Skip to content

Stephen Hawking and the creation of the universe

Last updated on 24 Nov 2022

I should begin by saying that I haven’t read Hawking’s book with Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, and I probably won’t. But the way it is being hyped in the media, social and mainstream, suggests that what he is claiming, which is nothing novel, is that we have finally done away with God. From what I have seen, that is not the case, although it’s possible the authors believe it is.

Physicists tend to be a bit fast and loose with the “G” word. I suspect this is because physicists – especially cosmologists and theoretical physicists – think that what they are engaging with involves a direct line to reality, and that this is as close to God as one may get in this life. So Hawking, Paul Davies, and even Einstein all used the phrase “the mind of God“, causing no end of confusion.

Let’s presume for the moment that they aren’t really talking about God, but about the ultimate nature of the world. Certainly, that is what Einstein meant. So what is it that Hawking and ghost think they are denying? The key term here is “deism”.

In the scientific community, it is all right to believe in God if by that you mean something like a divine watchmaker, who wound up the world and let it run, and physicists are now finding out what the inner mechanisms are. God is a creator in the sense that the reason there is something and not nothing is that God made things. The things work according to the rules of the universe God made. This goes back to Aristotle’s notion of a Primum Mobile, a “first cause” or “first mover” (in older texts, movent).

Aristotle’s argument is this: motion is something that must be caused, because nothing moves of its own accord. The heavens move eternally, and so there must be something that is moving them, imparting all motion to the rest of the universe. Now, Newton inverted Aristotle (actually, a number of predecessors did, but Newton put it most clearly), so that motion is the default, and a change of motion needed a cause, but still, assuming that the universe was static at first, you need a prime mover to get it all going. [Contrast this to the Epicurean myth in which all was in motion from the start, and a random swerve caused collisions that ended up causing all of us. They had a purely mechanical account of causation, apart from that swerve.]

So prime mover became first cause, and that led rather directly to the development of deism in the 18th century as the default view of an educated person, especially a scientist. God was the geometer, the clockwork maker, who set up the conditions from which everything evolved (in the traditional sense of “unfolded”). Laplace, who famously said of the role of God in an orbital stability problem, “I have no need for that hypothesis”, proposed a “Demon” that, with sufficient cognitive ability, could predict everything from a knowledge of initial states and the laws of physics.

In the 19th century, though, something happened. No, not Darwin, although Darwin showed that apparent design could be explained in terms of undesigned and unguided processes. What happened was the development of complex mathematics which showed that complex things can have simple causes. Now we found ourselves trying to unify the sciences down to simple rules of physics. All was well until we hit quantum mechanics and its apparent indeterminacy. The notion that a God was needed to set things in motion became, rather quickly, a problem. Laplace’s Demon was now unnecessary.

But quantum mechanics soon had a resource to address the problem: the appearance of particles by random chance, the so-called quantum foam. Particles can come into existence at random. If I read the reports of this book properly, the view here is that this is true of the entire universe. It may have popped into existence at random.

Suppose it is true? What is shown to be untenable or unnecessary? Is a God unnecessary? Not in the sense used by physicists generally, but that’s metaphor and we can ignore it. What God is excluded? Well, it’s the traditional primum mobile. The God who created things at some initial time, applied the match to the blue paper, and retired to a safe distance.* That God is defunct, because the universe is not at all like a clockwork mechanism. This needs no physicist to tell us that (okay, it does, but I’m being cultured here!).

Can we come up with a deist god that is consistent with the modern physics? One way is called “block universe” theory, and I have discussed this before. Any deity that is not themselves bounded by ordinary causal relations and time is able to set up a universe that does things causally even if that universe is unpredictable within spacetime. But this is rather more like the traditional theist God, only without all the intervention. In losing the Laplacean deist god we find ourselves back with the Augustinian-Thomist deity. If you think it matters. I’m a block theorist for other reasons than theology, but the option is there if you need it.

