Stephen Hawking — Cosmic Tragedy — Hawking Fake Science...

Here is something that I wrote several years ago (in 2018).  It is rather long, but should be like a feast to a thinking mind that desires truth.

Stephen Hawking — Cosmic Tragedy — Hawking Fake Science...

copyright © 2018 / 2022 Ancient Heritage Foundation

Also available in stapleback booklet for 7.00 + P&H (P&H = 10% / 5.00 minimum within the U.S.)

[Please share this link and others with everyone that you know who loves God and the Truth, and ask them to do the same.  Get involved; don’t be passive.  Support, order, spread the word pray.]

Stephen Hawking 1942-2018, theoretical physicist and cosmologist died at his home in Cambridge, England at the age of 76.  He suffered for over 2/3s of his life with a debilitating disease that rendered him paralyzed and eventually could only communicate with a computerized speech-generated voice.

Hawking made the following assertions concerning God and the universe:
[My detailed thoughts are interspersed below in brackets.  R.A.B.]
Stephen Hawking:
“When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense.  Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in.  It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
[This is the statement either of a moron or a liar.  It is not that the question makes no sense, it is that Hawking did not want to recognize the validity of the question.  For someone who was supposedly a genius, and since the Philosophy of Logic is essentially MATHEMATICS, I find it extremely hard to believe that an expert theoretical physicist (who must certainly understand extremely complex math) could make such elementary logical blunders.  Therefore, it seems that the only explanation is poorly-calculated, though intentional dishonesty.  His statement above is replete with numerous non sequiturs (begging the question and missing middles and false disjunctions) and is itself based on false assumptions that anyone who can think logically is expected to simply overlook (because if you don’t have a Ph.D. then you have no right to question someone with a DOCTORATE, when he says that 3 + 3 = 33).  Hawking and his ilk bank on the fact that small-minded persons who have low self-esteem and star-dust in their eyes will be in awe in Hawking’s magnificent intellectual presence, and never even attempt to think or scrutinize what Hawking says, but merely hang on every golden word that drips off his computer-speaking device.
1. “Time did not exist before the Big Bang.”  This is an assumption based on humanism and “faith in nothing” (which itself is an impossibility), not based upon any fact.  Faith in nothing is not intelligence or science, but a mental void, an intellectual vacuum (not like a vacuum cleaner, but a chamber in which all matter has been removed).  There is no proof of Big Bangism, therefore, to claim that time did not exist before “Big Bang” is not a fact, but a dishonest, science-fiction opinion.  Now, I could be wrong, but I assume that a “theoretical” physicist is one who thinks up ideas that “could be” true but which he cannot prove (or maybe it is a euphemism for “sophisticated theoretical liar”).  It then seems odd to seek such a person for answers concerning truth.  Furthermore, the stars and atoms are used to “measure” time—but they do not cause time to exist.  Did time exist before the invention of the first wristwatch, grandfather clock, hourglass, or sundial?  Of course.  So... did time exist before the stars and atoms on a macro-cosmic and micro-cosmic level, before energy and matter existed...?  We cannot know.  Does the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 exist if there is nothing to count?  That depends not on matter, but on the existence of a mind that can so think; does it not...?  Does baseball not exist because Hawking could not run and play?  Does Hawking even define time?  Is time on a planet with 2 suns and 7 moons the same as time here on Earth?  Which time is followed in any discussion?  Well, I assume that even as we use 4:00 EST, etc., that intelligent people would define their terms, when there is possibility that the terms could be confused based upon different attachments of meaning to the same words.  But it gets more complicated on other planets in which the days, months (moons) and years are different lengths of time in comparison to “Earth days, months, years”.  Time existed before matter: God then calibrated that matter to time.  Scripture says that God created the Earth (and left it unformed, barren—most probably, frozen) for some undisclosed period of time until He then determined He would complete His Plan of Creation.  God said, “Let there be light” on the first day, but did not create the sun, moon, and stars until the 3rd day.  God created energy and matter and the laws that govern them and used them as the “stuffing” with which he would fill other things that He created, and calibrate those formed bodies and forms of life to the laws that He already created (including time).
2. “Time did not exist before the Big Bang” has no relation to the proposition “did a God create the universe?”  This is bald attempt to deceive simple minds.  Anyone with an inkling of understanding can see through this; but of course, those who hate God refuse to believe that He exists, therefore, they will remain silent (in support of this illogic and deception) for two reasons,
1. the falsehood coincides with their own agenda;
2. they don’t want to embarrass the unfortunate disabled “genius” in the wheelchair (especially since he’s their “champion” whom no one will challenge since he’s disabled).  
Saying “Time did not exist before the Big Bang therefore God did not create the universe” is like saying “Peanuts didn’t exist before peanut butter was invented, therefore, jelly predated peanut butter” —the propositions (which are not even true) have nothing to do with the conclusion (which is invalid).  It is Hawking’s false presuppositions and his false conclusion that make no sense.  In fact, the peanut butter syllogism above is far closer to being a valid argument, because it at least has the term “peanut butter” properly distributed in the premise and conclusion; whereas the elements in Hawking’s assertion have no relation to one another and are dangling assertions.
3. His notion of asking directions to the edge of the Earth has nothing to do with whether a god created the universe.  This is a shamelessly dishonest distraction.  I could likewise say, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12) “—therefore evolution is a fraud”.  However, while my first proposition is true, the conclusion is invalid; though true; but my premise did not prove the conclusion.  I can say “the Earth’s atmosphere is 21% oxygen, therefore water freezes at 32 degrees F.”  Both the premise and conclusion are true, but the premise did not prove the conclusion true and are unrelated (due to a “missing middle [proposition]” to join them together), and therefore the argument is invalid.  Furthermore, East and West never meet.  This is common sense.  The Earth, if it is an orb, clearly would have no edge (except as a limited perception, from a distance; and used as a figure of speech, not reality); however, that statement serves as a distraction to those who are intellectually challenged and who don’t realize that Hawking’s smug assertion is a smokescreen to avoid actually discussing the topic at hand.
4.  God is Immutable and Omnipotent; He is not affected by or dependent upon anything external to Himself.  God Eternally pre-existed before time.  God created time itself which is exterior to / outside of Him.  John 1:1-3 says, “ALL things were made by Him”.  That includes time and the laws of the universe.  God exists outside the box of time in which we were created.  Here Hawking tries to “steal God’s thunder” by claiming that his god ‘Big Bango’ predated time (which is begging the question, a fallacy of logic, assuming that Big Bango even exists—and since he claims that God does not exist because there is no “proof”, then it is perverse for him to expect anyone to believe that his god ‘Big Bango’ exists, without any proof.  There is no evidence of his god ‘Big Bango’; only the authoritarian opinion of the self-appointed high priest of ‘Big Bango’ who presumes: “I am a ‘professional guesser’ so you have no right to question my omniscience”).  Scripture (both in the New Testament and in the Old Testament) tells us that God predated time—God created time.  Biblical records date back thousands of years.  THOUSANDS* of different copies of Bible manuscripts have survived antiquity and any differences* between them constitute a very tiny percentage of the entire document as a whole (and none of the differences are in matters of importance).  So unless Hawking can find thousands of 1,900 - 3,000 year-old ‘Big Bango’ manuscripts, Hawking (no pun intended) has no leg to stand on.  Furthermore, what “evidence” or “logic” does Hawking have to assert that time did not exist before the Big Bang?  The Big Bang itself is a fool’s fantasy.  How can everything (or even something) come from nothing...?  How can an orderly something explode from a chaotic nothing...?  If energy and matter (which are different forms of the same thing) exist, does not time have to already exist?  Are not energy and matter forms of motion...?  Can motion exist without time?  Is not all matter and energy comprised of atoms, with electrons spinning at specific rates (OF TIME) within the shells of their respective atoms?  Are not all the movements of atoms and electrons measurements or more properly “intervals” of time...?  How then can energy or matter exist without time?  How can nothing “blow up” and become energy and matter? —sophisticated, complex, orderly energy and matter that operates based upon constant laws...?  The whole argument is neither rational, nor empirical.  It is neither philosophy, nor science.  What is it then? —it is Hawking’s fantasy religion.
[* See “Additional Note” at the end of this article (before the “UPDATE”).]
Hawking takes Attributes of God and projects them onto his pseudo-scientific god.  Those who are intelligent and honest, who could have easily refuted him, were kept from public debate, and those who are intelligent but dishonest and refuse to believe in God keep their mouths shut and neither agree nor disagree (in case the religio-political wind ever shifts, or in case they would ever be forced to publicly defend such statements as those that Hawking makes; by remaining silent and letting Hawking make such statements, then they don’t have to worry about having their own ignorance exposed).  Thus, they quietly agree to let Hawking champion their anti-intellectual position because no one in a “professional” environment would ever ridicule “Forest Gump” or “Bubble Boy” (hence, the unchallenged “splendor” of the current rising autistic star in Sweden, Greta Thunberg, to which all sycophants bow down).  This is little different than using pictures of impoverished, bare-foot, dirty Third-world children with sad eyes to elicit an emotional rather than intellectual response for money.
[For the same reason Hillary’s and Pelosi’s (and other fools’) endless mental stupidities have never been challenged (though it is also due to a controlled media that is a propaganda mill, not a news source).  However, hypocritically, in contradistinction, if someone is a straight, white, Christian who holds traditional values upon which all of Christendom has been founded, well then, it is “open season” on him and he is not only subject to free, wholesale ridicule, but he is immediately removed from his position (political office, academic chair, etc.) because clearly he is “unfit for anything”.  On the other hand, every form of perversion and anti-intellectualism that attacks the values upon which Christendom was founded, is put on a pedestal and worshipped.  It is the self-same hypocrisy of communists using capitalism to get rich, to then use that money to destroy capitalism.  Why can they not get rich off communism...?  As humanism, it is an unviable and dishonest theory that inevitably implodes.]
God existed before time itself existed, even as time existed before the first coo-coo clock was invented (to which Hawking should be able to relate*).  Time itself existed before the first pocket watch, pendulum time-piece, sand-filled hour-glass, or sundial existed.  All those instruments for “keeping” (track of) time are also attempts of man to understand and be in harmony with the time that already exists—to actually be in submission to time, not attempt to violate it.  That itself is an interesting observation upon which it seems this theoretical physicist never ruminated.
[* Note: I certainly do not make fun of him for the tragic suffering he endured.  I refer to his unscholarly and dishonest notions that he pawned off as “intelligent” thought.  Since he showed that he could rise above his suffering and disability and accomplish things that made the world notice and admire him, he certainly could have risen above his personal illogical opinions, not disseminated them as fact, and applied himself to understand the true Christian faith, which is responsible for civilization and the Golden Age of Christendom (rather than contributing to its continued destruction); and he should have prepared to meet His Maker, rather than insult Him worldwide.  If he was wrong and the Word of God is True, then his torment now is so great that he wishes he were again trapped within that painful prison of a mangled body captive in a wheelchair.  That is saddest of all.  Maybe that thought will cause others, regardless of their condition, to put their own hatred and opinions aside, fall on their faces before God and ask for His Forgiveness and ask Him to remove the blindness and hardness that keeps them unrepentant and in rebellion against their Maker.  Not wanting to believe that God exists, or that Hell exists, or that God will damn anyone to Hell—does not cause reality to change.  Were that the case, reality would change daily 7 billion times a minute.  But Hawking certainly knew, at least in a general idea, the traditional concept of God and Judgment—and rejected it.  He thought that the odds that the Bible is not true was worth the gamble.  I for one do not.  I have suffered tremendously my entire life.  I've suffered enough in this life; I could not imagine it being worse—and for eternity.  I don’t believe out of fear, however, but out of concentrated study of about 4,000 hours a year for 28 years. But even if I was not convinced, I would not gamble with eternity.  Furthermore, when you actually study the facts, it is no gamble, but a sure thing!]
