Can the World Exist Without God (w6)

It is undeniable that the acclaimed Steven Hawkins is a brilliant theoretical physicist, worthy of the seat the he holds that was once held by Sir Isaac Newton himself. This acclaimed physicist took it upon himself to take the advancement of physics both in the grand scale inclusive of the quantum level also and “prove” that God not only doesn’t exist but goes forth and proves that the universe could exist without God. Assuming so, the therefore goes on throughout the chapters in a detailed explanation of how the world exists without God.
What intrigued me originally with this text was what this theory says about our understanding of God and the need of God. Moreover, what Hawkins theory therefore means about how we look at the world now. Interesting enough Hawkins never takes this route, he instead he takes myths that have originated over the years, all the Gods that have arisen over the years and says that the only reason that they were invented was to explain that which man did not know. For example, simply, men attributed the phenomenons of weather and climate to the god of the land and the god of crops and other gods, because they never understood the science behind it. He seems to argue the same way Dawkins argues and says that the existence of God is not necessary because of the increase in science.
As a Christian myself, versed not only biblical studies but also learned enough to some adequate level of understanding of science. What originally intrigued me to the book was my need to not sensor my reading and understanding to my religious view but also beyond it. For if my religious view was indeed true then it would unchangingly remain true regardless of any so called facts presented by a professor, even one as oracular as the create Steven Hawkins himself. But beyond my endeavor to explore was also because Steven Hawkins makes very bold statements in his book.
He starts off the first few pages of his book by saying “Philosophy is dead,” and goes on to say, “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.” A large slap in the face to the whole study of philosophy, yet, based on its study, he not only attempts to disprove the existence of God but intern disproves the need for philosophy itself. He seems to not only want to ensure that people know that the need of a creator but that science in itself should exist as the absolute truth and not philosophy and science.
He then ends his argument in the book with line, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist” so therefore, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” He seems to come to a conclusion, he says that the solution is that because there are natural laws, the universe created itself. I soon came to the conclusion that there were flaws with this this argument but not until I read the critiques of this book. What farther intrigued by thought was that Steven Hawkins throughout his entire book takes the reader somewhat through a class on the history of physics. Taking about the development of the study of physics and toward the end then uses the advancements of science as the solution. Yet the science that he continues to develop, says infinite possibilities can and do exist of the world we live in with infinite dimensions. He seems to use theories as absolute law to therefore show that the world can and will exist on its own. What hooked me to the text as a whole was a question that I had for Hawkins: how did he arrive to his solution? For it seems that he is more concentrated on making all his findings point to no god than he was at being a true scientist and letting the research and study lead him to a solution. He seems to write the book on the offensive. Yet, anyone who watched the movie Theory of Everything knows that he himself theoretically proved the beginning of time. All the science that he spends chapters and chapters on developing all lead to one truth, there are too many coincidences in the universe, in that the universe seems to be specifically tailored for its existence to be anything less than the intricate design, yet he still tries and argues that this is not the work of a designer but well calculated science. Which I am yet to which I ask the question, “who made the calculations?” “Why does the universe seem so intricately designed, yet you argue it never was”. What sold me and made me focus on the book beyond all other books written by Atheist scientists, with the attempt to disprove God is the fact that it is Hawkins that is writing this book. A man who to live in itself is a miracle, for he has outlived the life expectancy, spends chapters and chapters arguing that miracles can’t exist and don’t exist because we have science. He seemed to me to be denying the wonder of himself as a person to prove him science, which not only intrigued me but lead me to a fleet of more questions for the oracular Steven Hawkins.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.