In about half a dozen of years we will not only have proof of the Big Bang, we will have the Big Bang itself.

Will the Large Hadron Collider cause the Big Bang at the very end of days? - Comment on 2010 September 4

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2010 > Comment on 2010 September 4

2008 | 2009 | 2010 |

2010 September 4
A new book of Stephen Hawking and some very polite statements about the stupidity of scientists and especially about that of Stephen Hawking. They will set off powers still unknown to them, with the no longer imaginable result of a total destruction of the surface of the earth. Read more:

On the 20th of August 2010 I had an entry called "Particle Physics and the Day of the Lord" and in it was the following quotation: "But men consider themselves to be clever and wise; they believe to be able to also go into the laws of nature, which had been foreign for them so far. They carry out experiments, which they will extend all the time until they will set off powers still unknown to them, with the no longer imaginable result of a total destruction of the surface of the earth, which no created being will survive, as it is predicted through seers and prophets from the very start of this earth period."

Yesterday I read an interesting article in which also such experiments are touched and the writer has to say something about the Large Hadron Collider, that the Higgs particle is sought at the Collider, but that will follow a little bit later on this webpage. But it may be exactly this Large Hadron Collider which scientist may use to carry out experiments, which they will extend all the time until they will set off powers still unknown to them, with the no longer imaginable result of a total destruction of the surface of the earth, which no created being will survive.

The article is more about a new book by Stephen Hawking and the writer makes some very polite statements about the stupidity of some scientists and especially about that of Stephen Hawking.

So when you find remarks about stupid scientists here on these webpages then please consider that this is not the only voice, that their are others who think likewise.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1.

And that most scientists are stupid might be quite funny but the real thing is that they are extremely dangerous, their results will prove this in just a few years. Then they will not only have their proof of their theory of the Big Bang, they will have the Big Bang itself.

After I had read the article mentioned earlier once more the thought occurred to me, that one difference between religion and science is, that a true religion includes science, but that science, if it wants to exclude the spiritual side of life, becomes ridiculous.

So now some passage from this article mentioned earlier:

Stephen Hawking has declared that his latest work shows there was no creator of the universe. But we shouldn't imagine that will settle the God vs science debate.

God did not create the universe, Stephen Hawking revealed yesterday. In the flurry of publicity preceding his new book, The Grand Design, to be published next week, he does some serious dissing of the Almighty, declaring him/her/it irrelevant. The point is, he says, that our universe followed inevitably from the laws of nature. But, we might ask, where did they come from?

It is perhaps a bit rich for Hawking to make God redundant after granting him/her/it a celebrity cameo at the end of his multi-million selling A Brief History of Time. In his famous conclusion to the book, Hawking wrote that if scientists could find the most fundamental laws of nature "then we should know the mind of God". To be fair, he was writing metaphorically we all know what he meant.

He now suggests that the search for this particular Holy Grail is over, now that scientists have come up with a type of theory, known as M-theory, that may describe the behaviour of all the fundamental particles and force, and even account for the very birth of the universe. If this theory is backed up by experiment, it might perhaps replace all religious accounts of creation in Hawking's capacious mind, it already has.

The science-religion debate has been going on since science was born, centuries ago. Until relatively recently, it seemed to have quietened down, but now Hawking and others have brought it back into the limelight. It's striking that the scientists who contribute most vociferously to the arguments work in the field of evolutionary biology and fundamental physics. These, at least superficially, appear to be the territories where science and religion can make conflicting claims, leading us to ask which has the better case. But are they alternatives? Is there really any serious argument between the two?

Science and religion are about fundamentally different things. No religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations, but this happens to most scientific theories, at least in the long run. Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting theoretical ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful a theoretical idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology.

A useful characteristic of a scientific theory is that it must be possible, at least in principle, for experimenters to prove it wrong. Newton and Darwin, two of the greatest theoreticians, both set out ideas in this way, putting their heads on Nature's chopping block. In Newton's case, at least, his ideas have been superseded after proving inadequate in some circumstances. Unlike many religions, science has no final authority; the Royal Society, the UK academy of sciences, expresses this neatly in its motto "Take nobody's word for it".

No religion has ever been set out in terms of scientific statements. This is why scientists are able to mock the claims of religions but have never been able to deal a knock-out blow: in the end, a religious believer can always fall back on a faith that does not depend on verification.

The most famous atheist scientist of our times is the fearless Richard Dawkins, whose God Delusion set out to discredit religion once and for all. For him, it was Darwin's theory of evolution that dealt the fatal blow to religious belief. Powerful and eloquent though it was, religion continues to flourish, and scientists (albeit a minority) continue to go to church, just as Galileo, Newton, Faraday and others have done in the past. I suspect that none of them would have abandoned their respective faiths after reading Dawkins (admittedly, not a scientific statement). Religions will survive so long as they steer clear of making statements that can be shown to be factually wrong.

The kind of science done by Stephen Hawking, one of the leading theoretical physicists of modern times, has an almost religious ring to it. He and his colleagues are trying to find the patterns in the basic fabric of reality the mathematical laws that govern the workings of nature at its finest level. There is plenty of evidence that these laws hold good all the way back to the beginning of time, which is how scientists have put together an extremely detailed and well-tested theory of the Big Bang, the first few minutes of the universe. The Large Hadron Collider will soon be reproducing, at will, the conditions in the universe within a billionth of a second of the beginning of time.

This has led writers to invest these experiments with a theological significance. The distinguished experimenter Leon Lederman labelled the Higgs particle, being sought at the Collider, as the God Particle, with no good reason except as a hook to promote his book, which he named after it. Yet these experiments will tell us nothing about God. They will simply steer us towards an improved theoretical understanding of our material universe, ultimately in terms of principles set out in mathematics.

Hawking's view appears to be that the belief in a God-created universe can be supplanted by a belief in M-theory, a good candidate for a fundamental theory of nature at its finest level. Experts assure us of the potential of this theory and I for one am quite prepared to believe them.

One problem with the theory is that it looks as though it will be extremely difficult to test, unless physicists can build a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy. Even if the experimenters find a way round this and M-theory passes all their tests, the reasons for the mathematical order at the heart of the universe's order would remain an unsolvable mystery.

Even religious scientists and there are still a few never use the God concept in their scientific work. Perhaps it is time for a moratorium on the use of the concept in popularisations, too? This would avoid mixing up scientific and non-scientific statements and put an end to the consequent confusions. I think it wise for scientists and religious believers to keep out of each other's territory no good has come out of their engagement and I suspect it never will.

But this is naive. The science-religion relationship, in so far as there is one, continues to be a crowd-pleaser. It seems to be a fundamental law of PR that the God-science debate is a sure-fire source of publicity. Always welcome when one has a book to sell.


2008 | 2009 | 2010 |

For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
Site Map

The web address of this webpage is: