Stephen Hawking Eliminates God
Physics super-brain Stephen Hawking does not believe
in God. Even more importantly, he sees no need for an intelligent force that has
made some or all of what is in the universe.
Energy is the power of doing work. Science finds that
energy has to be detectable in principle to be able to do anything. The idea
that God is an energy outside of all that is anti-science. Why not say that
electricity exists instead of God but a spiritual type? You may as well say
that. That is why supposing a spiritual or non-material realm is antiscience. It
attacks the credibility of science.
Stephen Hawking said there is a way that you can deny
that the universe had a beginning. He agrees with the Big Bang theory of the
origin of all things but holds that something was there to explode in the first
place. He thinks that in the moments before the big bang, time rounded off. He
used Einstein's equations to work this out and added in numbers that made the
result of the equations verify this (page 77, Is God a Human Invention?). The
Christians respond that he admitted that the numbers were imaginary ones so they
say his argument doesn't work. They say it does not fit the facts. But the mere
fact that the equations show that the universe might not have had a beginning in
the sense of being made from nothing proves that there is nothing illogical
about saying the universe or whatever it was "before" the big bang always
existed.
According to Hawking in 2010 "spontaneous creation is
the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why
we exist". He added, "Because there is a law like gravity the Universe can and
will create itself from nothing". This information is from his book, The Grand
Design.
The main point is that whatever did it was
spontaneous. That remains true and is what matters. The gravity thing is merely
elaboration. Nobody knows what God means so if God can be a person type being
why can't he be an it and be a gravity of a kind we cannot comprehend?
Christians have downplayed this declaration from one
of the greatest minds of all time. They seem to think they know more than he
does. How dare they? They are theologians not physicists. Hawking unlike
Christian doctors of theology deserves his academic accreditation. Christians
steal theirs. For example, they know fine well that a Muslim who becomes a
doctor of a theology that denies that Jesus died on the cross should not receive
recognition for his learning is not learning. But he does even though the
Christian will get that too for completing a course that teaches the opposite!
What next? Accredited PhD's in astrology or palmistry? Why not?
You can speculate rationally about how things came to
be and what they are. But looking is better. That is what physicists do. Thus we
should listen to Hawking before listening to any metaphysician or
supernaturalist.
HAWKING AND THE POPE
Stephen Hawking met Pope John Paul II at Vatican
cosmology conference in 1981. Hawking tells us some interesting things about
this intercourse: "He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the
evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the
big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work
of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just
given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no
boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no
desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of
identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300
years after his death!" Brief History of Time (page 116).
The Pope was trying to engage in damage limitation
for Hawking was clear that there was no big bang at all and thus the universe is
just a brute fact meaning not only was a God not needed to explain it but is an
“is”. For religion the “is” is God alone. So it is both a dismissal of the need
for a God and a refutation of God.
And it should be.
CONCLUSION:
Hawking's logic is impeccable! Science does not need
the God hypothesis. God by definition is that which is so perfect that anybody
that doesn't have him is deprived. If there is no evidence for God, or if the
evidence isn't good enough, then God cannot exist for the notion of a good God
who makes us but who does not make us need him is contradictory.
NOTE: Christians are so anxious to promote the idea
of God because it empowers them. When you obey God, you objectively really obey
the Christians you consider authoritative. That is because it is they you have
to go to to learn the supposed will of God. To obey the manager is not the same
as obeying the boss. It may be thought that you mean to subjectively obey God
and not those who reign in his place though you do obey them. But when we
consider the fact that we always deceive ourselves when we think we are
completely objective then we do mean to serve the men of God rather than God.
The extent differs from person to person. I would ask who passes the bias
detector - Hawking or a Christian?
Books Consulted
Is God a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other
Questions Raised by the New Atheists, Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Kregel
Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2010
God and Stephen Hawking, Whose Design is it Anyway?
John C Lennox, Lion, Oxford, 2010