Topic: The non-existence of God

[minasoliman]

Also both Jesus and Laozi were ostensibly born to virgins.  Does that prove the early Christians copy the Chinese?  No it does not.

I think i read that it is scientifically possible for a  human child to be born of a Virgin Mother. Very very rare, but possible. Who knew?

None that I heard of.  Never happened (except with Christ).  Even if one was to do some sort of in vitro gene placement from let's say two females, you get imprinting diseases.

This is not the article I originally read but it seems informative. A human virginal birth is theoretically possible. The odds are very long, but possible.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179865/

I skimmed through the article.  As the article says, "virtually zero" are the chances.  A sperm is at least necessary to prevent imprinting diseases or teratomas, as the article is describing.  Second of all, even if possible in lab conditions to produce a viable offspring, you can only produce female offspring from parthogenesis.  In truth, the virgin birth of Christ would be considered a miracle beyond any proportion because not only do you bipass all the obstacles to make a viable offspring, but the fact that a male was born is not only virtually zero, but almost definitely zero chances this can occur in nature.

[Marc1152]

Also both Jesus and Laozi were ostensibly born to virgins.  Does that prove the early Christians copy the Chinese?  No it does not.

I think i read that it is scientifically possible for a  human child to be born of a Virgin Mother. Very very rare, but possible. Who knew?

None that I heard of.  Never happened (except with Christ).  Even if one was to do some sort of in vitro gene placement from let's say two females, you get imprinting diseases.

This is not the article I originally read but it seems informative. A human virginal birth is theoretically possible. The odds are very long, but possible.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179865/

I skimmed through the article.  As the article says, "virtually zero" are the chances.  A sperm is at least necessary to prevent imprinting diseases or teratomas, as the article is describing.  Second of all, even if possible in lab conditions to produce a viable offspring, you can only produce female offspring from parthogenesis.  In truth, the virgin birth of Christ would be considered a miracle beyond any proportion because not only do you bipass all the obstacles to make a viable offspring, but the fact that a male was born is not only virtually zero, but almost definitely zero chances this can occur in nature.

Yes, I think we can take the odds of "Virtually" zero and run with it, as in once in recorded  human history. The point is that it is not impossible.

[KFLINT]

I would like to think of God as real....however from a empirical perspective one would have to suggest the possibility that God does not. That being the case, God would be the ultimate aspect of mans own ego.

Humanity once saw it's self as the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around us, we were wrong, we may again be, in thinking that of the untold stars and infinite planets that this would be the one place that the creator of all chose to take up shop.

[dcommini]

Who is to say that this is the only place He put up shop?
Why would it not be possible for other planets that God also has an interest in?

[KFLINT]

He could have. I just thought that the original post had meant the question in our world, in the here and now.

[Jetavan]

Komodo dragons can reproduce parthenogenetically.

[Ortho_cat]

I would like to think of God as real....however from a empirical perspective one would have to suggest the possibility that God does not. That being the case, God would be the ultimate aspect of mans own ego.

Humanity once saw it's self as the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around us, we were wrong, we may again be, in thinking that of the untold stars and infinite planets that this would be the one place that the creator of all chose to take up shop.

How do we know where the center of the universe is and isn't?

[ialmisry]

I would like to think of God as real....however from a empirical perspective one would have to suggest the possibility that God does not. That being the case, God would be the ultimate aspect of mans own ego.

Humanity once saw it's self as the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around us, we were wrong, we may again be, in thinking that of the untold stars and infinite planets that this would be the one place that the creator of all chose to take up shop.

And what if, as the only evidence we have states, of all those untold stars and infinite planets, this IS the one place that the Creator of All chose to take up shop?

[Shiny]

This is not the article I originally read but it seems informative. A human virginal birth is theoretically possible. The odds are very long, but possible.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179865/

"Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero"

[Shiny]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

[minasoliman]

Also both Jesus and Laozi were ostensibly born to virgins.  Does that prove the early Christians copy the Chinese?  No it does not.

I think i read that it is scientifically possible for a  human child to be born of a Virgin Mother. Very very rare, but possible. Who knew?

None that I heard of.  Never happened (except with Christ).  Even if one was to do some sort of in vitro gene placement from let's say two females, you get imprinting diseases.

This is not the article I originally read but it seems informative. A human virginal birth is theoretically possible. The odds are very long, but possible.

http://www.slate.com/id/2179865/

I skimmed through the article.  As the article says, "virtually zero" are the chances.  A sperm is at least necessary to prevent imprinting diseases or teratomas, as the article is describing.  Second of all, even if possible in lab conditions to produce a viable offspring, you can only produce female offspring from parthogenesis.  In truth, the virgin birth of Christ would be considered a miracle beyond any proportion because not only do you bipass all the obstacles to make a viable offspring, but the fact that a male was born is not only virtually zero, but almost definitely zero chances this can occur in nature.

