I'm going to refute this point by point using genesis. Wait a bit.
The most popular theory of universe formation asserts that the earth formed when gravity pulled the earth together from dust and gasses. Hawking uses a meaningless metaphor. The earth is a sphere *now*. Ironically, The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic priest.
God Himself is said to exist outside the rules and limits of time. Trying to say "God doesn't exist because time didn't exist before the Big Bang" is an absurd argument by itself. If God can single handedly create the entire universe He wouldn't be restricted by time either
He says "we're free to believe what we want", ironically echoing the tenets of free will, but free will rejecting the truth of the logos spins into absurdity. Case in point, he then says *his personal view* is that the universe formed entirely on accident
If he's making an assertion, ideally he should provide proof. But he isn't. He says that his view is enough, which for a lot of people may be satisfactory, but not to me. To me it is absurd that the complexity of our bodies, let alone the ecosystem or the various layers of
atmosphere that protect the earth (largely) from radiation, that somehow oxygen and carbon dioxide doesn't get nuked into space by solar winds, that the earth was somehow in the exact sweet spot to sustain life out of the billions of planets in the entire milky way
let alone the galaxy beyond ours, was all just one giant coincidence and not the result of intelligent engineering by someone powerful beyond human comprehension. Once again, genesis illustrating all the essential things we need to live bring created.
We can sit here and debate the genesis time frame, but then again the days and nights being established didn't happen until the sun was fully formed. Popular theory says the sun and the earth was formed around the same time, though there is debate about which one formed first
As an aside, did you know that without the big planets Jupiter and Saturn, earth would still face heavy meteoric bombardment similar to when the earth, according to popular theory, first formed from dust and gas? Is that a coincidence too? Because what are the odds of that?
And again, what are the odds that the initial bombardment would provide the exact things we need for the earth to form a metallic core and have a generous mineral deposit that was necessary building blocks for life? How is it possible that its a coincidence?
The last bs. He has no way to prove that there is no heaven or afterlife. I'm sure he knew that. So he just states it with a cursory "probably". At least on the last sentence I can agree with, though I do it to praise and marvel at the creator instead of being self congratulatory
I struggled for years to reconcile the bible with Science, but it was only 2 years ago that I realised that there is no conflict. There are some things that science will never be able to prove. Heck, what we know today gets challenged daily
I'm glad that I was raised in a 2000 Yr old tradition that asserts fides et ratio - faith and reason, because what I cannot see with pure reason, I am assured through faith. Several Catholics have contributed to science through this tenet without losing sight of the Logos
I may not be a scientist, but I am glad to follow the path they laid down
As an addendum, Einstein I think proposed the idea that time is not uniform across the universe. This idea has been explored in Sci fi stories and movies like Interstellar. If time isn't even absolute, limiting God to time is counterintuitive
Very true. After all, there are psychopaths. Are you sure you want all humans to act as per their innate thoughts? I'm sure that's what gives us serial killers.
These same people expect the law to keep society from spiralling into anarchy. How amazingly and predictably dumb.
You went looking for obscure passages so much you forgot the first, basic reason the bible gives for things going wrong in the world - the sin of Adam, original sin.
Only john doesn't mention the darkness, and that is consistent as his account of the crucifixion is one of the shortest and his main aim seemed to be corresponding Jesus' death with the old testament prophecies, not the finer details of the day.
Its okay for john to have a different perspective.