Physicist Stephen Hawking was undoubtedly a brilliant and courageous figure. But like everyone, he wasn’t perfect. Stephen Hawking: “The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics. 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. The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own.”
It seems sooo disconnected from the physical nature of our objective reality to say that the Universe "simply followed the inevitable Law of Physics". He then furthermore implies that the Law of Gravity inevitably existed prior to the existence of the Universe. This is troublesome... given that all Laws of Physics (Gravity included), were perceived and mathematically revealed along scientific advancements of human knowledge. Whereby... the existence of the Universe -as the existence of singular entities of Physical Nature- inevitably existed prior to/brought forth the existence of Physics Laws (Gravity included). But what really made the difference between Hawking's being brilliant and not being wise, was his assertion that Philosophy is dead. Philosophy is not a discipline to be academically acquired. Philosophers are born, not learned. Where, Mr. Hawking is most definitely NOT a philosopher. I believe that Chris is an innate philosopher; and that his life-long teleological work (CTMU) is a superb theory of Philosophy of Science.
His writing in that quote seems very specific. He didn't say God. He said a God. Semantically I read that as God as a word used how most understand it as. Due to His light, God's light, sentences using that word or synonyms are highly relative perceptually to the reader's own definition. I respect you both, it may indeed have been that things were blocked because they may have believed you would be too aggressive in debating him, and they didn't want the momentum of the public believing in his insights to get challenged, afraid so to speak. I think Hawking's issues with using the word God was from his own difficulty in defining the term. He believed but he dedicated his life to understanding the universe and surely in all his time sitting in thought he saw the universe and himself as extensions of each other. Perhaps he believed that if God made the universe he made a universe that was its own, that is, from a physical point it would have the form of a universe that came from nothing.
Besides, he didn't say the universe created itself from nothing exactly. He said it conditionally aka "X happened first and now this is the universe's state" and that the state of nothing is implied by that sentence to be a superposition of what is nothing and what is seen as nothing, that it was because of "a law" "such as" gravity. So he in this statement is defining the universe as being created because of gravity. He did not say gravity did not need a creator or have one. As far as I know he focused on black holes and not as much on what caused gravity. He said no one can prove God doesn't exist, and perhaps his proof of that is the same question of the source of gravity. Perhaps God made us like him to be self sufficient so he's spiritually saying that science or rather the pursuit of looking at information truthfully makes, the usual religion-bound definition of God, as unnecessary.
Well, if the world wasn't advanced enough to appreciate the CTMU, then maybe it deserves "alien intervention" after all. You've already made it into Heaven for a fact once you die at this point already, so why you still care to get your point across to people when society has already cancelled The Mega Foundation on a socioeconomic level, I'm absolutely certain I do not know.
I’ve noticed that everything you write is so comprehensive, so well mapped out and so unified that I can’t help admiring it and I believe it’s something I can aspire to.
I wonder if Hawking got his imaginary time concept (a good one) from the analogy of imaginary numbers in mathematics, thinking something like ‘Imaginary. Number. Time. We use numbers to calculate time. Voila, imaginary time! Despite whether or not he got it another way he lacked an overall framework to expand his ideas so it was left to your man Chris to do it, I doubt Hawking, brilliant though he was, could have done so, especially within the closed walls of academia.
I admired Hawking in this way for instance, that he would take the real effort to get up the stairs on his own whilst having the illness he did (I mean when he was younger). Nevertheless, it would have been something had he told his support squad something to stop them acting like idolaters.
It seems sooo disconnected from the physical nature of our objective reality to say that the Universe "simply followed the inevitable Law of Physics". He then furthermore implies that the Law of Gravity inevitably existed prior to the existence of the Universe. This is troublesome... given that all Laws of Physics (Gravity included), were perceived and mathematically revealed along scientific advancements of human knowledge. Whereby... the existence of the Universe -as the existence of singular entities of Physical Nature- inevitably existed prior to/brought forth the existence of Physics Laws (Gravity included). But what really made the difference between Hawking's being brilliant and not being wise, was his assertion that Philosophy is dead. Philosophy is not a discipline to be academically acquired. Philosophers are born, not learned. Where, Mr. Hawking is most definitely NOT a philosopher. I believe that Chris is an innate philosopher; and that his life-long teleological work (CTMU) is a superb theory of Philosophy of Science.
It's almost symbolic. Hawking believed that mind had no real control over body, and sadly this slowly became more and more true for him.
The disclosure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izWeYLr7DoA
His writing in that quote seems very specific. He didn't say God. He said a God. Semantically I read that as God as a word used how most understand it as. Due to His light, God's light, sentences using that word or synonyms are highly relative perceptually to the reader's own definition. I respect you both, it may indeed have been that things were blocked because they may have believed you would be too aggressive in debating him, and they didn't want the momentum of the public believing in his insights to get challenged, afraid so to speak. I think Hawking's issues with using the word God was from his own difficulty in defining the term. He believed but he dedicated his life to understanding the universe and surely in all his time sitting in thought he saw the universe and himself as extensions of each other. Perhaps he believed that if God made the universe he made a universe that was its own, that is, from a physical point it would have the form of a universe that came from nothing.
Besides, he didn't say the universe created itself from nothing exactly. He said it conditionally aka "X happened first and now this is the universe's state" and that the state of nothing is implied by that sentence to be a superposition of what is nothing and what is seen as nothing, that it was because of "a law" "such as" gravity. So he in this statement is defining the universe as being created because of gravity. He did not say gravity did not need a creator or have one. As far as I know he focused on black holes and not as much on what caused gravity. He said no one can prove God doesn't exist, and perhaps his proof of that is the same question of the source of gravity. Perhaps God made us like him to be self sufficient so he's spiritually saying that science or rather the pursuit of looking at information truthfully makes, the usual religion-bound definition of God, as unnecessary.
Chris, I'd love to know your views on Flat Earth in detail.
Thanks for all you do.
Well, if the world wasn't advanced enough to appreciate the CTMU, then maybe it deserves "alien intervention" after all. You've already made it into Heaven for a fact once you die at this point already, so why you still care to get your point across to people when society has already cancelled The Mega Foundation on a socioeconomic level, I'm absolutely certain I do not know.
I’ve noticed that everything you write is so comprehensive, so well mapped out and so unified that I can’t help admiring it and I believe it’s something I can aspire to.
I wonder if Hawking got his imaginary time concept (a good one) from the analogy of imaginary numbers in mathematics, thinking something like ‘Imaginary. Number. Time. We use numbers to calculate time. Voila, imaginary time! Despite whether or not he got it another way he lacked an overall framework to expand his ideas so it was left to your man Chris to do it, I doubt Hawking, brilliant though he was, could have done so, especially within the closed walls of academia.
I admired Hawking in this way for instance, that he would take the real effort to get up the stairs on his own whilst having the illness he did (I mean when he was younger). Nevertheless, it would have been something had he told his support squad something to stop them acting like idolaters.