtray with the argument. try to proove kuwa God doent exist maana hata hawkins mwenyewe has failed to prove that God doesnt exist. He has only said and explained his mental comprehension.

In black Bold sentensi zako zinajichanganya mno, mosi matatizo ya dunia yamesababisha na wakazi wenyewe wa dunia, dont blame God on this. Huhitaji Mungu aje akuambia kutumia chandarua ili usiumwe na mbu ukaugua malaria. Pili in bold red, unaonekana ni mtu uliyechanganyikiwa tu au umedandia kitu usichokijua, on one hand you believe Gods existence while on the other hand you dont believe.

Ndiyo kuchanganyikiwa huko kumemfanya hata Hawkins kuandika kitabu ambacho amejicontradict sana yeye mwenyewe.


NOTE that God's existence is beyond human comprehension.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Hawking's New Book Does Not Dismiss The Real God From Creation, Jesuit Scholars Say

ROME, ITALY, September 3 (CNA/EWTN News) - Dr. Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," makes the bold claim that the universe "created itself from nothing" based on physical laws such as gravity, making God unnecessary for a self-created and self-unfolding model of the universe. However, two Catholic scholars trained in physics say his remarks misconstrue the real relationship between God and creation.

A Jesuit priest and scholar, former president of Gongaza University Fr. Robert Spitzer, says that Hawking's dismissal of God in favor of physics reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists-- both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it.

When this is understood, Fr. Spitzer said, Hawking's basic confusion becomes clear. Although Hawking talks about the universe "creating itself from nothing," he is presupposing that this "nothing" somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr. Spitzer explained.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, the Jesuit priest stated, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of "spontaneous creation" from "nothing."

"Let's take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above - the law of gravity," Spitzer wrote. "It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'."

"Now," he continued, "if we rephrase Dr. Hawking's statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something," by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, explained to CNA on Friday how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of "nothing," as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

"God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about," he told CNA.

Hawking's dismissal of God, Br. Consolmagno said, was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as "nothing," but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of "god" in which Christians do not believe.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in, is one I don't believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge."

Rather, Br. Consolmagno said, "God is the reason why existence itself exists."

This profound mystery, Fr. Spitzer said, was one which Professor Hawking was actually indicating, at the very same time he was attempting to dismiss it.

"In my view," he concluded, "Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing."

 

[pmwasyoke]

Nawaonea huruma sana watu wanaoishi na utupu wa kutokumwamini Mungu. Ukiachilia mbali moto wa milele, hapa hapa duniani wanakosa faraja na matumaini vinavyotokana na imani ya uwepo wa Mungu.

 

[Utingo]

Hawking's New Book Does Not Dismiss The Real God From Creation, Jesuit Scholars Say

ROME, ITALY, September 3 (CNA/EWTN News) - Dr. Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," makes the bold claim that the universe "created itself from nothing" based on physical laws such as gravity, making God unnecessary for a self-created and self-unfolding model of the universe. However, two Catholic scholars trained in physics say his remarks misconstrue the real relationship between God and creation.

A Jesuit priest and scholar, former president of Gongaza University Fr. Robert Spitzer, says that Hawking's dismissal of God in favor of physics reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists-- both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it.

When this is understood, Fr. Spitzer said, Hawking's basic confusion becomes clear. Although Hawking talks about the universe "creating itself from nothing," he is presupposing that this "nothing" somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr. Spitzer explained.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, the Jesuit priest stated, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of "spontaneous creation" from "nothing."

"Let's take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above - the law of gravity," Spitzer wrote. "It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'."

"Now," he continued, "if we rephrase Dr. Hawking's statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something," by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, explained to CNA on Friday how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of "nothing," as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

"God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about," he told CNA.

Hawking's dismissal of God, Br. Consolmagno said, was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as "nothing," but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of "god" in which Christians do not believe.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in, is one I don't believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge."

Rather, Br. Consolmagno said, "God is the reason why existence itself exists."

This profound mystery, Fr. Spitzer said, was one which Professor Hawking was actually indicating, at the very same time he was attempting to dismiss it.

