Chief Elder Osiris : Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang And God-Schaefer

Discussion in 'Chief Elder Osiris' started by Chief Elder Osiris, May 22, 2005.

  1. Chief Elder Osiris

    Chief Elder Osiris Well-Known Member MEMBER

    United States
    Jan 3, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Hoteph Beloved sisters and Brothers:

    Beloved, below are thoughts and comments about the cosmology of the Universe
    coming from these minds you no doubt hold as being great, regarding their
    thinking about the many mysteries that surround God, Universe and Beings, in
    this case, Mankind.

    So, what I am going to do is comment on everything that is written in the
    article below, using the virginity of an Afrikan Mind of thought on the same
    topics of discussion, as presented by no doubt, these minds of which you
    hold to high esteem and respect, for what ever reason you do so.

    The problem with the white Man, in his attempt to understand the Universe
    is, he is not capable of dispelling the Human Flaw when dealing with that of
    which is attempting to be understood and that is, we error in limiting
    everything within the Human mental purview, in our attempt to know.

    Thus he has condition us to take the same flawed approach, in all things we
    question, yet our Ancient Afrikan Ancestors had no such a flaw when
    conceiving of God and the Universe and the relationship, Beings are to it

    So, let us get started.


    This Is A Two Part Response, This Is Part One.

    This require patience, it is quite lengthy.


    "Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take
    place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of
    the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the
    universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
    independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.



    I would say, Time is that Motional action which does in fact present a cause
    and effect phenomena as it happen...Time action is a constant, in
    relationship to all else, which is in keeping with the theorem about Space
    and Time, then the cause of the Universe is of an entity, in action,
    intrinsic within the same Time dimension of that we refer to as the Cosmos.


    This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who
    God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is
    transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the
    universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God
    contained within the universe."

    - Hugh Ross


    This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of not who but
    what God Is and in everything, God Is.

    This tell me that the revealer is intransient, existing within all
    dimension, without limits, because all things are interrelated and God is

    This tell me that God is in fact the essence of the Universe and God is
    freely in motion within and beyond the Universe.

    Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God
    Henry F. Schaefer III


    Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and
    the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
    University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and
    was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the

    "The significance and joy in my science comes in the
    occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to
    myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little
    corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.


    The significance and joy in my mind come in the moment of conceiving
    something that always been and allowing my Thoughts to reveal to me, not how
    or why God did anything, but to understand my reason for needing to know.

    My desire is to understand all that give me a need to know of God, Universe
    and Being, so that I may elevate my Soulful, Mental and Spiritual awareness
    of all that I am in relationship to All That Is.

    (This article is a transcript of a lecture Dr. Schaefer presented at
    the University of Colorado in the spring of 1994, sponsored by
    Christian Leadership and other campus ministries. Over 500 students
    and professors were present.)

    Stephen Hawkin's bestseller A Brief History of Time is the most
    popular book about cosmology ever written.
    The questions cosmology
    addresses are scientifically and theologically Hawkins's Hawking's
    book covers both of these implications.

    Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole--it's structure,
    origin and development. I won't answer all the questions Hawking
    raises concerning cosmology, but I will try to make comments on many
    of them. I caution here that you should not confuse cosmology with
    cosmetology, the art of beautifying the hair, skin, and nails!

    Here are some of the questions cosmology seeks to answer (As
    elsewhere in this lecture, I borrow heavily from astrophysicist Hugh
    Ross' excellent books The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the

    *Is the universe finite or infinite in extent and content?
    *Is it eternal or does it have a beginning?
    *Was it created? If not, how did it get here? If so, how was this
    creation accomplished and what can we learn about the agent and
    events of creation?
    *Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws
    the product of chance or have they been designed? How do they relate
    to the support and development of life?
    *Is there any knowable existence beyond the known dimensions of the
    *Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?

    Let me begin with five traditional arguments for the existence of
    God. It may seem an unlikely starting point for this topic, but I
    think you'll see as time goes on that these arguments keep coming up.
    I'm not going to comment right away on whether these arguments are
    valid or not, but I will state them because throughout astrophysical
    literature these arguments are often referred to:

    *The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence
    must have a suitable cause.
    *The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a
    purpose or direction behind it.
    *The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to
    order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.