Another gem of contemplation upon which the intellectually constipated geniuses have never meditated is the fact that nothing can approach the speed of light (if anything attempts to, time actually slows down and matter shrinks) that part they know; but what they do not recognize is the profound sublimation when we realize that Scripture tells us that God is Light and that He will not share His Glory with another, that no flesh should glory in His Presence, that He is all in all, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, that by Him all things consist, and in Him we live and move and have our being.  Christ (Who is God Himself) said that He was the Light; and the converted elect of God’s people are said to be children of light of the Father of Lights.  Of course, all this sounds like foolishness* to those perishing in delusion and ignorance (thinking themselves ever so wise, without any proof) and they need to humble themselves before God and ask His Forgiveness, before He will reveal anything to them.  There is nothing wrong with honesty.  All that they have to do is pray, “God, I really don’t believe that You exist, but if You exist I would be a fool not to believe in You, so I humble myself before You, and beg Your Forgiveness for all my sins through the Sacrifice that Christ Jesus made for me, and I ask You to please reveal Yourself and Truth to me as I read the Bible; open my eyes, my heart, my mind and empower me to understand and believe and obey You”.  What person is so deluded or conceited or hateful that he could not honestly and humbly pray that prayer?  Faith does not replace knowledge—it is the authorization that enables you to enter the halls of true understanding.
[* —and yet they believe whatever babbling uttered by New Age / Eastern religions about “auras” and “chakras”—and anything that primitive savages conjured up into superstitions and false religions; or they believe any “dream” that someone had about dying and coming back from the dead; or “visions” someone had while smoking payute in a sweat lodge; or any other emotional “experience” that someone has and calls it “spirituality”.  Even Napoleon expressed, “It is strange what men can believe so long as it is not in the Bible”.]
Man, if he is honest, admits that time exists, and then tries to make sense of it by uncovering / discovering laws; not by fabricating fantasy.  But can time itself even be proven? —or can man merely demonstrate the calculations of what he wants to believe is something called “time”...?
Unfortunately, the same applies to all false religions in terms of man’s relation to God and in sinful man’s attempt (apart from God’s self-revelation) to make sense of God.  This includes the majority of subverted Christian denominations who espouse Arminianism (that of “free will” and the “basic goodness of man”, which constitute probably 95% of so-called Protestant denominations today) and atheism itself (which is also a form of “humanism”).  In both false doctrines man considers himself to be his own god; both are forms of humanism—which is a euphemism for Satanism: since Satan deceives men with the fantasy notion (to one degree or another) of man’s godhood (even though man has no such power!)—even as Satan deceived Eve: “ye shall be as gods”—for the purpose of eventually having man believe in Satan as “God”, if Satan can eventually successfully overthrow God.  Similarly, all false religions are actually Satanism, as demons deceive simple-minded people into believing their superstitious gods exist, building idols and temples to them, and bowing down and worshipping them, but in reality they are worshipping those demons who deceive them.
All “nominal Christians” will admit that God exists (even if they reject the traditional and true concept—the Biblical Revelation / Doctrine of God) but they then go about “inventing their own notions” of what God “has to be like” based upon their own human imperfections and notions that they project onto God. This clearly shows that their “religion” is not actual faith.  True faith is based upon the unchanging Doctrine of the Word of God.  The “faith” of most “Christians” is actually superstition and a psychosis: an altered state of reality, a pseudo-spiritual delusion resulting from their denial of the facts of God’s Word (because the carnal mind is incapable of being in submission to God and rejects God, while hypocritically wanting to retain the superficial appearance of being “spiritual”).  Thus, most Christians invent and live within this pseudo-reality in their own minds.  They imagine reality to be the way that they want it to be because they refuse to acknowledge God’s Sovereignty.  Thus, the majority of Christians have more in common with Hawking than they realize; they either just don’t have the courage to blatantly declare it, or they are so anti-intellectual they don’t even realize the ramifications and ultimate conclusions of what they actually claim to believe (a pseudo-spiritual form of humanism).
False religion, truly, is the opiate of the masses; true religion (True Reformed Christian Doctrine) is a drug-rehab program for those who prefer reality and obedience to God, rather than delusion and rebellion against God.
5. That “there is no time in which a God could make a universe” is invalid because the term “time” is not present in his premise and therefore, it cannot appear in his conclusion, for it is an undefined and unrelated element.  Hawking’s logical blunders are so elementary and so transparent it is amazing that he could get away with such intellectual fraud.  Again, he had a lot in common with the Hillaries, Pelosies, McCains, Ryans, and AOCs whose ignorance is exceeded only by their arrogance, dishonesty, and evil.
6. The assertion that “there is no time in which a God could make a universe” is also invalid because it presupposes a god—like Hawking himself—who is weak, disabled, with limited intelligence, and who can’t think himself out of tissue-paper boxes of flawed logic (let alone out of his wheelchair and disability).  That type of mythological god, with human frailties and weaknesses, is certainly limited by a myriad of factors.  But this is the “bait and switch” (of terminology).  Hawking, being anti-intellectual posing as an intellectual, and hating God (for making him a cripple), refused to define his terms and he refused to define what “god” meant (in his mind) when he used that term.  Thus, the unspoken reality and result of his statement, if truly expressed,  is,
“You believe in God ‘A’. 
I believe that no god ‘B’ exists because I refuse to believe it;
therefore, your God ‘A’ does not exist”; or
“You believe in the True GOD. 
I don’t believe mythological gods exist;
therefore there is no True GOD”. 
No matter how you try to make sense of what Hawking actually meant, it is illogical.  He was careful enough not to say too much that would provide enough rope to hang himself, after, eventually, he tripped over it himself (since no one else had the heart to challenge him; which would have been like stealing candy from a baby or pushing an elderly person down a flight of stairs); so he spoke blunt one-liners that sounded authoritative to those whose minds were too undeveloped to realize the fraud.  One-liners from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Action movies contained more truth. 
7. That there is “no time in which a God could make a universe” is itself an impossible notion, because Hawking is attempting to discuss the ability of something that he does not even believe exists (based upon concepts that he does not even understand).  However, that does not seem to have ever stopped him from expressing his confused opinions in situations in which his “professional guessing” (and non-logic) will be confused as evidence toward the conclusion that he wants people to believe.  But note clearly, he does not attempt to prove his position with logic.  He makes illogical assertions and simply expects people to accept what he says, being over-awed by his “superior” intellect and greater-than-life (fabricated) persona.  Like most corrupt politicians, “He is one of those persons who has nothing to say; and yet goes to great lengths to say it”.
When Hawking says, “When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense”, he thinks that he has slain the dragon of Christianity, but he is more akin to a 5-year old writing an explanation of the world, or Don Quixote elaborately battling windmills in his mind—and thinking that he has accomplished something.  “Little Jack Horner” comes to mind.   RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is: there is no God.  No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate.  This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either.  We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”
[I find it sadly humorous and telling that such a “profound genius” would settle for the “simplest” answer concerning a question of such astronomical and eternal magnitude.  The first clause, his first proposition (upon which the others are feebly based) is itself not a fact, but an assertion.  The statement itself is in denial of the existence of God and His Sovereignty and Determinism and thus it is circular reasoning to base ones conclusions on his self-serving unproven premise.  Why would such a “genius” settle for such a simplistic answer? (and one that is based upon ZERO facts, ZERO logic, but naked opinion) —because like his premise, his conclusion is an assertion, an opinion, the “anti-religion” that he wants to believe in.  This is 5-year old thinking, “Spankings are ‘unfair’ because I say so”.  Yet no one had the courage or honesty or concern for him to attempt to wipe the anti-intellectual drool from his face.
As I wrote in my, God, Man, and the Universe:
“Further, it is only modernly that most scientists now believe in the “theory” of Evolution, as if it is a fact (which it is not).  Most modern scientists believe in Evolution, not because there is more “proof” that has been discovered (which there is not; there is no proof); but because:
“1. They refuse to believe God—because if they admitted that God existed, they would have to admit that He knows best, that He is the Boss, and that they need to submit to and obey Him;
[Another famous evolutionist / agnostic, a grandson of Thomas Huxley, was Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1875), who was also a famous biologist.  Julian Huxley was shockingly honest (not recognizing his own shame).  He declared,
“[I suppose the reason that] we all jumped at [believing] the [Darwinian] Origin [of the Species, thereby embracing Evolution] was because the [very] idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.*” [brackets added by me for clarity.]
“* Mores (a Latin word pronounced like the eels, morays) are “folkways or customs of central importance that are accepted by society without question, which embody the fundamental moral views of society.” Mores also entail the recognition of societal taboos. Taboos are particularly vile forms of immorality. Sadly, as our society becomes less and less Christian, as we absorb pagan peoples, what were once universally recognized as taboos, are now considered, “perfectly normal lifestyle choices”).
“What an astounding confession!
“Julian’s younger brother, Aldous Leonard Huxley (1894-1963) was a famous British author, moralist, humanist, and philosopher.  He too made a rather amazing confession (revealing the hopelessness and ignorance of those “experts” who have rejected God):
“It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than ‘Try to be a little kinder.’”
“What an understatement...!  That’s like telling someone who is dying of cancer, “Try to feel a little better” or to someone in prison: “Try to feel a little freer.”  Julian and Aldous rejected the Word of God because their grandfather doubted its Divinity.  Even as a leak in a dam or a dyke starts as a small trickle, it will eventually erode and weaken the edifice until it bursts forth in destruction.  So also it is with doubt, disbelief, sin, and immorality.  Those who reject God and His perfection, have no hope.
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1)
“...if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14)
Hawking here talks in a cluster of confusion: “profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either”.  Tell me, how can a mere “probability” based upon nothing other than wanting to believe that something does not exist... how can a “probably” be a “profound realization”...?   It is profound stupidity.  You can’t “come back” from somewhere that you have never been...! neither can you give directions (both ways) to someone else—especially when you are a blind cripple in a wheel chair.  This is what Hawking attempts: bound to a wheel chair, he engages in fantasy concerning all the things that he cannot do... and the wonderful thing about fantasy is that the sky is the limit!  However, it is dishonesty, it is psychosis, and totalitarianism for you to expect everyone else to enter your psychosis with you and pretend that it is reality.  It is one thing to commit suicide yourself to “see” what is on the other side (which is stupidity if there is even a chance that what is on the other side for you is HELL).  It is a far-graver crime to seduce unsuspecting fools into committing mass suicide with you.  This is what the Edomite-Canaanite Pharisees (masquerading as Israelites) did; and for which Christ exposed them:
“But woe [a curse be] unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.... Ye serpents, ye generation [race] of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell?” [a rhetorical question, meaning, ye cannot.] (Matthew 23:13,33) 
With the mindset of a psychopath criminal who is infatuated by the lovely weather girl who has shunned him, he declares to himself, “If I can’t have her—no one can!”  
