God and Stephen Hawking

1. Science vs. God: Not a Conflict, but Different Explanations

There is a real conflict, but it is not science versus religion. It is theism versus atheism, and there are scientists on both sides.

Two Worldviews. The debate isn't about science versus religion, but about theism versus atheism. Both sides have scientists, showing that the conflict lies in worldviews, not scientific findings. Science explains how the universe works, while theism addresses why it exists.

Different Questions. Science answers questions about the mechanisms of the universe, while questions about purpose, meaning, and origin fall into the realm of philosophy and theology. Science cannot answer questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "What is the meaning of human existence?"

Complementary Explanations. God and science are not mutually exclusive. God is the ultimate explanation for the universe's existence, while science explains the processes within it. They operate on different levels of explanation, with God being the ground of all explanation.

2. The Universe Creating Itself: A Logical Impossibility

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

Self-Contradictory. The idea of the universe creating itself from nothing is logically incoherent. Creation requires a pre-existing entity, so the universe cannot be both the creator and the created. It's like saying "X creates X," which is a self-contradiction.

"Nothing" is Not Nothing. When physicists talk about "nothing," they often mean a quantum vacuum, which is not true nothingness. Hawking's claim that the universe came from "nothing" is problematic because he assumes the existence of laws and gravity, which are not nothing.

The Cosmic Bootstrap. The concept of the universe pulling itself up by its own bootstraps is logically impossible. A cause cannot bring about an effect without already existing. This idea is as self-contradictory as its name suggests.

3. Laws of Nature: Descriptions, Not Creators

A law presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode, according to which an agent proceeds: it implies a power; for it is the order, according to which that power acts.

Laws are Descriptive. Laws of nature describe how the universe behaves, but they do not cause anything to happen. They are like rules of a game, not the players themselves. They describe patterns and regularities, but they do not create the patterns.

Laws Need an Agent. Laws of nature cannot create matter or energy. They need an agent to act upon. For example, Newton's law of gravity doesn't create gravity or the matter on which it acts. Laws are descriptions of what happens, not the cause of what happens.

The Jet Engine Analogy. Just as the laws of physics cannot create a jet engine, they cannot create the universe. The jet engine requires an inventor (agent) and materials, not just the laws of physics. Similarly, the universe requires a Creator, not just the laws of nature.

4. The Multiverse: A Speculative Alternative to God

M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god.

Not a Scientific Answer. The multiverse is a speculative idea, not a scientific fact. It is a philosophical concept that attempts to explain the fine-tuning of our universe by postulating the existence of many other universes. It is not testable or observable.

False Alternative. The multiverse is presented as an alternative to God, but it doesn't rule out God. God could create as many universes as he pleases. The multiverse doesn't negate the evidence of design in our universe.

Fine-Tuning of the Multiverse? If the multiverse itself is fine-tuned, then the problem of design remains. The multiverse theory doesn't solve the problem of ultimate origins; it just pushes it back a step.

5. M-Theory: Untestable and Not a Creator

The laws of M-theory allow for different universes with different apparent laws.

Abstract Theory. M-theory is an abstract mathematical theory, not a creator. It describes a series of scenarios that allow for many universes, but it doesn't create any of them. It's a description, not an agent.

Untestable. M-theory is highly speculative and not testable by current scientific methods. It is a mathematical construct, not an empirically verified theory. It is not within the zone of evidence-based science.

Not a "Theory of Everything". M-theory is not a "theory of everything" that eliminates the need for God. Even if it were true, it wouldn't imply that God didn't create the universe. It is a description of possibilities, not a cause of existence.

6. Perception and Reality: Not as Subjective as Claimed

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.

Direct Perception. We have direct perception of the external world, not just subjective impressions. Our senses, reason, and memory work together to achieve true perception of objective reality.

The Train Analogy. The example of a train on a railway track shows that reason and memory can correct our visual perception. We know the train doesn't get smaller, even though it appears to. This demonstrates that perception is not purely subjective.

Relativism's Self-Contradiction. Those who claim that truth and perception are relative often fail to apply this relativism to their own claims. They present their views as objective truths, contradicting their own relativist stance.

7. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Evidence of Design

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.

Spectacular Fine-Tuning. The universe's laws and constants are incredibly fine-tuned for life. This fine-tuning is not easily explained and suggests a designer. The evidence fits the idea of a Grand Designer like a glove.

Not an Old Idea. The idea of a Grand Designer is not just an old idea, but a current belief held by many scientists and millions of people. It is a rational explanation for the universe's complexity.

The "Apparent Miracle". Hawking admits the fine-tuning is an "apparent miracle," but he tries to explain it away with the multiverse. However, the multiverse doesn't negate the evidence of design in our universe.

8. Miracles: Not Violations, but Divine Interventions

If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter, He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it.

Not Violations of Laws. Miracles are not violations of the laws of nature, but divine interventions that introduce new situations. The laws of nature then adapt to these new situations.

The Thief Analogy. Just as a thief doesn't violate the laws of arithmetic by stealing money, God doesn't violate the laws of nature by performing miracles. The laws describe what happens normally, but they don't prevent divine intervention.

The Resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is a historical claim, not a myth. It is the central message of Christianity and is supported by historical evidence. It is a miracle that points to the existence of a God who can intervene in the universe.

9. Rationality and the Existence of God: Beyond Science

The very existence of the capacity for rational thought is surely a pointer: not downwards to chance and necessity, but upwards to an intelligent source of that capacity.

Rationality's Source. The capacity for rational thought points to an intelligent source, not just chance and necessity. If our minds are just collections of particles, how can we trust our thoughts, including the thought that our minds are just collections of particles?

Moral Values. The existence of a common pool of moral values points to a transcendent moral being. Science cannot explain our sense of right and wrong. Ethics is not derived from science.

History and Evidence. History provides evidence for God's existence through the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The methods of the historian are important for understanding the past, including the origin of the universe and life.

10. The Resurrection: A Historical Claim, Not a Myth

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Central to Christianity. The resurrection of Christ is the central message of Christianity. It is a historical claim, not a myth. The apostles were eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

Not a Pre-Scientific Belief. The belief in the resurrection did not arise in a pre-scientific, credulous world. The ancient world knew that dead bodies do not rise again. The resurrection was a challenge to the prevailing worldview.

Evidence-Based Faith. The Christian faith is based on historical evidence, not just blind faith. The resurrection is a miracle that points to the existence of a God who can intervene in the universe.

Last updated: January 15, 2025