Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.

com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Table of Contents Preface................................................................................................................................. 2 In Search of Knowledge...................................................................................................... 4 Creating Something Out of Nothing ................................................................................... 1 God Is A Delusion?............................................................................................................. 6 Does God Exist? ................................................................................................................. 8 Who Created The Creator? ............................................................................................... 11 Where Do We Really Come From? .................................................................................. 14 Gravity and God................................................................................................................ 17 What is Dark Matter?........................................................................................................ 20 God As Dark Energy And Dark Matter? .......................................................................... 21 Time .................................................................................................................................. 23 Stephen Hawking - Heaven Is For People Scared Of The Dark....................................... 29 Multiple Universes: For People Who Are Afraid of Life ................................................. 32 Science and Religion: God Didnt Make Man; Man Made Gods..................................... 33

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Preface This essay begin as a few pages and slowly blossomed into the epistle it now is. I began writing it just after I read about Ann Rice and her (now famous) statement regarding her religious views. Her comments lit the fire that forged the words you read here. In this essay, I write about God, science, religion, some of the latest scientific discoveries, and some of the scientists who profess to be atheists due to their scientific beliefs.

Many scientists have come to believe God does not exist. They can hypothesize and theorize and in their hypothesis and theories, they can explain the existence of not only this universe but an infinite number of universes and everything in them. Therefore, there is no need to believe in a (non-existent) God to explain creation.

From everything I have studied in science, I have come to believe science, through its discoveries, is proving many things about our conception of God. How can people read about science and its discoveries and come to two different conclusions? Well, how can people read the Bible and come to feel the need for hundreds of denominations with varying beliefs? Perhaps, we reach the conclusions we do based upon our life experiences. Certainly, I see God wherever I examine scientific questions and mathematical equations because I have seen and known God at work in my own life. Since I have had certain life experiences, perhaps I see God where the scientists do not. On the other hand, it may be because I have an open mind and I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it takes me. But most likely, it is because I am not going to let scientists (or religious leaders) tell me what I am going to believe. I am going to weigh the evidence and decide for myself.

In any case, you will find in the following chapters a trail that leads you from skepticism about God to a good understanding of the latest scientific ideas which provide a framework for understanding God. Yes, the scientists, whether they will admit it, or not, are proving everything about the non-secular God that you and I believe in.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

I hope you enjoy the read as much as I enjoyed the write.

I welcome comments. Please email me at michael_busby@yahoo.com. If you are sane and sensible, regardless of your beliefs, I will gladly read what you have to say.

I am available for speaking engagements. Please send me a message of inquiry via my email address if you are interested in engaging me as a speaker for your church, or other organization.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

In Search of Knowledge On Anne Rices official website she posted the following announcement via her facebook feed on the afternoon of July 28, 2010: "I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of ...Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Well, all I can say specifically to her announcement is, what took you so long? I quit in 1964 when I was only 13 years old. By then, I knew my God and Christ were not the God and Christ who existed amid the hypocritical, mean-spirited, and hateful people I lived among in the armpit of the world: Bowie, Texas. (No, I am not homosexual. The place really does suck, unless you are a Cro-Magnon interbred with a Neanderthal 1 who yearns to mate with a unicorn whose father was a gnome, then it is heaven. :)))

As a young teenager, I set about a search for my God and Christ. I came to realize I was just as intelligent, if not more so, than most other people. If sages and other wise and learned men could conjure up gods, then I was certainly capable of conjuring up my own god, suitable to my belief system. The result: I have worshipped a God who is not anti anything and pro everything that is good and right for the last twenty-two years. Of course, it goes without saying my Christ is everything my God is. I found my God and Christ not within the confines of any church, or religion, but within the depths of my heart as I journeyed from teenager to adult.

The concept of God, or a Creator, is under siege today from all sides, but especially from individuals who believe they are the cream of society. You know whom I am talking
1

Well, I may be giving Neanderthals a bad name, since it was recently discovered Neanderthals did interbreed with early humans (homo sapiens). See http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Neanderthals+interbred+with+early+humans/5125225/ story.html

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

about: the university professors, science lab rats, medical professionals, and all others who think they learned something special when they went to college and sat through a lab course without falling asleep.

Such learned individuals scoff at the idea there is a God. For them, their god is science and they are the new priests in their religion. They say religion is irrelevant today because it cannot provide answers to the growing problems of a burgeoning population and the attendant ills associated with our over-population of our once-beautiful planet. According to many of these individuals, science can provide all the answers.

They claim science provides the answers because you can hypothesize then test the hypothesis; then voila`, a proven hypothesis is fact and fact is much better than a ephemeral God whose existence cannot be objectively tested. Their continual rant: the God Hypothesis cannot be proven, therefore God cannot possibly exist. Know what other hypothesis cannot be proven? Many sacred and cherished scientific theories cannot be proven, especially the learned individuals most cherished hypothesis: The Big Bang 2 Hypothesis.

The following image is from the WMAP project. WMAP Wilkinson Microwave Anisotrophy Map - was designed to map the residual heat left over in the universe from the Big Bang. See the large blue area just to the right of center in the map? This is the coldest, therefore oldest, section of the universe. When you look at the blue spot, you are looking at the point where the Big Bang occurred. Amazing, eh? (Assuming of course there was a Big Bang.)

I tend to think of the Big Bang as the first time I made love to a woman.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Creating Something Out of Nothing Of course, you must have heard of The Big Bang Theory. According to the experts, approximately 12 billion years ago, give or take about a billion, or two, years, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing in existence. Suddenly, without warning, there was an explosion of unimaginable magnitude from a single, infinitesimally small point - as the learned men and women describe the event - that somehow came into existence in this nothingness for just the briefest of moments before exploding.

However, we are not certain where this infinitesimally small point came from in the original nothingness. As originally annunciated, the Big Bang came from nothing. But, in order to sound plausible and therefore sane, the scientists had to re-construct the theory around this infinitesimally small point arising from nothing, otherwise they would sound nuts. (Something from nothing? Really? What looney-bin did you escape from?) Supposedly, not even space 3 and time existed until this Big Bang occurred, according to those experts who thumb their noses at the idea of a God/Creator. From the subsequent infinitesimal small point, everything that comprises the universe, and an infinite number of other universes 4 , today burst forth in a huge explosion, hurtling something like 1x1080 metric tons (our universe only multiply times infinity time infinity for remaining universes) of super heated (hydrogen?) mass into the greatly expanded new space and time that was being created by the very mass itself as it sped away from the infinitesimal

So how could there be an infinitesimally small point from nothing? Even an infinitesimally small point would require some (infinitesimally small) space. And by the scientists own definition, space and time exist hand-in-hand cannot have one without the other as the two are considered an inter-woven fabric according to Einsteinian field theory which is one of the fundamental legs the whole scientific house of cards is built on. So, an infinitesimally small point would still have a space and time associated with it. Seems contradictory. 4 M-Theory predicts an infinite number of universes with each residing on its own p-brane. Some theorists now say there are an infinity number of infinite universes occupying the universe. There are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of copies of me, and then an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of you, and so on and so on for every living creature that ever existed. I think it goes without saying we have wandered off the deep end here.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

small point at speeds approaching the speed of light itself and at temperatures of hundreds of million, perhaps billions, of degrees 5 .

