Only a few short hours ago (Sept. 2), the British newspaper The Times published extracts from a new book by Stephen Hawking where he asserts that modern physics leaves no role for God in the creation of the Universe... and already a storm of protest is brewing.
Among the first out the gate with criticism of Hawking is New Zealand-born evangelist and author, Ray Comfort. While Prof. Hawking is a physicist and Britain's most eminent scientist, Comfort is best known for stunts like his 2009 giveaway of 170,000 copies of Darwin's On Origin of Species to university students. The books were printed by Comfort and included a 50-page preface by Comfort himself where he attempts to refute the Theory of Evolution in favor of biblical creationism.
Comfort is also well-known for a Youtube video he and ex-child-star Kirk Cameron appeared in where they offer a banana as evidence of intelligent design and refer to that tropical fruit as "the atheists' nightmare."
In The Time's extracts of Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, the physicist writes,
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. 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."
Ray Comfort, author of Nothing Created Everything -- the scientific impossibility of atheistic evolution, says (according to Christian News Wire) that this means Prof. Hawking is violating the basic laws of science.
"It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing," says Comfort. "Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn't nothing, it was something -- a very intelligent creative power of some sort."
"Hawking has violated the unspoken rules of atheism," the evangelist adds. "He isn't supposed to use words like 'create' or even 'made.' They necessitate a Creator and a Maker. Neither are you supposed to let out that the essence of atheism is to believe that nothing created everything, because it's unthinking. It confirms the title of another book I wrote, called, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think. Nor should an atheist speak of gravity as being a 'law,' because that also denotes the axiom of a Law-giver. Laws don't happen by themselves. But look at how careless the professor was, with his, 'The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe.'"
According to his Wikipedia biography, Ray Comfort has no degrees or formal training in either theology or science.
***
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page and you'll receive notice when new ones are published.
RELATED ARTICLE:
.Stephen Hawking says God did not create the universe
Comments
I've never heard such a huge, steaming pile in my life. 'Rules of atheism'? Looks like Comfort's delusions aren't confined to his invisible friend in the sky.
Comfort seems to think science obeys some rule of "common sense" and seems to equate the two. He wouldn't know what real science is if it pissed on his shoes. The guy can't even research banana domestication before he starts claiming there's no way they could have evolved naturally. Why does anyone even give Comfort a column inch, other than he's fun to laugh at?
Anonymous, you caught me out. I love Ray Comfort for the laughs he provides. He's very personable, very nice, very sincere... and very crazy but he has big buck$ behind him and lots of people who think he's a visionary. And that's why he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I think publicizing his insanity is the best way to fight it.
Sorry, I'd have to disagree. He's not sincere, and he's not nice. His incincerity is shown every time he speaks his mind and claims that science is wrong, despite the fact he has no clue as to what he's talking about. If he was honest, he could simply say that he believes differently. Also, the stunt with his publishing of Darwin's book was an example of gross dishonesty. Not only did he critique it in ignorance, he also attempted to leave out a number of key chapters (the pages were also renumbered so those who didn't know the book wouldn't have known they were missing). His (pathetic) excuse was financial problems, but later editions had most of the missing info put back in.
The reason why he's dishonest is that he's not interested in facts or "truth", only "truth" as he sees it. Hence why he's a propaganda man. He's not interested in re-examining his belief system with a critical mind, he's not interested in learning on why he consistently gets science wrong. His ONLY interest is pushing his baseless and superbly ridiculous beliefs onto others.
Comfort and Leonard, separated at birth?
What do think Nick - your description fits both.
>Why does anyone even give Comfort a column inch, other than he's fun to laugh at?
Does anyone give him space for any other reason? :D You can't even spoof him, because he IS a walking spoof. How could anyone make him any funnier?
This is about as stupid as you can get.
Sorry, but down our way http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/forumdisplay.php/149-Philosophical-debates We have something that is even more impressive than banana boy. We call it rza
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/member.php/63521-rza
Come look and be horrified
I agree with you Hugh. Best way to silence a moron like Comfort (is that his real name?) is to allow him to open his mouth and let the stupidity pour forth. Let the audience hear and reward him with derision.
