Is Stephen Hawking an Anti-Semite?


 The Anti-Semitic Card Is Losing Its Political Power

“Once you start calling everyone you don’t agree with an anti-Semite, we are in trouble.”–Rabbi Levi Shemtov[1]

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow

Eilen F. Toplansky of the American Thinker recently wrote an article in which she equates Stephen Hawking’s criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Intellectual luminaries like Hawking, argues Toplansky, “held deeply anti-Semitic beliefs.”

Toplansky continues to say that “the disquieting truth” is that “intellectual accomplishment does not, indeed, result in empathy with other human beings, particularly Jews.[2]

Neoconservative hawk Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary declares that Hawking’s position is “just another instance of Jew-hatred.”  “Hawking,” continues Tobin, “deserves to be treated as having made common cause with Jew-haters, not a wise man that deserves a hearing.[3]

Alan Dershowitz of Harvard said that Hawking “actively endorses and supports the repression practiced by the Iranian mullahs and the Chinese party bosses.”[4] The only evidence the professor of law gave for this preposterous assertion was that Hawking visited Iran and China!

Jewish attorney Ari Lieberman of Front Page magazine declared that

“Hawking’s sheer hypocrisy in utilizing Israeli technology to improve his own quality of life is his insincerity in boycotting the Middle East’s only democracy while ignoring the Arab world’s depravity, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny. Hawking has provided ample example of Britain’s transition from old-school anti-Semitism to what famed human rights activist Natan Sharansky described as new anti-Semitism, a malevolent form of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.”[5]

Alan Dershowitz

I have much respect for Hawking and much disagreement with his book The Grand Design, and this will be pointed out at the end of summer. Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, of course, is a fairly balanced work.For instance, Hawking points out that “

“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it even reached its present size.”[6]

This assertion, of course, is pregnant with theological or philosophical meanings, too much to detail here. British Astronomer and cosmologist Sir Martin Rees, who won the Isaac Newton Medal last year, is in agreement with Hawking in his 2001 book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe.

But Hawking and his co-author have jumped from one fallacious argument after another in The Grand Design, largely because his conclusions are based on a philosophically untenable and shaky premise. Yes, this is an extraordinary claim, but we will come back to this point again at the end of summer. Let me mention just one here. Hawking and his co-author write,

“Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.”[7]

John C. Lennox

Hawking’s intellectual feet are certainly planted in midair here. If the universe can create itself, philosophically it means that the universe was in existence before it created itself—a completely irrational and worthless position that is worse than magic. As Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox rightly points out,

“If we say that ‘X creates Y,’ we presuppose the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. That is a simple matter of understanding what the words ‘X creates Y’ mean. If, therefore, we say ‘X creates X,’ we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is obviously self-contradictory and thus logically incoherent—even if we put X equal to the universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.”[8]

Once again, we will come back to The Grand Design in the summer.

Leaving that aside, I was interested in reading Toplansky’s article precisely because I wanted to see the full force of her argument. What I found was the same old boring mantra that if you criticize Israel, you are by definition an anti-Semite.

Here’s what Hawking actually said, “Had I attended [the Israeli conference] I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster.”[9]

Hawking was not making a blanket statement about all Jews. He was just talking about “the present Israeli government.” Netanyahu in particular has been lying to the West for decades (most particularly when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program), and Hawking is right in line with historical thought on this.[10]

Let us change Hawking’s sentence swiftly here to see if we can draw some conclusions. What if Hawking said, “The present American government is likely to lead to disaster.” If we follow the Zionist logic to its ultimate conclusion, we would have to say that such a statement is anti-American!

Rush Limbaugh for example declared in 2011, “I hope Obama fails.”[11] Would it be reasonable to say that Limbaugh is anti-black for saying this when some of Limbaugh’s favorite authors include people like Thomas Sowell? Why would Arnold Ahlert of Front Page Magazine come up with titles such as “Obama’s MSNBC Whore?”[12]

In a nutshell, according to the Zionist reading of things, both the Democratic and Republican parties have no right to criticize the government.  You simply cannot live in the Zionist matrix without falling into obvious contradiction. More recently, it has been reported by the New York Times that

“The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a ‘massive and unprecedented intrusion’ into how news organizations gather the news.