This is sciences theory of the origin of the universe and the rest of those infinite number of universes 6 predicted by string theorys cherished M-Theory: Theory of Everything. Yes, I know they are working on a couple of other theories that include combinations of a Big Bang/Explosion followed many hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of years later by a Big Crunch, and other ideas such as not such a Big Crunch, but maybe an almost Big Crunch, etc. as the universe expands and contracts in a never ending cycle. Yet, science always returns to the original Big Bang Theory as the initial cause/creation of the universe. Advocates of string theory believe not only did the Big Bang create our observable universe, but an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and many unobservable dimensions, as well 7 .

Which of the two un-provable hypothesis is easier to believe:

1.) A huge amount of something was created from nothing, in an instant of time, for no reason at all, along with an infinite number of other universes and dimensions existing in parallel where no space and time existed before, and 12 billion years later we exist along with the rest of the magnificent universe, and an infinite number of other universes and dimensions we cannot perceive, or: 2.) A power greater than our ability to comprehend created the universe as we know it for reasons we cannot understand. Perhaps for the pleasure of many human-like species living on millions of planets around the universe? (Or, perhaps not.) And 12 billion years later 8 we exist?
Fahrenheit or Celsius? At 500 million degrees, does it really matter? I suppose it does, because 1 million degrees above or below might result in a universe that cannot support any life but, that is just conjecture. 6 To keep it simple, from this point forward I will just refer to universe to encompass our universe plus the remaining universes. 7 For an interesting, but almost unintelligible read unless you understand physics, discussion of the latest theories regarding the creation of the universe from a Big Bang, see Hawkings The Universe In A Nutshell. 8 There is a subtle issue here with the 12 billion years. Since the Big Bang is associated with an infinitesimally small space which has an associated time, how can anyone quantify a year at the moment
5

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

You see, it is that (tremendously huge) something and the infinite number of other universes with similar construction that was created from nothing in no space (and time) in an instant and for no reason at all that has me stumped when it comes to the Big Bang Theory (choice number 1). Scientists expect us to take it on faith such an event occurred, just because they say so. Does this sound like a familiar refrain? Remember Dawkins and The God Hypothesis: humans tend to believe in a God/Creator just because someone says so? So we should believe the scientists just because they say so? No likely, for me. How about you? I just cannot wrap my mind around such a take it on faith idea 9 from the scientists and other elitists who passionately believe in such a preposterously sounding idea. Something from nothingreally? The idea of a Santa Claus who brings me a gift every Christmas Eve seems to have more merit than a Big Bang theory as it is annunciated by the scientists.

Every experience of my life tells me things happen for a reason and you can never, ever, EVER make something out of nothing. If it is true you can make something from nothing - then science should be able to go to the lab and create something out of nothing (and for no reason at all). But, they cannot do this 10 .

of the Bang and for millions, or even billions. of years afterwards? They really cannot, so it is impossible to say how long it took from the moment of the Bang until the establishment of the first stars and the subsequent development of galaxies. Time then is not the same as time today. We quantify time today as the revolution of our planet both on its axis and its journey around the sun. But then, our planet and sun did not exist for about the first 8 billion years the universe existed. So really, it is impossible to pin down the exact time the universe was created by a Big Bang. There is another issue with the Big Bang Theory it says there is nothing, not even time and space, outside our universe. It is obvious to even the most causal observer, there must be something just outside the far edge of the farthest reaches of the universe, even if it is only empty space. The physicists use a disarming tactic to claim there is nothing outside our universe. They make the tacit assumption where there is no gravity, there can be nothing, not even empty space, and there certainly can be no time. Why does gravity have to exist in some space before they say that space exists? It is trickery every bit as subtle as the karney trying to entice you into throwing your money away on the impossible-to-win games at carnivals. 9 I have seen evidence of my Creator in my life so I can take it on faith He/She does exist. 10 Scientists explain something from nothing by using the particle-antiparticle pair creation and destruction responsible for that hydrogen atom that is spontaneously created from nothing every million

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Where did all that stuff come from that eventually populated an infinite number of universes? In defense of science, I must say there is another (unproven) hypothesis that says maybe once in a million years, out in the emptiness of space, 11 all of a sudden a hydrogen atom is created from nothing (see footnotes 9 & 10), and for no reason whatsoever. So, if a single atom of hydrogen can be created from nothing every million years, maybe given a sufficiently long period of time, sufficient mass can be created during the universes manifestation of an infinitesimally small point, and whatever came before that. Then sufficient mass might accumulate given enough time that a Big Bang might occur just once in the total existence of the universe and whatever came before that..

According to this theory, the creation of a hydrogen atom every million years beginning with nothing could eventually, given about 1x10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion zeroes years, create enough material residing in this infinitesimally small point to give us the one single universe we know. But, we must multiply the above number by infinity to account for the remaining universes. So, given enough time, hydrogen atoms from nothing populated the infinitesimally small point until one day, one atom too many was added to the bucket, then boom! There goes the neighborhood. However, the creation of (hydrogen) atoms from nothing is yet another un-provable scientific hypothesis we should take on faith 12 .

I am still having difficulty wrapping my head around the Big Bang. What was there before the Big Bang? The infinitesimally small point. What was there before the infinitesimally small point (and were did it come from?) Science says there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no nuthin. 13 But, there had to be
years. Scientists have failed to detect the spontaneous creation of a particle-anti-particle pair in many years of trying. Yet another un-provable scientific hypothesis. 11 Well, there really is not such thing as empty space. 12 Actually, science has us taking things on faith much, much more than religion. Isnt that enlightening? 13 Except science fudges just a little and says the Big Bang actually started from that infinitesimally small point comprised of quad-trillion upon quad-trillion tons of, essentially, hydrogen. Eliminates the need to believe something from nothing. There would be a gravitational field associated with the infinitesimally small point. The gravitational field would be huge since everything existing in the universe today would be associated with that small point. According to Einstein, any gravitational field must have space and time associated with it since a gravitational field is a space-time fabric. So, the question begging to be asked,

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

something before the Big Bang. Every sense I possess tells me there had to be something, for nothing plus nothing equals nothing, yet there is something now, so there had to be something before. Wait a minute. Along comes Stephen Hawking. In The Grand Design, he claims the Law Of Gravity existed before there was the infinitesimally small point. I will speak to this subject later.