A universe that can “create” itself is a state of affairs that is actualised, and may very well be actualised by a deity that desired it. The notion of cause has been so stretched and modified that it is almost unrecognisable, but there is nothing I can see that is self-contradictory about it, and so I conclude that Hawking, if he’s being reported correctly, has disproven a view of God that had currency solely among scientists and philosophers who were still Enlightenment thinkers.

Now somebody will tell me that the book is more subtle and interesting than that. Which is what these posts are for…

  • This used to be written on fireworks when I was a kid. The blue paper was the fuse. Clearly, kids didn’t always retire to a safe distance, which is why we can’t let off fireworks these days. Guy Fawkes The terrorists won.


  1. MalcolmW MalcolmW

    Sure, there may a whole orgy of supernatural beings outside of our little spacetime continuum, but their existence is irrelevant in that case. One may as well posit their non-existence with no consequences either way. I just don’t see the point in letting such useless non-beings inhabit the universe. I guess I don’t find speculations about deities anywhere near as interesting as speculations about the physical universe.

    I haven’t read Dr. Hawkings book, but I will.

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      I do agree with you on this. My aim is not to defend or show that Gods are necessary, but only that they are not prohibited. This is a higher level observation that no physics can ever show the nonexistence of deities if those deities are suitably armoured.

      However, do I think there is a reason to believe in these deities? Not at all. This is about what the argument shows, not what the best argument might be.

  2. I feel deeply let down by this whole God thing. When I was indoctrinated with Him at primary school, he was definitely a big chap with a beard who lived in the sky and wanted my soul (which I mistook for my liver). Many years later, when I sneaked my photograph with Him in the Sistine Chapel, that was exactly the chap I saw. Now I’m supposed to believe that He’s something which could still just about exist if I think about Him in a particular way (outside the Realm of the Comprehensible).

    I feel equally let down by quantum physics. Things were so much easier in the classical world.

    The difference, of course, is that quantum physics turns out to be rather useful.

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      It’s rather useful to employ God in some circumstances, too… especially when the other people who believe in God can make a human candle out of you.

      • I’m a little candle for Jesus!

        • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

          Well, that really gets on my wick, I must say.

      • MalcolmW MalcolmW

        Well, you lost me here. I’m going to assume you mean to say it’s useful to employ the idea of gods in some circumstances, not that it’s useful to hire a spirit to do your gardening.

        How do you avoid matyrdom in the hands of fanatics with this idea? I fail to see the utility.

        • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

          I was being ironic.

      • Ian H Spedding FCD Ian H Spedding FCD

        Thony’s waxing lyrical again.

  3. Pushing back the infinite regress one step at a time.

    Wake me when they get there.

    • bad Jim bad Jim

      Someone has to be “A Kill-ease”.

    • Ian H Spedding FCD Ian H Spedding FCD

      I rather like the idea of an infinite regress. It means that, unlike our favorite TV shows, life, the Universe and everything never gets cancelled because of poor ratings.

      • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

        It means also that somewhere in the universe, Firefly, thirtysomething and our other favourite cancelled-too-soon series are still running.

  4. In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theory.

    In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

    Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

    • A. Clausen A. Clausen

      I’d check out your Cheerios. I think they might have gone bad.

      • I would like to respond, but don’t know what your objection is.

  5. Please change my Name to Ron Krumpos. I inadvertently added my e-mail extension. Thanks.

    JSW: Done

  6. JSW, thanks. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of our mistakes in life could be corrected so easily?

    This is an example of how we are interdependent on each other. We can’t do everything by ourselves. Perhaps that is a good reason not to omit God from the equation…proven or unproven.

  7. Michelle Michelle

    Why does he think this? And why does everybody else seem to think it also? Why does anyone care at all what Hawking thinks about the existence of God?

    • John S. Wilkins John S. Wilkins

      As has been said: If Hawking said that vanilla icecream tasted good, that would be news.

