Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]

Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]

Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
[/quote]

The point is, that if that’s true, then something from nothing is bunk. That is the point.
[/quote]

You’re changing the point as you go. Is that now your point?

Do you truly understand what Hawking is musing about? Really? Because I’m not so sure I do but I know he’s not arguing against the existence of God - only that God is not necessary to explain the physical universe. Do you understand that our brightest minds do not really understand the concept of “time” - that is it largely a man made construct and it may be a limiting construct in our quest to understand the universe?

Explain to me what you mean by “something from nothing” and how that is attributable to Hawking…because you seem to be harping on those two things. I’m not sure I’m understanding why you are harping on that subject - so take a moment, breathe and explain it to me.[/quote]

That was the original point before you start berating me. Breathing.

First, what is your “definition” of God. Who or what do you think he is? This is important because we can then derive who or what, you and Hawking are talking about.

Second, something from nothing is integral to his “Theory of Everything” which is his holy grail. If you can prove that ‘something’ can come from nothing, then you can prove there is no creator, or at least one isn’t necessary. Which was his stated goal as it pertains to the “Theory of Everything”.
The problem is that the science at it’s extremes, the lines between the physical and the metaphysical are blurred. So to say that God is only the God of laws, of the metaphysical only is not God. If he is not the creator, he isn’t God. You also take causality as a law and purely physical construct, which it isn’t it applies the to the metaphysical world as well. All metaphysical things are begotten by something else ,just like the physical world. So I disagree with the notion that God sits outside the physical world and has nothing to do with it. He loses God like properties and hence really would not be God.
What I am saying is that the history of creation demands a creator. Whether he created this universe or a trillion that preceded it, it was brought about by something that can bring it about and not be subject to it.

Fortunately, something from nothing has proven elusive to everybody…[/quote]

Seriously, you can keep breathing. We have nothing to discuss. [/quote]

Weak.

342

[quote]pat wrote:

Weak.[/quote]

Seriously, what is there to talk about? You believe something very different than what I believe. Apparently, Hawkings believes something different than you too. Along the way, you’re butchering his theories with your personal interpretations because they contradict your view of God. So I ask, is anyone going to change your mind? Are you going to change my mind? The answer is no, and utlimately, the result is hard feelings and wasted memory on this page.

343

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Weak.[/quote]

Seriously, what is there to talk about? You believe something very different than what I believe. Apparently, Hawkings believes something different than you too. Along the way, you’re butchering his theories with your personal interpretations because they contradict your view of God. So I ask, is anyone going to change your mind? Are you going to change my mind? The answer is no, and utlimately, the result is hard feelings and wasted memory on this page. [/quote]

Apparently your agenda was to change my mind.
Believing something different is not a bad thing but I think we are tangled in misunderstanding because we are defining things differently.

Second, Hawking himself stated these things and I am not interested in butchering them in anyway, nor do they in anyway contradict what I believe about God.
What I am saying that if he or you for that matter, take the creative property away from God, he ceases to be God. Hawking’s stated goal, with regards to his “Theory of Everything” was to create a view of the universe that did not require God.
He said it here, I think…I can’t verify as my audio driver just mysteriously took a shit…

http://science.discovery.com/videos/master-of-the-universe-stephen-hawking-creation.html

To do this he wants to prove that something can come from nothing. Hence he’s very interested in M Theory.
These aren’t personal interpretations.

God is the creator of existence. The first cause, or uncaused-cause. If you define him or it differently then we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I asked what you thing God is. A universe that came to be with no cause what so ever doesn’t need to be caused by a God or anything else. If you take the creative essence from God, you don’t have God anymore you have something else.

I do not disagree with his theories or his science. I do disagree with, and in fact neither Hawking nor anybody else has been able to prove Null theory as a true something from nothing theory. In the end, I don’t believe anybody will ever be able to prove that, because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, literally, so how do you test it?