On a side note, someone should make a YouTube video debunking his "banana" proof. I would argue that a plantain shares all the physical characteristics as a banana. But try peeling and eating one of those things raw. I rest my case.
its done already..
That would be a really short video. A banana is a man-made fruit which started off as a plantain-like fruit, before being selectively bred and cloned to create the modern sweet, seedless and pulpy banana.
Except Sarah doesn't seem the worse for opening her mouth. She gets richer the dumber shit she spews.
Snowflakes, Embryogenesis, life.
They are all created without a creator.
My favourite part of this video is how clueless Comfort is to the history of the banana.
Firstly, please don't put "New Zealand born" before introducing this bone head ever again. And secondly - see first.
Never mind' you've got Ernest Rutherford to compensate.
This guy has a sweet mustache though. That means he's right. Doesn't it?
So, can anyone explain the origin of the universe without violating any of the laws of physics?
The answer is no.
Atheism is unscientific from any aspect. The emperor has no clothes guys! Science disproves atheism at every turn. The ship is sinking, and the lifeboats are empty. It's time to abandon your 19th century mythology and come to the 21st century, where we aren't so ignorant that we'll believe in fairy tales like a whole universe appearing ex-nihilo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
This is titled "a universe from nothing". It was compiled by highly regarded scientists from a variety of disciplines, most notably Lawrence Krauss.
I post this because the rebuttal to your blathering bull is actually very complicated but, nonetheless, scientifically sound.
And also because to the layman, it may be a semi-persuasive bit of rhetorical appeal to ignorance.
This will shed plenty of light if you have the attention span. It is approximately an hour.
TLDR; Something cannot be created from "nothing" but they demonstrate in this video that there is actually no such thing as purely "nothing", that even empty vacuum space has stuff in it, which has gravitational attraction, attracts, reactions happen, etc. bam, stuff from what appears to be nothing.
The fairytale is your theory about some dude in the sky shoring up the gaps in our understanding in a most cozy way, and giving us real significance in a universe that is so unimaginably vast that if you even try to contemplate its true size, you may give yourself an aneurysm. A great arrogance. With its origins in the Bronze Age, when that sort of thing flew.
"So, can anyone explain the origin of the universe without violating any of the laws of physics?"
That's what Hawking just did, apparently. From the excerpts, it appears he's leaning toward M-theory:
"According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."
That doesn't deny the existence of a god - it says you don't need one to explain the universe.
What's unscientific is the concept of a deity: It meets none of the basic requirements of the scientific method, such as testability or predictability.
And ultimately still does not answer the "beginning" question: "Where did God come from?"
When one believes the answer is, "He always existed," how can that person claim the Universe could not appear from nothing - but his deity did?
Considering the alternative (Goddidit) is based on a grand total of zero evidence, atheism would seem to be a rational position. Technically a positive assertion of atheism may be unscientific, but it is not an unreasonable scientific hypothesis. So actually no, science does not falsify atheism at every turn (unless you would like to present some). As for the origin of the universe, the best answer would be "We don't know - yet". Which is a FAR better answer than making one up, like the invisible man in the sky did it. Based on uh, millenia old mythology (and I cannot stress the word "mythology" enough there) rather than "19th century mythology".
So please, before one comments I would advise to proof-read one's post and correct all the logical fallacies in it first before pressing the post button. And perhaps read up on some quantum physics.
Are you serious? Scientist are working constantly, performing experiments and publishing peer reviewed documents, slowly and steadily chipping away at the unanswered questions of the origin of the universe. None of their findings violate any of the laws of physics. To make such a claim is to erect a straw man that can easily be defeated.
Furthermore, it is disingenuous for the creationist to pretend they hold physics in high regard. Let’s look at the claims of the creationist. Can anyone explain this hypothetical creator without violating any of the laws of physics? The answer is no.
Every shred of evidence supports the fact that the earth and the universe are millions of years old. Likewise, every branch of science supports the claim that the diversity of life on planet earth evolved into being over the course of millions of years. The claim that science is somehow proving the existence of god is just not true.
