A New Voice of Freedom

The controlling theme of our Podcasts is that we are all children of God who is no respecter of persons. We are all created equal by God. The primary purpose of a democratic republic is to protect that equality, making all laws equal to all citizens all the time. We need to return to the vision of our forefathers that "certain truths are self evident, that among our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we are to survive as a republic, we must hold firm to the Constitution and Bill of rights, to the balance of power, and above all, we must, as a Christian nation, hold firm to our belief that it is God who protects our freedom, and it is truth that makes us free. We must protect freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. All citizens must have the right to realize their own desires and pursue their own destiny.

All Episodes

A New Voice of Freedom

Untitled Season 5 Podcast 140, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Spontaneous Creation Part One.”

November 20, 2024 • Ronald • Season 5 • Episode 140

Season 5 Podcast 140, A New Voice of Freedom, Argument for the Existence of God, “Spontaneous Creation Part One.”

The idea of an accidental universe, or ‘spontaneous creation,’ does not correspond to the scientific method defined so eloquently by Mr. Stephen Hawking.

“There must be a complete set of laws that, given the state of the universe at a specific time, would specify how the universe would develop from that time forward.” Stephen Hawking

The statement above by Mr. Stephen Hawking is a succinct statement of law. It is true by necessity. Because it is true, we have order rather than disorder in the universe. The problem is that science cannot account for the origin of law. Where did law come from? The great Mr. Hawking, speaking for the scientific community contradicts his own statement above by making

“The lucky coincidences pertaining to the shape of planetary orbits, the mass of the sun, and so on are called environmental because they arise from the serendipity of our surroundings and not from a fluke in the fundamental laws of nature.”

That is a circular argument. In reality it is saying, “The lucky coincidences pertaining to the shape of planetary orbits, the mass of the sun, and so on are called environmental because they arise from happy accidents.” The Oxford Languages dictionary defines serendipity as “the occurrence and developing of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way. “a fortunate stroke of serendipity.”

Both statements by Mr. Stephen Hawking above cannot be true. He must choose. Is it because of a complete set of laws that specify how the universe would develop or is it by happy accident? Science cannot hide behind the nebulous phrase, “from that time forward.” Does it mean that everything happened by happy accident until a complete set of laws law miraculously appeared that specified how the universe would act ‘from that time forward’? There is no place for coincidence or happy accident in law, whether lucky or unlucky. If an accident can suddenly appear and organize chaos, then an accident can suddenly appear and turn order back to chaos. All laws are absolute. Furthermore, laws cannot appear in a vacuum. All laws must be governed by a single law, all working under one great whole. Consider the following statement also by Mr. Hawking.

“It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”

Mr. Hawking is ignoring the fact that he, by his own admission, believes in “the appearance of intelligent design.” He is also ignoring the existence of intelligence and consciousness. Freewill depends upon three things, all of which Mr. Hawking would probably agree with: Intelligence, consciousness, and a complete set of laws. Science often quotes Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” It is ironic that Mr. Hawking, a highly intelligent scientist, believe in intelligence, but he does not believe in intelligent design. The fact is science hides behind the transparent assumption that they absolutely reject the idea of God. That is where their conclusions about freewill are coming from. They aren’t coming from science. They are coming from a scientific bias.

Another scientific contradiction is that if the above is true, the claims of Mr. Richard Dawkins in his rather fanciful book, The God Delusion, cannot possibly be true. If Mr. Hawkings is correct, then evolution would also be governed by a strict set of laws rather than the strange convolutions of natural selection claimed by Darwinian hardhats. The peacock’s tail, for example, is a product of strict law and did not evolve because the male peacock needed to show off to attract a female.