Yes, I think we can take the odds of "Virtually" zero and run with it, as in once in recorded  human history. The point is that it is not impossible.

Did you miss that fact that even if possible, it's impossible to have male offspring?

At this very moment, is has never happened in humanity based on a solely natural basis.  Thus, it's impossible at the moment.

I'm not trying to run with anything.  This is fact.  Let's not turn the miracle of the conception of Christ into a natural phenomenon.  His incarnation and resurrection are very unique and unreproducible events at the moment.  They are mysteries.  That's it.  To try to meditate on explaining the mystery in a natural way is like poking at a wild lion.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

We don't know.

[minasoliman]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

We don't know.

It seems that what can be observed at the moment points to limitation of the universe, but theoretical physicists are quite confident in their mathematical interpretation that the (x)-verse is unlimited (x being uni or multi).

[Shiny]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

We don't know.

Isn't dark matter and dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe?

[Clancy Boy]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

Science would be the last place I would look for facts.

[Clancy Boy]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

We don't know.

Isn't dark matter and dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe?

Why are you talking about dark energy and dark matter as if they were anything more than purely hypothetical?

[TryingtoConvert]

out of humor..

[Shiny]

God is free. He created us in His image, so we are also free. He limits His omnipotence out of respect for our free will and personhood. We are free to submit our will to Him, or not.

C. S. Lewis: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done', and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way'."

Jesus came into the world to give us a perfect example of what it means to live in communion with God in this life. That is an amazing gift. However, not everyone receives this gift in life -- perhaps because of geography, perhaps because their parents made it clear to them that Xianity is a farce, perhaps because they simply don't have the intellectual capacity to fathom it... and so God judges them according to what they DID receive.

[chrevbel]

Science would be the last place I would look for facts.

Of course it would be.  Because once you've found them, why would you continue looking?

[Jetavan]

Science would be the last place I would look for facts.

Of course it would be.  Because once you've found them, why would you continue looking?

How are you defining "fact"?

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere." -- Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion

[NorthernPines]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

Science would be the last place I would look for facts.

Remind me never to shake your hand after you come out of the restroom then.

[Marc1152]

I would like to think of God as real....however from a empirical perspective one would have to suggest the possibility that God does not. That being the case, God would be the ultimate aspect of mans own ego.

Humanity once saw it's self as the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around us, we were wrong, we may again be, in thinking that of the untold stars and infinite planets that this would be the one place that the creator of all chose to take up shop.

How do we know where the center of the universe is and isn't?

Oh that's easy..It's my teenage kids

[Ortho_cat]

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

[minasoliman]

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

God is willing to prevent evil and able,
But will not force man to stop doing it.
God became man and taught us how to be good, even in the midst of troubles,
But man is free to crucify Him.
God became man so that man might become God,
But man is free to be himself.
God's time will come when those who become God will join Him,
But other men will be free to gnash their teeth in anger against Him.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

^^ kudos to the above poster, I would just like to add something

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

This should be completely and thoroughly ignored and discredited.  It is not valid in the slightest, nor do we need to use it a yardstick to understand God's activity.  To suggest God is not omnipotent because our own selfish and limited desires are not always addressed, and our prayers are not always answered and God is not merely some gimmicky, geenie in a bottle to answer our every fickle wish and call, is just that, selfish and short sighted.  God must simultaneously address the needs of 7,000,000 people at every millisecond of the day, we can not try to even fathom how this is possible, nor offer any criticism from out weak and inherently limited perspectives and emotional griping.

Is God malevolent because He does not answer our every beckoning wish and call? Nonsense, that is silly and naive to say the least, and this kind of silly, self-righteousness is precisely what Orthodox worship and lifestyle offers to counter through the heartfelt prayer, "Father, Thy Will be done and not our own" and also "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, the Sinner."

Whence cometh evil? That is a matter of perspective.. Lets look at something obvious like WWII for instance, the so-called "Good war"  where America was the so-called hero and everything was gravy.  To the Americans, the Japanese were evil monsters and the atomic bomb was the solution, but from the perspective of Japanese kids on the streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that bitter August, there perhaps was no more genocidal and evil person than America.  Things get complicated, and only God is above it all enough to be clear-sighted and level-headed about it all..