I do not disagree with his physics I disagree with the philosophy beyond the science. That is not the same thing. I wouldn’t dare challenge his or anybody else’s physics. I may challenge the non-scientific conclusions they come to based on their scientific endeavors, but not the science itself. Perhaps this subtle distinction is what you got confused about what I saying…You attributed to me a bunch of bible thumping properties to me that I do not have.

344

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Weak.[/quote]

Seriously, what is there to talk about? You believe something very different than what I believe. Apparently, Hawkings believes something different than you too. Along the way, you’re butchering his theories with your personal interpretations because they contradict your view of God. So I ask, is anyone going to change your mind? Are you going to change my mind? The answer is no, and utlimately, the result is hard feelings and wasted memory on this page. [/quote]

Apparently your agenda was to change my mind.
Believing something different is not a bad thing but I think we are tangled in misunderstanding because we are defining things differently.

Second, Hawking himself stated these things and I am not interested in butchering them in anyway, nor do they in anyway contradict what I believe about God.
What I am saying that if he or you for that matter, take the creative property away from God, he ceases to be God. Hawking’s stated goal, with regards to his “Theory of Everything” was to create a view of the universe that did not require God.
He said it here, I think…I can’t verify as my audio driver just mysteriously took a shit…

http://science.discovery.com/videos/master-of-the-universe-stephen-hawking-creation.html

To do this he wants to prove that something can come from nothing. Hence he’s very interested in M Theory.
These aren’t personal interpretations.

God is the creator of existence. The first cause, or uncaused-cause. If you define him or it differently then we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I asked what you thing God is. A universe that came to be with no cause what so ever doesn’t need to be caused by a God or anything else. If you take the creative essence from God, you don’t have God anymore you have something else.

I do not disagree with his theories or his science. I do disagree with, and in fact neither Hawking nor anybody else has been able to prove Null theory as a true something from nothing theory. In the end, I don’t believe anybody will ever be able to prove that, because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, literally, so how do you test it?

I do not disagree with his physics I disagree with the philosophy beyond the science. That is not the same thing. I wouldn’t dare challenge his or anybody else’s physics. I may challenge the non-scientific conclusions they come to based on their scientific endeavors, but not the science itself. Perhaps this subtle distinction is what you got confused about what I saying…You attributed to me a bunch of bible thumping properties to me that I do not have.
[/quote]

I choose not to discuss this anymore with you, because quite frankly you are all over the place in my opinion and you ARE butchering the various concepts and theories. For instance, what does M theory have to do with this discussion? For your reference, a quick primer on M-theory:

M theory is nothing more than an attempt to unify the various string theories. What in the world does that have to do with this discussion?

Hawking is NOT taking the creative property away from God and he has NOT denied God. You made claims he is an atheist. I find no such evidence. And the man himself has denied it. Are you dense? Where do you get a denial of the creative God from anything Hawking has said or written? Why is your view of the unknowable (God and the universe) so narrow? Hawking has already acknowledged that God likely created the laws for the universe - is that not a “creator” or “architect”? I honestly do not believe you grasp what Hawking is referring to.

Why do you keep coming back to and harping on this “null theory” which I find no evidence is attached to Hawking in any manner and is certainly not something he has referred to in your criticism of him. Simply put, wtf are you talking bout willis?

I’m not trying to change your mind sir. I simply do not care.

345

creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator.

346

Uploaded especially for all of you!

347

[quote]drewh wrote:
I think pretty much all of old testament is just a bunch of stories. I mean living in a fish, having golden power hands etc…[/quote]

Golden power hands? If you’re referring to King Midas… that’s not in the Bible.

348

[quote]horsepuss wrote:

[quote]Alffi wrote:

If all the species were created in the instant of six days, the earth could not support the kind of biomass, it is believed. They would cover up the world.[/quote]

remember that a day to god is as long as he wants it to be.6 days to god might not be 6 days to people.it could have been billions of years.

[/quote]

This is taking another section of the Bible out of context to fit evolution in with creationism. The creation account clearly states a sunrise and sunset to each day.