Furthermore, he simply expects others to believe with him his unscientific opinion that if we jump off a cliff it won’t hurt and that there is no life hereafter to hurt either.  That’s a pretty big gamble.  If one wants to play Eternal Russian Roulette with his own soul, he may believe the delusion that it is his “free will” to do so, but it is homicide of the everlasting soul to put that gun-thought in the minds of others who are easily misled following someone whom they think to be a genius.
This reminds me of the perfect illustration by Merlin Carothers in his booklet Prison to Praise.  Carothers was a young kid, newly enlisted in the war (Viet Nam? Korea? I can’t recall which).  He was wet behind the ears and didn’t want to appear to be a coward, so he just decided to do what he observed a seasoned soldier do.  One time they were sitting having their mess and enemy mortar fire starting coming near.  His first instinct was to jump into his foxhole, but did not want to appear to be a coward.  So he followed the cue of his surrogate, who, nonplussed, finished his meal and never ran for cover.  Carothers assumed that this seasoned veteran who had seen several tours of duty knew what was best and Carothers assumed that the other soldier somehow knew by experience that the enemy shells did not pose a threat at that time, or clearly he would have jumped in his own foxhole.  A few more incidents happened like that; then one day they were walking along a road on patrol and Carothers noted the seasoned soldier simply walking without care straight down the road.  Carothers finally sheepishly asked, “Shouldn’t we be checking for landmines?” —to which the reply was something like, “No, I'm sick of this life, I am actually hoping to step on a landmine.  I want to die”.  At this Carothers was shocked to his soul and said to himself, “And I have been following THIS GUY...?!!”  When the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch (or landmine).  [I still have copies of this short paperback in stock, 106pp., 7.00 + P&H.]
Those who follow someone like Hawking are no different... they just assume that Hawking is a genius and they just assume that it is his genius with which he makes such decisions of Eternal consequence—in the face of a universe in which he is not even a flea—and being completely unwilling to actually consider the evidence, thinking that whatever he can fantasize in his own mind is “reality” that preempts and overrules actual reality—and his followers blindly assumed that Hawking did not base his “science” upon his own personal opinion of what he wanted reality to be, but upon some scientific formula that they were too dumb to understand.
Hawking’s next statement, again, is  circular reasoning based on an unproven premise, which he then finishes off with confusion about what he actually claims to believe: “We have this one life.”  That is an assertion based upon his personal, unscientific opinion in that it is “simplest” thing to believe that there is no God and no afterlife.  It is also the simplest thing to believe that atoms do not exist and that black holes do not exist (and there are some very intelligent scientists who do not believe that blackholes actually exist); yet Hawking went to great length to try to convince others that black holes exist.  He was double minded in that he believed what he wanted to believe in the absence—even defiance—of the facts; especially, self-contradictorily, when it was easier to simply believe that blackholes don’t exist.
He then shows his own double-minded confusion (or deceit) by referring to “Grand Design” which itself is impossible without a DESIGNER.  Random chaos is not a “designer”; random chaos does not produce a “design”.  Random chaos may produce what appears to be a random, chaotic “pattern”; but it cannot produce design.  Hawking does not appear to have even understood the English language; or he was purposely attempting to contaminate people’s minds with error so that they could not recognize truth, since he spoke with undefined and confounded vocabulary.  Either Hawking was stupid, or he was deceitful and purposely using terms falsely to confuse people.  RAB]
Stephen Hawking:
“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
[Hawking is here again purposely contaminating the meaning of words; purposely sowing confusion so that simpler minds will think that he is talking about the same thing as what those words mean in the minds of others, although those things are not the same; and he dishonestly uses words in violation of what they actually mean.  How can anyone trust someone in any complex matter, if he is so dishonest or ignorant in such simple matter?
It is obvious that there can be no “creation” (or “creature”) without a CREATOR.  Here, Hawking is trying to join the concept of creation as if it is one and the same with evolution.  Hawking talks nonsense (like Hillary or Pelosi), talking in circles without saying anything valid, hoping that the majority of ignorant people will think, “Well, he is a genius and I am stupid; I don’t understand a thing that he just said, so he must be right and I am just dumb; who am I to question him?”  That “spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist” is utter nonsense.  It is not an explanation of anything.  It is an intellectual red-herring.  It is not a logical proposition or syllogism.  It proves nothing.  It expresses no truth.  It is 100% assertion, opinion, B.S., and confusion and the inference is that he thinks that everyone should believe what he believes (based not upon fact, but because he hates God, and therefore, refuses to believe that God exists).
It is odd that some people who have the unfortunate burden of suffering severely respond by hating God, which is the reason that they then childishly refuse to believe that He even exists: because if He exists then He is responsible for their condition of suffering, and since Hawking hates such a God if He exists, Hawking refuses to believe in Him.  This is anti-intellectual; like a 3-year old playing hide-and-seek, closing his eyes, thinking that no one can see him.  This is the same purpose of the Empirical Cosmological “natural theology” THEORY as well as the SECULAR Rationalist theory that attempts to prove God APART from Divine Revelation / Holy Scriptures.  Empiricism attempts to prove that God (or a Divine Being, Higher Power) does not exist based solely upon experimentation, observation, what can be proved by the senses; but it is like trying to measure a “sample” that you do not have; and then concluding that because you cannot measure the sample that it does not exist.  Edison, reportedly failed 1,000 times before finding the way that the light bulb will work.  If he had not undertaken attempt number 1,001 to discover the way for a light bulb to exist, would that have meant that the possibility of the light bulb did not exist...?  Are there not untold numbers of creatures on earth and in the ocean depths that have yet to be discovered?  Does that mean that they do not exist, simply because they have not been discovered...?
Secular Rationalism* attempts to deduce from man’s intellect alone that God exists.  However, the purpose of these two attempted methods of proving God’s existence is to deny the need for the Bible, based upon the notions that we do not need it, and that we can discern by our senses, or by our own humanistic rationalization, all that God would want us to know.  While it is admirable to want to prove that God exists, and admirable to look for His Fingerprints in His Creation, which indeed exist—it is not honorable to demand that if man cannot prove God, then therefore, God does not exist; and it is not honorable to then reject the Word of God that contains God’s Commands in how we are to live—which is the ONLY source of morality.  Morality cannot be sensed or rationed; concepts of morality can be, but neither Empiricism nor Rationalism is capable of any argument to prove that anyone needs to follow such “morality”—and any attempt of “governments” of man to enforce such “morality” is sterile of authority and is totalitarianism and is illegitimate and immoral; it is based upon force and based upon the current whim of those with power.  In reality, you cannot “prove” that something does not exist.  That is actually Anti-empiricism that they pass off as Empiricism; it is like dishonest communists (the only kind) who use capitalism to get rich to then destroy capitalism and usher in communism (because they cannot use communism to get rich to defeat capitalism, they reveal themselves to be hypocrites who know that their belief system is untenable: Communism only “works” for as long as you can convince everyone else to “pretend” that it “works”—and until there is no one left to rob).
[* Not to be confused with Logic that is based upon Divine Revelation, and is also a form of Rationalism, in that it is founded upon Rational Propositions, without which no truth can be known.  The Bible is not a senseless book.  It is PERFECT in its logical arguments.  Logic is Truth.  Jesus is called the Logos (two short os as in hop) and the Greek word Logos is whence we derive all our words, logic, logical, logarithm, analogy, etc.  See Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s, A Christian View of Men and ThingsThree Types of Religious Philosophy, and Essays on Ethics and Politics (for starters).  Inquire.  All of Dr. Clark’s books are in stock.]
However, Hawking’s hatred of God itself (whether conscious or subconscious) is hypocritical, for if God does not exist—as Hawkings asserted—then it is “Evolution” that is responsible for Hawking’s unfortunate physical handicap / burden—and therefore, Hawking should hate evolution and refuse to believe that evolution exists.*  But that is not the case.  This is an inexplicable contradiction and hypocrisy.  However, actually, it is not inexplicable: It is perfectly predictable and natural and consistent.  IF the rest of Hawking’s position were actually logical and rational, it would be inexplicable; but it is perfectly understandable that this glaring hypocricy in his “belief system” exists, since much of his thinking is logically flawed and disjointed, irrational opinion, then clearly he did not base what he declared to be “truth” upon reality, but upon what he wanted reality to be, based upon his own bias, prejudice, and other emotional dynamics.  The carnal mind is irrational—it is self-destructive.  Christ, the Personification of Wisdom cries out: “He that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul; all they who hate Me love death”.
* Thus, it would seem, that the reason that Hawking did not hate and refuse to believe in Evolution, is because he viewed Evolution as a benign, indifferent, passive, aloof, ill-concerned, “hands-off”, non-authoritarian, impersonal Master (but again, hypocritically, is that not what many people believe God to be...?  Is that not what Deists believe God is...?).  Whereas, atheists (like Thomas Huxley’s descendents) refuse to believe that God exists, because if they admitted that the Biblical God exists, the next logical implication is that they must admit that they were then dutibound to obey all that God commanded, because being Creator God is also Owner / Lord.
Hawking here also flaunts his profound ignorance.  “Blue touch paper” was an early type of paper fuse used to detonate explosives.  Have you ever seen someone lighting a fuse of TNT, and after the detonation took place the explosion produced life or “order” out of chaos...?  I’ve seen on video many buildings blown up and imploded.  I’ve never seen “nothin’ ” blown up (if nothing can even “exist”, nothing could not be blown up and nothing could not blow up some other “nothing”) and when the dust settles I’ve never seen a brand new building as the result.  I’ve seen animals on video shot by hunters or burned in a forest fire; I’ve never seen “new creatures“ emerge out of a nonexistent fire fueled by nothing that burned nothing.
Order does not arise out of chaos.  All things on their own follow the Law of Entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  All things decay, disintegrate, move from complex to simple, fall apart, break down, tend toward homeostasis.  Devolution is what nature follows; not evolution.  God created things to occur exactly as they have, for His Own Good Pleasure.  It is His Drama.  Nothing happens by accident or chance.  Nothing takes Him by surprise.  He makes no mistakes.  Nothing thwarts His Will.  Nothing ever came into existence on its own—and God’s creation didn’t just “go bad” on its own, the result of faulty creation (indeed, God would be a very bad, completely untrustworthy Creator / God if 99% of what He created “went bad”).  God planned all that has happened for His Own Glory.  Whether we like it or not or agree is immaterial (that’s why He is God and we are not—and it is THAT VERY FACT that humanists don’t like).
[See my books: Does God Repent...? — Can God Change His Mind...? (506pp., pb., 25.00 + P&H), God and Evil (280pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H), The Sovereignty of God, Predestination, “Free” Will, and the Protestant Reformation (192pp., pb., 16.00 + P&H), and my highly annotated editions of Arthur W. Pink’s books, The Attributes of God (199pp., pb., 17.50 + P&H), and The Sovereignty of God (630pp., pb., 32.50 + P&H).]
People watch movies in which cars and buildings are blown up and in which people die, especially in war movies.  They know that some author penned that script and the director directed each scene.  Yet they do not doubt the type of reality that the movie portrays, because whether based on a real-life story or not, such things do happen.  But they refuse to bow before God and realize that the entire universe and all of history is His Drama and He wrote the Script and He is the Director Who directs it exactly as He determined it to be.  They use their sinful, fallen, damaged, imperfect, limited minds and think that they can “out-think” an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Perfect God.  We (allegedly) know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own ocean deep.  Earth in comparison to our sun, is but a tiny pea next to a basketball.  However, our sun in relation to the size of stars in other galaxies, is not even the smallest speck that a sharp pencil could make on a piece of paper.  See:
Sun in comparison to Planets in our solar system:
Betelgeuse, Antares, and other planets / stars
Other stars (there are many similar illustrations all over the internet: do an internet image search).

