Hawking vs God: 32 Thinkers Who Believe the Legendary Physicist Got It Wrong

Home General Hawking vs God: 32 Thinkers Who Believe the Legendary Physicist Got It Wrong

General

Hawking vs God: 32 Thinkers Who Believe the Legendary Physicist Got It Wrong

By Chu E. - April 9, 2025

When Stephen Hawking declared God unnecessary for the universe’s existence, he sparked fierce debate across scientific and philosophical communities. The renowned physicist claimed that physics alone could explain everything, making a creator redundant. Yet many brilliant minds, from fellow scientists to philosophers and theologians, remain unconvinced. These thinkers have developed fascinating counterarguments that challenge Hawking’s conclusions on multiple fronts, suggesting the conversation about God’s existence is far from closed.

NEXT >>

John Lennox

Hawking vs God: 32 Thinkers Who Believe the Legendary Physicist Got It Wrong — Source: wordpress.com

This Oxford mathematician takes issue with Hawking’s fundamental premise. Lennox points out that physical laws describe reality but don’t create it, like a recipe can’t bake itself into a cake. His book “God and Stephen Hawking” tackles this head-on. Laws of nature require explanation for their existence, and Lennox argues a mind behind the universe makes more logical sense than self-causing physics.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

William Lane Craig

Craig exposes a sleight-of-hand in Hawking’s “universe from nothing” argument. The famed philosopher notes that Hawking’s “nothing” actually contains quantum laws and properties, hardly true nothingness. This undermines the entire premise. Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument counters Hawking directly. Something that begins to exist needs a cause, and the universe began to exist. This simple logic remains powerful.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Roger Penrose

Hawking’s own collaborator questions the scientific foundation of his God-rejecting conclusions. Penrose points out that M-theory, which Hawking used to explain a self-creating universe, lacks empirical support. It remains mathematical conjecture, not proven fact. Penrose suggests alternative cosmological models that don’t eliminate the possibility of a creator. His scientific credentials add weight to this critique.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Alister McGrath

McGrath identifies Hawking’s category mistake, jumping from science to metaphysics without acknowledging the leap. Science describes mechanisms but can’t answer ultimate “why” questions. A former scientist himself, McGrath argues in “The Dawkins Delusion?” that Hawking’s claim that physics eliminates God represents a philosophical stance, not a scientific conclusion. The distinction matters enormously for this debate.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Francis Collins

The leader of the Human Genome Project demonstrates that top-tier scientists can embrace both science and faith. Collins argues that Hawking sidesteps key human experiences like morality and meaning. His book “The Language of God” recounts his personal journey from atheism to belief. DNA’s complexity suggested design to Collins, something Hawking’s physics-only approach fails to address.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Richard Swinburne

This Oxford philosopher flips Hawking’s logic on its head. Swinburne argues that a single intelligent cause offers a simpler explanation than Hawking’s multiverse hypothesis. Using probability arguments in “The Existence of God,” he shows that a personal creator fits the evidence better than infinite unobservable universes. His focus on explanatory power challenges Hawking’s mathematical abstractions.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Thomas Aquinas

Though separated by centuries, Aquinas’s “First Cause” argument remains relevant to Hawking’s claims. Modern scholars like Edward Feser note that even quantum origins require an uncaused starting point. Everything contingent needs a necessary cause. Aquinas’s medieval framework continues to trouble modern physicists who seek self-contained explanations for existence. His logic transcends technological advances.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Hugh Ross

This astrophysicist turns Hawking’s own discipline against him. Ross argues in “The Creator and the Cosmos” that universal fine-tuning strongly suggests intent rather than chance. Constants like gravitational force appear precisely calibrated for life. Hawking acknowledged this fine-tuning but proposed the multiverse as an explanation. Ross finds this an untestable dodge of compelling design evidence.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Robin Collins

Collins calculates the mathematical improbability of life-permitting conditions arising randomly. His work “The Teleological Argument” shows that chance alone falls short. He argues Hawking’s infinite universes theory lacks empirical grounding and violates Occam’s razor—the principle that simpler explanations are preferable. His approach bridges philosophy and physics to challenge Hawking’s dismissal of design.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Keith Ward