349

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
I’m going to respond to the original question as to whether Noah’s Ark happened or not. This is an excellent question and unfortunately after reading through this thread most people believe that Noah’s Arc is fiction. This is very unfortunate because this is such an important event that Jesus himself mentions how people will be in the time of the end with how people were before the flood event. Matthew 24:37-39 states

“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”

So here Jesus is saying that during his presence, some Bibles translate presence as coming, that people would take no note of the signs in the Bible that point to the fact that we’re living in the last days. These people would just be living there life, not paying attention until it is too late.

I see that most people who posted in this thread at least believe in Jesus many have faith in Jesus. Since Jesus was in heaven during the flood event and he states that the flood event DID HAPPEN, those who have faith in Jesus SHOULD believe that this event did happen. Peter is another Bible writer that compares the flood event to the time of the end and Armagedon. 2 Peter 3:3-7 states:

"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: �¢??Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation�¢??s beginning.�¢??

5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.

8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

Again, Peter links Armageddon and the last days to the Flood event where most of the people on the earth at that time lost their lives due to the flood event. So according to the Bible the Flood event in Genesis is true and God used it to destroy ungodly people. Everyone knows about Armageddon, both Jesus and Peter link the flood event to a future event where God is going to remove people he deems as wicked and just like the survivors in the Arc who he deemed as righteous, he will preserve those who he deems as righteous alive.

2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So according to these verses the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired by God not just part of it which of course includes the Flood event.

Funny thing is historians and scientist have always and will continue to discredit the Bible when they can’t explain things in it. For example, I was watching the History Channel yesterday about great ancient battles and that particular episode was about the Israelites led by Joshua and the battle of Jericho. To make a long story short the Bible states that the wall surrounding Jericho would crumble and fall after 6 days enabling the Israelites to enter into the city. But since the historians being interviewed could not explain how the walls could literally fall they said that the walls falling must have simply meant that the city would be overthrown and the walls figurativly fell.

First Corinthians 3:19 and 20 explains this reasoning perfectly when it states:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, �¢??He catches the wise in their own craftiness�¢??;[a] 20 and again, �¢??The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.�¢??

[/quote]

Very good post and good for you for taking the time to write it. Naturally you’ll be ridiculed for the truth and you won’t change one single mind. But that’s all part of being on a message board I suppose.
[/quote]
Good points all… I find it curious how so many claim to be Christians yet openly disavow the book that includes the basis of their faith.

350

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Uploaded especially for all of you!

A song about wild sex? Not that I disapprove or anything.

351

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:
I think pretty much all of old testament is just a bunch of stories. I mean living in a fish, having golden power hands etc…[/quote]

Golden power hands? If you’re referring to King Midas… that’s not in the Bible.[/quote]

This is true. Greek myth if I’m not mistaken.

352

[quote]jo3 wrote:

[quote]wigsa wrote:

[quote]Kerley wrote:
i am officially leaving the catholic church soon, i have the forms just got to fill them out and post them.[/quote]

Fair play to you.I don’t know how people go to mass in this country and allow themselves be preached to by members of such a hideous organisation.I’m not at the stage yet where I’d leave though,I dunno what it is,you can probably understand though and have gone through this stage before yourself.[/quote]

Can’t say much about the Catholic church since I’m not too familiar with the ins and outs of it, but what bothers me is that (from my perspective) it seems to be more of a culture/identity than an actual religion. Sure, it’s driven by most of the same principles as Protestant denominations, but I just feel like there’s way too much dogma involved and not enough actual understanding of the faith.

A perfect example is lent. I have yet to meet a single person who takes the 40-day period seriously (by serious I mean giving up something that actually means something to you and thinking about your faith when you would normally eat/drink/do what you gave up).

