Physics professor Frank Tipler has written an evaluation of Dan Brown’s Stephen Hawking’s speculations theories. (H/T The ID Report via Post-Darwinist)
Excerpt:
In 1966, Stephen Hawking published his first – completely valid – proof for the existence of God. Over the next seven years, he followed this with even more powerful valid theorems proving God’s existence.
So how did Hawking, who successfully proved God’s existence, remain an atheist? Simple. He simply denied that the assumptions he used in his proofs were true. As a matter of logic, if the assumptions in a proof are not true, then the conclusions need not be true. What assumptions did the young Hawking make? He assumed that the laws of physics, mainly Einstein’s theory of gravity, were true. In the summary of his early research, namely his book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Hawking wrote:
It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of [God] by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down, i.e. it no longer provides a correct description of observations.
Hawking then began working on quantum gravity, in hopes that God would be at last eliminated from the equations. Alas, it was not to be: God was even more prominent – and unavoidable – in quantum gravity than in Einstein’s theory of gravity. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking has pinned his hope of eliminating God on M-theory, a theory with no experimental support whatsoever, hence not a theory of physics at all. Nor has it been proven that M-theory is mathematically consistent. Nor has it been proven that God has been eliminated from M-theory. There are disquieting signs (for Hawking and company) that He is also unavoidable in M-theory, as He is in Einstein’s gravity, and in quantum gravity.
In spite of what the atheist press is telling you, it’s looking bad for atheism today. And it is extraordinary the lengths an atheist like Hawking will go to avoid the obvious: God exists.
The progress of science has made the case for a Creator and Designer air-tight. Anyone who doubts the existence of a Creator and Designer today is simply not reality-based in their worldview. M-theory, global warming and Darwinian macro-evolution are the scientific heirs of alchemy, geocentrism and phrenology. And that’s why atheists don’t want these things to be debated – because they’ll lose.
Click here to hear a debate on Hawking’s theory between Oxford atheist theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and Oxford Christian microbiologist/theologian Alister McGrath.
Or watch the highlights:
Nobody is impressed by Hawking’s theory – except journalists anxious to delude the public.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I highly doubt he proved god existed since I see no path that a mathematical theory could make the jump to magical being. Are you claiming that there were parts of Hawking’s theory that science couldn’t explain, so god filled in these cracks?
LikeLike
God is not a “God of the gaps” thing. And God doesn’t have to be magical. Tipler showed that God and the singularity that the big bang came out of have the same essential qualities. Stephen says that because the theory predicts the existence of a singularity, which is pretty much the same thing as God right at this point, the theory suddenly breaks down, which is incorrect because the big bang came from SOMEWHERE, so why not something that doesn’t need the laws of physics? It makes much more sense to say God did it because Stephen also says that the laws of physics are why the universe exists, which forms a looping-causation arguement: “matter exists because gravity exists, and gravity exists because matter exists.” THE LAWS OF PHYSICS CAN’T EXIST WITHOUT MATTER! Duh! And because matter is caused… And because the explosion is the cause… We come to the conclusion that the big bang defies the law of conservation of mass/energy, thereby destroying the laws of physics! So it MUST have been God!
LikeLike
What exactly do you mean by “magical being”? And where have you heard it claimed that God is such a being? What is illogical about the deduction from the Principle of Causality that the Universe has a Causal Origin and Unconditionally Existing Fundamental Basis – Which some choose to call “God”? Do you think it makes more sense to claim – as Hawkings and his fellow atheists are doing – that effects can occur without the aid of their causes – or that they can be their own causes? Isn’t that the most ridiculous statement that it is possible to make – which contravenes all science, logic, and mathematics – and hence also even commonsense? Isn’t that in fact something that can only issue from a deranged or at least deeply dishonest mind? Certainly one that things that “magic” is a proper basis for explaining things.
If there are cracks in Hawkings theory, then to that extent it is worthless as a theory. The Existence of God can be easily deduced from abundant evidence all around us by anyone of even moderate intellectual ability. They do not need to make any references whatsoever to Hawking’s work. However, Hawking’s work can benefit greatly from recognition of the Existence of God which is clearly indicated in it – which would then render it logically consistent and complete – but unpalatable to Hawking. His rejection of what the data and his own calculations are telling him is proof that he is NOT interested in the truth here but is rather rebelling against it. His hopes of cloaking this ridiculous position with scientific respectability has repeatedly met with bitter disappointment for him. And now, exhausted, he has resorted to blind faith! How ironic! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
LikeLike
So, is Frank Tipler a theist, or is he just saying Hawking has failed?
LikeLike
He’s a Roman Catholic convert, formerly an atheist, I think.
LikeLike
The Unbelievable podcast in the link, while an enlightening discussion, is not really a debate, but more of a dialog.
While disagreeing on a number of points, Penrose and McGrath do agree that Hawking’s lastest volume consists largely of metaphysical speculation.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
LikeLike
WK, I realize this thread is a bit old (10 months??) but
I felt the need to ask you a question: Why is it that you assert God is the cause f the singularity. I read your response above but confess I’m a bit puzzled by your reasoning. How does the big bang defying the laws of physics equate to God exists? Where is the logical correlation? I’m not a skeptic troll, btw, but a theist attempting to understand this argument better, because at this point it seems like just an argument from ignorance.
LikeLike
Well, you deduce the nature of the cause from the effect. Whatever creates time, is not itself within time – it is eternal. Whatever creates matter is not itself made of matter, it is non-material – like a mind. Whenever you are talking about non-material causes outside of time, you are talking about the the supernatural. The thing that brings all of nature into being is necessarily super-natural.
LikeLike