“The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP… In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.”[13]

AP President Gary Pruit, of course, was upset. “There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” he said.[14] After this revelation, Jacob Heilbrunn of the National Interest rightly declared that Eric Holder is “always a poor choice for a cabinet post” and he “should resign.”[15]

Does that mean Pruit and Heilbrunn are by definition anti-government and anti-Holder? No. Virtually every American knows that monitoring personal phone conversations by the government without any judicial warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (In response, the White House declared that it had no idea that the Department of Justice was monitoring personal phone calls,[16] even though Attorney General Eric Holder said he could not even remember how many times the Department of Justice has done this over the years. To borrow John Boehner’s statement in response to the recent IRS scandals, my question is not about who’s going to resign–my question is about who’s going to jail.)

 I quickly contacted Toplansky to see if we could have a meaningful interaction.

Alexis: I have read your article and I am quite puzzled by some of the arguments you have propounded. You implicitly equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism with little argumentation, and I would like to see the evidence for this.

For example, just because someone criticizes the Obama healthcare does not necessarily means that the person hates black. Just because someone may criticize Bush’s doctrine on the war in Iraq does not necessarily mean that the person actually hates Bush as a person.

You wrote:  “it is important to note that Stephen Hawking’s ‘whole computer-based communication system runs on a chip designed by Israel’s Intel team.’” What does that have to do with anything? [Does that mean I should not criticize General Motors Company if I drive a Chevy or a Cadillac?]

Recently, Israel attacked Syria for no serious reason [More recently, Israel made it clear that if Syria retaliates, the Israelis would blow Syria up sky high. In other words, you destroyed a country’s military base, and you tell the government that if they retaliate, you will bring the government down. And we are told again and again by neoconservatives such as David Horowitz that Israel is always the victims. This is genius!] The rationale was that chemical weapons were going to be transferred to the Syrian government by Hezbollah.

The fact is that Israel does not want Syria to use chemical weapons, but Israel used chemical weapons in Syria. Israel and the United States pretend to fight terrorism, but Israel and the United States support the Syrian rebels/terrorists. Which one is it? Help me here.

Toplansky:  I think you should read the following in order to get an overview of what is going on.  They are all available online: Front Page Magazine, Soeren Kern, Caroline Glick, Robert Spencer, StandWithUs,  “Is Israel an Apartheid State” by Maurice Ostroff, “The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid”, by Robbie Sabel.

If Hawking finds Israel so despicable, it seems somewhat disingenuous that he uses a device created in Israel. Israel has NOT used chemical warfare against Syria.  And the “serious reason” is that Syria (aided and abetted by Iran and other terrorist entities) has now used chemical warfare on its own citizens.  This was Israel’s red line and she made it clear that it would not be tolerated. 

You might want to check out how close Syria is to Israel.  When you are surrounded by enemies, you take pre-emptive action before they attack your country. 

Alexis: I have read much of the articles from Front Page Magazine. I even tried to interact with Caroline Glick to no avail.
You are still not addressing the issue of how a criticism of Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Do you mean to say that ex-Israeli diplomat Alon Liel is an anti-Semite for saying the same thing that Hawking is proposing?[17] Who gets to decide who is an anti-Semite?

I am so glad that you implicitly declare that Iran and other entities are terrorist states. Once again, who gets to decide what is and is not terrorism? Do you mean to say that the Syrian rebels are not terrorist groups?[18]

Do you mean to say that the MEK is not a terrorist cell? Both Israel and the United States (under Bush) supported the MEK. And you should know that it was the MEK, aided by Israel, that helped assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists just last year.[19] [The funny thing was that shortly after the assassination, the U.S. removed the MEK from the U.S. Terror List![20]]
I have written many articles on this issue, and I would like to invite you to interact with any one of them and point out any error.[21]

[Just recently, Time magazine reported this grim picture about the rebels:

“The video starts out like so many of the dozens coming out of the war in Syria every day, with the camera hovering over the body of a dead Syrian soldier. But the next frame makes it clear why this video, smuggled out of the city of Homs and into Lebanon with a rebel fighter, and obtained by TIME in April, is particularly shocking.