[Imagine the size of Hawking’s brain compared to any of these planets / stars (after realizing the size of the Earth in comparison to far-greater heavenly bodies, and after realizing the size of Hawking himself in comparison to the size of the Earth: and did Hawking have the power to change the tides, the tilt of the earth, the sunrise, the seasons, the rotation or revolution of the earth...?) — and then consider the size of Hawking’s brain in relation to entire galaxies themselves.  If anyone is not dwarfed and humbled by such thoughts, then such a person is the epitome of arrogance—delusional, anti-intellectual ignorant arrogance.  “We are fearfully and wonderfully made.”  Yes, some are made shorter, weaker, sickly, less intelligent, less wealthy—but such unfortunate things do not change reality, do not change the effects of sin, and are no excuse to refuse to believe in God—and such hatred and refusal to believe in God is actually impotence itself.  God ordained for there to be in His Drama, victims, villains, and heroes, as well as the run-of-the-mill individuals and props.  What is there to not understand?  What would a Drama be—how could it be a “Drama”, without villains and victims?  What a person would declare if he were honest, is “I don’t like dramas; I don’t think that they are ’fair’.”  Does such a person read novels (or history) or watch movies that are dramas?  Is that not hypocrisy?  Does such a person not recognize an author’s right to pen his novel / movie how he wishes?  The bottom line is that such a person has a God-complex / God-envy—he wants to be God himself; he wants to be the one who determines and dictates and controls reality.  Again, it is a 5-year old throwing a tantrum because he is not the adult parent who makes the rules and is in charge.
The disciples asked Christ whether a certain man, whom they passed on the street, had been born blind due to any sin of his own (which is anti-intellectual) or due to the sin of his parents.  Christ replied, neither, but that God might be glorified when he was healed—and Christ healed him...!  Imagine, Hawking might have been healed had he submitted to and given glory to God (and then he would not have been in a perpetual state of Judgment after his painful life ended on earth).  Cosmic tragedy indeed...!]
Yet sinful, deluded man thinks that he better understands the universe of which he is utterly ignorant (and much of what he thinks that he knows is actually wrong) than God Himself does.
That nothing could blow up into something, and a complicated something from which life would emerge, is a psychotic myth of the most-feeble mind (as is the notion that it can be proved that something does not exist).  This is also another false premise and false conclusion based on a polluted notion of creation and based upon foundationless assertion, not fact.  God did not “light any fuse” and blow things up!  The “blue touch paper” and the “lighting” of that fuse is itself a smokescreen to distract people from thinking about the facts of reality and the elements that would entail a true argument or intellectual discussion on the topic.  Those who believe that the smoke and mirrors are “reality” are little different than children who are captivated and delighted by a “puppet show”; who think that it is real, and cannot see through the fraud.  Hawking’s concept of creation is polluted because his concept of God is polluted.  Again, as illustrated above in the quotations by the Huxley brothers—sinful men invent their own fantasy of reality because they refuse to believe that the TRUE God of the Bible exists and that the account of Creation in the Bible is true, because if such a God exists they would have to admit that they are DUTY-BOUND to obey Him.  R.A.B.]
Stephen Hawking:

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason.  Science will win because it works.”

[But what Hawking does not tell you is that evolution is not science, but religion.  When was the Big Bang observed and by whom?  Has it been tested? replicated? demonstrated?  Based upon what laws did it happen?  How can such illogic, fantasy, and lurid “theory” that cannot be substantiated, be passed off as “reason” or “science”...?  As we shall see later, much of “science” is not observation and reason—but totalitarian bigotry pushing its agenda on everyone else, and ruining and blacklisting those who disagree.  When painted into a corner, the most-eminent evolutionists (or is that “Evolutionaries”...?) will admit that there is no evidence or proof of first cause [without which it cannot exist] in evolution: Big Bang “must be accepted by faith” and then built upon—and that my friend is religion.  [See The Signature of God, by Grant Jeffrey, 354pp., pb., (out of print, but good used copies available) 20.00 + P&H.  I stock all books and DVDs that I mention herein.]  However, Evolution is a false religion, because that which it is built upon it is as invalid as Big Bang itself.  No one has ever observed evolution.  It is a pseudo-science carried out by “professional guessers” who invent a fairy tale for adults who hate God.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the most-eminent philosopher and theologian and logician of the modern era, superbly shows in his Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (inquire) that the lofty, worshipped “Scientific Method” is not scientific, but flawed due to human prejudice and error. 

Clark explains himself in more complex terms, but I simplify it in other words and analogies.

Man has found very few scientific laws; this does not mean that “Natural Laws” (and by that term I refer to the Laws of Nature that God created) do not exist, but that man is usually not clever enough to discover them.  God often hides truth from the arrogant, opposing them; giving more grace to the humble (which explains why the majority of the greatest advances in science were at the hands of god-fearing men).  True Laws (that is, those not invented by man) don’t change.  What scientists usually find are approximations of law which, like that little spare donut emergency tire in your trunk, is only useful for hobbling home a few miles or to the nearest garage.  It will quickly wear out—is unstable and even dangerous for anything other than a short trip at a slower speed—and another is needed to replace it.  That is what has happened to physics.  Physics does not change; the misperception of “change” is not due to the “evolution” of physics.  True Science / Scientific Law does not “change”.  Rather, man is unable to successfully jump on to the moving merry-go-round and hold on for any length of time without being slung off.  The problem is arrogant man’s false perspective or refusal to admit the truth.  If a person is a passenger on a ship at rough sea, with an erratic pilot, steering the ship as if he is going through an obstacle course, and the passenger is attempting target practice with a rifle, at a stationary bouy, when he continues to miss, the problem is not (even if in his hurt pride he so claims) that “the bouy keeps moving”.  Thus, man discovers what he thinks are laws; but they are not “ringers”, though they are “close” and “work” (more or less)—until more precision is required, or a problem arises, and then it is realized how “off” the presumed (understanding of the) scientific “law” was.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark also superbly shows in A Christian View of Men and ThingsHistoriography: Secular and ReligiousEssays on Ethics and Politics, and Christian Philosophy (containing his 3 previously separate works, Religion, Reason, and RevelationThree Types of Religious Philosophy; and An Introduction to Christian Philosophy) that secular man’s theories of philosophy, ethics / morality, and historiography are all seriously flawed and untenable.  Clearly Hawking never read Clark, or Hawking might have learned how to think logically, instead of daydreaming in his illogical pseudo-scientific fantasy.  Anyone who has not read at least the above-mentioned books by Clark, has never truly thought and never thought truly.  Take the challenge.  Inquire for a special price on the above package.

