God and Stephen Hawking: Second Edition
- Downloads：2628
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-28 04:41:32
- Update Date：2025-09-24
- Status：finish
- Author：John C. Lennox
- ISBN：0745980988
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Examines the question: did the laws of physics themselves bring the universe into being or did God？ Lennox guides us through Hawking's arguments and exposes flaws in his logic。 Far from disproving a creator God， they make His existence seem all the more probable。
Reviews
Annetta
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 It was thorough when comparing Christian vs Atheist views。 I smiled in relief， after completing the book， that I am a Christian。
Artie Roderick
，
This book is an excellent read。The author points out the subjective bias that many atheists scientists have in order to create their subjective thinking of creation without God。
Paweł Drożniak
，
Nie zgadzam się z autorem， ale poziom intelektualny jego rozważań był wystarczający by skłonić do myślenia i skonfrontować jego argumenty ze swoim rozumieniem świata。
Mohammad Sadeq Jafari
，
عالی؛ نکته‌ی مهم این کتاب این است که اول بصورت واضح، موشکافانه و خلاصه مسئله‌ی هاوکینگ با وجود خدا را تشریح می‌کند و بعد توضیح می‌دهد چگونه پاسخ او در سئوالش وجود دارد。 کتاب نوشته‌ی یک مسیحی است و به نظرم به طرز مستحکمی کامل است。"این‌که اصلا قاعده‌ای وجود دارد که بررسی شود؛ نوعی معجزه است。" ریچارد فاینمنکتاب رو با ترجمه روان ابوالفضل حقیری قزوینی و نشر علم خوندند。 عالی؛ نکته‌ی مهم این کتاب این است که اول بصورت واضح، موشکافانه و خلاصه مسئله‌ی هاوکینگ با وجود خدا را تشریح می‌کند و بعد توضیح می‌دهد چگونه پاسخ او در سئوالش وجود دارد。 کتاب نوشته‌ی یک مسیحی است و به نظرم به طرز مستحکمی کامل است。"این‌که اصلا قاعده‌ای وجود دارد که بررسی شود؛ نوعی معجزه است。" ریچارد فاینمنکتاب رو با ترجمه روان ابوالفضل حقیری قزوینی و نشر علم خوندند。 。。。more
Antonio Afonso
，
Um dos melhores livro-resposta que já li。 Hawking é exposto como um amador em filosofia e epistemologia （o que não é demérito nenhum， se você não pretende responder as questões mais difíceis dessas respectivas áreas）
Mark Sebert
，
A very powerful defense against pseudo intellectual types baseless attack on God。
Linn
，
Don't be misled by the grandiosity of the title。 This criticism of Hawking's Grand Design seems to be a very pale one。 There isnt much substance or novelty in his criticisms。 An extensive quote miner， he tries to use the quotes of scientists wherever it can be used to his advantage。 This man also comes out to be a Christian apologetic in places。 Why doesnt he use the same standard of evidence and rationality that he applies in opposing the naturalist world view when it comes to his own faith？ Don't be misled by the grandiosity of the title。 This criticism of Hawking's Grand Design seems to be a very pale one。 There isnt much substance or novelty in his criticisms。 An extensive quote miner， he tries to use the quotes of scientists wherever it can be used to his advantage。 This man also comes out to be a Christian apologetic in places。 Why doesnt he use the same standard of evidence and rationality that he applies in opposing the naturalist world view when it comes to his own faith？ 。。。more
Neville Ridley-smith
，
There are some very odd negative reviews of this that boil down to "Lennox is illogical - I won't demonstrate how - he just is - so there！" Flawless logic。 Or they put up some straw man argument about miracles which is totally at odds with what Lennox says。 Sigh。One thing you can't say about Lennox is that he isn't logical。This is a great commentary on Hawking's book， showing its various flaws。 There were just one or two places where I thought Lennox was maybe reaching a bit far but those pale i There are some very odd negative reviews of this that boil down to "Lennox is illogical - I won't demonstrate how - he just is - so there！" Flawless logic。 Or they put up some straw man argument about miracles which is totally at odds with what Lennox says。 Sigh。One thing you can't say about Lennox is that he isn't logical。This is a great commentary on Hawking's book， showing its various flaws。 There were just one or two places where I thought Lennox was maybe reaching a bit far but those pale in comparison to the rest of the arguments。A nice quick read。 Highly recommended。 。。。more
Mike
，