“In the video a man who is believed to be a rebel commander named Khalid al-Hamad, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Sakkar, bends over the government soldier, knife in hand. With his right hand he moves what appears to be the dead man’s heart onto a flat piece of wood or metal lying across the body.

“With his left hand he pulls what appears to be a lung across the open cavity in the man’s chest. According to two of Abu Sakkar’s fellow rebels, who said they were present at the scene, Abu Sakkar had cut the organs out of the man’s body.

“The man believed to be Abu Sakkar then works his knife through the flesh of the dead man’s torso before he stands to face the camera, holding an organ in each hand. “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar,” he says, referring to supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Off camera, a small crowd can be heard calling out “Allahu akbar” — God is great. Then the man raises one of the bloodied organs to his lips and starts to tear off a chunk with his teeth.[22]

Toplansky:  See
No one is saying Israel cannot be criticized.  When, however, a country’s very existence is being challenged, and lies are propagated, this is NOT valid criticism. It is well know that Israel has a contingent of leftists who ardently believe Israel is the “bad guy.” So?

Alexis: So how is it that Hawking is now an anti-Semite for simply saying that “Had I attended [the Israeli conference] I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster”? He clearly said “the Israeli government.” This is not a “contingent of leftists.” Jewish professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard have been saying this for years.
How about Israeli historians and writers such as Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Gideon Levy, Zeev Sternhell? Are they all part of the “contingent of leftists” to say that Israel, from its inception, has exterminated thousands upon thousands of Palestinians? If the answer is yes, then you have a lot of mental gymnastics ahead of you. How are you planning to fight all those Jewish anti-Semites?
Just to let you know, Lawrence Auster was a writer for the American Thinker–and he was a Jew. The moment he mentioned the “neoconservative” in a negative way in one of his articles, he was fired instantly.

Noam Chomsky

That was the end of my correspondence with Toplansky. She never responded back.

If people out there still think that Hawking is an anti-Semite, Hawking co-wrote The Grand Design with physicist Leonard Mlodinow, who is a Jew. I guess Mlodinow missed that memo.

Also, it was Noam Chomsky who largely persuaded Hawking to boycott Israel.[23] If Hawking is an anti-Semite, then Chomsky, the ethnic Jew from MIT, must be in the same anti-Semitic club. Again, Toplansky and others have a lot of Jewish anti-Semites to deal with. Toplansky and others have to confront universities such as Cambridge, London, Leeds, Southampton, Warwick, Newcastle, York, and Open University for their so-called anti-Semitic views.[24]



This is not the first that the American Thinker has been caught red-handed. Similar arguments against Hagel were found in the same magazine a few months back.[25] There’s more.

Lawrence Auster

The late Lawrence Auster was born in a Jewish family and became a Christian. He wrote an article for the American Thinker in which he declares that the neoconservative ideology has not been good for America at large. Bad move. He was quickly reprimanded by the magazine’s editor Thomas Lifson for doing so. Lifson’s trouble was that the word “neoconservative” engendered anti-Semitism. Auster responded:

 “Neoconservative has been a term of political discussion for the last 30 years. Is it now banned? The neoconservatives themselves write innumerable articles about neoconservatism. Krauthammer has a big article out in the July/August Commentary called ‘The Neoconservative Convergence,’ talking about how the neoconservative view of foreign policy has now finally gained complete power in the national government. In this article, the word ‘neoconservatives’ appears scores of times. Is he using neoconservative as a code for Jews? Irving Kristol had an article two years ago this month in the Weekly Standard called ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion,’ which I commented on critically at length. Was Kristol using neoconservative as a code for Jews? Was I? What you are saying is that neoconservatives can write articles about neoconservatism, but critics of neoconservatives cannot!! Do you regard that as a sustainable position?”[26]