Picasso reportedly on his deathbed confessed his great prank.  He admitted that he was not a real artist; not in the true sense, as the true masters (Rembrandt, Van Gough, Titian, Rubens, etc.).  Picasso admitted that early on, when he produced some of his odd artwork on a lark (as a joke), he was stupefied when the liberal “experts” and socialites began to fawn over it and him (since he was Hispanic and a leftist).  He then decided to produce the most-grotesque paintings that he could imagine—and then laughed inwardly all the way to the bank, when rich fools would pay any price to purchase his paintings, because some “expert” declared his work to be “all the rage”; and anyone who thought himself to be “someone” simply had to purchase a “Picasso” at any price.  A Picasso painting was considered to be as good as gold, the perfect investment, “priceless art”.  Picasso was also a card-carrying Communist until the day that he died; in fact, in 1962 he was awarded the International Lenin Peace Prize (which itself is an oxymoron).

This “Picassoization of Christendom” has occurred in nearly every facet of our modern corrupt age, in beauty, in morality, in science, in philosophy, in “religion”, in politics, in race, in customs, in law, in economics, in history, in all forms of “art” (music, sculpture, architecture, literature, “poetry”, filmography, cuisine, advertising—which have all become propaganda / methods of brainwashing).  We, in Christendom, had been for a few decades in what I called, “The Age of Irresponsibility”, but somewhere in the past decade we moved in an accelerated rate at exponential factors into “The Age of Anti-intellectualism, Confusion, Perversion—and Insanity”.  Society cannot long survive such an “age” (which, in reality, is the last signs of “terminal life span”, and leads into to “The Age of Post-Civilization” [imagine the Mel Gibson “Mad Max” movies] if left on its own to naturally “progress”).  This is why Christ shall soon return and destroy this corrupt age, destroy all His enemies, destroy even all those of His own people who have sided with the enemy in their lies, rebellion, and perversion; and Christ will uproot every plant that His Heavenly Father has not planted, every form of corruption and perversion / hybridization of His creation.

Hawking seems little different than Picasso: he “rode the wave to success” because he was an original “fantasy thinker” clothed with scientific garb (garbage) who spouted the anti-God notions that the destroyers of Christendom wanted to hear.  Therefore, he was declared “an expert”.  This is little different than models, actors, singers, or politicians—the uglier, the less talent, the more perverse, the better... and they are glorified even though everything rots around them.

[Imagine the current traitorous politicians of the past century or more.  They are interviewing people to be the “watchman on the wall” to warn the nation when the enemy is approaching.  After numerous candidates are interviewed, one man stumbles into the room, knocking everything over.  When asked why he has knocked everything over and what he has to say for himself, he arrogantly replies, “I am totally blind and don’t give a *&%#@! about anything”.  The politicians look at each other, with a sort of telepathic understanding, and the one in charge declares, “You’re perfect for the job!  Congratulations, you’re hired!”]

Clearly, anyone with a white lab coat, who has pens in his breast pocket, and a degree on the wall,* and even a university position is (clearly those are the only qualifications for being declared) “an expert”.  Those who actually cling to truth, which is considered “outdated” are “blacklisted” (discriminated against) or culled / purged from all positions of influence in all sectors of life (government, universities, science, the media, entertainment, etc.).  The wave of success that Hawking rode was not a wave of creation (or even of “evolutionary progress”), but a mud tsunami that destroys all in its path. 

He was quite the “poster child” for a godless paradigm.  In 1963 at the age of 21 Hawking was diagnosed with ALS / Lou Gerhig’s disease.  Doctor’s told him that he would probably die before the age of 23.  The fact that he lived so-much incredibly longer is not as much testimony to Hawking’s will power, but demonstrative of the fact that quite often all that doctors do is “guess”; and it is also testimony to the fact that a LARGE amount of money can squeeze more life out of a dying body; but it cannot really give any greater quality of life.  Being such a “genius”—why didn’t Hawking devote the remainder of his life to becoming a research scientist and finding a cure for ALS...? —because then he would have had to deal in REALITY, not in fantasy; which itself begs the question: Why would such a “genius” devote his life to fantasy and not reality?  Why would he devote his life to destroying peoples’ faith in God instead of actually finding a cure for a dreaded disease?  He certainly had money and would not have even needed benefactors to fund his research.  Hawking is called “Science’s Brightest Star”.  I won’t be surprised if they name some new star or galaxy after him.  But more realistically he was Science’s most-darling Blackhole.  That would be a fitting irony, if a black hole was discovered and named after him.

* —especially from a subverted university, in a bogus department, and with a degree in “THEORETICAL” anything.  Would you hire a “theoretical” carpenter, doctor, mechanic, security guard, or chef...?  And all those people with “Ph.D.s” in “Black studies”, “Chicano studies”, “LGBT studies”, “Women’s empowerment”, etc. —who on earth would ever hire them but other bogus, subverted institutions like the ones that gave them their degrees? (all paid for by tax dollars; or by those who get a tax break for hiring them; or use it as a tax write off).  What do they produce for society other than the continuation of perverse delusions?

“Science” (whatever that meant in Hawking’s mind) will not “win” because “it works”.  The Greatest scientists (Newton, Kelvin, Faraday, etc.) confessed their full faith in the Bible and they declared that the Bible does not contradict science at all.  If the “science” that the modern world believes “wins”, it will not win (temporarily) because it is science (much of it is not), but because it is protected by a totalitarian monopoly of control in which those who dare express faith in God and traditional values and morals are blackballed and bulldozed out of the “scientific” community.  Dictatorships eventually implode (leaving decades of carnage and misery and waste and debt in their hubristic, immoral wake).  Like medicine and a corrupt Judiciary and Legislature, what “wins” is those who have the power to vote and declare the only reality that is allowed to be believed.  

See Ben Stein’s excellent DVD documentary: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; dead-pan, monotone-voiced Jewish actor / lawyer / analyst / commentator Ben Stein does a good job showing the totalitarian fraud and deception and scientific bigotry of the “professional” establishment.  90 min. DVD (out of print, good used DVDs for 12.00 + P&H).  Stein travels the world & learns awe-inspiring truth that bewilders him, then angers him, then spurs him to action...  educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure, and even fired for the crime of merely believing that there might be evidence of Design in nature, and that perhaps life is not the result of accidental, random chance.  Ben says: “Enough!” And then gets busy.  NOBODY messes with Ben.

It is also amazing, ironic, hypocritical, that those who once championed “equality” and “tolerance” after they obtain power in any area, then become the most intolerant and discriminating and persecuting and hateful of anyone.  Their feigned, dishonest mask of “egalitarian humanitarianism” was only to infiltrate and then destroy from within.  They deride the Puritans and the successful Christian society that the Puritans established, because the Puritans and Founders had such “rigid rules”, that only white, Christian men who professed Christ Jesus could partake in government or any role in church or education.  However, now that these subverters have infiltrated and undermined our culture and institutions and by lying, cheating, deceiving, and stealing, they have taken over and turned the tables on us—they now discriminate against us and bar from professional society or government, any straight, white, male who is a Christian and who dares believe old antiquated values (upon which our society, culture, and nation were founded), values that modern subverted “society” has declared to be public enemy #1.  Just like communists who use capitalism to get rich, then attempt to destroy that capitalist nation; just like liberal celebrities become filthy rich from playing a game, singing, or acting in movies in a white Christian nation—then use that money to destroy that society; just like Third-World peoples who invade our nation, and then demand rights and run for office and do all that they can to change our nation into the type of nation from which they fled (because they are incapable of creating or sustaining a viable, safe, prosperous society)... such are mindless parasites who feed off the host without even thinking what happens after they feed off the last host to the point of extinction.  They will then parasitize each other.  Today, if a person happens to be a true Christian, he is considered unfit for any public office—yet Satan worshipping, socialist, intolerant, violent, mentally deranged homo-perverts whose lives are one long trail of corruption and crimes and perversion are held up as the glorious standard to which all should aspire.