And fundamentally and existentially, this world we live in transitory, illusory, temporary, so even if God was being malevolent, cruel, and capricious in this realm, it is not permanent, so how could we get so caught up in ourselves and take it all so vitriolically serious? God lives in Infinity where there is only oneness, where as we are made of division, of composite elements of physicality and spirit, so we just simply can never understand the divine, how could we even attempt to discuss it without realizing that our very discussions are flawed and in the scheme of things not even real!  The only reality is God, and in Orthodox we seek direct contact with God, to worship Him directly, not ideologically.  Our worship of God precisely is NOT supposed to make any kind of logic or sense, the Divine is by its very substance illogical.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Jetavan]

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

This is somewhat similar to the critique offered by the Buddha regarding the Vedic deity Brahma, the Creator.

I don't know what Epicurus meant for people to conclude, but the Buddha's critique was meant to undermine a fatalism that was prevalent in India, the belief that everything is in Brahma's hands, and thus one need not make the personal effort to practice ethics, grow in wisdom, and deepen contemplation. The Buddha's critique was meant to encourage effort and free-will, in the face of an oppressive determinism. In some sense, one could say that the Buddha's critique was the critique of a Calvinist-type deity, rather than an Orthodox understanding of God.

[minasoliman]

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

This is somewhat similar to the critique offered by the Buddha regarding the Vedic deity Brahma, the Creator.

I don't know what Epicurus meant for people to conclude, but the Buddha's critique was meant to undermine a fatalism that was prevalent in India, the belief that everything is in Brahma's hands, and thus one need not make the personal effort to practice ethics, grow in wisdom, and deepen contemplation. The Buddha's critique was meant to encourage effort and free-will, in the face of an oppressive determinism. In some sense, one could say that the Buddha's critique was the critique of a Calvinist-type deity, rather than an Orthodox understanding of God.

The Epicurean quote, the Buddhist teachings, and even the Calvinist-type deity (odd enough) are all refuted by the Incarnation of God.  Without this, there's no point in a deity indeed.  The argument that man has free will must be supported by the fact that God was incarnate.  God's incarnation affirmed, and did not violate, but rather transcended man's freedom.  It is an act unprecedented.  It is truly an act of salvation for those who are willing to accept.

[Thomist]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

1. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition

2. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive additon

3. The temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite

[Shiny]

Thank you Thomist for your wisdom. 

[Marc1152]

  You guys are smart:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vik6Q4Y4EB4

[GiC]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

1. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition

Since when? The natural numbers are defined exactly by induction (or 'successive addition' as you call it). And the most fundamental definition of infinity (countable infinity) is the carnality of this set established by induction.

However, this confusion may arise from the imprecise terms you are using. Perhaps you could present your conjecture with more formal mathematical rigor? You could start with defining 'actual infinity' in terms of the aleph-beth mathematical convention.

2. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive additon

Independent of the issues with your first point, this is a rather profound statement about physics, which, to my knowledge, has not been justified by any research of evidence. Of course, to know exactly what you're trying to say, you will need to be more precise. Are you suggesting that time is a fixed segment, that there is a limit to its divisibility, and there are only a finite number of 'temporal units' within a given frame or are you suggesting that the cardinality of time is equivalent to that of the natural/rational numbers and not that of the irrational/real numbers? That the cardinality of time is, in effect, aleph-null and not aleph-one.

In either case, they are profound statements about physics that would require equally profound evidence.

3. The temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite

In addition to the concerns I posted above, there is also the concern that you seem to view time as linear or, at the very least, non-asymptotic, which is inconsonant with the General Theory. If this is actually what you are saying and you wish to contest the foundations of modern physics, again, evidence will be required. If this is not what you're claiming, I think you'll need to come up with a model other than an arithmetic series.

Let's clarify the assumptions before we jump to conclusions.

[Jetavan]

If God is Infinite Creator, then we would expect that multi-verses are real:

"According to Hawking, the multiverse eliminates the need for God. "M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing," he writes in The Grand Design. "Their creation did not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."

But Collins [a philosophy professor at Messiah College] says Hawking can't escape God that easily: If the universe arose from the laws of physics, then who designed the laws of physics? Why does the multiverse work the way it does? Trying to apply science to the question of God, Collins said, "is where scientists are way overstepping their area of competence."

"One of the problems with those arguments is it really puts God … in a very small box," Cleaver [a physics professor at Baylor University] says. "It portrays God as someone who can only fill in the gaps that science can't explain. As theists, we need to perceive God as the primary source, the fundamental laws of physics as the secondary."