This theologian attacks Hawking’s fundamental assumption of materialism. Ward contends in “God, Chance and Necessity” that physics might be a tool of divine mind rather than its replacement. Hawking never justifies why matter alone should be the ultimate explanation. Ward suggests Hawking’s rejection of God assumes what it claims to prove—a circular argument that weakens his case.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

David Bentley Hart

Hart exposes a crucial equivocation in Hawking’s reasoning. His book “The Experience of God” explains that Hawking’s “nothing” represents a physical state with potential—not absolute non-existence. This subtly shifts the goalposts. Theological questions address being itself, not just physical states. Hart’s Orthodox perspective adds depth to this critique. Hawking never addresses this deeper level of nothingness.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Edward Feser

Feser accuses Hawking of philosophical naiveté. In “The Last Superstition,” he shows how Hawking ignores classical metaphysics like Aristotle’s unmoved mover. Physics presupposes change and motion, which require a first cause. Hawking’s dismissal of God reveals his unfamiliarity with pre-modern philosophy. Feser’s neo-Scholastic approach directly confronts the assumptions underlying Hawking’s claims.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Alvin Plantinga

This legendary philosopher attacks Hawking’s naturalism as self-defeating. Plantinga argues in “Where the Conflict Really Lies” that evolution alone cannot guarantee reliable human reasoning. If our minds evolved only for survival, not truth, why trust our scientific conclusions? Theism better explains cognitive reliability. This undercuts the foundation of Hawking’s materialism, turning science against itself.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Dinesh D’Souza

D’Souza popularizes a straightforward critique in “What’s So Great About Christianity.” Hawking’s laws still require an origin. What explains the existence of gravity itself? D’Souza accuses Hawking of scientism—overextending scientific authority into theological domains. His accessible style has spread this critique widely. The basic question remains: why do these particular laws exist at all?

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Paul Davies

Though not theistic himself, this physicist questions whether laws of physics can explain their own existence. Davies explores in “The Mind of God” how physical laws might require a deeper framework. He finds Hawking’s self-contained universe unsatisfying without further justification. His agnostic stance weakens Hawking’s certainty. Even fellow scientists find gaps in Hawking’s comprehensive claims.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This simple argument persists against Hawking’s complexity. Anything that begins to exist needs a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe needs a cause. Defenders note that Hawking’s quantum models still imply a temporal beginning. This necessitates an external, timeless cause—aligning perfectly with theism. The argument’s elegance stands against Hawking’s theoretical gymnastics.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Leibniz’s Contingency Argument

Modern defenders ask the question Hawking sidesteps: why is there something rather than nothing? Philosophers like Alexander Pruss argue that contingent realities need a necessary being to exist. Hawking’s physics describes contingency but doesn’t explain it. This classic argument challenges materialist cosmologies. The universe’s existence remains mysterious without a necessary foundation.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Gary Habermas

Habermas approaches from a different angle—historical evidence. He argues in “The Case for the Resurrection” that Hawking ignores empirical data suggesting supernatural events. His compilation of historical facts about Jesus’s resurrection falls outside Hawking’s scope. This critique highlights the limits of physics in addressing all forms of evidence. History provides its own data requiring explanation.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

J.P. Moreland

Moreland targets Hawking’s blindspot—consciousness. In “Consciousness and the Existence of God,” he argues that subjective experience defies materialist reduction. Our inner lives suggest reality includes more than particles. Hawking never adequately explains how matter produces mind. Moreland challenges physicists to account for these phenomena without a mind behind them. This gap remains unbridged.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Stephen Meyer

Meyer turns the empirical tables on Hawking. In “Return of the God Hypothesis,” he argues that biological complexity and cosmic fine-tuning favor design over chance. He criticizes Hawking’s speculative multiverse as lacking the empirical rigor Meyer finds in design arguments. His background in science history strengthens this case. The evidence for design appears more direct than Hawking’s theoretical alternatives.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Norman Geisler

This theologian identifies Hawking’s category error. Geisler argues in “Christian Apologetics” that “how” questions differ fundamentally from “why” questions. Hawking conflates these categories. Physics describes mechanisms but can’t address purpose. Geisler defends a first cause as logically necessary, beyond Hawking’s models. His systematic approach challenges the scope of physical explanations.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Ravi Zacharias