    • Actually you are doing Hawking an injustice. As far as I understand it, and I will quite happily admit that I too have not yet read his book, Hawking does not talk about the existence of a god in general but about the necessity of a god in a specific cosmological situation, namely the Big Bang. When first hypothesised physicists could not explain why the Big Bang should take place at all, some theologians who were prepared to accept the results of modern astrophysics and cosmology supplied the answer with a god of the gaps, one who lights the blue touch paper. What Hawking is now saying is that he has developed a model based on current theories of physics that can fully explain the necessity for the Big Bang based on those theories, i. e. the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics and in this specific case a god of the gaps is no longer necessary. Wider claims than this about the existence of a god are I suspect due to bad reporting rather than Hawking.

      I should point out that although Hawking now says that a blue touch paper god is not necessary as John has pointed out above this does not necessarily eliminate a god completely.

      • I should point out that in this particular case Hawking is emminently qualified to pontificate on the necessity of a touch paper igniter.

      • A. Clausen A. Clausen

        Hawking has been saying things of this kind for some time. I remember reading his book of essays about 15 years ago and he was at least to some extent addressing the notions of God’s potential involvement in the creation of the Universe. In fact, one of the essays made probably the best arguments against strong anthropomorphism by stating that if there are a narrow set of values for the universal constants necessary for the existence of life, or even, perhaps of matter itself (for instance, screw around with some of those constants, and the Big Bang might only produce a haze of photons, or gravity might not be strong enough over long distances to allow large conglomerations of matter; so no galaxies, stars or planets), then even if there was a Prime Mover, that Prime Mover would have very little choice in the laws of physics He/She/It created.

        I’ll probably read the book one of these days. As much as admire Hawking’s work, I think he’s entered that phase of existence of the elders statesman of science, which really seems to mean “I can say any ol’ wild-ass and provocative thing I want, but I’m Stephen Hawking so SCREW YOU!” His days as a productive physicist are largely behind him, leaving him plenty of time to needle certain groups.

      • TB TB

        Re: Hawkings essay: That’s interesting – I haven’t read those. In the absence of other, failed universes, one could turn that argument around and say it shows intent – per John’s box theory of theism. Of course, lack of evidence for those other universes isn’t evidence of absence…

  8. Robert Wood Robert Wood

    I can accept that the universe is continually expanding. I have difficulty with the notion that it started at a point.
    Dynamite or even an atomic bomb starts out as some finite mass with small but non-zero dimensions. As SH explained in “Brief History of Time” an atomic bomb needs to start out as a material (Mass) that changes dimensions and releases energy in agreement with Einstein’s equation E=MC^2. But no more than that. Huge but not infinite amounts of energy arising from a quantity M.
    SH seems to be fond of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Perhaps a closer inspection of uncertainty during expansion would allow for a non-zero begining.

  9. Arjumand Arjumand

    hmm Newton said that a body continues to be in sationary position or uniform speed until an external force acts on he too agree that a force is required to mov a body.There should be a being , a genius master-mind to orchestrate the causal events.Theories proposed in order to supoort the ‘do away with god’ are Laplacian demon is hypothetical and against the heisenberg’s uncertainty principle..hmm your article is an interesting citation to eliminate ‘models of god’ not the whole concept of existence of God….if there ever where a mastermind who orchestrated the creation of the universe He must be able to sustain it too…a unique being something not bound by space or time as every known creation is,something superbly and distinctively dissimilar in a unique fashion from its creation …the god described by many religious ideologies, which compares to creation is a very repulsive idea something incapable of creation is a ‘defunct god’…

  10. Himangsu Sekhar Pal Himangsu Sekhar Pal

    Part A. Some Reflections on God and Science
    “Tegmark’s Ensembles
    Tegmark has recently proposed what he calls “the ultimate ensemble theory” in which all universes that mathematically exist also physically exist (Tegmark 1997). By “mathematical existence,” Tegmark means “freedom from contradiction.” So, universes cannot contain square circles, but anything that does not break a rule of logic exists in some universe.”
    (From: The Anthropic Coincidences:
    A Natural Explanation
    Published in The Skeptical Intelligencer, 3(3, July 1999): pp. 2-17.
    By Victor J. Stenger)

    So here we see that as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. From the following equation of special theory of relativity
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    one can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal. Because when v = c, then for any value of t, value of t1 will always be zero. Even if value of t is an eternity, till then value of t1 will be zero. So in one frame of reference whole of eternity may pass, but in another frame of reference not a single moment will elapse. Whoever will be in this second reference frame, will be immortal. Because even in the whole time span of an eternity he will not be older by a single second. So from this equation we see that immortality has got mathematical existence. But as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. Therefore we can conclude that immortality has got physical existence also. This means that there is an immortal being in this universe.


    In his article “Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism” Richard Carrier has written:“When we posit a god, we are left with almost no predicted observations–theism does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check.”
    But this is definitely not true. First of all one will have to decide whose God one is considering. Is it Abraham’s God? Is it Jacob’s God? Or is it mystic-philosopher’s God? If it is mystic-philosopher’s God, then definitely some physical features of the universe can be predicted that can be checked and verified by the scientists. Philosopher’s God is beyond good and evil, one, all pervading, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, etc. Since God is all pervading and spaceless at the same time, so volume of the entire universe must have to be zero. Otherwise, how can that God be spaceless? So, this is one prediction that can be made. The next prediction that can also be made is this: existence of a spaceless, timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. I have written a book in Bengali (published in 2003) in which I have shown in some great details as to how a spaceless, timeless God implies the relativity of space and time. And this last prediction has already been found to be correct. Since God is one and since everything in this universe has sprung from that one God, then everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one thing. This is another prediction that can be made.
    Another prediction that comes to my mind is this: God is said to be timeless. If God is really there and if that God is timeless, then there is some sort of timelessness in this universe. For timelessness to be there, time must have to be unreal by some means or other. So God-theory predicts that time must have to be unreal by some means or other. And science has shown that it is just the case. At the speed of light time becomes unreal. If there is no apparent reason for time becoming unreal, there is at least one reason as to why it should be. And that reason is God’s timelessness.
    One more prediction: God is said to be immortal. So here God-theory predicts that immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation. Here also we find that science has not betrayed us. From the following equation of special theory of relativity we can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal.
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    Now one question will definitely arise here. Is deathlessness same as timelessness? Is there no difference? This question arises because I have used the same equation for showing as to how one can be timeless as well as immortal. The answer to this question will be a very big YES. Death means some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment. But at the very next moment I may die. But in a timeless world this very next moment will never come. So a timeless being can never die.
    So, it is not true that God-theory does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check. As per the definition of a good scientific theory given by Karl Popper, God-theory can be considered to be a very good scientific theory. Because it can predict something that can be checked and verified, and so it can also be falsified. Only those who are heavily prejudiced against God will decline to admit it.
    Scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
    “Mystics state that their experience of oneness with God and the universe cannot be described in scientific terms. The more rational statement is that this experience is all in their heads.”
    But the problem is that if this God is in mystics’ heads only and not in the outside world, then whatever predictions can be made from God-theory, if at all correct, should be correct in their heads only, and not in the outside world. But since some of these predictions have already been found to be correct in the outside world, then the more rational statement is that this God is in the outside world and not in mystics’ heads only. Or, it may be that, these mystics’ heads are so very big that, like God, the entire outside world is also in their heads. That is why predictions made from God-theory have been found to be correct in the outside world. In that case mystics’ heads must be as big as the universe itself.

    Generally two things are claimed about science:
    a) Science always deals with something that is real, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary. It is in man’s power imagining anything and everything, and actually he has imagined so many things, so many worlds, and so many beings. But it is not the job of science to prove that all these imagined things, imagined worlds, imagined beings are as real as this world.
    b) Only science, and no other discipline, can give us the true picture of reality.
    Keeping these two claims about science in our mind let us proceed further to see what conclusion can be drawn from the following equation of special theory of relativity:
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    From this equation we have already seen that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will live eternally. So we see that here science has dealt with the idea of immortality, and that it has also shown as to how that immortality can be attained. But if the claim about science that it only deals with what is real is true, then we must conclude that like change and mortality, immortality is also a real feature of this universe. Otherwise, why has science dealt with that? But immortality can be a real feature of this universe if, and only if, there is at least one immortal being in this universe. So the presence of the above equation in a scientific theory clearly indicates that there is at least one immortal being in this universe.
    But if one is loathe admitting the existence of God, then one will have to admit that while in most of the cases science deals with something that is real, sometimes it also deals with something that is unreal, imaginary, and untrue. In that case one will also have to abandon the claim that only science can give us the true picture of reality. In the above equation science has created an impression that attaining immortality is not an impossibility whereas actually no one can be immortal. So here science has simply baffled us, confused us, misled us. And if we are allowed to use a very bad term here – I hope we will be pardoned for that – then we can even say that by showing that it is possible to be immortal, science has given us a very nice and beautiful bluff. Like so many religious bluffs, it is also a bluff, in this case given by science itself.
    So the gist of the whole matter is simply this. Science cannot hold the following two propositions as true simultaneously:
    1) God, or, any other immortal being, does not exist,
    2) Only science can give us the true picture of reality.
    If any one of the above two propositions is true, then the other one must be false.


    Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: time is unreal. If one claims that God does not exist and that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must show that mystics were wrong in holding that time was unreal. Here common sense says that to do this one must have to show that time is not unreal and that in no way can it be unreal. But here science has done just the opposite; it has shown as to how and when time will become unreal. But to show that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was completely mistaken. As science has miserably failed to do that, so by what kind of logic is it established that mystical experience is a hallucination? If mystical experience can no longer be discarded as a mere hallucination, then by what kind of logic is it established that God does not exist?
    When man did not know that time could be unreal, his labeling of mystical experience as a hallucination was fully justified, logical and reasonable. But once it has dawned on him that at the speed of light time could become unreal, his discarding mystical experience as a hallucination is totally unjustified, illogical and unreasonable. And, it is unscientific also. As per definition a hallucination is a sensory perception without a source in the external world. When the mystic says that time is unreal, he is definitely in touch with some state where time is unreal. If he were not, he would not have said time was unreal. But he wrongly and erroneously thinks – and believes also – that this timeless state is in the real, external world. But if mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, then as per its definition this timeless state cannot be in the real world. Because, if this timeless state is in the real world, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then it cannot be said that God does not exist. But since atheists and scientists claim that God does not exist, then mystical experience must have to be a hallucination. So, if necessary, then even by hook or crook, it will have to be established that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination. For that it must have to be ensured that this timeless state can never be in the external world. And for that, it must further have to be ensured that time can never be unreal in the external world. But we find that this last condition is not fulfilled at all. It is not fulfilled because science has shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal. Since time can also be unreal in the external world, then there is every possibility that this timeless state is in the external world. And if this timeless state is in the external world, then mystical experience cannot be called a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then God is real.


    Science is supposed to deal with something that is real, that is existent, that is of this world, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary, and non-existent. If God does not exist, then that God is a fictitious, imaginary Being. Whatever has been said about that imaginary God cannot be true, cannot be real. If God does not exist, then there is no one in this universe about whom it can be said that He is immortal, spaceless, timeless, all pervading etc. So, if God does not exist, then the terms immortality, spacelessness, timelessness etc. will have no meaning at all. These are all imaginary concepts attributed to some imaginary Being. Then why will science, which is supposed to be concerned with only what is real, what is existent, what is of this world, show that all these imaginary concepts have got some sort of scientific explanation? Why will science show that if one can move with the speed of light, then one can be immortal, timeless, etc.? If God is also not real, then how do those imaginary concepts attributed to that imaginary being somehow become part of a real world by being explained scientifically?
    Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary thing? Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary being? Has science ever been found to offer explanation for the occurrence of any imaginary event? Is science famous for doing all these things? Has science proved that ghosts are real? Has science proved that there is a place called heaven where every human being goes after his or her death? Does science think that real human blood can come out of the wounds of a stone or wooden Jesus? Can one give any single instance where science has supported any single human superstition or folly? If science has never been found to give proof for any single imaginary thing or being, and if science has never been found to offer explanation for any single imaginary event, then why is it that it has on its own given explanation for these imaginary concepts? Why is there an exception here at all? What is the reason behind this? What does it want to make us understand by giving scientific explanation to these imaginary concepts? Does it want to make us understand that these are not imaginary concepts at all? Does it want to make us understand that these are real concepts having meaning and significance in some real context in a real world? Does it want to make us understand God is real?
    Perhaps this is the greatest irony in the whole history of our human civilization so far: science has explained that very God whose existence it has vehemently denied. If God does not exist, then those scientists who have given us special theory of relativity should not be called proper scientists at all. And if God does not exist, then special theory of relativity is not a proper science at all; it is simply a pseudo-science, something like astrology. To call it a science is an insult to human reason and understanding.


    The problem is that in order for this equation to be true you have to be talking about a material object(being). When V=C you are saying that the object is going the speed of light. This can’t happen as the mass becomes infinite at C. In short you would turn into your own black hole. Furthermore, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get to C. All that is impossible. Now if you are talking about an immaterial being, then none of the equation applies.

    An immortal being in literature can usually do stuff. The type of immortality described here consists of existence as a popsicle, frozen in time. This would be no fun at all!

    OK: a timeless being can’t do anything because events happen in time. Sure you’d be immortal at the speed of light, because time would be frozen for you. Behold the incredible frozen God!

    Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them is, if not delusional, at least cheating.

    Plus I don’t see any good reason to accept Tegmark’s proposition that mathematical possibility implies physical existence anyway. With only one universe to observe we can’t make ANY substantial claims about the probability of any of its properties. We have no way of knowing whether physical laws could have varied at all, let alone by how much. Theological skepticism doesn’t need multiple universes to explain why this particular universe is only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% inimical to life as we know it instead of 100% because you can’t determine the odds when all you’ve seen is one result. Maybe there are multiple universes, maybe there aren’t, maybe all mathematically possible universes exist, maybe they don’t. None of these situations has positive implications for the existence of God absent evidence that God is not imaginary.


    Regarding Tegmark’s argument: Here my main intension was not to prove the existence of God, but to expose the hollowness of his argument. If scientists claim that mathematics can prove the existence of multiverses, then I will also claim that mathematics has already proved the existence of a timeless, deathless being, in which case we no longer need any multiverse theory to explain the fact that our universe is life-supporting.
    Regarding immortality: It may be there is no immortal being in this universe. It may be there is no God. But the fact still remains that science has shown that in this universe to be immortal is not an impossibility. For that only one will have to be massless, because Einstein has shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. So, if there is a being that is massless, then that being will be immortal. If human being possesses a soul, and if that soul is massless, then that soul will also be immortal. Here the question is not whether a massless being does at all exist. Neither is it a question whether human being really possesses a soul or not. The real question is: why in this universe has it been found that it is not impossible to be immortal? The real question is: why has Mother Nature kept such a provision in its scheme of things? And, for whom has it kept that provision?
    Now regarding cheating: This charge of cheating brought against me is baseless, as anyone going through my article carefully can find it out himself. Let me first quote what has been written in one of the responses:
    “Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them, is, if not delusional, at least cheating.”
    So, there is no doubt that I have cheated. But the person who has brought this accusation against me has forgotten that in my article I have mentioned that at least five predictions can be made from God-theory, out of which only three have so far been found to be correct. Let me repeat them once again:
    a) Space and time must be relative,
    b) Time must have to be unreal by some means or other,
    c) Immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation.
    d) Volume of the entire universe must be found to be zero,
    e) Everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one-thing,
    In the first three cases above he might have said that I have cheated, because, really, these are the findings of relativity theory. But if he holds that I have cheated in the other two cases also, then will he please take the trouble to give us the name(s) of the scientific theory/theories of which these are the findings? If he cannot, then he should admit that he has brought a false and baseless charge against me, for which he should apologize. Actually, by showing that these two predictions can also be made from God-theory, I have taken a very great risk. Because if they do not come true, then one day God-theory will eventually be falsified. And then there will be no hope left for us.
    But still I think there will be some hopes left. At least what the Russian scientist Andrei Linde has said to Tim Folger in a completely different context raises some hopes in us. Let us first see what he has actually said:
    “When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.
    “What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’”.”
    [From: Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse theory, By Tim Folger, published online November 10, 2008, DISCOVER Magazine.]
    So, here lies the hope. First, eliminate all the impossible theories. Then the theory that remains, even if improbable, must be the truth.
    As per the scientists God does not exist, because so far there is no proof for His existence, and perhaps there will never be any. But it is also true that man believes in God. So, it is a fact that man believes in God in spite of the fact that there is no God. This fact also requires some sort of explanation. Some explanations have been offered so far by some eminent thinkers and philosophers, but none of these theories are adequate enough to explain certain aspects of that imaginary God. So it can be said that all their theories, all their hypotheses are failed theories, failed hypotheses.
    If God does not exist, then God did not create man, instead man has created God. So it is quite expected that he will create that God in such a way that He can satisfy all his needs. Man will definitely not create a God who is not merciful. He will definitely not create a God who is not immortal, because a mortal God cannot bestow immortality on others. For that purpose God Himself must have to be immortal. These points are easily understood. So we can understand why man-created God is benevolent, merciful, all-loving, all powerful, immortal, etc. & etc. But what about that God who is spaceless, timeless? Why was it necessary to imagine that God as such? What are the specific needs of man that can only be met by a spaceless, timeless God? If God did not have these attributes, then what would have been lost to man? A real God might have to have these attributes; there might be some philosophical justifications for that. But why should an imaginary God? Does anybody have any answer? Then what about Hindu’s Brahma who is indifferent to man’s sorrows and sufferings? What about that Brahma who is without any qualities, without any attributes (Nirguna Brahma)? A Nirguna Brahma cannot have benevolence even, so He cannot even do any single benevolent act. So what purpose does such a Brahma serve to man? Man can easily do without Him. And so, why in the first place will he take the trouble on him to create such a Brahma, and then declare that He doesn’t care for us? All such queries remain unanswered, unexplained. So all these theories, all these hypotheses so far offered to explain man’s belief in God are impossible theories, impossible hypotheses. So, according to Konan Doyle, they need to be eliminated mercilessly. Therefore the only theory that ultimately remains is the correct theory. The theory that simply says: Man believes in God, because there is a God.
    If our atheist and scientist friends are not satisfied at all with this theory, then they are always at liberty to offer their own theory here. But whatever new theory they are going to offer, that theory must possess one essential property that none of their old theories had possessed so far. It must have the capability of giving a satisfactory answer to our long-standing and so far unresolved question: WHY SHOULD AN IMAGINARY GOD HAVE TO BE SPACELESS, TIMELESS AT ALL? TO SATISFY WHAT BASIC NEEDS OF MAN WAS HE COMPELLED TO CREATE A GOD WITH SUCH PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTES? If they cannot offer any such theory, then they should keep their mouth shut and accept our theory as the only correct theory here: MAN BELIEVES IN GOD, BECAUSE THERE IS A GOD. THE GOD WE BELIEVE IN IS A REAL GOD. AND A REAL GOD MUST HAVE TO BE SPACELESS, TIMELESS, AS OTHERWISE HE WILL BE BOUND BY SPACE-TIME.


Comments are closed.