Stephen Hawking's New God---Gravity [A Rebuttal]

Stephen Hawking's New god...
Gravity!

Famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking now says definitely that God did not create the universe or spark the Big Bang. Rebuttal

In his new book, "The Grand Design," scheduled for a September release, Hawking argues that the universe didn't need divine inspiration to come into being.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," writes Hawking. "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," he writes, according to excerpts published in the Times of London today.

Hawking, who co-wrote "The Grand Design" with Leonard Mlodinow, a U.S. physicist, has come to this position fairly recently.

In June, when ABC News' Diane Sawyer asked him about the biggest mystery he'd like solved, Hawking said, "I want to know why the universe exists, why there is something greater than nothing."

"What could define God ... as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking told her, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

I would now like to respond to Mr. Hawking in regards to his candid, but misdirected thoughts.
I will begin by quoting a very famous atheist that later in life became a devout Christian...C.S. Lewis.
In his book, Mere Christianity, Mr. Lewis says the following regarding human nature:

"Everyone has heard of people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'---'That's my seat, I was there first!'---'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm!'---'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.'---'Come on, you promised!'
People say things like that every day, educated as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him, rather he is also appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man/person to also know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard!' Nearly always he/she tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does, there is some special excuse.
He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off from keeping his/her promise.
It looks, in fact, very much as both parties had in mind some kind of law, or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they both really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word.
Quarrelling means trying to show that the other person is wrong. And there there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what was Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.
Now this Law, or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'law of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong, the 'Law of Nature,' they really meant the law of human nature.
The idea was that just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravity, and organisms by the biological laws, so too the creature called Man also had his law---with this great difference---That a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravity, but a man could choose (through free will) either to obey the law of Human Nature or disobey it."

It is here where such simplicity, humility and common sense, trumps the complex, proud and non-sensical theory that Mr. Hawking has proposed. For it is according to Hawking's own theory, that if everything owes its existence to the universal laws of gravity, then how is that he is able to even choose this theory over another? His mere free will in the matter does away with his own theory.

Another point to make is this---According to Mr. Hawking, gravity is the answer to all existence. He proclaims that it is through the laws of gravity that something (matter) came into being. (For this has always been his problem...how to explain how matter came into being out of nothing???) He attempt to posit his theory on the laws of gravity and how these laws can do such a miraculous thing.

But the problem he runs into now is the following. Let us suppose that the universe was like a huge blank portrait, waiting to be drawn, sketched and painted upon. The portrait would adhere to certain a certain art code that would instruct any and all instructions as it came into being.

The only problem here is that the potential art work would be limited due to the fact that there was NO artist!!!! Would the portrait paint/create itself??? Would the portrait create its own art rules and codes to follow?? How would the portrait relay the emotions of love, caring, hope, charity, bravery and anger on its own blank canvas??? And if it was able to do this, how would it explain these intangible elements that create the basis for all human emotion that is found in all human nature???

Nothing that is man made ever created itself, it all stemmed from a mind that first conceived the thought and followed through with the act of procreating, through the act of manipulating matter and concluding with a finished product, the end. The material world has one limitation, it cannot explain itself, it always needs a mind.

Yet everything that is man-made has a design, a pattern, an order to it. How much more intricate and complex is the universe and its design, pattern and order. Or perhaps the universe at a sub atomic level with its design, patterns and order. Whether you look at the world through a microscope or a telescope, you can not help but see a pattern a design an order that is not man made, but rather divinely made.

It would be a coincidence if one were to come across a snowflake that resembled a heart, but it would be a miracle if one were to come across one that had a detailed map of New York city; and yet each and every snowflake is an individual, unique pattern of geometry in and of itself, just like every fingerprint. Its a coincidence if any stick can fill any hole, but its a definite miracle with a purpose in mind that creates a key that opens a complex lock.

The irony here is that Mr. Hawking and other great minds such as his have always sought to do away with religion, while in the process creating a new religion. In this case, the religion where gravity is god. But in all cases, further demonstrate the human limits of their human nature and thought.