"In my view," he concluded, "Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing."

Well said MM, problem people want God who they can see with human eye-masanamu
God is a working force. Period

 

[Alpha]

Ok huyu mtaalamu anaweza kupata maelezo ya kisayanasi ya creation of the universe. je anaweza kutupa maelezo ya kisayansi Juu ya creation of Life(Uhai)

• How did a a first organisms/man came into being?
• How the first man/woman came into being
• Why cant human recover life after their brain of heart size to operate?
• how did a first femle or first male came into being?
• What is the original source of life?

Ukweli sayansi haiwezi kueleza majibu ya kila kitu na hivyo hivyo issue ya mungu ni imani. Everything can be challenged because god gave human being brains to do so. Its bcs of those intelligent brains created by the wish of god we can even challenge his/god existance.

Reading is fundamental. I've got no time to write a whole essay for you but i suggest you try reading some books. Start with Darwins "The Origin of Species"

Science might not have all the answers but there is plenty of evidence to back up the theories and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Adam and Eve.

 

[Rubabi]

Hawking's New Book Does Not Dismiss The Real God From Creation, Jesuit Scholars Say

ROME, ITALY, September 3 (CNA/EWTN News) - Dr. Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," makes the bold claim that the universe "created itself from nothing" based on physical laws such as gravity, making God unnecessary for a self-created and self-unfolding model of the universe. However, two Catholic scholars trained in physics say his remarks misconstrue the real relationship between God and creation.

A Jesuit priest and scholar, former president of Gongaza University Fr. Robert Spitzer, says that Hawking's dismissal of God in favor of physics reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists-- both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it.

When this is understood, Fr. Spitzer said, Hawking's basic confusion becomes clear. Although Hawking talks about the universe "creating itself from nothing," he is presupposing that this "nothing" somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr. Spitzer explained.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, the Jesuit priest stated, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of "spontaneous creation" from "nothing."

"Let's take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above - the law of gravity," Spitzer wrote. "It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'."

"Now," he continued, "if we rephrase Dr. Hawking's statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something," by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity.

Historically, many Christian theologians, as well as non-Christian philosophers, have argued precisely the opposite of Hawking's point: namely, that the laws of physics can only be ascribed to an infinite, intelligent and non-physical creator.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, explained to CNA on Friday how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of "nothing," as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

"God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about," he told CNA.

Hawking's dismissal of God, Br. Consolmagno said, was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as "nothing," but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of "god" in which Christians do not believe.

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in, is one I don't believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge."

Rather, Br. Consolmagno said, "God is the reason why existence itself exists."

This profound mystery, Fr. Spitzer said, was one which Professor Hawking was actually indicating, at the very same time he was attempting to dismiss it.

"In my view," he concluded, "Dr. Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing."

Good article, Hawking has confused the laws of nature as 'nothing' lakini hizi sheria haziwezi kuwepo bila mtunga sheria ambaye yupo 'outside' au nje ya 'matter' i.e vitu tunaviona.

Sheria ya msingi ya physics ' huwezi kusukuma basi ukiwa ndani ya basi hilo hilo' inabidi kutoka nje ya basi ndio utaweza kulisukuma.

Ukiangalia gravity, haiwezi kuletwa na matter, lazima italetwa na force inayotoka nje ya hiyo matter.

Kwa hiyo ukienda kwenye hiyo series ya hivyo vyanzo lazima ulazimishe kuwa na first mover, na huyu first mover haiitaji wa kumsukuma, huyu fist mover lazima awe 'outside' wa hivi vyanzo, na aweze kujisukuma mwenyewe, hii logic inatulazimisha tu postulate kuwa huyu first unmoved mover lazima awepo ili 'motion' iwepo. Ndio maana wanatheologia wanapostulate kuwa huyu ni Mungu etc kwa sababu yupo 'outside' matter.

Sasa akili zetu haziwezi kupenyeza na kujua nature halisi ya huyu unmoved mover kutokana na nature ya uelewa wetu.Uelewa wetu uko limited kwa sababu tuna impose categories katika fimomena(kama mmenielewa).Ndio maana physicist wanaishia kuzunguka tu kwa sababu hata kama wanajua kuna 'gravity' they will always have to explain where did this come from and so forth ...