I really do need to take a theology course so I can get a better understanding of Catholicism and other religions.[/quote]

If it counts for anything I lift as if it were a religion but consider myself a “good” catholic. That said meat is a staple of my diet and i love bt i still find mself not eating meat every friday during lent out of respect to Jesus

353

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Weak.[/quote]

Seriously, what is there to talk about? You believe something very different than what I believe. Apparently, Hawkings believes something different than you too. Along the way, you’re butchering his theories with your personal interpretations because they contradict your view of God. So I ask, is anyone going to change your mind? Are you going to change my mind? The answer is no, and utlimately, the result is hard feelings and wasted memory on this page. [/quote]

Apparently your agenda was to change my mind.
Believing something different is not a bad thing but I think we are tangled in misunderstanding because we are defining things differently.

Second, Hawking himself stated these things and I am not interested in butchering them in anyway, nor do they in anyway contradict what I believe about God.
What I am saying that if he or you for that matter, take the creative property away from God, he ceases to be God. Hawking’s stated goal, with regards to his “Theory of Everything” was to create a view of the universe that did not require God.
He said it here, I think…I can’t verify as my audio driver just mysteriously took a shit…

http://science.discovery.com/videos/master-of-the-universe-stephen-hawking-creation.html

To do this he wants to prove that something can come from nothing. Hence he’s very interested in M Theory.
These aren’t personal interpretations.

God is the creator of existence. The first cause, or uncaused-cause. If you define him or it differently then we are not talking about the same thing. Which is why I asked what you thing God is. A universe that came to be with no cause what so ever doesn’t need to be caused by a God or anything else. If you take the creative essence from God, you don’t have God anymore you have something else.

I do not disagree with his theories or his science. I do disagree with, and in fact neither Hawking nor anybody else has been able to prove Null theory as a true something from nothing theory. In the end, I don’t believe anybody will ever be able to prove that, because ‘nothing’ doesn’t exist, literally, so how do you test it?

I do not disagree with his physics I disagree with the philosophy beyond the science. That is not the same thing. I wouldn’t dare challenge his or anybody else’s physics. I may challenge the non-scientific conclusions they come to based on their scientific endeavors, but not the science itself. Perhaps this subtle distinction is what you got confused about what I saying…You attributed to me a bunch of bible thumping properties to me that I do not have.
[/quote]

I choose not to discuss this anymore with you, because quite frankly you are all over the place in my opinion and you ARE butchering the various concepts and theories. For instance, what does M theory have to do with this discussion? For your reference, a quick primer on M-theory:

M theory is nothing more than an attempt to unify the various string theories. What in the world does that have to do with this discussion?

Hawking is NOT taking the creative property away from God and he has NOT denied God. You made claims he is an atheist. I find no such evidence. And the man himself has denied it. Are you dense? Where do you get a denial of the creative God from anything Hawking has said or written? Why is your view of the unknowable (God and the universe) so narrow? Hawking has already acknowledged that God likely created the laws for the universe - is that not a “creator” or “architect”? I honestly do not believe you grasp what Hawking is referring to.

Why do you keep coming back to and harping on this “null theory” which I find no evidence is attached to Hawking in any manner and is certainly not something he has referred to in your criticism of him. Simply put, wtf are you talking bout willis?

I’m not trying to change your mind sir. I simply do not care. [/quote]

I know what M Theory is, I mentioned it because he mentioned it. Perhaps not in the provided clip, but that was his stated launching point for his theory of everything.

To create a self contained universe that comes from true nothingness is a denial of creation. Causality has one weakness, you just have to prove one instance in which it did not happen, to turn it on it’s head. A self contained universe with out of which no causality was involved in it’s inception is a denial of of creation, period. This theory relies on proving something can come from nothing. The something from nothing theory is called “Null Theory”. the term ‘Null theory’ is shorter that ‘something that comes from nothing’ which is why I use the term.

I have already admitted that if the man claims not to be an atheist. I have no choice but to believe him. That was likely the post you read the first line a skipped the rest.
I thought we were past that, but if you did not read it, I can understand why your all pissed off.
However, if that’s all your looking for, I already admitted that previously. Don’t blame me if you missed it.