 Lifson never replied back. Auster then sent him a second message saying, “To my surprise, you haven’t replied to my follow-ups on the question of whether it’s legitimate to use the word neoconservative critically. The only reason I can think of is that you really believe that anyone who criticizes neoconservatives is really carrying out an anti-Semitic agenda. In other words, you regard me as anti-Semitic.”[27]

Auster again did not get a response to the second message, and sent a third one asking how the word “neoconservative” is to be lumped with anti-Semitism. Lifson finally responded,

“I consider the word anti-Semitic, and that is my judgment. I am editor, and my judgments control what is published.”[28]

Auster finally discovered that being an ethnic Jew did not actually give him a get-out-of-jail free card to criticize the powers that be. He wrote after the incident,

“I have sometimes had editors deal with me in very irresponsible and treacherous ways, but this was the worst behavior I have ever encountered from an editor, or indeed from any intellectual in a responsible position, in my life. ‘American Thinker’ is not exactly the way I would describe a person who, in his capacity as editor of a publication, accuses a contributor to his publication of using anti-Semitic language, and then, when challenged, falls back on his authority as editor, refuses to reply on the substance, and ends all communication.”[29]

[1] Quoted in Natasha Mozgovaya, “Ron Paul: U.S. Money Won’t Help Israel,” Haaretz, December 10, 2011.

[2] Eileen F. Toplansky, “BDS and the Intellectuals,” American Thinker, May 10, 2013.

[3] Jonathan S. Tobin, “The Hawking Fallacy: No Compromise With Celebrity Boycotters,” Commentary, May 10, 2013.

[4] Alan Dershowitz, “Stephen Hawking Endorses Iranian and Chinese Repression,”, May 10, 2013.

[5] Ari Lieberman, “Stephen Hawking Boycotts Israel,”, May 13, 2013.

[6] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), 126.

[7] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam, 2010), 180.

[8] John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking (Oxford: A Lion Book, 2011).

[9] Patrick Martin, “Israeli Furious Over Stephen Hawking’s Conference Pullout over Palestinian Boycott Call,” Globe and Mail, May 10, 2013.

[12] Arnold Ahlert, “Obama’s MSNBC Whore,”, May 14, 2013.

[13] “U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records,” NY Times, May 13, 2013.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Jacob Heilbrunn, “The AP Scandal Shows That the Obama Administration Is Going Rogue,” National Interest, May 13, 2013.

[16] Grace Wyler, “The White House Says It Had No Idea the DOJ Seized The AP’s Phone Records,” Business Insider, May 13, 2013.

[17] Joshua Mitnick, “Ex-Israeli Diplomat: Boycott My Country,” Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2012.

[18] See for example Al Qaeda in Syria,” NY Times, December 11, 2012; see also Jamie Dettner, “Jihadists Are Creeping Into Syria’s Rebel Factions,” Daily Beast, January 4, 2013; Michael Kelley, “Nearly 1 in 10 Syrian Rebels Are Now Terrorists in the Eyes of the U.S.,” Business Insider, December 10, 2012; Herb Keinon, “Gilad: Syria Poses New, ‘Difficult’ Challenges to Israel,” Jerusalem Post, April 2, 2013; Ruth Sherlock, “Syrian Rebels Defy US and Pledge allegiance to Jihadi Group,” The Telegraph, December 10, 2012; Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank, and Tim Lister, “Pro al-Qaeda Group Seen Behind Deadly Benghazi Attack,” CNN, September 13, 2012). That the Syrian rebels made alliance with Al-Qaeda is even acknowledged by Israel’s Defense Ministry Amos Gilad (Herb Keinon, “Gilad: Syria Poses New, ‘Difficult’ Challenges to Israel,” Jerusalem Post, April 2, 2013;  Richard Spencer, “Under the Black Flag of al-Qaeda, the Syrian City Ruled by Gangs of Extremists,” The Telegraph, May 12, 2013.