    The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness)
    implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
    *The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be
    accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an
    awareness implanted by a higher being.



    The cosmological argument:

    The effect of the Universe's existence must not have a suitable cause
    because, suitable to what or to whom? it is the cause and effect in and of
    its action that make it suitable.

    * The teleological argument:

    The design of the Universe does not imply a purpose or a direction behind it
    and I say only when/until Man insinuate such.

    * The rational argument:

    The Operation of the Universe, according to order and natural law, imply an
    action of intelligence involved in it.

    *The ontological argument:

    Man's idea of God, must develop a God conscious, which Imply that God only
    provide the ability to think and reason, but conscious is a design of Man,
    based on the thoughts and ideas of Man.

    *The moral argument:

    There is no automatically built in sense of right or wrong, such is
    constructed by the thoughts of Man.

    Morality set no universal precedent, such behavior is acquired and learned
    by observing the action and behavior on one another as we observe the end
    result from such action.
    The Big Bang

    The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been
    philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists.


    So it is with all that we attempt to know about the Origin of God, Universe
    And Being.

    We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed
    Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919.


    Relativity is cosmic revealing, unless there is a question of the reality of
    a God action in and of the Universe.

    He stated a dozen
    years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the
    present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine


    So it is with me, the notion of a beginning I speak of, being a repugnant
    belief, there is no loop hole in Truth and reality.

    He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount
    of time to get started."


    What if I say, it is a perpetual performed action?

    Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general
    theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter
    with God.


    Well I would say more like an acknowledgement of God

    Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace
    the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a


    To make such an assertion is to imply to have find the origin of God.

    If everything is a continuum, in perpetual motion, then it is not possible
    to locate what is not locatable.

    The Universe is a contituant of god, its energy depend upon God for its
    action and by that fact alone, it thrive in perpetual motion, performing
    within a system of eternal infinite motion in a process of coming and going.

    However, before publishing his cosmological inferences,
    Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to
    yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this
    to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.


    Einstein, had the right idea at first and allowed his Human side to dissuade
    him from the Truth, concerning the Universe and beginning, which I hold
    there is none, based on the truth of Space Time continuum.

    Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the
    necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a
    superior reasoning power."

    To imply to accept that there is a superior intelligence that is in and of
    the Universe, there has to be a beginning of all material things we see, is
    to verify not knowing what God is and the order Its action perform and we
    attempt to place all things within the purview of our present understanding,
    knowing that is subject to change, because nothing remain the same that is
    of material substance. just travel a continue path of being while going to a
    state of eternal existing.

    But he never did accept the reality of a
    personal God.

    Well like Einstein, neither do I, because he was/is right, there is no
    physical God, only ethereal in its existence, with intelligence, something
    Man has a problem in accepting, which is why, many Time his views and
    beliefs are flawed about the Universe and its action.

    Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the
    universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological
    argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b)
    If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a


    Now this is a Hell of an assumption of man about the Universe, which include
    all things that can be seen as well as unseen, as assumed about the
    cosmological argument, such as, everything that begin to exist must have a
    beginning, while there is no empirical data that can be found to
    substantiate such an assumption, to some, logic point to a universal
    continuous action, without having to point man two cent of limited wonder
    about it, because man do not know for a fact, not even those who created

    You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a
    direction of discomfort to some physicists.


    The physicist has no way to contradict the no beginning theory
    scientifically and empirically, which I subscribe to.

    In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the
    primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of
    pure energy.

    Now this belief is based on theory and not fact scientifically, and it has a
    smell of religious influence or the influencing by religion.
    It was the source of all the matter that now exists in
    the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the
    universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a
    result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot
    big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and
    energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth
    from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and

    Pure assumption, based on the level of the one setting forth such a premise,
    regarding the big bang and one has to adhere to the claim that Chaos produce
    order, harmony and balance, with respect among the objects, one to the
    other, creating their own path of motional action, flowing from such an

    I say such an explosive revelation of coming objects, following a universal
    principal of coming and going and vice versus, is in fact an open ended
    process, which has no beginning nor ending, such is the eternal character of
    the Universe, as it show itself through such an amazing process of producing
    itself, through and by its own action, of self induced energy and such a
    process become the proof showing there is an essence of a God energy in
    action, which affirm that God is motional energetic intelligent.

    The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno
    Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories
    convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory.

    Big bangs are happening everyday in the universe and such an action is not
    to say it is not a perpetual action, without a beginning or ending, just a
    continuation, without need to be proven or disprove, just accepted as it
    reveal its action continuously throughout the Universe.
    Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory
    from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among
    cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15
    billion years ago.

    I say prove such a nonfactual claim, let us admit here, we are dealing with
    theories and assumption, based on the limited evidence of scientific data we
    have, using man own analysis, on the strength of man belief about what he
    see and do not see in and of the universe.

    If God is Infinite, then the Universe is Infinite and Infinity can not be
    measured, so is my thinking.

    About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA
    satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front
    page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the
    London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a
    statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley
    Laboratory. He said, "It's like looking at God." Obviously, this
    captured the public's attention.

    Beloved, you see, the flaw is in the mind of the believer. To make such a
    statement, " It is like looking in the face of God", is to imply that you
    deem God to be something other than the Universe, if so what, or shall I
    say, who?

    Man Is What He /She Think!!!

    A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by
    Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now
    available, make the idea that God created the universe a more
    respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."


    So, what empirical data does man has to make such a claim about God?

    What finding, in order to present such a notion, man must be able to prove
    that God is not in fact the Energy essence of the Universe, The mass of Dark
    space and Time, I contend that such can not be done and all else is mere
    speculation about the origin of the Universe and God, because I contend, you
    can not have one without the other!!!

    Not everyone was ecstatic about these observations that revealed the
    so-called "big bang ripples." Certainly, those who had argued so
    strongly and passionately for a steady-state model of the universe
    didn't like the interpretation of these results at all--primarily two
    persons, Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, and Jeffrey Burbidge, a
    very distinguished astrophysicist at the University of California at
    San Diego.


    And I might add, this lowly Cosmic Afrikan Thinker, in this regard, by the
    name of Osiris, agree with Hoyle and Burbidge.

    We can begin to get into the philosophical implications of these
    observations when we assess Burbidge's statement (made during a radio
    discussion with Hugh Ross) on these things. Burbidge discounts the
    new experiment. He is a strong advocate still today, in the face of
    overwhelming evidence, of the steady-state theory. He says these new
    experiments come from "the first church of Christ of the big bang." I
    can tell you that my former colleague George Smoot, at the Lawrence-
    Berkeley Laboratory, took strong exception to this statement. He
    absolutely insisted his observations were in no way colored by any
    religious presuppositions.


    The big bang theory is the brain child of religious believers, such is the
    foundation upon which the Universe rest, as for its origin, it become a
    matter of claim by the Church and what an influence it has in the world and
    in every school of thought, concerning, God, Universe and Being, only a
    virgin Thinker escape such an influence.

    Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the
    steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not
    Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the
    universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the
    endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant
    evidence against Hinduism.


    The steady - state hypothesis is the Ancient Teaching about God, Universe
    and Being, as so conceived by our Ancient Afrikan Ancestors and there is
    nothing that contemporary Man comes up with about God, Universe and Being,
    that is of a higher quality of Knowledge about all we see and do not see,
    that is capable of Trumping the information left by our Cosmic Ancestors to
    their earthly Cosmic Carbon children, which they do not predate.

    The Truth about God, Universe and Being is locked within the universality of
    the body-double, which is of the higher Spiritual essence of the inquiring
    Being, the Carbon Earthly Being, the Black Afrikan.

    Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this
    topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross
    says that, by definition,

    Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take
    place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of
    the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the
    universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
    independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.

    I disagree with this assumption some what, sure Time is a dimension, it is
    the only dimension, in which cause and effect phenomena take place and such
    a dimension is Infinite.

    Religion is influencing much of this dialog.

    I ask, why does Time and dimension has to be contemplated on having a
    beginning and the Cause and effect is all one Time continuum of Infinite
    action, separating not the source that is causing the action from the action
    itself and such is my contention about Time, Dimension, Cause, Effect, God,
    Universe and Being as I receive the information as given to me by my Ancient
    Cosmic Carbon Ancestors, influenced not by religious belief but by the power
    of energetic thought, which breed empirical knowledge, concerning the
    mystery about God, Universe and being.

