To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:
> 
> http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html
&#10... -
If you would like to listen to Roger Penrose and Alister McGrath argue against Hawking, this is an excellent discussion:-http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={320D8898-A8F0-4433-8934-D64DDEB8A21C}

HAWKING: ...The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
>
> HAWKING:...it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.
>
> BBELLA (12 September at 08.00): The universe is the product of creation. Creation being the verb as well as the noun.
>
> Now you've really got me confused. Hawking has argued ... as you once did, if my memory is not playing tricks ... for a universe without a beginning, not needing a creator, but just "being", and I gave you the pat on the back you asked for and deserved. What happened during your family reunion to make you suddenly so "creative"? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, because I'm flummoxed by the verb/noun reference. (Creation is only a noun ... the verb is to create, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here.)
 
You wrote "One might argue that the universe IS the creator." At the time I read that sentence, it communicated to me in that moment (whether it was meant to or not) a still snapshot of the universe and said to me, look at this picture, who could argue this is the creator? In my mind, when I looked at the picture, I did not see the creator (altho I may have before, just not in this instance) but the product of creation, regardless of what was intended. Creation, it suddenly seemed to me, fit as the best word to express both the fixed (fixed being the changeless-ness of change) and the process (change). Even tho our language states creation is a noun, I could see the word 'creation' being both noun and verb ( both the product and the process at once - matter and energy at play). 
 
The problem is capturing the duality of 'what IS' with our insufficient eyes (even with a micro/tele scope) and then expressing what we see with our insufficient language. Two inadequate senses to express what IS. But of course, language and eyesight (as well as our other senses) are the best we have to work with. Maybe it is just simpler, for language sake, to throw in the towel and call all that IS - God.


> "Does it Matter? The Unsustainable World of the Materialists." By Graham Dunstan Martin. It tackles nearly all the philosophical concepts we deal with. Having read the introduction, I fear I will be disappointed because it seems to simply apply to Dawkins-Atheists and not the perennial doubters like myself. 
> 
> The big question I have is "How can the scientific method work without an assumption of materialism?"
> 
> We'll see...-Thank you and I agree with your question. However, as I have noted before, results have more than one way of being interpreted.

My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.
> 
> Name of the book as I watch and read carefully and have no idea?-"Does it Matter? The Unsustainable World of the Materialists." By Graham Dunstan Martin. It tackles nearly all the philosophical concepts we deal with. Having read the introduction, I fear I will be disappointed because it seems to simply apply to Dawkins-Atheists and not the perennial doubters like myself. -The big question I have is "How can the scientific method work without an assumption of materialism?"-We'll see...

My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.-Name of the book as I watch and read carefully and have no idea?


> > I can answer this part: The universe--even in the "Big Bang" model, "expands" literally into nothing. There is no "outside" the universe. The word "expands" is not the best word choice as it carries connotations that lead to incorrect conclusions--I defer to an expert at Cornell:
> > 
> > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274
> 
> I agree with the Cornell quotes. Bread and raisins is an old concept, but he agrees. We have no idea what is out 'there' that the Big Bang expanded into. And if we can measure 13.7 billion years, and if Hubble saw the pulling apart, and if space is flat, in my stupid mind, stretching and expansion are very similar if not the same. 
> > 
> > >>Space time is flat, according to the latest findings. However if we try to reach an edge we will simply curve back on ourselves within our universe.
> > 
> > There has been some confirmation of a flat model, but a firm consensus does not exist:
> > 
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rummaging-for-a-final-theory
&... 
> I'd read the article when it arrived. Lie concepts may look for a final theory but flatness is not discussed. Lie concepts have to do with symmetry and particles that make up that approach. my memory is that Lie's led to membrane theory?
> > -We're stretching my memory, but I think Branes are an extension of String Theory and not of Lie groups; though from what I've perused the concept of Lies still permeates String Theory. -> > No... but my real reason for posting the quotes was due to your mild assertion that Hawking too believes in a creator: I think those quotes do a good job of representing a definite shade of doubt.[EDIT] 
> 
> I used those quotes by Hawking because of his quotes earlier in life. I think he is a great PR man for himself. Use God and get more public interest. Polkinghorne became an Anglican Priest because of their collaboration, same info different result. Have you read any of P's books?-I fully agree; he's a great hype man/showman. I'm actually not at all familiar with Polkinghorne. Any suggestions? My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.

What it boils down to is, either the currently accepted c is wrong, by virtue of not being constant, or the data samples are inaccurate due to a lack of sensitivity or bias. Because the data sets do show variations in the speed of light. So, either they are wrong, or they are wrong. If they have calculated the wrong value of c, then there are many other things dependent on c that are wrong. If c actually IS variable, then there are many other things dependent on c that are incorrect. If they want to claim that c is accurate despite the data, then they need a way to explain the variations and abnormalities seen in c.-Can you quote any recent references to variability? As far as I have read variability is still in the area of supposition.

http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
> 
> The Speed of Light (c) is not constant. If C is not constant, all cosmological accuracy, radioactive dating, etc goes right out the window, unless they can calculate every variation of C for the last umpteen billion years. That kind of buggers up all their results doesn't it :P-The speed of light is still constant. Most of the references in the website are quite old by scientific speed of discovery. But one fellow, Joao Magueijo, is referenced as of 2002. Site upgraded in 2003 and Magueijo's book from 2002 is not mentioned: "Faster than the speed of Light: the story of a scientific speculation", in which he admits that playing with the speed, a lot faster at first by 70 orders of magnitude solves some math considerations/issues in the cosmologic standard model, but remains totally unproven. My belief is that website is trying to prove a point that is not proven, only speculated at present.