"So, can anyone explain the origin of the universe without violating any of the laws of physics?"
Yes. In fact, any explanation that really defies the laws of physics is instantly rejected by science.
The whole of the book of Genesis for example.
Also, if we take your comment and remove the rhetoric, leaving only the attempted scientific claims behind, we get:
1) You can't get a universe from nothing without violating the laws of physics
Which would be true if it were truly from absolutely nothing, which it's not.
2) Atheism is unscientific.
Atheism is a belief which asserts the non-existence of any god or goddess, and can be broken into both strong and weak atheism. Look them up, I'm too tired to type out all of what they are, but
TLDR: Atheism is a rational scientific notion based merely on every last scrap of data and evidence we as a species have collectively gathered and scientifically scrutinized over the course of our many hundreds of thousands of years of existing in a form similar or identical to the one we hold now.
3) Science disproves Atheism
The reason why you would make such a bold claim without citing even one example or bit of evidence to reinforce your position is because none actually exists, and you're talking out of your behind. There is not one scrap of credible evidence for anything but Atheism, and if you think you can cogently disagree, I'll be more than happy to take your argument apart right in front of you.
So not holding a belief of the magical sky daddy who created things from nothing and hears peoples thoughts and forgives sins, its unscientific. So it is moe scientific to believe in an unscientific being that makes unscientific actions?
Is it unscientific to not believe in zeus or thor?
Its not believeing in an invisible pink unicorn unscientific?
Just plain nonsense. Just another guy who thinks atheism is a religion.
Like baldness is a hair color.....
Speaking of Comfort...
Did you catch last year when Paul Serano's team wrote up their findings about ancient crocodilians in the Sahara, they dubbed on the DuckCroc - a not so subtle smackdown of Comfort and Cameron.
I challenge Ray Comfort to look through Stephen Hawking's and Leonard Mlodinow's mathematics, and say why it's wrong. Otherwise, it's simply speculation.
BWA HA HAAA!
Hey Ray, if the universe didn't come from nothing, what did God make it out of? Sure, they give us a "who" but not a "how", and they do so based on no evidence.
>>>"Nor should an atheist speak of gravity as being a 'law,' because that also denotes the axiom of a Law-giver. Laws don't happen by themselves."
Um, actually they do. As I've just had to explain to another scientifically illiterate fundie, scientific "laws" and "rules" are merely man's way of describing the natural world around us. So if they want to claim that there was a "law-giver" and that it was intelligent, they will have to provide some evidence.
Thousands of years later and they still can't do it.
Hi, I don't understand quantum mechanics.
Nobody understands quantum mechanics.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Feynman
Law-giver my butt. In physics, 'law' is synonymous with 'pattern'.
The intelligent designer's nightmare--- The Pineapple
The creationists have made a HUGE mistake in 'pushing' intelligent design. If they were smart, they'd push STUPID design. Ask a doctor, a chemist, a biologist or an astronomer about 'intelligent design'.
(a) How scientific is it to make the categorical assertion that laws don't happen by themselves? (Evidence?) and (b) even if there is a creative power of some sort, how does one make the jump to the assertion that it is "very intelligent"? Maybe it's as dumb as an electron (or a photon....)
The real problem with the concept of 'God' is that of attributes.... Folks refer to It as Him for no reason. People assert that It is intelligent without even discussing what intelligence is! Many seem to think that It is capable of creating not only matter but natural laws! (Proof, folks?) Humans posit that it can think even though it has no brain; see even though it has no eyes; hears even though it has no ears; and so on... Many assert it is All-Powerful and simultaneously All-Good, which leaves It in the position that the extermination of the Jews must be good (or that It is a fraud and is not All-Powerful). How's this for a god: an insignificant, powerless, amoral, invisible, dumb-as-a-rock immaterial 'stuff' which is unaware of its own existence and that of the rest of the universe. I nominate the photon... Hail, Photon! (Oops, photons didn't start existing until after the Big Bang... back to the drawing board....)
