God and Stephen Hawking: Whose design is it anyway? Paperback – January 21, 2011

John Lennox. professor of mathematics at Oxford College, responds to Stephen Hawking's “The Grand Design”. Dr. Lennox’s response to the “The Grand Design” strikes at the very foundations of Hawking’s ideas. Lennox puts forth the following points reducing Hawking’s latest book to insignificance.1. After declaring that philosophy is dead (and science will explain all), Hawking begins to posit philosophical statements thus contradicting himself right in the beginning of the book.2. After displaying an inadequate view of philosophy, Hawking displays an inadequate view of God. That is, he shows the foolishness of the old Greek mythological gods but never interacts with the God of the Bible.3. Hawking states, “ Because of the law of gravity, the universe creates itself out of nothing.” Lennox writes “Hawking appears therefore to be simultaneously asserting than the universe is created from nothing and from something - not a very promising start.” Indeed for something to create itself is nonsense.4. Hawking misunderstands the nature of physical laws. These physical laws (and theories) describe the regularities found in nature. To quote Lennox again, “... the theories and laws cannot even cause anything, let alone create it.” He then illustrates this by saying that Newton’s law’s of motion do not cause billiard balls to race across the table.5. Hawking states that the M-Theory (string theory) and the multiverse explain the coming from nothing. Indeed in these theories, whatever universes can exist, do exist. This leads to bizarre conclusions. These theories are not verifiable or falsifiable and therefore can the even be considered science?With these 5 fundamental points, not much is left of Hawking’s book. To quote Lennox again, “.... nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.”“God and Stephens Hawking” is a short book of less than 100 pages and relatively small in size. Lennox gets right to his points and is relatively concise to this book will not be a burden to read. If you want a more in-depth (but readable) critique of M-Theory, check out “Big Bang Big God” by R. Holder.

Thank you for giving me this space to type my review. I usually don't include any because I have to type on my Kindle and I am old and cannot use that little stupid keyboard to write more than LOL.I have any number of books on the issue of science and religion, and this one will find a prominent place among them for references sake. Why? Because he writes more lucidly than do most apologists, who often couch their writings in esoteric and obscure logic equations and language that takes it out of the ability of the regular believing reader. Lennox improves on this and stays logical and lucid throughout. I have now ordered another of his books and find even after a short reading there the same clarity and lucidness.Greg Bahnsen had been my favorite until now, with William Lane Craig also appearing on the radar. Plantinga is much to obtuse and esoteric for my comfort. He might be right, but who can tell? Lennox is much better for most scholars and Christian readers.I will review the new book by Lennox when I complete it, but I am sure it will be positive as well.

This booklet is rare in not merely accusing the opponent of illogicality, but also explaining it. Thus the author (pp.29-31), on quoting a main conclusion of Hawking: "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe will and can create itself out of nothing", notes, "...the first part of that statement: 'Because there is a law of gravity...' ...assumes...that a law of gravity exists. One presumes also...that gravity itself exists, for the simple reason that an abstract mathematical law on its own would be vacuous with nothing to describe". He continues, "gravity or the law of gravity is not 'nothing' ...Hawking appears, therefore, to be simultaneously asserting that the universe is created from nothing and from something... But that is not all. His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature...depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe."However, the author looks weaker to me in succumbing to religious doctrine and in his attempts to justify it. He argues for miracles, seeming to presume that God can only be manifested through them, as someone "outside nature that could from time to time intervene in nature" (p.91). He strangely strongly engages in the fallacy of appeal to authority, listing numerous "highly intelligent, eminent scientists" (p.82) in his defense, though authorities for the other side can equally be appealed to. More surprisingly, he denies (p.89) that "the laws of nature know no exceptions", saying: "In order to know that experience against miracles is absolutely uniform, [one] would need to have total access to every event in the universe at all time and places". But this is not how experience works. A law is determined by invariable experience available, and if not found violated, is accepted as universal.The author wants to persuade in particular (p.78) of the miracle of Christ's "resurrection from the dead, which is presented to us as a fact of history". We know that the facts surrounding particulars as recent as the JFK assassination are difficult to establish despite the most modern means of detection, photography being the least. It is accordingly quite incredible to place weight on presumed evidence of similar particulars occurring so long ago, that are additionally stirred largely by religious motives and go counter to discussed laws of nature.Notwithstanding the author's submission to a formal expression of faith, possibly for mental comfort, his rebuttals to atheists follow sound logical paths, and perhaps rather than seeking God in miracles and other interventions in natural processes, he could explore those processes to those ends, as was done two centuries ago by William Paley he mentions (p.40), and by subsequent investigators. Particularly, the answers should be sought in life's characteristic, in contrast to the lifeless, of aiming at survival.

Muito interessante o ponto abordado. Uma voz sensata e preparada, vai na jugular - como assim S. H diz " Filosofia não é mais necessária". Como alguém genial e famoso pode entrar nesse nível de arrogância? Gênios não são gênios em tudo. E vale ler

Professor John C Lennox destroys Hawking's overreaching scientific reductionism and demonstrates that the existence of God is not just probable but necessary to explain a fine tuned universe.

A superb and very easy read. Lennox is Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford. Stephen Hawking, of course, needs no introduction. In the book, Lennox takes Hawking to task on a number of issues, particularly on the statement that “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” A statement which, according to Lennox, is so contradictory that it amounts to nonsense.Firstly, the law of gravity cannot exist if there is nothing. There is no gravity in nothing. If there is nothing, there is nothing, and consequently, no laws. Laws are observable effects that can be used to predict the outcome of an action: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If there is nothing, there is no gravity, and therefore no law of gravity.Secondly, laws do not and cannot create anything. Laws are descriptive and predictive, but not creative. As Lennox says, “Two plus two equals four, but the laws of mathematics never put four pounds in my pocket.” To effect causation you need an agent. In this Hawking seems to have made an elementary classification error. Laws are not agents, and agents are not laws. “The laws state that if you have A, you will get B—but first catch your A, because the laws will not do it for you.”Thirdly, there is a problem with the last part of the statement, that “…the universe will create itself...” This is a contradiction of massive proportions, similar to Peter Atkins’s cosmic bootstrap principle which assumes it is possible to reach down and pull one’s self up by one’s bootstraps. Logic dictates that if we say X creates Y, then we presuppose X already exists and Y does not. However, if we state X creates X (itself, not another version of itself), then we must presuppose that X not only preexists, but also that it does not preexist.All of which proves, as Lennox so eloquently puts it, “that nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world famous scientists.”

Thanks.

Reading this book is a must. It covers all aspects of questions you may have, being Atheist or Theist. Highly recommended