As always Lennox writes in an accessible way， even though he's discussing some difficult issues。 This short book is enough to clarify that Hawking's book isn't by any means the last word on anything; in fact too much of Hawking's book turns out to be bad philosophy， and occasionally， bad science， the kind of science that can believe its own myths （such as multiverses） while mocking the beliefs of others。 As always Lennox writes in an accessible way， even though he's discussing some difficult issues。 This short book is enough to clarify that Hawking's book isn't by any means the last word on anything; in fact too much of Hawking's book turns out to be bad philosophy， and occasionally， bad science， the kind of science that can believe its own myths （such as multiverses） while mocking the beliefs of others。 。。。more
Mark
，
Short and Clear Dr Lennox clearly lays out the atheistic position taken by Steven Hawking which is that because of the law of gravity the Universe can and did create itself。This is a short and concise refutation of Hawking’s position。 Dr Lennox also shows that the belief in God has always been the main force behind science。 And， by pointing out the many great scientists of the past， like Newton， believed in God and that many today still believe， like Physicist John Polkinghorn。This is well worth Short and Clear Dr Lennox clearly lays out the atheistic position taken by Steven Hawking which is that because of the law of gravity the Universe can and did create itself。This is a short and concise refutation of Hawking’s position。 Dr Lennox also shows that the belief in God has always been the main force behind science。 And， by pointing out the many great scientists of the past， like Newton， believed in God and that many today still believe， like Physicist John Polkinghorn。This is well worth reading。 。。。more
David
，
Basically Stephen Hawking is a bright guy; but when he talks about things beyond physical laws， not so much。 Hawkings basically says that all things are now explained through physics， and that proves there is no God。John Lennox does an excellent， clear， and compelling job of stating quite the opposite。 Let me just rely on some excerpts from the book （since you probably won't read it anyway）:The laws of physics are not only incapable of creating anything; they cannot even cause anything to happen Basically Stephen Hawking is a bright guy; but when he talks about things beyond physical laws， not so much。 Hawkings basically says that all things are now explained through physics， and that proves there is no God。John Lennox does an excellent， clear， and compelling job of stating quite the opposite。 Let me just rely on some excerpts from the book （since you probably won't read it anyway）:The laws of physics are not only incapable of creating anything; they cannot even cause anything to happen。 For instance， Newton’s celebrated laws of motion never caused a pool ball to race across the green baize table。 That can only be done by people using a pool cue and the actions of their own muscles。 The laws enable us to analyse the motion， and to map the trajectory of the ball’s movement in the future （provided nothing external interferes）; but they are powerless to move the ball， let alone bring it into existence。However， in the world in which most of us live， the simple law of arithmetic by itself， 1+1=2， never brought anything into being。 It certainly has never put any money into my bank account。 If I put £1，000 into the bank， and later another £1，000， the laws of arithmetic will rationally explain how it is that I now have £2，000 in the bank。 But if I never put any money into the bank myself， and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account， I shall remain permanently bankrupt。5 Science and rationalityMuch of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion。 This is not a discord that I recognize。 For me， as a Christian believer， the beauty of the scientific laws reinforces my faith in an intelligent， divine Creator。 The more I understand science the more I believe in God， because of my wonder at the breadth， sophistication， and integrity of his creation。 Indeed， the very reason that science flourished so vigorously in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries， under men like Galileo， Kepler and Newton， had a great deal to do with their conviction that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law-giver。 One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational， intelligent design。 Far from belief in God hindering science， it is the motor that drove it。 The fact that science is （mainly） a rational activity helps us to identify another flaw in Hawking’s thinking。 Like Francis Crick， he wants us to believe that we human beings are nothing but “mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”。 Crick writes: “You， your joys and your sorrows， your memories and ambitions， your sense of personal identity and free will， are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules。” What shall we think， then， of human love and fear， joy and sorrow？ Are they meaningless neural behaviour patterns？ Or， what shall we make of the concepts of beauty and truth？ Is a Rembrandt painting nothing but molecules of paint scattered on canvas？ Hawking and Crick would seem to think so。 One wonders， then， by what means we should recognize it。 After all， if the concept of truth itself results from “no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells”， how in the name of logic would we know that our brain was composed of nerve cells？Rational support for the existence of God is not only to be found in the realm of science， for science is not coextensive with rationality， as many people imagine。 For instance， we find ourselves to be moral beings， capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong。 There is no scientific route to such ethics， as has been admitted by all but the most die-hard converts to scientism。 Physics cannot inspire our concern for others， nor was science responsible for the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time。 But that does not mean that ethics is non-rational。 Furthermore， just as the fine-tuning of the constants of nature and the rational intelligibility of nature point to a transcendent intelligence that is independent of this world， so the existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of a transcendent moral being。There are highly intelligent， eminent scientists who would differ with them; for instance: Professor William Phillips， Physics Nobel Prizewinner 1998; Professor John Polkinghorne FRS， Quantum Physicist， Cambridge; Sir John Houghton， former Director of the British Meteorological Office and Head of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change; and the current Director of the National Institute of Health and former Director of the Human Genome Project， FrancisCollins。 These distinguished scientists are well aware of the arguments against miracles。 Nevertheless， publicly and without embarrassment or a sense of absurdity， each affirms his belief in the supernatural and， in particular， in the resurrection of Christ – which they regard， as I do， as the supreme evidence for the truth of the Christian world-view。 One of the scientists just mentioned， Francis Collins， gives a wise caution regarding the matter of miracles: "It is crucial that a healthy scepticism be applied when interpreting potentially miraculous events， lest the integrity and rationality of the religious perspective be brought into question。 The only thing that will kill the possibility of miracles more quickly than a committed materialism is the claiming of miracle status for everyday events for which natural explanations are readily at hand。"A final commentScience and history are not the only sources of evidence for the existence of God。 Since God is a Person and not a theory， it is to be expected that one of the prime evidences for his existence is personal experience。 To develop this important matter， it would take us far beyond the intended scope of this little book。 Nevertheless I wish to add my voice to the many millions who can and would testify to the profound and central role that faith in Christ as Lord has on our lives， bringing assurance of peace with God， a new power for living， and a certain hope based on the resurrection of Christ。 Such a hope defies both the death barrier and Hawking’s bleak reductionist notion that we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules derived from the stars。 We shall， in fact， outlast the stars。 Hawking imagines that the potential existence of other life forms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living in a unique， God-created planet。 I find it faintly amusing that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth。 They are only too eager to denounce the possibility that there exists a vast， intelligent being “out there”， namely God， who has left his fingerprints all over his creation。 Hawking’s fusillade will not shake the foundations of an intelligent faith that is based on the cumulative evidence of science， history， the biblical narrative， and personal experience。 。。。more
Danial Ahmadi
，
استدلال های بینظیر از چندین دانشمند و محقق بزرگ علمی که از نظر من تمام منطق هاوکینگ رو راجب بی خدایی خرد میکنند。
Tim Finch
，
Absolutely incredible！
Kiran Lama
，
I have enjoyed Reading This book and the Counter agreement between the theories were quite intresting。 God is the creator both of the bits of universe we don’t understand and the bits that we do， and it’s the bits that we do understand that give the most evidence of God’s existence。
Celia Sánchez
，
