9 Answers

  1. You can immediately object to it from several sides at once. First, “God as the first cause” is even suitable as a cause for the eternally existing world. The external cause for an infinite chain of causes was analyzed by the Greeks. It is more difficult with cyclic causality, but it seems that even here we can talk about the reason for the existence of a cycle of causes.

    Second, God is not only the first cause. Tikhonravov likes to cite deified pharaohs as an example in such cases – does the world's lack of a creator cancel out the pharaohs or their divinity?

    The Gnostic version of the external god to the world, who is not its creator, does not go away either.

    That is, there would be a desire, but there is something to deify. And desires are a matter of the proper, not the existent, and no evidence from the realm of the existent is applicable here.

    Finally, it is quite unclear how the universe is supposed to be proved to be infinite in time.

  2. Well said, very logical. Although it does not give a definite answer, but the idea, the formulation of the question is in the right direction.

    However, even if the universe is completely closed and eternal-does this really make the Creator unnecessary? No, this makes the question even more awkward: where did this eternal come from?! How truly infinite and transcending all eternity must its Creator be? If the Infinite creates the Infinite, isn't that a worthy occupation for Him?) And then all the small questions like “if He is good and all-powerful, then why do we suffer, sin and die” become barely noticeable dust on the endless galactic roads, drowning, so to speak, in the grandeur of the global Plan.

  3. The other day I confused Dawkins with Hawking (for which I apologized to the readers…)

    But Hawking was definitely dead, and no criteria helped him ride a goat around this event.

    I ask you to pay attention to the fact that the arguments that appeared in the recent past as “proofs of the existence of God” are now called nothing more than “arguments in favor” of such a person.

    Why? – We thank the progress of science, which clarified the concept of proof for us.

    It didn't help Hawking, however.

  4. The main experts on this topic are not physicists, but specialists in information systems analysis (cybernetics) and new information physics.

    The main question about the Universe –

    this is a living Intelligent System (it is an effective way out of the scientific impasse and an answer to the question)


    a big Garbage dump (this is the eternal old scientific dead end)?

  5. It remains, and it remains unchanged, for it has been described in the Bible for about 4,000 years.

    God is the creator of the laws that created the infinite universe.

    And, Hawking considers only the physical part of the universe, so he writes about its immutability and not the interaction of God with it.

    But the world has created layers, and each layer has its own laws.



    Real world



    Each previous level is a veiled basis for the next one.

    So if there is an “intervention”, then only in the topmost, incomplete one.

    At this stage, this is the spiritual (mental ) level.

    In this we see the” intervention ” of God.

    Religion is the doctrine of the relationship between the worlds, the World of the Creator and the world created by Him.

    “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

    “The Father seeks worshippers in Spirit and in truth”

    This is an intervention in the thinking process.

    But this is no longer physics and not the area of Hawking's thinking. But this is the world, and human thinking is part of this world and it is not described by the laws of the physical world presented in the system describing its terms and units of measurement – SI.

  6. Hello. I think. that in order for space and time to form a closed system, at least space and time are needed. The question of attitude to the criteria for finding the cause of the phenomenon of all things is simple-I ask myself the questions “who am I “and” what is my business ” within the framework of the universe.

  7. Do you consider Hawking an expert in such matters? He's just as human as you are. (Not exactly like that, if you think about his life in a wheelchair.) But his life doesn't make him an expert… I read his books, but I didn't find anything magical. So I think your own judgment is just as valuable as Hawking's. Think for yourself, Hawking is not a decree for you.

  8. An interesting question,for which the author -a separate respect! You can answer at length and with an answer to each quote of Hawking's ” charges “against” God. But I will answer as concisely as possible,since a detailed answer to his book may well lead to a dissertation.

    1. Hawking considers God in an impersonal version, as Einstein considered him(although they now and then use the spelling of it with a capital letter, apparently not being consistent atheists in their conviction.Their subconscious mind is triggered.).

    2. This approach is not new ,the vast majority of ancient philosophers spoke and wrote about the mysteries of the universe, without using God as the sole creator of it ,although they spoke about the One. This period of historical development was followed by the emergence of a large number of philosophers who affirm divine truths based on the Bible .

    And, since history tends to develop in a spiral fashion, we can soon expect another round of ” proofs “with the same set of means of scientific argumentation regarding the proofs of the existence of God in a new way,based on”scientific data”.

    3. Scientists have the right to make scientific inquiries about everything that a person has even the slightest relation to. After all, a person has already managed to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge(good and evil).True, it is his habit to first crack something to the ground ,for example, an apple, and,having found seeds there, declare that he did not notice anything but them there:there was no knowledge of good and evil.And, indeed, not in the physical sense. Just like the pathologist, it is useless to look for the place of feelings and the location of love, good, evil, and conscience in the body… But this is unlikely to be close to the truth.

    4. Other proofs are needed if we are talking about irrational things (isn't this the reason for the “failure” of Hawking and Einstein from the statement about the impersonality of God to writing God with a capital letter). Man is a very complex being,he is not limited to a set of elements and minerals,he has not only a set of physiological needs.It contains not only complex feelings, such as mercy, the ability to forgive,the ability to sacrifice oneself for others, but also a constant desire for new knowledge. It is quite natural that this craving is carried out through the breaking of old knowledge,its enrichment with new facts ,partial or complete replacement of obsolete ,outdated, but this process is in any case endless, no matter how new the knowledge may seem

    .5. Therefore, as the Bible says, the day will come(Gen 3:5.) ” in which you will taste

    your eyes will be opened, and you will be like the gods,

    those who know good and evil.” And where is the God that Hawking didn't find a place for in the universe?”The kingdom of God will not come in a visible way, and they will not say,' Lo, it is here, 'or,' Lo, it is there.' For behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17: 20-21). Therefore, no matter how much you dissect the universe, as long as a person lives, so much will God live in him. 6. I ONCE WROTE IN MY DISSERTATION that the key basic need of a person is the need for communication. There is no point in learning something if we can't discuss it verbally or in writing and pass it on to others. Moreover , even in the absence of another person, this role is performed by God, whose image we are. We are not a collection of elements, blood cells and water,we are not only rational, but also in many ways manifest ourselves as irrational beings.If we were able to talk about the universe after learning a lot,then we can also talk about God if we are mentally and mentally prepared for this.And this preparation for reasoning about God requires no less dedication and knowledge than any field of quantum physics.

  9. Hawking very politely gave God a chance. In fact, the option that the universe has a beginning-even more evidently cancels the idea of God, because god then also has a beginning ))

    Who created the creator and where did the first cause come from?

    This simple question clearly shows that the most general idea of a “reasonable beginning” does not explain anything at all, since it is not known where this reasonable creator came from.

    Well, the option that matter exists forever also destroys the idea of God as an extra entity, which again does not explain anything.

Leave a Reply