We know science cannot create something from nothing. Therefore, they will never be able to prove The Big Bang Theory, so the scientists expect all of us lesser humans (derogatively known as pee-brains to the elitists) to accept what they say as fact and not question their reasoning; to take everything they say on faith. They expect us to accept it as fact because they are educated and know what they are talking about, but we lesser mortals (at least me and one other fellow I know) are not. It is an argument I cannot swallow and digest. What is left to believe in? Choice number 2.

where did the small point and that tremendously huge mass of hydrogen (or whatever) inside it come from? Scientists cannot answer that hard question, except to say, hydrogen gas emerges from nothing. Yes, I know I am be-laboring the point. It is perhaps the most important point in the whole scientific house of cards.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

God Is A Delusion? In The God Delusion (2006) British biologist Richard Dawkins, a professorial fellow of New College, Oxford, and the inaugural holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford 14 , contends that a supernatural creator certainly does not exist and therefore the belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion. He defines delusion as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. Dawkins agrees with Robert Pirsig's observation in Lila that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Assuming an authoritative tone, Dawkins arrogantly ignores his own delusions, i.e. his belief science is infallible and The Big Bang really did happen and it was the beginning of creation, as he throws barb after barb at religion in The God Delusion. Yet, The Big Bang hypothesis, like a Creator hypothesis, is a hypothesis unproven. Therefore, using Dawkins own reasoning, one cannot help but reach the conclusion Dawkins, who believes in the Big Bang theory and all manner of other scientific facts, such as Darwins Theory of Evolution, is delusional and all professors, scientists, and other learned men, and women, of similar cloth, are suffering from a delusion called science.

Dont get me wrong I am not an advocate for modern religion and I do believe science is useful. However, I recognize both religions shortcomings, and sciences shortcomings. Furthermore, I realize if religion does not change, it will become a social dinosaur, a relic from humankinds past. I dont mean religion must change in fundamental beliefs, i.e. God, Christ, right, wrong, and the basic goodness of humankind. But, if it does not change with respect to what we have discovered about our world and give recognition to

Whew! That was a mouthful, eh? No wonder he thinks he is better than everyone else. I suppose I would, also if I had such an impressive something after my name.

14

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

facts where incontrovertible facts exist 15 , then it will continue to marginalize people until it is no longer an effective social force. It will gradually wilt away as an organized social force with any clout in human endeavor.

An example where science trumps religion is the age of the planet. The earth was not created 5,000 years ago. Period. Give up the argument. It is okay to think the universe was created 12 billion 16 years ago and the earth was subsequently created about 4-5 billion years ago. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasnt, but arguing with the scientists over exactly when the earth was created detracts from the fundamental messages religion should be conveying. Save the energy for much more important issues, such as overpopulation 17 and the declining standard of living around the world (which will soon lead to massive human suffering on a scale far exceeding past human suffering).

It took many years before The Church finally recognized the earth was not the center of the universe and the planet was one of several circling around an unimportant star in the midst of billions of similar stars. It seems The Church and other religions would have learned something from that experience but, if they did they do not seem to have retained the lesson in their collective memory. 16 See previous footnote regarding issues with dating the age of the Big Bang/universe. 17 When are the Catholics in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries going to get it into their head having 10-19 children today is not a celebration of being Christian and Catholic: being fruitful and multiplying? It is a celebration of the death of the human race, a Malthusian catastrophe, a death sentence for the late, great planet earth. Same can be said for Muslims and Hindus and any others who want unlimited numbers of children, such as OctoMom and MoronMom.

15

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Does God Exist? A current idea running amuck among the good learned men and women of the world concerns human evolution and our descent from dinosaurs, or fish, or monkeys, or amoeba-like creatures, or whatever. When I think of some people I have met in the past, I tend to think we are descended from toads monkeys would be a step up for some. Isnt that right Larry Williams? (Sorry, I forgot you cannot read.) But, it is thought we passed through monkey and ape-like creatures as we became human and all modern humans are out-of-Africa. You know, Darwins Theory of Evolution of Everything Except Rocks (although scientists have been known to apply Darwins theory selectively, even to rocks, and especially with respect to the current collection of human races.)

Then there are theories regarding the nature of the universe itself and the elementary particles which comprise the universe: quarks, leptons, and tau neutrinos, gluons, w & z bosons, photons, Higgs bosons, and gravitons (standard model); strings, branes, and gravitons (string theory) and others from additional theories including preons and accelerons. There are counterparts in the human pantheon to some of these fundamental physical particles: they are called geeks, morons and toadies (found in science labs, university hallways, and country clubs.) (tongue-in-cheek).

The worlds religious leaders waste countless years arguing with these ideas, claiming since humans are made in the image of God, we cannot possibly be descended from monkeys and even earlier creatures, such as the creepy-crawly thingy things that pulled themselves out of the primordial muck, developed lungs and legs, and set about building and selling homes on over-priced ranch estates in Arizona, Nevada, and elsewhere. Yet, the scientists pull out the results of their DNA studies and claim every living thing on the planet shares much of the same DNA. Seems like a waste of energy arguing with scientists when they are more, or less, right.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

What is wrong with sharing some of the same DNA with a worm, or a tree? If a formula, or recipe works, why not use it to work more of the same kind of marvelous magic? Why does every thing have to be so different from everything else that at the extreme limits of the sub-microscopic level, the difference would be so great as to preclude the re-use of common building blocks? If a Creator does exist, and the Creator is smart (smarter than me for certain and probably smarter than the scientists and probably even smarter than you), one would think the Creator would use common building blocks. It is the KISS principle keep it simple, stupid - at work and play in the design and evolution of everything. If something works for one thing, then use it for something else, if appropriate. Sensible. Ergo, when humans became clever enough to invent microscopes and started looking at the construction of individual cells, they would see a common pattern repeated in every thing they examined. Seems reasonable to me to believe a Creator would be that clever. What about you? Think the Creator is clever, or just plain stupid?

Just as science does not have a problem accepting things it cannot explain, such as the Big Bang Theory, religion can also accept new ideas it cannot explain, but seem reasonable to the average person. Ideas such as a God/Creator who is even more resourceful than the ancients yesterday and scientists today imagined. That is my God/Creator and I am sticking with Him/Her.

Dawkins spends a considerable portion of his book discussing and trying to prove a personal God/Creator does not, and cannot, exist. He puts forth his arguments using the best scientific logic and reasoning, sprinkled here and there with a dose of seemingly flawless philosophy. I cannot argue some of his points, for I do not believe my personal Creator spends His/Her day watching over me and keeping me from harms way every waking moment of my life. Nor do I believe my Creator gives death sentences to children and adults in the form of incurable cancers, or disease. My Creator does not punish people for sins by making them ill, or killing them in horrendous car crashes.

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Many things in this world are just a numbers game: some people are going to get rich, some people are going to get cancer. On any given day, some people are going to die, some people are going to live. In the everyday collision of molecules and events, it is just a numbers game who will get what and when. I do not believe God has a Divine Hand orchestrating every thing that happens on this planet. Geezwhen would He/She 18 ever have time to read essays such as this one?

My Creator is not orchestrating everything that goes on, including every decision every human makes. My personal Creator is not that personal. My Creator created the universe, setting up the initial conditions in the universe which eventually gave us a beautiful planet to destroy. That is all the Creator did set up the initial conditions which allowed us to exist and kill each other through our own mad devices. But, that does not mean the Creator does not care.

I believe my Creator did at times, and still does, communicate with individual humans, trying via His/Her communications to bend our ear and thus steer us in the direction we need to go. I believe in this manner, if we listen, we can have a personal God to the extent we heed good advice. I do believe my Creator created Jesus of Nazareth to be a messenger for all humankinds benefit.

Speaking about Jesus, was Jesus of a virgin birth? I dont know and as far as I am concerned, it does not matter, for regardless of the circumstances of Jesus birth, his message for humankind is just as important. What does matter is hearing Jesus message and making the right decisions for my life. And I have tried to heed his message and live a life he would approve of (most of the time, anyway.)

I believe the Creator is gender neutral. Need to think of a good pronoun for such a Creator that is meaningful without conveying a sense of gender.

18

10

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Who Created The Creator? One interesting argument Dawkins makes for the non-existence of a Creator: if there is a Creator, then who created the Creator? Dawkins has touched upon a subject I have contemplated for many years. I dont have a provable answer right now, but I might one day, if I keep studying the question. But, an un-provable hypothesis comes to mind: He/She was created from nothing in a Big Bang-like event. Which is easier to believe, an infinite number of universes with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of material (multiplied by infinity) was created from nothing in a Big Bang event, or a single supreme Creator was created from nothing in a Big Bang-like event? Scientists are fond of quoting Occams Razor. 19 Occams Razor states, Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. It is usually interpreted by scientists to mean the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Well? Which is simpler, a Supreme Being from a Big Bang, or an infinite number of huge universes full of untold differing things? A Supreme Being, of course. Much simpler. So, to Dawkins question, Who created the Creator?, we answer: his Big Bang. Nice touch, eh? :)))

My personal Creator does care about the universe, the planet Earth, and all humankind. But, I believe in free will and I think science has proved free will exists via a fundamental mechanism known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - the apple of temptation, so to speak, but on an atomic level. You see, if religion would just listen with an open mind, it would discover something fascinating about science slowly science is proving everything said in the Bible about the Creator.

Science has pretty much proved via DNA testing there was an Adam and an Eve, albeit about 150,000 years 20 earlier than fundamentalists claim, and not necessarily living at the
They are also fond of quoting a multitude of other things if they think it will buttress whatever argument they are making. 20 A recent scientific study using the evolution of head and body lice has pinpointed about 150,000 years ago when humans began wearing body coverings we might euphemistically call clothes. Also, about
19

11

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

same time (hard to imagine, eh?). You know, the fundamentalists claim the earth is only 5,000 years old, so Adam and Eve are 5,000 years old minus 6 days (since God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day). Somehow, they read the Bible and come up with this figure. Yet, DNA test results show we all come from the same woman who lived approximately 125,000 years ago and the same man who lived about 150,000 years ago. Imagine that. I am okay with this Adam and Eve story.

Furthermore, recent studies indicate a not-too-distant global catastrophe killed off almost all humans, leaving only about 2,000 survivors. Interesting, eh? We almost became an extinct species several hundred thousand years ago. Look at us now, making babies faster than we can develop food resources for the hungry mouths. What will become of us? Armageddon? You got it! But not necessarily a final war in the Middle East kind of Armageddon, but probably regional wars throughout the world as large countries start trying to muscle in on their neighbors, killing millions as the more powerful take away from the weaker in order to feed their burgeoning human population from dwindling resources.

I can see the U.S. marching from Texas to South America one day in the desperate attempt to capture enough food reserves, if we have not been invaded first. Disturbing image, eh? It wont be disturbing when you are hungry and want to eat. In any case, history is rife with over-populations of varying kinds self-correcting via catastrophic control mechanisms. I dont think we will all march down to the sea en masse and drown ourselves like the lemming. But there is no doubt in my mind, the numbers show the planet cannot support the expected human population size in another 20-40 years. Some

150,000 years ago there was an extinction event and it is believed only about 2,000 humans lived through the catastrophic time. Interesting that all three events Adam, Eve, extinction event, and the beginning of clothes - converge on about 150,000 years ago. For it is determined by studying the evolution of crab lice, humans lost their body hair (their monkey hair) several million years ago. Why did we not begin wearing clothes then?

12

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

probably unexpected, mechanism will be unleashed 21 that will correct the population size and I dont think the process, or the end result, will be pretty.

I think religion has an obligation to its adherents to speak the plain truth. The Bible does not have a monopoly on truth. But, neither does science. I think there are certain sects within organized religion who see their (financial) interests lie in trying to quell knowledge and keep their minions in a state of ignorance. Fundamentalists are good at appealing to the lowest common denominator among those who want to believe in a Creator, then using their influence and power to manipulate their flock into staying within the fold using questionable techniques, such as brain-washing and propaganda. Instead of using all that energy to convince their adherents the world was created only 5,000 years ago, would it not be simpler to just admit the world was not created 5,000 years ago and move on to something more important? Like trying to save our planet before the point of no return is reached?

Well, they feel if they admitted as much, then the whole Bible becomes questionable. Get over it! Humankind has been questioning the Bible since the first words were written. Question the Bible all you want. It is not the Bible that makes the Creator, or the human. It is what is in our hearts: what we feel and believe, and what we do. That is the real manifestation of the Creator on planet earth, not words in a book.

Maybe some new virulent avian virus? More likely, smallpox will escape one of the last two vaults it is contained in. With 90% of the population susceptible to the virus, the death of billions in a matter of onethree months will certainly be catastrophic.

21

13

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Where Do We Really Come From? So, where did we come from, really? And why do we exist? Regarding current scientific theories, there is a school of believers who think there are an infinite number of universes existing at this very moment. This school of thought believes in this infinite arrangement of universes, every mathematically conceivable arrangement of matter will exist. Therefore, it is only a numbers game: a very small number of these infinite number of universes will be arranged such to provide the right conditions for primitive forms of life to have a chance to come into existence then evolve into more complex organisms eventually resulting in you and I 22 . Since we exist, it is proof we live in the universe that has the right conditions for life to come into existence. We are the proof of the pudding, so to speak 23 . If we did not exist, then it would be proof this universe does not have the right conditions for life to exist. Jeezimagine that!

How do you like this idea? An infinite number of universes in order to get just a couple maybe only one - with the right conditions for life to rise from the elements of the sea (or from a meteorite, or wherever) and evolve into walking, talking, planet-destroying humans. All I have to say to such theorizing is, Occams Razor. Occams Razor destroys the idea of an infinite number of universes existing either at the same time (parallel universes), or one at a time (serial universes), in order to have one universe with us taking the planet apart. Occams Razor allows only one universe to exist at a time and it is our universe that exists now.

Where do I think we come from and why we exist? I believe humans are like a chimpanzee 24 in a house. The monkey can stand at the window watching the spring rain

Think about this profound thought for a moment: you are the result of an unbroken chain of successful reproduction reaching back over 2 billion years ago. Amazing thought, eh? Imagine all the dead ends resulting from unsuccessful reproduction during that time period. Maybe trillions upon trillions of dead ends. 23 Actually, it is a ridiculous scientific postulation, but one that is held dear by the enlightened ones. 24 I deliberately choose a chimpanzee because they have been shown to be intelligent and have been taught to communicate with humans via sign language.

22

14

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

fall outside and understand the roof keeps the rain off his head. He can stand at the window in the winter watching the snow fall outside and understand he is warm and dry, and similarly, cool and dry in the summer. However, the monkey has no concept of how and why the house was built, even when watching a house being built next door. (Note the similarity to us living on the planet and gazing through our telescopes at distant star nurseries birthing new stars by the thousands.)

Imagine such a monkey sitting in the easy chair before the fireplace one cold, winter evening staring into the fire. He is theorizing about the things he does have some small understanding of: fire, wind, water, rain, snow, clouds, sky, earth, and the house that keeps him warm. Of course, he would theorize some greater being than himself created these things, for certainly he is smart enough to understand he cannot build such a house, yet the house exists. And he understands the reality of the elements, even if he does not understand why they exist or how they interact with everything around him. Eventually he would theorize he did not have the toolset (brain power) to understand why and how the house was created, much less all the other things in the universe he is both aware and unaware of. The monkey would be right he does not possess the toolset to understand. And so it is with us when we try to understand the whole universal picture and why we exist.

I sit and think about dirt, water, rain, rocks, air, wind, light, people, planets, galaxies, etc. (I am the monkey in my house, as my former wife would agree.) I know where these things come from. In this respect, I am several steps ahead of the chimpanzee. According to the theories of science, all the physical things we see in the universe except one comes from the myriad processes that start when a huge, hot ball of dense, formerly hydrogen gas collapses upon itself due to the sum of its gravitational effect overcoming the resistance of the individual particles (atoms) comprising the mass. The gravitational pressures inside the gas ball originally lit the atomic fire that burns at the center of the star. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of years later the star collapses under its own weight then explodes in a super nova.

15

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

It is when the star collapses that the huge gravitational pressure and heat compress the fundamental particles of the original hydrogen gas, some of which is already converted into helium, into the various elements found in the universe. Then the super nova blows this hot material out into the empty space of the universe. Over the intervening millennia, as the material cools, those fundamental elements like carbon clump together and under their own gravitational pressure 25 , form the hard-surfaced planets and perhaps the nucleus of the giant, gas planets and the rest of the non-hydrogen material we find in the universe.

However, before the hydrogen star ignited and began cooking the ingredients of the planetary parts of the universe, where did that original hydrogen gas come from? Get the picture? Occams Razor at work and play in the creation of everything including all the material comprising the planets in the universe everything begins with hydrogen gas and gravity. That is about as simple as it gets and Occams Razor is substantiated.

If we can determine how and why hydrogen gas came into existence, we can probably figure out why the universe was created. But, to think everything in the universe, with hydrogen gas as the origin, came from nothing in a Big Bang, just seems impossible to me. Let us sit and think about hydrogen gas and gravity for awhile. Regardless of what I said earlier, we monkeys just might figure it out for now all we need to think about are two things, hydrogen gas and gravity, and not the other upteen dozen things that exist today. The Creator made it simple hydrogen gas and gravity. All else that was needed was timeand space. Hydrogen gas, gravity, time, and space: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in a sense.

25

At least, that is the current scientific theory. I think there must be some other mechanism at work and play that forms planets from widely spaced floating space debris.

16

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Gravity and God Well, the Great and All Powerful (and Very Mr. Wonderful) Wizard of Oz, oopsI mean Doctor Stephen Hawking has weighted in on the subject one more time. In a soonto-be published book titled The Grand Design, Hawking advocates everything that exists in the universe today came from one thing only, gravity. Wait! Belay that. He writes, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing 26 . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." That is, only a LAW was required to initiate the Big Bang and create the universe. Well, that certainly satisfies Occams Razor.

He goes on to say, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (What in the world is blue touch paper 27 ?)

We should remember Hawkings theorizing is based upon a house of cards which can and will come tumbling down with the next great science discovery. But, just imagine The God Question (from that most indomitable of atheists, Richard Dawkins) being solved by Hawkings explanation that The Law of Gravity, and only The Law of Gravity existed prior to the formation of the universe, and everything that exists today came only from The Law of Gravity 28 .

Well, I just gotta ask, Where did The Law of Gravity come from? Hawking says it came from nothing the universe can and will create itself from nothing... He says this is possible because there is a Law of Gravity. He infers that because there is this law that scientists have theorized to explain some things about how the universe works, and only because of this law, something was created from nothing, even the law itself.
So, not gravity itself, but the LAW OF GRAVITY created hydrogen. Interesting. Actually, it is a British saying which means, if someone lights the touch paper or lights the blue touch paper, they do something which causes anger or excitement. "Touchpaper" is paper impregnated with saltpetre and used as a fuse for explosives, especially fireworks. Lighting it initiates the process leading to the explosion. 28 Note that we still do not have a thorough understanding of gravity.
27 26

17

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Well, as I see it, if there was nothing before there was something, then there was no Law of Gravity to begin with, therefore there could be no something from nothing based upon the non-existent Law of Gravity. However, Hawking states there was a Law of Gravity before there was something, but the Law of Gravity itself is something, so what was there before the Law of Gravity? The law had to come from someplace. It seems like a circular reference to me: Law of Gravity = gravity = Law of Gravity. Which came first, the law, or the manifestation of the law? Another chicken and egg scenario, I think.

Sorry Stephen, but you completely missed the mark with this one!!!

To believe Hawking, you must believe gravity always existed. Wait. Not that gravity always existed, but the Law of Gravity existed. If you say the Law of Gravity always existed, then all you have done is change the name of the creator, from God to Gravity and you have imposed the same conditions for belief as Christians impose - faith. Gee whiz! What do scientists think the rest of the population is, idiots? (No, they think we are pee-brains and even named the four-dimensional surface they surmise the universe resides on as a p-brane to celebrate our stupidity. Really.)

But, maybe some will say there is a huge difference God is god and is alive in some sense 29 , whereas gravity is inanimate and can never be alive in any sense. I agree, but the point is, Hawking, Dawkins, and all the other atheist scientists expect us to believe their theories by accepting what they say on faith. Science is a faith-based religion and Hawking, Dawkins and the other atheist practitioners deign to be the new era Popes and Cardinals of the new religion. I am not swallowing that fish-hook!!! How about you, little fishie?

29

See later chapters.

18

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

By the way, I want to answer the age old question which came first, the chicken, or the egg. Every Texas farm boy who went to school beyond the sixth grade (me and two other fellows I know) knows the first chicken came from a fish egg. Now you know the answer.

Remember I wrote the most fundamental atom, the precursor to everything else, was hydrogen? Now Hawking states all that is required for hydrogen to come into existence is the Law of Gravity. He comes to this conclusion via a study of M-Theory which tries, rather hard, to be the Theory of Everything that unites the four fundamental forces in the universe. M-Theory is very complicated and little understood by anyone other than the physicists who dreamed it up. But, even some of these pee-brains among the literate can fathom a few things from such a complicated mish-mash of sometimes conflicting ideas.

There are two main reasons I do not purchase what M-Theory scientists are selling. The first reason is Occams Razor: M-Theory is just too complicated. Recall Occams Razor states we should not make things any more complicated than absolutely necessary (Keep it Simple, Stupid). M-Theory goes far beyond simple.

The other reason I cannot subscribe to Hawkings professions of faith (he implies The Law of Gravity is god), is Godels Incompleteness Theorem. Godels theorem sets fundamental limits on mathematics by demonstrating there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules, or procedures. Godels theorem combined with Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle and the practical impossibility of mapping even simple deterministic systems that become chaotic in more than a couple of dimensions combine to form a formidable set of limitations that really make it impossible to predict where the universe came from. Law of Gravity as god? Such a statement is what is referred to in scientific jargon as an educated guess-timate.

19

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

What is Dark Matter? Dark matterwe need to shine some light on this topic. The cosmologists calculate there is much more matter in the universe than can be accounted for by all the stars, the light matter. They calculate all the stars in the universe account for only 20% of the total gravitational effect acting upon our universe. The remaining 80% of mass is referred to as dark matter since it cannot be seen. Hawking and all the physicists who believe MTheory is the Theory of Everything think dark matter may be the gravitational effect on our universe caused by adjacent universes one on each side, perhaps which are residing on their own p-branes.

I believe in Occams Razor. I think there is a much more simple explanation for dark matter. I think dark matter is simply the gravitational effect of all the planets and dust in the universe 30 . If most stars have 6-9 planets orbiting them, then this would account for about 60% - 70%% of the dark matter mass. The remaining 10% - 20% dark matter mass could be accounted for by stellar dust. Simple. (Occams Razor.) There is no need to invoke parallel universes which remain unseen, yet somehow can cast a gravitational pull across that unseen boundary and play shoot the marbles (ringer or rolley hole, take your pick) with our galaxies. Each week it seems the news reports new planets detected orbiting stars near us. I think it is only a matter of time before science has enough data collected to estimate within reason the total number of planets in the universe. We will then see planets comprise the bulk of that dark matter. Then the scientists will have to modulate their theories to eliminate adjacent universes tugging at our universe.

30

But, see the next chapter for a different explanation that will intrigue you.

20

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

God As Dark Energy And Dark Matter?

Well, here it is 2011 and we are less than two years away from the end of the world (if you believe the doomsday predictions supposedly based upon the Mayan calendar coming to an end on 21 December 2012). We have recently discovered a mysterious energy whose source in unknown. The mysterious energy is more than 6 times as strong as all the gravity in the universe. Could this huge mysterious energy be the cause of our planets demise? Who knows? But, I am guessing our planet and the mysterious energy is still going to be around post-December 2012. This mysterious energy has a scientific name: Dark Energy. Scientists have no clue where this energy comes from, nor what its composition is. They just know it exists and its strength is greater than another mysterious quantity called Dark Matter. Since the gravitational effect of Dark Matter is estimated to be five times as powerful as all the Light Matter in the universe, that makes Dark Energy greater than 30 times the gravitational effect of Light Matter, a very powerful force, indeed.

Dark Matter is supposedly the glue that binds galaxies together which keeps the spinning galaxies from flying apart. Scientists can theorize Dark Matter exists, but they cannot say what it is, how it was created, and where it is. However, Dark Energy is pulling galaxies apart, so one day, since Dark Energy is greater than Dark Matter, it is theorized galaxies will pull away from each other as the stars in each galaxy pull away from each other, until a several trillion, or more, years from now, there will be no more galaxies and every individual planet, star, speck of dust, etc. will be outside the visible sight of anything else. In other words, in a couple of trillion years, whatever form the planet earth is in, it will be flying through the universe alone, so far from the nearest light-emitting star, the stars light will never reach the planet. No stars in the night sky? Yep, eventually, according to the experts.

It occurs to me (and I guess just to me) this Dark Matter and Dark Energy, supposedly a homogeneous part of the universe could be God. Uh..OhHeresy, eh? Well, we tend to 21

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

think of God as all-powerful, and everywhere in the universe. Scientists think of Dark Matter and Dark Energy as all-powerful and everywhere in the universe. Seems to me the scientists have discovered physical evidence of God for the scientific explanation for Dark Energy and Matter is the exact description the Bible gives for God.

22

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Time Regarding Hawking and his belief the Law of Gravity is the creator of everything, I want to call your attention to something fundamental neither he, nor any other physicist, seems to really understand, thereby probably making mistakes in the subsequent building blocks upon which their house of cards rest. In the 1970s two highly accurate atomic clocks were flown in opposite directions around the earth for several weeks while a third atomic clock remained stationary on earth. When the three clocks were compared, one was running faster the one flown west - compared to the earth clock and one the one flown east - was running slower. Physicists used the results of this experiment to abandon the concept of a universal time and to come up with the concept of an interwoven fabric called space-time. They also used the experiment results to confirm Einsteins hypothesis that regardless of an observers relative motion and frame of reference, the speed of light is the same for all observers.

Let me call your attention to another issue before I return to this issue of time. There is a concept called the Doppler Shift that is applicable to all traveling waves, such as sound waves. The horn blowing on a fast locomotive while approaching an observer will sound higher in pitch than the same horn as it is moving away from the same observer. The reason for this phenomena is the sound waves are compressed as the locomotive approaches the observer and they are stretched/elongated as the locomotive speeds away. The same effect is observed in objects emitting light in space. Those objects emitting light that are moving away from the earth have their light spectrum shifted toward the red end of the spectrum because the light waves are elongated compared to a stationary light emitting source. Those light emitting objects moving toward earth have their light spectrum shifted toward the blue end, meaning the light waves are compressed by the motion, again compared to a stationary light emitting source.

Okay, we just described the Doppler Effect using two common waves, sound and light. Well, what is the results of the time experiment other than another example of a Doppler

23

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Effect? The flying clocks saw time compressed or elongated, depending upon the direction of travel compared to a stationary clock on the earths surface. However, it is kind of a reverse, or inverse, Doppler Effect. In the other types of waves, the observer is stationary and hears/sees the Doppler Effect in a Newtonian frame of reference. With time, the observer is moving and sees the Doppler Effect with respect to a stationary time piece in the same Newtonian frame of reference.

What does this mean? Well, I am still perusing this observation but it does not lead me to believe time is an integral part of space as other physicists think and from which their Theory of Everything (M-Theory) is dependent upon. I think it is saying time is independent of space in the sense the two are not integral and inseparable. It means when we move in space, time manifests some kind of wave property with respect to us that is not yet recognized, or understood, by theoretical physicists. But hey! I am just a lowly engineer so who am I to question the likes of Einstein and Hawking? Well, I am the same guy who conjured his own God and who is very comfortable with the thought if physics succeeds at all in discovering a true Theory of Everything, God, whatever you conceive God to be, will be prominent and central in the theory.

Why? Because, something never came from nothing, except possibly me. This is a reference to a conversation with an Amish fellow who told me one day several years ago I was something. I had stopped by his feed store in Loveville, Maryland to buy a couple of sacks of corn. He asked me what religion I was. When I said I was nothing he looked shocked and told me we are all something, for God never made nothing. So, I went from being nothing to something and I am therefore proof God can make something from nothing. Although I am still not certain what something I am.

We can theorize about how and why our universe exists, but unless we can somehow elevate our mental faculties to a something - a higher plane? (whatever that is) - or otherwise come up with the toolset - the special senses and brainpower required - perhaps we will never know where the universe comes from and why we exist. For now, it is

24

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

sufficient to know we exist and if we do not get our population under control very soon, then very, very soon we shall cease to exist. Besides who really wants to know all the answers? Isnt it pleasant for us pee-brains 31 to have a few mysteries to mull over as we sit in our house before the burning fire in the wood stove and contemplate the fluff in our navels (where does that stuff come from, anyway?) and other mysteries of the universe?

There is another issue with time. Scientists say they can see back to several hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. That is, astronomers claim to see stars in galaxies twelve billion light years from earth. If the universe was created about 12 billion light years ago 32 and what is now planet earth was part of that creation, how can we now see light emitted 12 billion light years ago? That light would have passed by what was to become the planet soon after the formation of the universe.

Light reaching us today from the farthest star the Hubble telescope can see required 12 billion light years to reach us. This means the light was emitted about twelve billion years ago. How can this be when the universe is estimated to be only 12 billion years old? See the quandary in this issue? If the universe is twelve billion years old then whatever was to become planet earth was nearby the star that is emitting the light so it would have passed us by within a few hundred thousand years after the birth of the universe.

If we are seeing light emitted 12 billion years ago, today, then we had to be very far apart from the emitting star 12 billion years ago; probably about 12 billion light years apart (give or take a few hundred million years since we are receding from other galaxies, but at a speed far less than the speed of light). So, that makes the universe at least 24 billion years old (give or take a few hundred million I am too lazy at 0200 in the morning to do the calculations to get a more precise answer.).

An oblique reference to M-Theory and p-branesfrom a pee-brain. :))) Hubble measures the expanding Universe. (May, 25 1999) NASA Science News. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast25may99_1/
32

31

25

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Well, looking at the above diagram, it just does not make sense the Hubble telescope can see 12 billion year old light, unless the universe is double that age. Yet, scientists are claiming the Hubble can see 12 billion year old light. If the universe is only 12 billion years old, than 12 billion year old light would have passed us by about 12 billion years ago. Nope, for their calculations to be accurate, the age of the universe must be double that, giving us a 24 billion year old universe. See the following diagram.

26

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

There was a vigorous controversy regarding the age of the universe before Hubble saw the light from the star 12 billion light years away. One side of the argument said the universe was 10 billion years old while the other side argued it was 20 billion years old. Now the 20 billion year old scientists have given up that argument as a result of the Hubble measurements and they have become 12 billion +- 1.2 billion years old scientists. Seems like they should have stuck with the 20 billion plus 4!

In May 1999, the Hubble Telescope Project Team announced the Hubble Constant to be 70 km/sec/mpc, with an uncertainty of 10 percent. This means that a galaxy appears to be moving 160,000 miles per hour faster for every 3.3 million light-years away from Earth. 33

Well, I need to contemplate the light issue some more before continuing.

33

Ibid.

27

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Discuss cone of light Hubble telescope (and all other telescopes) is confined to examining since no optical telescope can peer through the galaxy in the plane the earth is orbiting. Essentially, we can only see about 1-2% of the universe but we are generalizing the rest of the universe looks and behaves exactly as the small portion of it we can observe.

28

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Stephen Hawking - Heaven Is For People Scared Of The Dark

Yesterday, 18 May 2011, Stephen Hawking announced there was no heaven. He stated the concept of heaven was only useful for people who were afraid of the dark. Well, I am not afraid of the dark.

Everything Stephen Hawking believes in multiverses, Big Bangs, infinite universes, MTheory, quantum mechanics, etc is based upon one very basic and inescapable fact: our system of counting things. Yes, that is correct, our number system forms the foundation from which all physicists spring forth with a myriad quantity of seemingly crazy ideas.

To use physics terms, that numbering system is comprised of quanta, those being the basic numbers 0, 1, 2, 3etc. Somewhere between creation and a couple of thousands of years ago we learned to count our sheep, goats, cows, horses, and bushels of grain. No kidding. The archeaologists have found the pottery shards from Chaldea that represent the very first attempts to record a merchants products in numbered quantities. Apparently pottery shards were used since there was plenty of broken pottery available so it must have been inexpensive to use for the purpose. In any case, perhaps after counting on fingers first, we began recording the counts on pottery, documenting for posterity the approximate time scientists can say for certain humans had learned to count.