[19]; Josh Levs, “Who’s Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientists?,” CNN, January 11, 2012; Thomas Erdbring and Jody Warrick, “Iranian Scientist Involved in Nuclear Program Killed in Tehran Bomb Attack,” Washington Post, January 11, 2012;–Israels-real-target-Obama.html;;

[22] Aryn Baker, “Savage Online Videos Fuel Syria’s Descent Into Madness,” Time, May 12, 2013.

[23] Robert Booth and Harriet Sherwood, “Noam Chomsky Helped Lobby Stephen Hawking to Stage Israel Boycott,” Guardian, May 10, 2013.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Shoshana Bryen, “Chuck Hagel at J. Street: Mediocre Boilerplate,” American Thinker, January 31, 2013.

[26] Lawrence Auster, “The Editor of the American Thinker Accuses Me of Anti-Semitism,”

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.


  1. Hey Alwyn,

    You seem to be speaking in the sense that if the universe is not “discovered” like an anthropological artifact, then there is no way that we can make sense of it. And how would a person “discovered” that the universe was created? Doesn’t that mean that the person would have to be some super-intellect as well, as Sir Fred Hoyle put it? Here we ought to weigh evidence and make reference to the best explanation—and you do this all the time. If you walk upon a beach and see a writing on the sand that says, “Mr. X is a rational person.” This is information. Instantly you would say that this information is the work of a human being or some super intellect. You would never attribute it to chance or necessity. (And mathematicians have calculated that the odds of this phenomenon—and it is very low.)

    That is exactly what ought to be done when it comes to the universe and other biological features. Richard Dawkins himself makes the point in the Blind Watchmaker that “each nucleus” of every cell “contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together”! (p. 17-18). Whenever we see information, we see a mind. I am perfectly rational in assuming that someone has monkeyed with physics and biology, to use Hoyle’s words.

    Moreover, the current scientific evidence clearly indicates that the universe has not always been in existence, too much to detail here. The literatures are quite vast and just check them out.
    Although you did not mean to say this, your statement that “as far back in historical research available to mankind…there is no record that anyone discovered scientifically and conclusively if there was an origin of the universe” seems to be hubristic. It implies that you have exhaustively looked at all the evidence, all the historical research, all the scientific evidence, all the data ever recorded, interviewed every single individual who ever lived, and found out that the evidence is not there. Are you sure that you want to take that route?

    Moreover, the idea that all we can do is “speculate” about the universe also seems to imply that one speculation is as good as any other.

    I have already agreed with you that the universe is harmonic, musical, and reasonable. Pythagoras and other Greek thinkers spent their lives trying to harmonize music with the order of the universe. Plato and Aristotle in particular wrote extensively on this. But Plato in particular did not stop with the harmonic universe. He postulated that there ought to be a being who created this harmonic universe. The harmonic universe could not have created itself, a contradiction in term.

    In addition, it would not make sense for physicists to decode some of the deep laws of the universe if it was not comprehensible.

    Did anyone “desecrate” Stephen Hawking? And who says that Hawking is not a good scientist and a decent human being? We are talking about his books and ideas, not Stephen Hawking as a person. He writes books and expects readers to interact with those books. This is not an ad hominem attack on Hawking; this is what serious readers do with serious books. The very reason that you are interacting with us here means that you agree with the premise that ideas are important and should be wrestled with. You know too well that we all agree with Hawking in criticizing Israel.

    • Einstein certainly did regurgitate the theories of Max Planck in Germany, the Max Planck Institute is still up in running.

      In fact the British warlord and Emperor Constantine who got his boys together studied Vedic literature in India. He brought the wise men together, most of them from Turkey and they sat down and wrote the bible to keep a faltering roman empire together. It was debated as to whether Alexander would be considered divine and equal to Jesus. There has been a lot of stealing going on.