In this book， Dr。 Lennox reserves his ire for Stephen Hawking （against his book The Grand Design ） 。He refutes M-theory and concept of Multiverse as these theories are yet to be proved。But the problem with John lennox God is his evidence centres around Jesus and his resurrection from death 。。。proof :It is mentioned in Bible（ a work of fiction）- Argument from authority --。 Bible。 Lennox says the Big Bang was authored by god（read Jesus）。 ALL arguments for the existence of a god necessarily involve In this book， Dr。 Lennox reserves his ire for Stephen Hawking （against his book The Grand Design ） 。He refutes M-theory and concept of Multiverse as these theories are yet to be proved。But the problem with John lennox God is his evidence centres around Jesus and his resurrection from death 。。。proof :It is mentioned in Bible（ a work of fiction）- Argument from authority --。 Bible。 Lennox says the Big Bang was authored by god（read Jesus）。 ALL arguments for the existence of a god necessarily involve logical fallacies。 The most common one is - Argument from ignorance。 One claims that since he does not know how some phenomenon happened naturally， thus some god must have been involved。 There is an error in this proposition: 。。the argument does not obviate the possibility that the phenomenon was some natural process --including one which may not now be known。 Terrible logic throughout。 sickening waste of time。avoid this。。。。 。。。more
Benjamin Stahl
，
A short and satisfying book that puts Stephen Hawking in his place。 Obviously， no atheist is going to be convinced （just look at many of the reviews） but that's to be expected。 On the argument of God's existence， both sides are at such polar ends that it's bound to always be a shouting match of atheist insults and theist rebuttals。 This book， though， isn't really intended to prove God's existence as much as it is simply to deconstruct Hawking's argument against His existence。 Either way， it's go A short and satisfying book that puts Stephen Hawking in his place。 Obviously， no atheist is going to be convinced （just look at many of the reviews） but that's to be expected。 On the argument of God's existence， both sides are at such polar ends that it's bound to always be a shouting match of atheist insults and theist rebuttals。 This book， though， isn't really intended to prove God's existence as much as it is simply to deconstruct Hawking's argument against His existence。 Either way， it's good。 If you're a Christian you will probably like it。 If you're an atheist， you will hate it and find a lot does not suit your worldview。 。。。more
Sophie Harris
，
Lovely， short and effective
MrClee
，
Lennox írt egy 120 oldalas könyvet Stephen Hawking nagyjából egyetlen mondatáról。 Érvelései， következtetései， alátámasztásai érthetőek， akár még jogosak， sőt， igazak is lehetnek， magát a stílust azonban nem igazán tudtam értékelni。 A célját se nagyon értettem sokáig， míg végre ő maga fedte fel: reméli， hogy a Hawking-hívők előbb-utóbb Isten-hívők lesznek。 Ízekre szedi Hawking 1-2 mondatát， valamint még néhány， ateista tudós meglátását arról， létrejöhetett-e az univerzum a semmiből。 Hawking ugyan Lennox írt egy 120 oldalas könyvet Stephen Hawking nagyjából egyetlen mondatáról。 Érvelései， következtetései， alátámasztásai érthetőek， akár még jogosak， sőt， igazak is lehetnek， magát a stílust azonban nem igazán tudtam értékelni。 A célját se nagyon értettem sokáig， míg végre ő maga fedte fel: reméli， hogy a Hawking-hívők előbb-utóbb Isten-hívők lesznek。 Ízekre szedi Hawking 1-2 mondatát， valamint még néhány， ateista tudós meglátását arról， létrejöhetett-e az univerzum a semmiből。 Hawking ugyanis azt állította egyik könyvében， hogy a gravitáció léte az ok arra， hogy a világegyetem létrehozhatta önmagát， és ehhez nem volt szükség Teremtőre。 Elég bizonytalan， légből kapott gondolatnak tűnik， melyet egyszerűen semmi nem tud bizonyítani， egy gondolatkísérlet szintjén létezhet， de látható， hogy Hawking ezzel erőteljesen Lennox egyik tyúkszemére lépett。Arroganciából jeles， süt róla a rosszindulat， és ezzel gyakorlatilag teljesen hiteltelenné teszi saját magát Lennox， hiába keresett megszámlálhatatlan idézetet， amely egyébként a könyv felét kiteszik， és bizonyítja az igazát。 Senkinek nincs igaza， csak neki， meg aki vele egyetért， meg persze a Bibliának。 De annak mindig。Gyakorlatilag Lennox maga is rámutat arra， hogy amit Hawking kimond， azt tudományos magyarázatnak elég erős túlzás állítani， és erre nem egy neves tudós recenzióját idézi a témával kapcsolatosan， akik Hawking elmélete ellen szólaltak fel。 A gond az， hogy egy kicsinyes versengésbe fut ki az egész， minden oldalon érződik Lennox Hawking iránti ellenszenve， próbálja őt a lehető legjobban lealacsonyítani， megsemmisíteni az olvasó szemében。 