To Cleaver, M-Theory's multiverse, with its dizzying variety, unending moments of new creation, and perhaps infinite scope, makes perfect sense as the work of "a God of the infinities, who creates eternally." If God is truly eternal, infinite, and self-consistent, Cleaver wrote in a 2006 paper, "We should expect God to create eternally and infinitely, or not at all.""

[minasoliman]

If God is Infinite Creator, then we would expect that multi-verses are real:

"According to Hawking, the multiverse eliminates the need for God. "M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing," he writes in The Grand Design. "Their creation did not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."

But Collins [a philosophy professor at Messiah College] says Hawking can't escape God that easily: If the universe arose from the laws of physics, then who designed the laws of physics? Why does the multiverse work the way it does? Trying to apply science to the question of God, Collins said, "is where scientists are way overstepping their area of competence."

"One of the problems with those arguments is it really puts God … in a very small box," Cleaver [a physics professor at Baylor University] says. "It portrays God as someone who can only fill in the gaps that science can't explain. As theists, we need to perceive God as the primary source, the fundamental laws of physics as the secondary."

To Cleaver, M-Theory's multiverse, with its dizzying variety, unending moments of new creation, and perhaps infinite scope, makes perfect sense as the work of "a God of the infinities, who creates eternally." If God is truly eternal, infinite, and self-consistent, Cleaver wrote in a 2006 paper, "We should expect God to create eternally and infinitely, or not at all.""

I haven't read the article, but based on what you wrote, the concept is that there was never a time when God didn't create?

[Jetavan]

If God is Infinite Creator, then we would expect that multi-verses are real:

"According to Hawking, the multiverse eliminates the need for God. "M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing," he writes in The Grand Design. "Their creation did not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."

But Collins [a philosophy professor at Messiah College] says Hawking can't escape God that easily: If the universe arose from the laws of physics, then who designed the laws of physics? Why does the multiverse work the way it does? Trying to apply science to the question of God, Collins said, "is where scientists are way overstepping their area of competence."

"One of the problems with those arguments is it really puts God … in a very small box," Cleaver [a physics professor at Baylor University] says. "It portrays God as someone who can only fill in the gaps that science can't explain. As theists, we need to perceive God as the primary source, the fundamental laws of physics as the secondary."

To Cleaver, M-Theory's multiverse, with its dizzying variety, unending moments of new creation, and perhaps infinite scope, makes perfect sense as the work of "a God of the infinities, who creates eternally." If God is truly eternal, infinite, and self-consistent, Cleaver wrote in a 2006 paper, "We should expect God to create eternally and infinitely, or not at all.""

I haven't read the article, but based on what you wrote, the concept is that there was never a time when God didn't create?

Hmmm...good question. Yes, that's the implication. Though one could suppose that God began His infinite creative process at some moment in 'time'. Or, perhaps, that initial moment of creation is inexpressible in terms of 'time' or 'space'.

[Tzimis]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

1. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition

2. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive additon

3. The temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite

To make these valid questions we must assume that the there is a circular reformation of the cosmos. This is actually a belief fringing on the reincarnation religions. We as Orthodox Christians believe that God created out of nothing or Ex nihilo. God doesn't fashion already formed matter like a sculpture or painter. He actually creates it from nothing.
   This is clearly an attempt by western Christian religions to refute scientists by there own method.
   I just don't believe there method has any weight to begin with. The attempt to refute Aristotle's "what has cause has motion" can't be accomplished using the prevailing scientific method which is the big bang theory. Therefore so called scientists who are against theism try to conger up a method of science that can. That science happens to be circular in nature in it's attempt that it can't be refuted. What we have to remember is that it isn't the prevailing scientific belief and It's motive is against theism.

[Jetavan]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

1. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition

2. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive additon

3. The temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite

To make these valid questions we must assume that the there is a circular reformation of the cosmos. This is actually a belief fringing on the reincarnation religions. We as Orthodox Christians believe that God created out of nothing or Ex nihilo. God doesn't fashion already formed matter like a sculpture or painter. He actually creates it from nothing.

But there are many ways in which God could create out of nothing. In one way, God created everything at some moment in the past, out of nothing, and the universe then develops. In another way, God creates everything out of nothing, not just in the past, but in each moment in time.

In the latter scenario, a universe could be 'infinite', or 'eternal', while still being created by God in each moment in time.

[Tzimis]

Has it been deemed a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and not 'infinite'?

1. An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition

2. The temporal events of the past have been completed by successive additon

3. The temporal events of the past are not an actual infinite

To make these valid questions we must assume that the there is a circular reformation of the cosmos. This is actually a belief fringing on the reincarnation religions. We as Orthodox Christians believe that God created out of nothing or Ex nihilo. God doesn't fashion already formed matter like a sculpture or painter. He actually creates it from nothing.