      Also as mentioned above, Plato became his student and he also believed the virtue or knowledge of a soul stemmed from previous incarnations of things learned and innately remembered. This is pure Buddhist thought by the way and the belief in 12 planes of existence with sometimes an avatar coming from beyond the 12th. So Hawking has given the lie to Plato? Not hardly I don’t this guy could shine Plato’s shoes. He is a westerner and British so there is an attempt to make him much more than he actually is, but hey I applaud the boycott anyway.

  2. Most of what you are saying is exactly right, but it is nothing new. In fact it is part of Vedic tradition who themselves discovered long ago that truth exists in the form of sounds of the universe, the Shruti sounds of the universe. The Rishis put forth this theory millions of years ago according to Hinduism and Vedic literature. It is the sound of the spheres. Now the modern day baptist considers the bible the “word.”

    Anyone can here the a distinct sound coming from the universe simply by putting their hands over their ears or holding a sea shell to their ear. There is a vibration that is continuous. Some are more in tune with it than others. Native Americans and people like Cayce have proven to my satisfaction this creative intelligence can actually relay information to them.

    The universe is a vast sea of light energy, it can be seen with the eye when the atom is split in nuclear fusion. This energy pervades all matter even the rock. It is both positive and negative, two forces which cause lightning in the sky, a baby to form in the womb, the grass to grow and cells divide etc etc.

    All this having been said, it simply ridiculous for Hawking to interject his own opinions as science, such as there is no spiritual existence after death. That is his opinion and he has a right to one, but I don’t give it any more validity than a guy I just talked to down at the seven eleven store.

    Just because some of us disagree with that doesn’t mean we are working for zion either.

  3. Hey Stephen,
    The argument should be stated thus: whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. From Plato, Aristotle, and all the way to nineteenth century, philosophers and thinkers had no problem with an uncaused cause and an unmoved mover. Even in cultures where the idea of God was unknown, philosophers and thinkers, through reason, deduced that there has to be a Creator. Lao-tzu, a Chinese philosopher in the 6th century B.C., wrote, “Before time, and throughout time, there has been a self-existing being, eternal, infinite, complete, omnipresent…” In the same breath, Cicero wrote, “If any man cannot feel the power of God when he looks upon the stars, then I doubt whether he is capable of any feeling at all.”

    Let us suppose that God had a beginning—or Someone or Something created God. Who created that “thing”? And who created the “thing” that created God? And on and on it goes? Right here we’re going back to infinite regress, which does not make sense. It’s like saying, “what’s north of the north pole”? Mathematicians and thinkers from antiquity have recognized this problem and understood very clearly that there has to be a beginningless being who moves, but who is himself unmoved. The reason we are pondering about “time” right now is because time had a beginning. The Christian and Islamic understanding of things is that God created time, space, and matter simultaneously. You cannot have time without space; you cannot have space without time; you cannot have matter without space and time. The assumption is that they were created simultaneously.

    I find it fascinating that for thousands of years people used to believe that the universe is eternal and had no problem with the concept. But something is wrong when Christians and Muslims posit that God is eternal.
    Yet for Christians or atheists, something is going to be eternal. Listen to atheist Richard Carrier when he declares in his book Goodness without God that the multi-verse “needs no cause. It is its own cause. Like a god, it is self-caused and self-sustaining. Like a god, what it brings about, it does so inevitably, of its own nature….So, although it seems that everything must have a cause, therefore the multi-verse must have a cause, there is no real basis for such a generalization. The only reason to believe that anything has a cause is that we observe it to be so. But what we are observing is what is inside a universe, inside time. There is no reason to believe that the same expectations should hold outside the universe, outside time. In fact, we have a good reason to believe they should not hold: causation is by definition a temporal concept.” I partially agree with Carrier here.

    I would agree with you that the public seems to apotheosize Hawking and others, including Einstein. Yes, there are some literatures out there which indicate that Einstein did plagiarize the work of others. I am not really interested in those topics at the moment, but if you want to pursue this further, see for example Roger Schlafly’s How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science. Schlafly is a Princeton graduate (Electrical Engineering) and has a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of California, Berkley. He has also taught at the University of Chicago and the University of California, Santa Cruz. See also Michele Zackheim’s Einstein’s Daughter. Zackheim will probably shock you, for she goes into great details about Einstein’s personal life.