Merthogy nem győzhet Hawking és a gravitáció， hiszen a valóság az， hogy Isten volt a teremtő és kész és pont。 Lennox igazára csupán a hite a garancia， és azt akarja， hogy mások is abban a mesében higgyenek， amiben ő szeretne。 De miért nem adja meg a lehetőséget， miért nem szeretné azt， hogy mindenki eldöntse maga， hogy miben hisz？ „A mi világunkban pedig Isten a teremtő。” – olyan érzésem volt egész végig， mintha Lennox tipikusan az az ember lenne， aki arra vár， hogy valaki megpróbáljon megoldani egy kérdést， egy problémát， hogy előléphessen ő， hogy mindezt megcáfolja， és mindenki tudtára adja， hogy ezt te nem találhattad ki， mert csak。 Mert Isten már megtette。 Megakadályozza a haladást， az egyre jobban megismert univerzum összetettségéből， bonyolultságából， megismerhetetlenségéből arra következtet， hogy emiatt muszáj létezni egy mindent összekötő Istennek， ahelyett， hogy próbálná jobban megérteni magát a világot。 Azt mondja， nem ért egyet Hawkinggal， aki szerint a tudomány és a vallás között áthidalhatatlan ellentét van。 Ezzel én sem értek egyet， azonban hitünk， vallásunk nem azért van szerintem， hogy magyarázatot találjunk， hogyan és miért keletkezett a világ， Lennox azonban pont ebbe a kicsinyes vitába áll bele。 Miközben a vallásunknak meg kéne maradnia a helyes erkölcs meghatározásánál， a lélek és a szív rejtelmeinél， az életünkbeli tettek és cselekedetek helyes útra kormányzásánál。 。。。more
Phinehas Osei
，
The best book by Lennox I've read yet。 I guess third time's really a charm。How he quite simplistically responds to Hawking's claims in this book got me sold。In the end， I think John Lennox makes a good argument for the need and existence of an intelligent designer behind the laws of physics we observe。 The best book by Lennox I've read yet。 I guess third time's really a charm。How he quite simplistically responds to Hawking's claims in this book got me sold。In the end， I think John Lennox makes a good argument for the need and existence of an intelligent designer behind the laws of physics we observe。 。。。more
Stephen Kao
，
Lennox debunks the notion that our universe came together out of the laws of gravity， where Hawking fails to recognize that the law of gravity is something， and could not have existed to be the first cause of the universe to exist – the law of gravity is something that existed after the creation of the universe – from an omnipotent， omniscient， omnipresent God。Lennox's language is easy to understand， and ties the book up with why he believes in Christ， and the proof of the relationships he has c Lennox debunks the notion that our universe came together out of the laws of gravity， where Hawking fails to recognize that the law of gravity is something， and could not have existed to be the first cause of the universe to exist – the law of gravity is something that existed after the creation of the universe – from an omnipotent， omniscient， omnipresent God。Lennox's language is easy to understand， and ties the book up with why he believes in Christ， and the proof of the relationships he has confirms his belief in God。 。。。more
An Te
，
Concise and helpful is characterising Hawking's atheistic views。 It may be brief but the ideas contained within this slim volume are most important。 He deals well with M-theory as a postulated theory with little evidence （literally no evidence）， Hawking's caricatures of Christianity as unrepresentative of the Orthodox Christian position; for example 17th century Bishop Ussher's predication on the age of the earth as antiquated is not anywhere indicated in the biblical datum。 Hawking's position t Concise and helpful is characterising Hawking's atheistic views。 It may be brief but the ideas contained within this slim volume are most important。 He deals well with M-theory as a postulated theory with little evidence （literally no evidence）， Hawking's caricatures of Christianity as unrepresentative of the Orthodox Christian position; for example 17th century Bishop Ussher's predication on the age of the earth as antiquated is not anywhere indicated in the biblical datum。 Hawking's position that laws lead to agency/causation is dispelled well。All in all， a well argued account for the biblical conservative position littered with many references and relevant quotations from leading scientist， theologians， mathematicians and philosophers。 。。。more
John
，
Excellent and all too easy rebuttal of Hawking’s scientism masquerading as true science。 Lennox shows that the emperor has no clothing as Hawking proclaims that philosophy is dead and physics rules while at the same time using bad philosophy and bad metaphysics to bolster his claim。 A fun， enjoyable read， as is everything Lennox writes。