    Sure Time and the Universe is concurrent and is intrinsic in and of its
    action, thus there is no reason to speculate as to a beginning or an ending,
    the two is one in its action.

    This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who
    God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is
    transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the
    universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God
    contained within the universe.

    I do not see how anyone who profess to be a scientist and is objective
    toward the topics being discussed, can make such a conclusive statement as
    the above so states. Again I smell religion influence all over such a false
    contention about God, Universe.

    There has not been any evidence presented to prove or disprove what God is
    not and most certainly have not proved who God is.

    I say that God is intra-dimensional, It is neither here or there, It is
    where It is at all Time of action, as a matter of fact, God is the very
    essence of what we call dimension.

    There is no thing that God can not be nor is it any place it can not be,
    because it is a God without limits or a beginning or dimension or an ending,
    therefore it can be and it is the Universe and all else that take place in
    the Infinite Mass Of Darkness, of which it is and does reside, in a constant
    action of motional Time, in an inert state of undetected motion.

    These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very
    significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory
    is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a
    popular view) and God is not con-tainted within the universe (another
    popular view).


    The If, let me know that there is much speculation going on in regard to
    this topic and to imply, therefore can say, If the big bang theory is not
    true, in the way it is being projected to infer about the Universe, then I
    will conclude that God is not limited and the Universe is just a phase of
    that continued Infinite process in which Time and matter relate and I do say
    that God and the Universe is One, in the same action being revealed.

    I am always of the notion that God can not, is not, an entity to be
    contained and so is the Universe and Life Being, everything is always in
    perpetual motion, forever vibration, as it go through its Cosmic ritual of
    going and coming, as it so reveal being inhabited in that only One Constant,
    God energetic action, which change not but cause change to all it reveal by
    its action.

    Yes when you see the Universe you see evidence of God presence.

    Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of
    creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
    and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor
    Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains


    Such a statement by Dr. Hawkin is within the scope of rational objective
    reasoning, about no known Laws, I would say because of there being no known
    Laws beyond the scope of the Universe, show that there is no actual point of
    such a thing as a Universe creation.

    Mr Guth sum it inappropriately concerning creation, yet imply there may be a
    point of creation.

    I say, there is no instance whereby creation took place and such can not be
    dispelled or explained to the contrary.

    I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a
    brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is
    called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing,
    the good information is all in the first paragraph. The rest of it is
    just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super
    Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. Therefore the
    book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first
    paragraph is wonderful; it's a great summary of what I have said so

    In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a
    nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no
    sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum
    held potential.

    Lederman start out assuming about Time and the Universe. This is religion
    talking here, there is no facts to back up this claim.

    To accept Lederman claim about the beginning is to accept there is no God
    and the universe act without laws to guide it and if that be the case all
    else become moot, in this regard, but then he go on to assert that the laws
    of nature was in place, as if there is a distinction between the Laws of
    Nature and God, which I do not accept.

    A story logically begins at the beginning, but this
    story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for
    the very beginnings--none, zero.


    Such a statement is a carnal one. the assumption is, there is a story here
    to be told about the Universe and I say why can't the fact that the Universe
    is, become the revealed story in and of its appearance and action, never to
    have a from and to.

    The last sentence explain and says it all, from his point of view, but the
    data, there is none, therefore it has always been, the universe I speak of.

    End Of Part One:

    It Is Time to Condemn the Lie and elevate The Truth!!!

    We Must Cause Trouble ( with the truth ) Until Our Liberation!!!

    It Is The Black Fool Who Say I Have Lost Nothing In Afrika!!! ( Osiris )

    I Come, I Share, You Either Accept Or Reject, I Move On.

    Completely Loving The Black Afrikan Nation

    Honor, Respect And Praise To The Honorable Marcus Garvey

    Afrikan Spiritualist, Hierophant, Political Revolutionary
    National Chairman
    Sankofa Repatriation Movement
    [email protected]
  2. MenNefer

    MenNefer Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Dec 30, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Pert em Heru!

    The epistemologist' time is shortening. The book, Yurugu demonstrated this so well.