Who the hell does this Ray Comfort think he is? An Evangalist, a spreader of lies about a non-existant "god" based on the worst book of fiction ever written, the "Holy" BIble. Has Comfort got any quilifications in Physics and Astrophysics?
Comfort, go count home sheep..
This comes from the same person who believes in someone with formal education in Theology and no sceintific degree whatsoever while just about all athiests fall over backwards over his writings. Who is he? Oh ya, he's your god... Charles Darwin.
Ah, I see we have another illiterate who conflates evolution and atheism.
Sorry, Annie-Non-Emous, they are two entirely different things. One can easily accept the evidence of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution the explains that evidence and still retain religious beliefs - millions do, including most major Western religions.
Conversely, one certainly does not have to be an atheist to see the irrational idiocy of the creationist deniers.
But such denier rants probably do lead some to question the deity concept overall - because what kind of god would inflict upon man such blatant ignorance?
Actually Darwin was a med student who went on to become a geologist. He was also sent to Christ's College to study to become an Anglican parson. After his famous Beagle voyage as a naturalist scientist he went on to propose the mechanism of natural selection in the process of evolution, and as history shows, evolution was developed over the next 150 years and went on to become possibly the strongest scientific theory we have today.
Of course, a simple net search could have revealed this information.
It is also worth pointing out (again) that evolution makes no theological claims whatsoever as to whether (a) God exists or not (just like every other scientific theory). Hence why many religious people, Christians included have no problem with accepting the validity of evolution.
Not that that stops people from attacking the straw-man of "Darwinism = evolution!"
Going by Comfort's logic, doesn't a banana fit most ape's hands perfectly as well? Ergo evolution is right. In yo mustached face Jesus boy.
The logic of these people is frightening.
A penis can fit in an anus, therefore god created us to be gay, therefore the bible is a lie, therefore gods word is wrong, therefore he is not infalible, if he is not infalible then he can make mistakes, if he can make mistakes then maybe the bannana was created as it should have been to fit a mans hand, if the bannana wasn't created to fit a mans hand then ergo evolution must be true - i think.
My head hurts.
Oh I see where I wen't wrong, I didn't pick and choose the facts in order to fit my already chosen conclusion. Silly atheist me. I didn't employ real science, comfort science.
Twat.
It's interesting how religuious zealots seem to believe that everyone things in their terms... Rules of Atheism? WTF? Law of gravity need a lawgiver? WTF!? It's like science having a Decalogue... Like Sir Isaac Newton came down a hill with the Laws of Motion under his arm?... it's so ridiculous it's not even funny... It is sad...
Oops... thinks not things...
This is a definite case of the pot (Comfort) calling the crystal goblet black.
Comfort is an embarrassment and an idiot. Hawking has never said he was a spokesperson for atheism. He is simply a brilliant scientist who, due to his condition, could well have been forgiven for living off welfare, and yet despite massive bariers, proven himself to be in the elite of theoretical physicists. Comfort couldn't find a law of nature if he was a law of nature, covered in law of nature pheremones, in a field full of laws of nature during laws of nature breeding season.
I think the Universe was gods first mistake. Ray Comfort was definitely up on the list of mistakes, but its so long I can't write his number here.....
Riveting tale, chap.
Mighty Feklahr! Qapla'!
Assuming that our science is perfect (it isn't) and that "god" is perfect (read most religious books, "he" isn't), then we are faced with a dilemma: which of these can be true?
IMHO, it is both. Let me explain. Believe what you want. Really, that's it. If I want to believe that a juvenile superbeing is running the show, telling select portions of my little planet I "created" from nothing (?) to destroy another select portion just because they don't like me, so be it. I can also believe there is no mystery or wonder in the serendipity of our human connectivity, that existence really is the craziest probability, but heck, here we are.
Personally, I believe we createdourselves, somehow, manifesting a universe and growing it intelligently. Do you care? Do I care if you care, that is the real question.
Rev Comfort did not write the occult propaganda piece prefacing his version of Darwin's book: Rev Comfort plagiarized it for a biography of Darwin. As for Dr. Hawking noting that the gods did not create the universe, that's an observed fact: people will just have to adjust.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!