Kwa hiyo ndio maana physicists bado wanajua kwamba safari bado, hawkins anataka kuuza kitabu tu ndio maan anamention God, hii ni tactic aliyo admit, god sells, lakini ukisoma kitabu hicho in detail, utaona bado swali lipo, 'who made gravity'?

 

[Braniac]

He has a point, the theory of God is just too frivolous to be considered feasible in the creation of the whole universe, I never understand why people (especially people in the third world such as Africa) insist on believing in God, the religion of this so called God wasn't even yours (Africans) to begin with and the people who brought this ass of a God are now becoming secular, they are discarding him/her as the rubbish that he/she is, I can't understand why it's so hard for you people to embrace FREE THINKING .:smile-big:

And you actually think free thinking is thinking about absence of God!!!!!!! FYI free thinking includes considering the possibility of God's existence not only the denial.

 

[Braniac]

Uzuri wa kufuru hii, ni kwamba mungu anatakiwa kuwa ndiye muweza wa yote. Na kama kweli mungu ni muweza wa yote, na aliyetupa yote, hata hiyo akili inayokusababishia kukufuru kakupa yeye.

Kwa hiyo kama kuna the slightest chance ya kwamba mungu yupo na takuuliza kwa nini ulinikufuru, jibu lake ni rahisi tu, kwa sababu hukunipa imani ya kutosha kukuamini mungu, huwezi kunilaumu.

Classical Bertrand Russell solution.

Kwa namna moja au nyingine unamjibu Paradox hapo juu, kuwa Mungu yupo na kuna watu amewapa imani na akili ya kutosha kumuamini. Which means it is too unfortunate that hajakupa hiyo imani. Na kwa sababu huyo Mungu ni muweza wa yote he can screw you the way he want and you wont be in position to do anything about it..

 

[Braniac]

Kwa hiyo hata hiyo akili ya kuamini kwamba mungu yupo ni ujinga?



Kama mwisho wa yote ni kaburi kwa hiyo hizi habari za pepo na moto ni kamba tu, au siyo? Umesema mwenyewe mwisho wa yote ni kaburi.



Unajuaje kwamba ni siri ya uungu ? Kwa nini isiwe kwamba kifo ni matokeo ya kukongoroka kwa mwili kwa mujibu wa kanuni za sayansi, kama vile mashine inavyoharibika na kuacha kufanya kazi?



Hizi habari za mythology unaziamini wewe? Kwamba binadamu alianzia katika bustani ya Edeni? Kwamba kulikuwa na Adamu na Hawa, unaamini hizi habari? Kama mungu ni muweza yote, kwa nini aliwawezesha binadamu kuwa na utashi wa kutaka kujua kama yeye? Na usinijibu kwamba mungu hakuwawezesha ila binadamu waliamua kwa utashi wao kushawishiwa na shetani, kwa nini mungu alimuumba shetani? Kwa nini mungu aliumba utashi unaoweza kukubali mabaya? Ina maana mungu alibariki mabaya ? Aliumba ulimwengu wenye uwezekano wa kufanyika mabaya? Je ilikuwa lazima kwake kuumba ulimwengu unaowezekana mabaya au haikuwa lazima, aliumba hivyo kwa kutaka tu ?

Na usiniambie kabisa kwamba mungu aliumba mabaya lakini akatupa uwezo wa kutambua mema na mabaya.

Wewe unaweza kumuwekea mtoto mdogo chupa ya maziwa safi na chupa ya sumu, kisa eti umpe uchaguzi wa kufanya atakacho? Sisi binadamu tulioumbwa na utashi tusioweza kuuzuia ni kama watoto wadogo walio na uelewa mdogo wanaopewa uchaguzi wa kuchagua maziwa au sumu, baba atakayefanya hivi atahukumiwa kuwa muuaji, sasa huyu mungu mungu gani asiyeweza kupita standards za kibinadamu tu ?



Mateso zaidi unajipa mwenyewe kwa kuamini vitu visivyopo.



Kama unajua mwisho wake ni kaburi utamteteaje mungu anayetuambia kuna hukumu, mbingu na pepo baada ya kaburi ?



Umejuaje? Utalazimishaje by fiat mungu awepo? Na mimi nikikwambia in all we see hear and touch there is St. Claus, utakataaje ?



Mungu hajawahi kuwepo, hayupo na hatakuja kuwepo. Hata ukibisha kwa hoja ya nguvu na bila kutumia nguvu ya hoja.

Kama mungu mwenye uwezo wote yupo kwa nini kaua vitoto masikini na visivyo hatia huko Haiti, wakati mafisadi wanapeta tu ?

Kama mungu mwenye uwezo wote ndiye aliyeumba ulimwengu wenye maovu kama huu, tungeweza kumkamata tungemshitaki kwa mauaji ya genocide sawa sawa na wauaji wengine tu. Ukiwa na uwezo kuzuia maafa usipozuia ni muuaji tu, kwa nini mungu anaruhusu maafa ? Kwa nini mungu kaumba ulimwengu ambao unaweza kuwa na watu wasioamini kwamba kuna mungu ?

Una maswali ya msingi sana ila siyo kwamba hayajibiki yote yanajibika. Nitajitahidi nitafute muda kidogo nikupatie majibu.

 

[Raia Fulani]

Wengi hatusomi biblia. Hayo maandishi ya zaidi ya miaka elf 5 iliyopita na mengine miaka elf 2 iliyopita na ambayo hadi leo yako hai yanaashiria uwepo wa muumbaji. Biblia ilitabiri kuwa watu watakuwa na akili za kupitiliza. Nadhani ndio hizo za kina mwandishi

 

[Mtazamaji]

Reading is fundamental. I've got no time to write a whole essay for you but i suggest you try reading some books. Start with Darwins "The Origin of Species"

Science might not have all the answers but there is plenty of evidence to back up the theories and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Adam and Eve.

Mkuu huitaji kunadika Essya unaweza kujipunguzia kazi na kutoa Link ya kupata taarifa. Kuna google, wikipedia na vile vile tulifanikiwa kwenda darasani kidogo.hata form four miaka hiyo tulimsoma darwin na theory zake za evolution

Lakini Thanks umekubali sience might not have all answers. hiyo kwangu ni evidence ya uwepo wa mungu.

Darwin nadhani pia aliongelea EVOLUTION. Yes kuwa binanadamu tumetokana na species ya NYANI/SOKWE. Sokwe katokana na nani na huyo nani alitokana na nani. Kama aliweza kuelezea Evolution si anaweza kuelezea na source of life?

Pili kwa kuwa Darwin kakupa evidence ambazo kwako unaona ni plenty haimaanishi hatutakiwi kuhoji zaidi. It make sense sababu kibanadamu tunatka kila kitu kielezewe ina physical, chemical composition. God has neither of those proporties wich make sense too. Kwa nini hawatoi evidence za souce of life? Darwin kaeleza source is species but not source of life.

 

[Mtazamaji]

Wewe hata hujui Hawking kasema nini masikini.

usionee huruma na kuniacha gizani nieleweshe kama unadhani sijui kasema nini. Nilichoolea huyu mtaalamu anasema God did not ceate the universe.Ndio nikasema amechukua scope ndogo ya universe tu. Kwa nini hajachukua Scope of life.? na bado hata akiingia ndani kwenye universe kuna majibu bado hayako wazi.

Kama sijamuelewa ebu nieleweshe.

 

[Utingo]

usionee huruma na kuniacha gizani nieleweshe kama unadhani sijui kasema nini. Nilichoolea huyu mtaalamu anasema God did not ceate the universe.Ndio nikasema amechukua scope ndogo ya universe tu. Kwa nini hajachukua Scope of life.? na bado hata akiingia ndani kwenye universe kuna majibu bado hayako wazi.

Kama sijamuelewa ebu nieleweshe.

Kutenganisha universe na scope of life ni uendawazimu. universe(space &time) + scope of life=God's creation. PERIOD!!