Cliff Moyce
，
A brilliant critique of Hawking’s worst book - The Grand Design。 Recommended as a guide on the weaknesses of ‘popular science’ writing and writers。
Mitchell Wong
，
A highly logical rebuttal of Hawking’s The Grand Design。 Intelligently picks out vital contradictions in argument and conclusively refutes the modern assumption that atheism is the only academically tenable worldview by demonstrating its own intrinsic logical fallacies
Robert Narojek
，
Another apologetic view from so called Christian crowd！I have a serious suspicion， however I can’t prove it”， that Mr。 Lennox used purposefully “The Brand” of undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists in recent decades – Stephen Hawking – to attract the reader like me to buy his brochure， so that Hawking and not Lennox name will sell more copies。 Anyway whatever is the actual motivation of Lennox this book does not represent anything new that Paternalistic and Christian centric （what about othe Another apologetic view from so called Christian crowd！I have a serious suspicion， however I can’t prove it”， that Mr。 Lennox used purposefully “The Brand” of undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists in recent decades – Stephen Hawking – to attract the reader like me to buy his brochure， so that Hawking and not Lennox name will sell more copies。 Anyway whatever is the actual motivation of Lennox this book does not represent anything new that Paternalistic and Christian centric （what about other major religions） and Apologetic crowd didn’t already say during last 150 years。First of all No one can prove or disprove existence of any kind of god， and even camouflaged by Lennox， bringing of Thomistic philosophy into his theological argumentation will not change it。 It is very simple - existence of any god is beyond proof using current scientific， philosophical and theological knowledge it will always remain in the debate sphere and mystery （as Orthodox Christians see it）。 One of the fundamental problems causing this dispute is the fact that even so called professors of great universities put an equation between Faith and Religion， and this causes all the havoc in the debate。 Faith always allows for the hypothesis of god and quite frankly most of the people will agree with this hypothesis quite easily， however religion is a form of practical faith created by homo sapiens， so its members have easy to follow set of rules regulating and controlling all the aspects of these homo sapiens life’s。 All the holy books of all the religions were written by people of flesh who had various motivations and claiming that they write messages from god， so taking XXI century view back on last 4500 years we can always ask what was the actual purpose in writing these scriptures and certainly there will be a lot of answers。 On the more formal aspect of this book by Lennox， it is really sad that he uses in his reasoning mostly quotes from other Christian writers and scientists， and very little of his own reasoning （about 50% of this book are direct and long quotes） which really appears only that he is an erudite， but almost nothing of his own scientific and faith proclaiming thinking。 This is particularly visible in the last pages where he openly claims nothing about universal concept of god and tries ineptly to prove resurrection of Christ， which can’t be proven and has to be accepted only on Faith， since no one beyond few， whom Jesus chose， seen him after resurrection。 Furthermore whatever are the written records - are written only by these few chosen。 However no one today is willing to question existence in history of a person named Jesus – Apologetic Theology has proved this。 Conclusion is simple the book brings nothing into the debate between science and theology （faith） and is very poorly written and without major significant scientific references。 Therefore I still remain with my suspicion from the beginning of this review – writing of the book with its， carefully chosen title served only the sales objectives of Mr。 Lennox。 。。。more
Kico Meirelles
，
A great little book。 In a very straight forward way， the author confront Hawking’s arguments “to disprove God”。 It is not a religious book， but a logical one。 Recommended for theists or not。
Barton Jahn
，