Zacharias targeted Hawking’s existential emptiness. He argued in “The Real Face of Atheism” that Hawking’s universe offers no meaning, contradicting human experience. A universe without purpose fails to account for our sense of value and destiny. Zacharias contrasted this with theism’s rich narrative of meaning. His global ministry amplified this critique. Hawking’s physics leaves the human heart unanswered.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Michael Behe

This biochemist shifts focus to life itself. Behe challenges Hawking’s materialism with evidence of irreducible complexity in biology. “Darwin’s Black Box” details systems like bacterial flagella that suggest design. Hawking largely ignored life’s origins in his cosmic theories. Behe’s work moves the debate from physics to biology. Complex biological machinery points to intelligence beyond random processes.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

The Anthropic Principle

Many scientists note the universe’s suspicious habitability. Proponents like John Barrow highlight precise constants enabling life. The odds against this happening by chance appear astronomical. Hawking acknowledged this fine-tuning but proposed the multiverse to explain it. Critics find this less convincing than design. The precision enabling our existence seems to demand explanation beyond coincidence.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Tim Keller

This influential pastor addresses Hawking’s dismissal of human spiritual instincts. Keller argues in “The Reason for God” that the universe’s order suggests a relational intelligence behind mechanics. Our innate sense of purpose and morality point to something beyond particles. Keller’s pastoral approach widens the critique’s appeal. Hawking’s theories feel incomplete against the fullness of human experience.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Ian Hutchinson

This MIT physicist identifies Hawking’s scientism—the belief that science alone answers all questions. Hutchinson argues in “Monopolizing Knowledge” that Hawking overextends physics into philosophy. Science excels at “how” questions but stumbles on “why” questions. Hutchinson defends multiple domains of truth beyond physics. His scientific credentials add weight to this critique of Hawking’s overreach.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Dallas Willard

Willard exposed Hawking’s unproven naturalistic assumptions. The philosopher argued in “The Divine Conspiracy” that reality includes non-physical dimensions like spirit, which Hawking ignored. Willard challenged the coherence of a purely material cosmos. His focus on knowledge theory deepened this critique. Hawking’s framework remains incomplete without addressing these aspects of reality.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Greg Koukl

This apologist identifies Hawking’s logical leap from description to ontology. Koukl argues in “Tactics” that explaining how the universe works doesn’t eliminate the why behind it. Hawking begs the question against theism rather than disproving it. His practical approach makes this criticism accessible. The gap between mechanism and purpose remains unbridged in Hawking’s work.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Philosophical Theism

Broad philosophical traditions challenge Hawking’s materialism. Thinkers like Brian Leftow argue that abstract entities such as mathematical laws suggest a mind, not just matter. Hawking’s models lack ultimate explanation for these abstractions. The existence of immaterial truths troubles purely physical accounts of reality. This tradition directly confronts the limitations of Hawking’s framework.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Scientific Skeptics of Multiverse

Some physicists question Hawking’s alternative to God. Sabine Hossenfelder calls the multiverse a “mathematical fantasy” in “Lost in Math,” not science. It lacks empirical evidence and testability. This undermines Hawking’s main alternative to theism as equally unprovable. Her critique comes from scientific rigor, not religious commitment. Hawking’s speculative physics faces criticism from within science itself.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

C.S. Lewis

Lewis’s argument from reason continues to challenge Hawking’s materialism. In “Miracles,” Lewis argued that rational thought cannot arise from non-rational processes, as Hawking’s view implies. If our minds resulted from mindless forces, why trust their conclusions? Modern defenders apply this to question Hawking’s worldview. This paradox remains unresolved in materialist accounts of mind.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Robert Spitzer

This physicist-priest focuses on entropy. Spitzer argues in “New Proofs for the Existence of God” that the universe’s low entropy state suggests a purposeful beginning. Random processes tend toward disorder, not the precise order we observe. He finds Hawking’s quantum fluctuations insufficient explanations. His dual expertise in science and theology strengthens this challenge to Hawking’s randomness.

<< Previous

NEXT >>

Conclusion

The pushback against Hawking’s dismissal of God comes from diverse intellectual traditions and disciplines. These critics expose gaps in his reasoning, from definitional problems to empirical shortcomings. The debate continues because Hawking’s physics, however brilliant, leaves fundamental questions unanswered. Perhaps the most compelling insight is that science and faith address different but complementary aspects of reality. The conversation remains far from settled.

<< Previous