  4. Edgar Cayce had access to the Universal Mind thus he had access to the truths about souls.


  5. If you believe the Universe requires a creator (i.e. God), the question arises, where did God come from? So having a God as creator answers nothing, but just pushes the question back another level.

    Either way, the answer is beyond our current level of understanding, and possibly even our ability to comprehend.

    • Homunculus,

      Glad to hear that you know for sure that “we hardly know anything at all.” If “Cogito ergo sum is about all we can say,” why should someone even care to read your message here, since you are going to posit something that is outside the realm of “cogito ergo sum”?

    • Hey Homunculus,

      I’m not quite confident that determinism will work (Hawking and others take that position as well). And I’m not sure what you mean by determinism, either. Determinism, in the strict sense of the word, ultimately eliminates free will. And serious atheists such as William Provine of Cornell, Daniel Dennett of Tufts, among others, have agreed on that point. As a consequence, people cannot be held accountable for their actions, since everything was determined. Listen to Einstein: “I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.” (Quoted in Walter Isaacson, Enstein: His Life and Universe, p. 393). My question is, Why not? He is not responsible for his actions anymore than Einstein is responsible for being a scientist.

      In the Christian understanding of things, God created the universe with free creatures, and He has given his creatures—including you and me—the power to choose either good or evil. You chose to write this paragraph and I chose to respond to it. You and I had the choice of not doing so. Ted Bundy chose to sexually raped as many women as he could, and he had the choice of not doing so.
      What makes you think that I think faith is knowing things for certain?
      No, I have not read William James’ The Will to Believe.

    • I had no idea, until now, that YOU are among the “elite AWAKE” among the sheeple. I will be monitoring your future comments with much additional scrutiny and critical thought.

      “I can’t leave links here they get erased.” A reason I don’t participate much in this “area” of the GAME. May a “four-leaf-clover” be your companion.

    • LOL Jimmah doesn’t care for those links. Some subjects are more complicated and require more than a two paragraph response. I can’t understand if the goal is simply to validate the views of the author, that makes sense.

    • That all sounded a bit more arrogant than I meant it to be. No more so than Hawking who can confidently ascertain there is not after life or God, the lights just go out one day and that is it.

      I am afraid that goes against everything I believe and some things I know for a fact, like Kinesian photography that actually photographs a ball of light leaving human bodies at the time of death. From the looks of Hawkings however he will be solving the great mystery soon.

    • Neither do I endorse Hawkin’s belief system with respect to “oblivion/nothing” at the end of this physical journey. I would think that someone of his intellectual prowess trapped in the confines of “the physical hand of cards he was dealt” and still managed a quite distinguished existence/contribution could reject the concept of “a higher plane of physically unfettered existence”.

      Why would he engage in a humanitarian act of defiance if some “spark” of “light” and unified field were not still alive…if even on a subconscious level. I have not worn his shoes nor walked/lived his path/journey. All things considered, it is impossible for me to assign fault one way or another. The “truth” is and will be…regardless of opinions. Everyone alive today entered this world with that knowledge. Some remember…others choose to forget and/or actively deceive .

      Frankly, I blame “religion” for most of the conflict, deceit, and misconceptions that continue to “cloud/fog” the true nature of OUR existence and potential. Good to find another kindred traveler.

  6. It is indeed a harmonic and “musical” universe, and the ancient Greeks pointed that out all along. This indeed demands explanations. The energy or numerical code cannot explain the origin of the universe for the very reason that they are part of the universe. Everything indeed seems to be governed by a mathematical pattern, but this does not explain the origin of the universe precisely because there is no such thing as “infinite”—at least not in this universe.
    As one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century, David Hilbert, explained, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…” (David Hilbert, “On the Infinite”, Paul Bencerraf and Hilary Putnam, eds., Philosophy of Mathematics (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 151.
    In other words, the mathematical patterns, the beginning of the universe, have a cause. And twentieth-century science has taught us that the universe is not infinite. The only question is who or what is that cause, and we shall return to that point in the summer.