Many former professed atheists have jettisoned evolution for belief in Intelligent Design or a Higher Power, realizing the foolishness of evolution.  See: There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, by English philosopher, Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew and India-born Roy Abraham Varghese (who converted to some form of what is considered Christianity), 256pp., pb., 15.00 + P&H; “In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, Professor Antony Flew, the world’s leading atheist, announced that he now believes in God.  In this book, a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker reveals where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.”  Now, this does not mean that Flew’s notion of God is Biblically sound, but it is a step in the right direction (he passed away in 2010). 

I also have good, used copies this following title in stock: Intellectuals Speak Out about God, Varghese; and I also have a supply of good, used copies of Life Itself by co-discoverer of DNA Dr. Crick (though he posits a ludicrous notion of “Panspermia”, that life came from another planet, which simply “delays payment” or “passes the buck” and does not answer where that life originated... but he was a renown scientist and he did reject evolution). 

I also have in stock new copies of Buried Alive: Startling Untold Story About Neanderthal Man, Cuozzo, 350pp., pb., 14.00 + P&H; an American orthodontist goes to France and studied the dental records.... and his shocking evidence blows apart the evolutionist conspiracy. 

Also inquire about the “bloody nose” that a famous author gave to Evolution, which Evolutionists quietly pretend never happened (though they had to rewrite a plethora of textbooks and other literature, and revise many other media to “air brush out” the embarassment, and even change museum displays): Unravelling Piltdown: Science Fraud of Century & Its Solution, John Evangelist Walsh, 279pp., pb. (the author of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, forged Pildown man artifacts and hid them to play a trick on evolutionists, who raved over the incredible evolutionary “find” and built science around a fraud).


God created the laws of science by which the universe operates—and He holds those laws in place—whether creation (any creature) is aware of them or not.  The leaders of science and the arts and government during the Golden Age of the Republics of Christendom believed the Bible.  The Prime Minister of the Netherlands {1901-1905} Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Dutch Reformed theologian (those times for politicians being true Christians seems to be gone).  Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were ministers and Bible scholars.  Secretary of the Continental Congress (1774-1789) Charles Thomson translated the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) into English [which version I stock; inquire]; published posthumously in 1808.  The greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, who developed several whole sciences upon which many other sciences today are built, was a firm believer of the Bible, read it every day of his adult life (and considered it part of his scientific research) and wrote over a million words in notes from his Bible reading (and said that he never noticed any contradiction).  See also, Scientists of Faith: 48 Biographies (I have this in stock, inquire).

The Post-Golden Era (—the Fool’s Gold Era) to which our nations have fallen into debt, decay, chaos, crime, corruption, immorality, and perversion (all mindlessly called “Progress”) are proliferated by those who reject the Bible in favor of humanism, atheism, or any pagan religion.  God created all that exists, including what appear to us to be “flaws”, to demonstrate His Sovereignty and Redemption and Determinism and that nothing can resist His Will (see my Does God Repent? — Can God Change His Mind?, 506pp., pb., 25.00 + P&H).  “All things were created by Him, and for Him.”  “And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.”  “ is in Him that we live and move and have our being.”  The Doctrine of the Word of God is 100% Logical; the only actual “flaw” is a figment of the imagination in those minds that God Himself has shut because He has not ordained them unto life; for which reason they reject the truth, thinking their own foolish notions to be superior—often having never actually studied logic and not understanding how to think, and having rarely ever actually studied the Bible at all.  Yet such “ignorant experts” (like Hawking) are glorified and their stupidity and self-contradictions and lack of scholarship and professionalism is ignored.

God will rarely reveal Himself to someone seeking to disprove Him, because such a person is unworthy of knowing the truth—unless that person is honest and is willing to believe whatever the facts reveal.  A few great minds like the Russian, former atheist, nihilist mathematician Ivan Panin (see my collection of his works on Bible Numerics; inquire) and Scottish Structural Engineer, former atheist Adam Rutherford, and Simon Greenleaf, American jurist who wrote the book on “Evidence”, after whom a Law school is named (made professor of Law at Harvard based upon Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay's recommendation), and others like Sir Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament,  were all converted after trying to disprove the Bible when their intensive study caused them to realize that the Bible is true.  The doctrine of the Bible is 100% flawless logic if one follows the simple rules of Biblical Interpretation: God cannot change, cannot lie, cannot change His Mind, have a better idea, break His Promise, make a mistake; and therefore His Word cannot contradict itself and if you think that it does you are the one who is confused.  Those who easily dismiss the Bible as being full of contradictions have not even begun to think, and it is amazing that they have been able to be a success in any area of life that requires problem solving.

My S.T.E. Commentary series (inquire concerning the 13 in the series), Apologetic Exposition series (inquire concerning the 9 in the series); my book, Does God Repent...? and other books clear up an incredible amount of what people thought were “contradictions”; which were not, but are confusion in the minds of “Christians” (and nonchristians alike) who think that God “changes”—or who don’t like what reality reveals, and so, they adopt an anti-intellectual interpretation and then spuriously project it onto the Word of God..  See also my very detailed book, Which Bible...? ... Understanding the ONLY Valid Method of Interpretation and Many Difficulties Explained, 510pp., pb., 27.50 + P&H.  These books clear up nearly every single alleged “contradition” or alleged “error” in the Bible, for those honest enough to examine the evidence and accept God as God and put away their own ideas tainted by humanism and an immoral world.


However, the ultimate reason that they don’t understand the Bible is because God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts and closed their minds so that they cannot see or believe.  If they truly desire to know the truth, the starting point is for each to sincerely pray: “God, if You exist I humble myself before You.  I want to believe in You and obey You if You exist, so please reveal the Truth to me as I read Your Word”.

The Bible is 100% in harmony with itself and the majority of the Bible is easy to understand if you are not distracted by humanistic notions and if you use Scripture to interpret Scripture—not  your “feelings” or humanistic, modernistic notions in thinking that God would not be “fair” or “good” if He did things that you do not like or do not agree with.  Goodness is not determined by what man thinks God or “good” should be, but by what God is and by what He decrees.  The children’s game “Simon Sez” may be confusing to those who don’t know the one simple rule.  Once it is learned it is hard to be fooled.


Some of the greatest people of the world confessed:

“The Bible is no mere book but a Living Creature with a power that conquers all that oppose it.” —Napoleon Bonaparte

“If once the Deity of Christ be admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision of algebra.” —Napoleon

“It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” —Horace Greeley

“The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.” —Andrew Jackson

“The Bible is the source of Liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

“The Bible is the secret to Great Britain’s greatness.” —H.M. Queen Victoria

“The foundations of society and government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings should cease to be practically universal in this country.” —Calvin Coolidge

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” —George Washington

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.” —Sir Isaac Newton

“I have known ninety-five of the world’s great men in my lifetime, and of these eightyseven were followers of the Bible. The Bible is  stamped with a Specialty of Origin and an immeasurable distance separates it from all competitors.” —William E. Gladstone (British Statesman)

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go prospering and to prosper, but if we and our posterity neglect the instructions and authority in this book, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overtake us and bury our glory in profound obscurity.” —Daniel Webster

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” —Noah Webster

“The American nation from its first settlement in Jamestown to this hour is based upon and permeated by the Bible.” —Supreme Court Justice Brewer, 2/29/1892 (in court case Holy Trinity Church vs United States, 143 U.S. 472).