tA short and concise book…96 pages…that analyses the thinking of Stephen Hawking in the debate between science and Christianity…in terms of design versus materialistic naturalism。tLennox makes a compelling case for design…having the mathematics credentials as a professor in mathematics at Oxford…and two other PhD’s in philosophy and science…to be able to take apart the theories of Hawking on an equal standing as a scientist。tA very readable book accessible to the general public， while still tack tA short and concise book…96 pages…that analyses the thinking of Stephen Hawking in the debate between science and Christianity…in terms of design versus materialistic naturalism。tLennox makes a compelling case for design…having the mathematics credentials as a professor in mathematics at Oxford…and two other PhD’s in philosophy and science…to be able to take apart the theories of Hawking on an equal standing as a scientist。tA very readable book accessible to the general public， while still tackling the most difficult issues in this critically important cultural， social， scientific， and theological question。 。。。more
Jared
，
Too small a book for a too important scientist。
Colin Turner
，
This is a fundamentally disappointing book。I was bought this book as a gift by a colleague of faith trying to entice some in mine， which was very kind。 I’ve heard of the author and so I was hopeful the book would be a challenging read。 I’ve read many books about religion， and holy books both when I had faith and I had none。 I have yet to find a book advocating the Christian faith that makes a logically solid case， or even an honest one that embraces the gaps in knowledge or truth。This book is no This is a fundamentally disappointing book。I was bought this book as a gift by a colleague of faith trying to entice some in mine， which was very kind。 I’ve heard of the author and so I was hopeful the book would be a challenging read。 I’ve read many books about religion， and holy books both when I had faith and I had none。 I have yet to find a book advocating the Christian faith that makes a logically solid case， or even an honest one that embraces the gaps in knowledge or truth。This book is no exception。 It’s steadfast assumption of not just one god， but specifically the Christian god is there from the very beginning。 It is one of many books then， that attempts to justify the existence of a specific god by assuming it in the first place。It clumsily accuses Hawking of displacing philosophy by science just a few pages after the author himself displayed philosophy by religion， and indeed， his own religion。 There’s a little bit of dishonest referencing of Einstein and Feynman （neither were theists） and a listing of old importance scientists that were believers。 But so what？ Newton was definitely a believer， but he also believed in alchemy so we know he wasn’t right about everything。 The evidence base has changed since then however， in that we know more natural philosophy， but also much more theological， historial and archealogical evidence has exposed some interesting home truths。 These weren’t widely researched or known because even in Renaissance times， questioning faith too much was a risky business。It makes faintly ridiculous arguments that the ancient Greek process of removing polytheistic， divine and supersticious reasoning at the dawn of scientific explanations was only important only because of the removal of polytheism， and that Moses et al。， had it right from the start with monotheism， so that is somehow different。 This argument is fatally undermined by the historial fact that the origin of Judaism and hence the other Abrahamic faiths is in fact polytheistic and the “monotheism from the start” version in the Bible is simply white washing of what had become an inconvenient truth。 Either the author is unaware of this， or just totally uncritical of it。It doesn’t really get any better。 It suggests that Hawking sets the energy of the universe to zero in his book。 I don’t know since I haven’t read it， but I do know that latest experiemental data excitingly suggests that space-time is globally flat， and therefore with a net energy of zero。 This is an observation， not a parlour trick。 Energy is not “set” to zero， it is “measured” as zero。He talks about the obvious limitations of the word “nothing” for a time， but so what？ It’s easy to show by simple paradoxes that concepts attached to god such as omnipotence are logically inconsistent。 We know we are on territory where weasel words can be used on either side。Pretty much the zenith of the whole argument is the completely true observation that spontaneous universe creation predicted by physical law doesn’t explain where the laws of physics comes from。 This is a good argument but one I was aware of from before reading this book。 However: a lack of an answer does not mean， therefore god， and therefore specifically the christian god。There may be a book that makes good arguments in favour of the christian God’s existence， but it’s not this one。 。。。more
Emily Ross
，