If the man says it himself, what exactly am I butchering?

You have a very passionate way of not caring.

354

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator. [/quote]

You say physical, I never heard ‘physcial universe’ just universe.

The volcano analogy does not work because it is already the result of a long chain of events. When you are seeking answers to the very first event, it’s a totally different ball game, because there is no preceding cause for this event. It’s a huge difference.

I seriously doubt that he or anybody else would be content to study the ‘first event’ in the chain with out trying to figure out how it got there.

That first event could be the beginning of this universe or the many universes that preceded it. What we know is it’s here and it got here somehow. When you are looking at initial causes you have one of two options. ‘Something caused it’ or ‘nothing caused it’.

Whether Hawking is an atheist or not, he is seeking to prove an atheistic tenant, or nothing caused it. Most TP’s look for the same thing with out considering the other, or at least I have not heard it considered… When you at this level, you cannot take ‘first cause’ out of the equation. It’s impossible to do so.

355

you can be a believer, Christian whatever without believeing the bible is a word for word truthful story. This book has had many authors, much symbolism, and been translated across thousands of years and many authors. Do I belive its the gospel…yes. Do I believe its a word for word truthful account, no. Its lessons, fables, teachings and stories based upon truthful events, and every writer took poetic liscense and may have been referring to events we dont even know about or wrtitng in a way that outsiders (Romans etc would not kill them for). Learn the lesson it teaches…dont think its a history book. My .2

356

The digressions that this string has taken are all interesting. A brilliant historian and folklorist, Adrienne Mayor, wrote a great book entitled, “The First Fossil Hunters.” It deals with the interpretation of the fossil record by ancients who discovered dinosaur bones without having the understanding to interpret them. They often interpreted the bones as those of ancient giant warriors. This infused the religions of the entire middle east, including the Old Testament. There are biblical and rabbinical traditions involving marriages between giant sons of angels and human females. The tradition of Leviathan may have been a response to whale and dinosaur bones along the Mediterranean coast in Syria/Palestine.

Virtually everywhere the people of the time found fossilized shell fish encased in stone along the folds of mountainsides. The idea of an ancient and world wide flood was an easy stretch for those lacking any other explanation. This doesn’t diminish the value of the idea of the covenant which is the central theme of the collection of stories in Genesis. It simply adds perspective to the text which was unavailable to the original readers. Mayor’s book doesn’t deal with Noah, but it illustrates how the simple people of earlier times were inclined to use mysticism to explain the unexplainable.

358

There are no conclusions drawn above. My point was merely that ancient ocean floors are often found in the middle east. The wind swept regions and scant vegetation left ancient fossilized shell fish more exposed than many other places in the world. It would be easy for ancient man to suggest the possibility of an ancient and worldwide flood based on what he could see with his own eyes.

Mayor’s conclusions are, however, quite sound. She uncovered specific examples of fossil remains which, when unearthed, were reassembled by the ancients into the shape of giant humanoid heroes. These gave rise to grotesque figures such as the cyclops. They would retain these bones within temples. She even found obscure texts and artwork which described these remains with almost clinical specificity. It was not uncommon for ancients to locate and excavate an ancient dinosaur femur. Many of them were nearly identical with the human femur in all but size. Your comment about the linguistic evidence is correct. It shows that whatever evidence lead to the story of the Nephilim was not interpreted as the remains of ancient animals. I think you’d enjoy Mayor’s book.

359

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator. [/quote]

You say physical, I never heard ‘physcial universe’ just universe.

The volcano analogy does not work because it is already the result of a long chain of events. When you are seeking answers to the very first event, it’s a totally different ball game, because there is no preceding cause for this event. It’s a huge difference.

I seriously doubt that he or anybody else would be content to study the ‘first event’ in the chain with out trying to figure out how it got there.

That first event could be the beginning of this universe or the many universes that preceded it. What we know is it’s here and it got here somehow. When you are looking at initial causes you have one of two options. ‘Something caused it’ or ‘nothing caused it’.