The above quotes are just a small samplling from my series: America, Christianity, Liberty & Truth: What Famous Men Had To Say, proof America founded as Christian nation; powerful quotes on Bible, Freedom, Heritage, Self-Defense, Property, Constitution, debunking Evolution, etc. World’s greatest minds believed Liberty & Truth inseperable from Jesus Christ & Bible.  Contains Supreme Court and Common Law citations. Vol. 1, 54pp., 5.50 + P&H; Vol. 2, 80pp., 6.00 + P&H; Vol. 3, 92pp., 7.00 + P&H; Vol. 4 (the final vol.) 405pp., pb., 20.00 + P&H; Incredible information! Indexed.  All 4 Vols. 35.00 + P&H.  R.A.B.]


“Additional Note”

[From my book God, Man, and the Universe, pp.49,50.]

“No other ancient work contains the same amount of manuscript evidence as does the Bible.  The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors spanning 40 generations and 1,500 years; yet it is consistent, coherent, and entirely reliable.  Never has science or archaeology ever disproved a single thing in the Bible—and the Bible was right thousands of years far in advance of secular understanding in many matters of history and science.  Modern science and archaeology only serve as evidence that the Bible was right all along.  The amount of evidence proving the reliability of the Bible is overwhelming.*  Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, himself declared that scientific work serves as a method to prove the Bible true.

[* Inquire for titles that we reprint on the Bible and archaeology; email or send SASE for info.  No archaeological discovery has ever proved the Bible to be wrong—it has always proved the skeptics and atheists to be wrong.]

“There are more complete Bible manuscripts than there are of the works of Shakespeare!  The 37 plays written by Shakespeare in the early 1600s all contain missing text which forensic experts had to “guess” to “fill in the blanks” to complete the plays.  It is also significant to realize that even if all of the Biblical manuscripts had been lost, it is possible to recreate the entire Bible by piecing together Biblical quotes from the early Church Fathers from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.—all for except 11 verses out of the 31,102 verses in the Bible.  That is staggering in significance!  There are 24,000 existing Greek New Testament manuscripts (complete or partial) and 5,366 complete Greek New Testament manuscripts.  The books of the New Testament were written between the years A.D. 40 to 90.  The earliest-known existing copies of New Testament manuscripts date to the year A.D. 125—which means that they were copied only 35-85 years after the originals; which means that even without God overseeing their copying, the chance of them being accurate is much higher than if the first copies had been made centuries later.  In contrast, there are only 643 existing Greek manuscripts of the Iliad of Homer, which was first written in 900 B.C., and the earliest existing manuscript was copied 500 years (c.400 B.C.) after Homer wrote it.  On top of that, these existing copies are incomplete and there are 764 disputed lines of text in Homer’s Iliad, while there are only 40 disputed lines in the New Testament.  The New Testament and the Iliad are roughly the same size.  The New Testament has 7,957 verses of 179,011 words.  The Iliad has 15,693 lines of about (an estimated) 154,000 words.

“Similarly, the works of Aristotle were written between 384-322 B.C., yet the earliest-existing manuscript is 1,400 years old (copied around 800 years after Aristotle died) and only 49 manuscripts of his works still exist.

“Dated much closer to the time of the writing of the New Testament, Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars” was written c. 58-50 B.C., yet the earliest-known existing manuscript was written nearly 1,000 years later (c. A.D. 900) and only 10 known manuscripts are in existence.

“The absence of evidence is not proof to the contrary” is the dictum of logic, which modern God-hating scientists have violated, when they have claimed the Bible to be wrong because evidence of a certain town or historical person had never been discovered.  If you are on a ship crossing the ocean and your ring falls off and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, the fact that no one can find it again does not mean that your ring never existed and that you are a liar.  While the lack of evidence did not prove the Bible to be wrong, in time, every single one of those false accusations themselves was proven to be in error, as new discoveries always prove the Bible true.  Though the Bible is not a science manuel, when it speaks, in every area in which the Bible speaks, it speaks with authority and it speaks truthfully.

“Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. (Physics) expressed:

“When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.”

“Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientist the world will ever know, studied the Bible daily every day of his adult life (writing down over 1 million* words of notes), and declared:

{* 1,000,000 words would amount to eight 400-page books.}

“No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible.”

“There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.”

“Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), is considered one of the greatest jurists {legal professionals} of the U.S. (The London Times declared that more light on jurisprudence came from him than all the jurists of Europe combined).  Greenleaf knew that Anglo-Saxon law and religion cannot be separated from each other, because Anglo-Saxon law is derived from ethics and morals and those ethics and morals were derived from the Bible.  Greenleaf “wrote the book” on the Rules of Legal Evidence.  Originally a non-Christian, he followed his own dictum of never making ones mind up about any significant matter without first considering the evidence.  Therefore, he set out to investigate the New Testament claims of Christ’s Divinity (once challenged to by one of his students) and in the process had to declare the New Testament to be legally unimpeachable testimony that was true and that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God.  Greenleaf declared concerning evidence:

“Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

“No one has ever proven the Bible not to be true.  No one has ever proven that the Bible is a forged document.  In fact, as we have shown all the evidence proves that the Bible is a thousand times more reliable an ancient document than any other ancient writing.  Many atheists or agnostics spoke casually about the Bible being unreliable, without any real study, when younger, with immature minds.  However, later in life, some often frequently made statements that prove they had changed their opinions—including two of the greatest proponents of Evolution: Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley.”

[I also have this in stock: The Jesus Papyrus: Most Sensational Evidence on Origins of Gospels Since Discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls (2000) Thiede; (foremost German papyrologist)/D’Ancona (authors of Eyewitness to Jesus; which I believe is the same book but a different edition / title), 193pp., pb. (inquire).]



Hawking Fake Science...

Someone emailed me the below link so I have added my comments to refute these other declarations by Hawking.

‘There Is No God’ Physicist Stephen Hawking Claimed in Final Book, But Said Aliens and Time Travel Might Be Possible


My comments:

Herein, Hawking continues his anti-intellectual self-contradicting, unscientific opinion—which he passes off as “science” (which he apparently defined by what his mind or will considers reality to be).

In his posthumously printed book, Brief* Answers to the Big Questions, he pontificated:

[* Yes, the answers have to be brief, because they are unsubstantiated (even contradictory) opinion, not science or valid thought.  Those who spew falsehood, like liars, the more they say, the more loose rope they leave strewn around with which to hang themselves.  It is also self-serving to label the questions as “Big” which offers a false sense of legitimacy to the questions themselves.  Yes, from a small mind, indeed the questions appear “BIG”, even as merely two- or three-steps in a split level house, to a toddler, seems like a full flight of stairs; even as a toddler views himself hopping up onto a rock 1 inch off the ground as a super accomplishment.  RAB]

Below in quotations are various assertions that Hawking made, followed by my comments in brackets.

Stephen Hawking:

“There is no God.  No one directs the universe...”

[This is bigoted opinion.  He makes no offer of evidence (because you cannot prove that something does not exist; and he is unwilling to look at the evidence that God does exist).  He offers no philosophical argument; no scientific proof to corrobrate the bald assertion.  It is his Imperial Decree, devoid of authority and devoid of the all-worshipped “Scientific Method”.  Did Hawking strap rocket engines to his wheelchair and spend light-years cruising the universe in search of God...? assuming that Hawking could even find God, if He did not want to be found, or if Hawking would even recognize God if he saw Him. 

Understand: when we view a photograph of a nebula, such as the Eagle Nebula, one portion of which is the Pillars of Creation, we only see the Rorschach Ink-blot figure as we see it, not merely from our perspective from earth, but from (if scientists are correct) 5,700 light-years away.  Do a Google image search or go to the Wikipedia page. 

The Eagle Nebula (according to scientists’ estimations) is about 70 x 55 light-years in dimensions; and the Pillars of Creation is a very small area (4 to 5 light-years across) within one portion of The Eagle Nebula.

If you view a mosaic or a pointillism or impressionistic painting or pointillism or dot-matrix computer print-out from one inch away, you will see nothing but meaningless dots, blobs, strokes, color, or other individual shapes, strokes, or even letters. You can only view it and see what it is from farther away.

[Here is an amazing form of pointillism: This print, which I’ve had (or my dad had) for about 50 years is actually produced by the letters / text of the entire Gospel of John.