But there are many ways in which God could create out of nothing. In one way, God created everything at some moment in the past, out of nothing, and the universe then develops. In another way, God creates everything out of nothing, not just in the past, but in each moment in time.

In the latter scenario, a universe could be 'infinite', or 'eternal', while still being created by God in each moment in time.

  It's all about perception. Our society has instilled in us a mind set in which man is continuously advancing making it seem plausible. But our religion tells us that man is digging a hole for himself and that our defiance is the cause of our demise. Our own sun is on a course to death and the universe is also declining. These are not signs of a growth into something more beautiful. They are signs of losing what we have already.

[Clancy Boy]

How about this classic chestnut by Epicurus, it always seemed to confound me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

If men insist that God solve everything for them then why call them men? 

[Clancy Boy]

Is God malevolent because He does not answer our every beckoning wish and call? Nonsense.

Totally.

Where do people get it into their heads that God is some kind of airline stewardess here to make sure their stay on earth is as comfortable and uneventful as possible.

[Clancy Boy]

According to Hawking, the multiverse eliminates the need for God.

It's funny you mention that because I was working on a theory of God which I believe eliminates the need for Multiverses.

More like flying spaghetti-verses am I right guys? 

[Asteriktos]

I can tell that you have not been touched by his noodly appendage. *shakes head sadly* 

[Jetavan]

"Epicurus merely said that the persons called “the gods” were in fact extraterrestrial, intelligent organisms, composed entirely of atoms, who were governed by the laws of nature, and who had no influence or even interest in human affairs. They were like happy Martians who were indifferent to Earthlings (except Epicurus’ extraterrestrials existed in the interstices between “worlds,” where a world is very roughly a planetary system)."

[Clancy Boy]

I can tell that you have not been touched by his noodly appendage. *shakes head sadly* 

Isn't it fascinating that one can come up with a baseless concept like "multiverses" and not have it subject to the same kind of scrutiny merely because it's sciency-sounding.

There is far more rational basis for belief in a creator than there is for belief in concepts like dark energy, quantum tunneling, string theory, etc.  Yet no one gives them grief about it. 

[Iconodule]

"Epicurus merely said that the persons called “the gods” were in fact extraterrestrial, intelligent organisms, composed entirely of atoms, who were governed by the laws of nature, and who had no influence or even interest in human affairs. They were like happy Martians who were indifferent to Earthlings (except Epicurus’ extraterrestrials existed in the interstices between “worlds,” where a world is very roughly a planetary system)."

Epicurus' main interest was in eliminating fear of the gods. If he could do this without outright denying their existence, it would probably save him and his school a lot of grief. Likewise his whole system of natural philosophy was chiefly to eliminate fear of gods and death, by showing that volcanoes, lightning, etc. could be explained through purely naturalistic causes.

[minasoliman]

If God is Infinite Creator, then we would expect that multi-verses are real:

"According to Hawking, the multiverse eliminates the need for God. "M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing," he writes in The Grand Design. "Their creation did not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."

But Collins [a philosophy professor at Messiah College] says Hawking can't escape God that easily: If the universe arose from the laws of physics, then who designed the laws of physics? Why does the multiverse work the way it does? Trying to apply science to the question of God, Collins said, "is where scientists are way overstepping their area of competence."

"One of the problems with those arguments is it really puts God … in a very small box," Cleaver [a physics professor at Baylor University] says. "It portrays God as someone who can only fill in the gaps that science can't explain. As theists, we need to perceive God as the primary source, the fundamental laws of physics as the secondary."

To Cleaver, M-Theory's multiverse, with its dizzying variety, unending moments of new creation, and perhaps infinite scope, makes perfect sense as the work of "a God of the infinities, who creates eternally." If God is truly eternal, infinite, and self-consistent, Cleaver wrote in a 2006 paper, "We should expect God to create eternally and infinitely, or not at all.""

I haven't read the article, but based on what you wrote, the concept is that there was never a time when God didn't create?

Hmmm...good question. Yes, that's the implication. Though one could suppose that God began His infinite creative process at some moment in 'time'. Or, perhaps, that initial moment of creation is inexpressible in terms of 'time' or 'space'.

One can see the thought of creation was conceived in an eternal manner through the Logos, and then given fruition through creation.

I'm really intrigued by the "infinite" calculation made by Hawking, and I would love to know what that means.  I should just buy his books and read them, as I understand it should be readable and easily comprehensible for someone like me who knows very little about theoretical physics.