Whether Hawking is an atheist or not, he is seeking to prove an atheistic tenant, or nothing caused it. Most TP’s look for the same thing with out considering the other, or at least I have not heard it considered… When you at this level, you cannot take ‘first cause’ out of the equation. It’s impossible to do so.

[/quote]

Final time. You are misinterpretting Hawking. And, you have too narrow a view of the universe. He speaks of an architect, or God, that perhaps created the rules but not necessarily the universe you perceive. He speaks of a universe without and outside of time. Time, which by the way, we poorly understand and is entirely a man made concept. Remove time, and there is no beginning, and no end. If there is no beginning, what then is left except for someone - God, to create physical rules? That opportunistic atheist types would latch on to these scientific theories as “evidence” of a universe without God, does not mean that the scientists such as Hawkings who propound these theories are of like mind. The foregoing does not “remove first cause”. It suggests that perhaps there was no “first cause” as in a big bang or its equivolent, but it does recognize the potential hand of an almighty in creating physical laws that lead to life and consciousness.

So then, we are left with a third alternative other than “something caused it” or, “nothing caused it”. We are left with “it was always here, and always will be here”. And it may very well be God’s hand that created the physical laws of the universe.

360

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
creating a view of the physical universe that does not require God is no different than reaching an understanding of why a volcano explodes that wasn’t caused by God’s direct hand. You claim the analogy is so bad. I’m not so sure you “get it”. He does NOT, I reiterate, does not deny a creator. [/quote]

You say physical, I never heard ‘physcial universe’ just universe.

The volcano analogy does not work because it is already the result of a long chain of events. When you are seeking answers to the very first event, it’s a totally different ball game, because there is no preceding cause for this event. It’s a huge difference.

I seriously doubt that he or anybody else would be content to study the ‘first event’ in the chain with out trying to figure out how it got there.

That first event could be the beginning of this universe or the many universes that preceded it. What we know is it’s here and it got here somehow. When you are looking at initial causes you have one of two options. ‘Something caused it’ or ‘nothing caused it’.

Whether Hawking is an atheist or not, he is seeking to prove an atheistic tenant, or nothing caused it. Most TP’s look for the same thing with out considering the other, or at least I have not heard it considered… When you at this level, you cannot take ‘first cause’ out of the equation. It’s impossible to do so.

[/quote]

Final time. You are misinterpretting Hawking. And, you have too narrow a view of the universe. He speaks of an architect, or God, that perhaps created the rules but not necessarily the universe you perceive. He speaks of a universe without and outside of time. Time, which by the way, we poorly understand and is entirely a man made concept. Remove time, and there is no beginning, and no end. If there is no beginning, what then is left except for someone - God, to create physical rules? That opportunistic atheist types would latch on to these scientific theories as “evidence” of a universe without God, does not mean that the scientists such as Hawkings who propound these theories are of like mind. The foregoing does not “remove first cause”. It suggests that perhaps there was no “first cause” as in a big bang or its equivolent, but it does recognize the potential hand of an almighty in creating physical laws that lead to life and consciousness.

So then, we are left with a third alternative other than “something caused it” or, “nothing caused it”. We are left with “it was always here, and always will be here”. And it may very well be God’s hand that created the physical laws of the universe.
[/quote]

What does time have to do with anything? Time is the relative measure of one objects movement, relative to another object’s movement. From the basis of contingency this is irrelevant. From on thing or another, each thing in the universe is dependent on another for it’s existence.

A physical universe has always been there, yet the laws it follows was created by God? And that makes sense to you?
So God always existed and physical matter always existed, so one day God decided to rule over the physical by making it conform to laws? How would this work and who gave him the authority to create rules of behavior for something as uncreated as himself?
Does not the “laws” that the physical matter follows, follow the same causal chain as the matter itself? How then can one be created and the other always exist? And even more ironically, how can the metaphysical constructs of “laws” which is truly timeless and eternal, be created, yet the “stuff” they govern always exist?