    • Wonderful article overall.

      However, I find it hysterical when you say “twentieth-century science has taught us that the universe is not infinite.” How can you be so sure of that? You assume our instruments are measuring everything out there, that we know where things start and end in the Universe. We need a normative comparison where we can say “this is what a typical universe looks like, this is everything that is supposed to be in it, this is how we know it ends right there, these are absolutely established facts, and now we can measure that against our reality?”

      I’m not saying that our scientific understandings are wrong, I’m simply saying that there is absolutely no way to know we are right, because something infinite would be beyond our ability to even comprehend, we wouldn’t even know what we are looking at. Maybe it has been staring us in the face since before human kind gained self-awareness.

    • SH,
      What I am saying is that the current scientific evidence shows that the universe is not infinite. Even Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose declare, “almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” [Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20]. There is both philosophical and scientific evidence for this, and it is widely discussed in the scientific literature.
      With respect to the question of “absolute,” scientists do not speak in terms of “absolute.” You remember the scientific method? You pose the question, do some research, develop a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze data to draw conclusions, and publish the result, which may or may not become a theory. A good scientist can never say with absolute certainty that the speed of light has always been the same throughout history. And even David Hume would agree with you on that point. It is the same thing with “dark matter,” “dark energy,” “black hole,” etc. But we have to start somewhere and weigh alternative hypotheses. Thanks.

  7. From its very foundation, Israel has used layers of deception, outright lies, murder, terrorism and theft to accomplish the ouster of Palestinians from their rightful land; Palestine. Unabated and despite countless reproving UN resolutions, Israel continues this hateful, unconscionable process to this day. This willful marginalization of Palestinians is equivalent to a slow, but very public, genocide of a great people. Good on Chomsky! Good on Hawking! for speaking out. Enough is enough! We, who have observed the wicked, but endless, machinations of Israel over the decades, know that the real threat to Israel comes from with itself, intrinsic and existential–such an immoral, pariah state cannot endure.

  8. Thanks Dalethorn,

    A couple of brief points. The universe includes all the matter and energy. You cannot use “positive matter” and “negative matter” to explain the origin of the universe–a circular argument. This is another reason why Hawking is locked into that system.
    Moreover, let us suppose for a moment that “scientists have created such virtual particles in the lab for decades,” what would that actually prove? Well, it obviously will show that it takes intelligence–the scientists–to create life! It could not have occurred on its own, could it?

  9. 1.

    “In the video a man who is believed to be a rebel commander named Khalid al-Hamad, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Sakkar, bends over the government soldier, knife in hand. With his right hand he moves what appears to be the dead man’s heart onto a flat piece of wood or metal lying across the body.”

    What the hell happened to the media showing this? Isn’t Hollywood’s desensitization already enough?


    Frontagemag? … Lawrence Auster? …

    I knew there was a quote:

    “Lawrence you’re a big pain in the ass.”


    • Thanks, Stephan, for sending the sight about the battle between Horowitz and Auster. Horowitz keeps saying that Christians are being persecuted by Muslims in the Middle East, but Horowitz was persecuting a Christian Jew–Auster. How can we really believe him?

  10. The universe is created out of ‘nothing’ when positive matter and negative matter are created simultaneously. You have equal amounts, ‘virtual’ substance and particles, that amount to nothing in total, yet have the appearance of reality on our side of the fence. Scientists have created such virtual particles in the lab for decades, but we don’t have the perspective to see the larger mechanism for the universe. If you trace the universe back close to the beginning, getting ever closer and denser until you have all of the stars and galaxies condensed down to something small enough to fit in your hand, and smaller yet, you can do the simple calculus of limits and see that everything is virtual anyway – there is no “solid” material anywhere.

Comments are closed.