A little more history by the time of Christ, much of the human world could count. The Romans had the Roman numeral system, a plague for schoolchildren when I was in elementary school and had to not only learn to count with the numerals, but also how to do the math with them. Arghh! Then there were the Arabs and the Arabian numerals. I learned these first in elementary school but when I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s I learned the real Arabian numerals. The difference between the Roman numerals and the Arabian numerals is significant. The Arabs have a numeral for zero, but

29

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

the Romans did not. That is why today, the world uses the Arab counting system instead of the Roman system.

Since the Romans did not have a numeral for zero, they were not perplexed by any odd issues with their system. However, such was not the case with the Arab system. Of course, in elementary school we all learn 1+1 = 2 and each of those numbers represent a definable quantity. That is, if we have one ball in each hand and we move one ball to the other hand, the hand that gains the ball will have two balls. Take another example: There are two boys who have four marbles between themselves. They decide to divide the marbles equally. They were taught in elementary school the mathematical operation for dividing the marbles is 4 2 = 2 so each boy should get two marbles. Makes sense, eh? But, there is one mathematical relationship, or operation, using Arabian numerals that does not make sense. What if there were four marbles to be divided equally by zero boys? The operation is 4 0 = ? This seems like such a simple issue that it almost seems to stupid to even discuss. How can you divide zero of something into some quantity? Well, you can divide any other numeral, or combinations of numerals, into any combination of numerals and get a realistic answer. But, dividing any quantity by zero does not make sense so the scientists say it is an undefined operation.

Now, think of divide by zeros symmetric operation. That is, divide zero by any other quantity: 0 1= ? Does this make sense? Of course it does. The scientists say zero divided by any quantity gives an definite answer. That is, 1 will go into zero exactly zero times. Therefore we can say, 0 1= 0.

Let us return to some number divided by zero. Since the operation is undefined in our counting system, whenever scientists come up with this operation in their mathematical operations, instead of saying such and such is non-existent, they say it goes to infinity. This is where they come up with such things as an infinite number of universes by a simple mathematical operation that really means something is undefined. It is truly the Calculus which gives these kind of answers.

30

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Divide by Zero is the numerical operation which the scientific community pins their whole case for everything from quantum mechanics to Big Bang to M-Theory.

X 0 where X is any number is where they get the infinite number of universes, infinite number of everything else from.

Instead of questioning such fundamental ideas as X 0, they crash blindly ahead coming up with more and more exotic theories based upon this system of mathematics to explain the origin of our universe. The scientists have built a house of cards and they expect everyone else to believe what they say, based upon faith the scientists know what they are talking about. Science is a faith-based religion with Gravity as God and Stephen Hawking the new age Moses trying to lead us all to the glory land. I dont know about you, but I question everything science tells me with the ardor and passion I challenge everything religions such as Catholicism tells me.

31

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Multiple Universes: For People Who Are Afraid of Life

So, there is no heaven, Stephen Hawking? I assure you, without an doubt, it is infinitely easier for me to believe there is a Heaven with a God, than it is for me to believe there is an infinite number of infinite universes, peopled by an infinite number of copies of me and you. Heaven is for people scared of the dark? Really? Forty years of contemplating your navel at Oxford and this is the best you can do? I say, multiple universes are for people who are afraid of the life and hide behind the non-threatening numbers on a chalkboard in a lab, or classroom.

32

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

Science and Religion: God Didnt Make Man; Man Made Gods
In an Op Ed article in the Los Angeles Times, dated 19 July 2011 34 , Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer write that scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religions DNA. Invoking images of John Lennon and his famous words, Imagine theres no heavenno hell below usand no religion, the pair of writers argue recent research in the mind proves there is no God 35 . Thomson and Aukofer say, Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions.

Furthermore, they say, Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. In addition to these adaptations, humans have developed the remarkable ability to think about what goes on in other people's minds and create and rehearse complex interactions with an unseen other. In our minds we can de-couple cognition from time, place and circumstance. We consider what someone else might do in our place; we project future scenarios; we replay past events. It's an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them. Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom notes that "it is often beneficial for humans to work together which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718,0,5682260.story In the same song, John Lennon wrote Imagine no possessions. While he may have been an atheist, he certainly did not practice what he preached. He had a lot of possession in his uptown, expensive apartment off Central Park where he lived and in his English estates. Like most hypocritical people, what is good for me and you, was not necessarily good for him, eh?
35

34

33

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

nastiness of other individuals." And they say Bloom has shown infants in their first year of life demonstrate aspects of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, even fair and unfair.

Then they make the claim Beyond psychological adaptations and mechanisms, scientists have discovered neurological explanations for what many interpret as evidence of divine existence.

Thomson and Aukofer think the better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion. Some of them, like the attachment system, push us toward a belief in gods and make departing from it extraordinarily difficult.

The two authors state, Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce.

Using this data, they conclude In recent years scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's "DNA." They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence (including "imaging" studies of the brain at work), that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

As a scientist myself, I wish we could do away with organized religion, not because I do not believe in God, but due to its destructive nature over the course of human events. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other excuse known to mankind. Having said that, I do not believe Dawkins, or these two bumbling authors, have proved man created God, or the non-existence of God. On the contrary, it can be argued God put these exact characteristics in our DNA using natural selection so we would rise above the worm, fish, monkey (and Dawkins) and believe in a Supreme Being. I mean, if these characteristics were not part of our DNA, then how could we

34

Michael Busby 2010 http://www.scribd.com/doc/35200897/Christianity-Anne-Rice-Richard-Dawkins-Stephen-Hawking-and-Me

believe in God at all? Do monkeys believe in God (of course we know Dawkins does not)? Do fish believe in God? Does your cat or dog believe in God? So, I think this article does more to prove the existence of a Supreme Being, than it does to prove the nonexistence of a God. It is all a matter of perspective, eh?
Finally, and about time too, we have an scientific explanation for atheism. From Thomson and Aukofer arguments, we can reach the conclusion atheists did not inherit the appropriate DNA for believing in God. Maybe that was Dawkins problem, also. Descarte famously said, "I think, therefore I am." In the end he decided he believed in God therefore, He existed. Somewhere along the way, Descarte realized faith was an important trait to have. I have covered a lot of material in this treatise. To provide a summary, I believe with each new, true, scientific discovery 36 , science is proving the existence of God beyond any doubt, no faith needed really; only a keen eye and nose to separate the bullshit from the real deal.

I wish for you a wonderful day.

I need to differentiate the real discoveries of science, such as the discovery of electromagnetism which gives us electricity, from the scientific theories which are not true discoveries, they are only brain waves in some persons mind, such as the Big Bang Theory.

36

35