Stephen Hawking says there’s no creator God; the twitterverse reacts

By Jason Boyett You don’t expect to see “Stephen Hawking” as a trending topic on Twitter. That designation is usually … Continued

By Jason Boyett

You don’t expect to see “Stephen Hawking” as a trending topic on Twitter. That designation is usually reserved for the birthdays of Jonas brothers or 140-character punchlines about #liesguystell.

But Thursday, the acclaimed physicist and mathematician shot to the top of the list–and not because of another hilarious wheelchair-bound appearance on The Simpsons. Hawking hit the news cycle because The Times of London excerpted his new book, The Grand Design, on Thursday. In the book, which releases this week from Bantam Press (and which, admittedly, I haven’t read), Hawking concludes that a Creator is unnecessary for the universe to exist.

Is this news? Not really. Hawking has made it clear in the past that he’s not religious, and his ex-wife, Jane, outed him as an atheist in her biography about their marriage. But Hawking has always been careful to delineate between religion and science, and his past writings seemed to have left open a window allowing for a God-like creator. In A Brief History of Time, he wrote of man’s steps toward figuring out the universe as attempts to “know the mind of God.”

But the new book appears to have taken that religious neutrality off the table. Due to laws like gravity, noted last week’s excerpt, Hawking writes that it is entirely possible that the universe “can and will create itself from nothing.” That’s why we exist. That’s why there’s something rather than nothing. We don’t need God.

And then the backlash began.

On Twitter, mentions of Hawking and his pronouncement followed three distinct tracks. A third were users passing on a news item without comment. A third were nontheists cheerfully affirming what they already suspected to be true. And the last third were my fellow Christians, who took ugliness to a new level.
In the space of two minutes along the Twitter timeline, I dug out these gems:

• “God did NOT create the Universe”, says Stephen Hawking. To which God replied, “enjoy your chair” (@suicidecharlie)
• When Stephen Hawking dies he can tell God how He never created the universe. (@MichaelMeyers)
• If u really belive what Stephen Hawking says…then do us all a favor n go drink bleach!! (@DaOneMulatto)
• It would seem Stephen Hawking’s reason for no God is’Just because’…Because it’s all random&we have physics laws there is no God, hmm ok (@fifiifif)
• I dunno. Seems like Stephen Hawking still has a few holes to plug in his theories before he’ll be a btter physicist than God (@acesinzeroland)

[everything: sic]

I don’t personally know the people above, but a quick look at their accounts suggests that a few of them are professional Christian ministers. And they weren’t alone. There were tweets belittling the physicist’s physical ailments. Tweets chortling about how he’ll be sorry when he dies and meets God. Tweets over-simplifying his ideas and then cheerfully labeling them stupid. Tweets calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.

Like dogs backed into a corner, my religious brethren went on the attack, escalating the culture war between science and faith.

Sigh. I’m trying to keep my feet in both camps–I’m a science-fascinated believer–and nothing is more frustrating than the automatic anti-science defensiveness of other Christians.

Jesus taught slowness to anger, compassion for the sick, and love for our enemies. But even accounting for the simplicity of Twitter, and the troll-like culture of the Internet in general, we still come across as a bunch of petty, rage-filled monsters eager to discount the life work of one of the world’s greatest scientists.

A genius with a debilitating disease says something we disagree with, so we make fun of his wheelchair and laugh at his impending death. Great.

This is why people have trouble taking us seriously.

I’m not a humor prude. Sarcasm is my currency. And I enjoy a good check-out-the-robot-voice Hawking joke as much as anyone (including Hawking himself, who is also a genius at self-deprecation). But I hate the way some Christians react at times like this. And I hate that I might get lumped in with them.

So I want to apologize to Stephen Hawking on behalf of religious people everywhere. As believers in a God of justice and mercy, we’re not supposed to be heartless, ignorant jerks. But sometimes we are. I hope you’ll forgive us.

Also: you inspire me, Mr. Hawking, and your contributions to our world deserve a whole lot better than our mockery. I hope you’re wrong about the universe not needing God. But if it turns out you’re correct, you have my respect for helping us figure out the amazing environment in which we live. Thank you.

Also: you might want to steer clear of Twitter.

Jason Boyett is a writer, speaker, and the author of O Me of Little Faith: True Confessions of a Spiritual Weakling — which has an entire chapter inspired by A Brief History of Time. Jason blogs at www.omeoflittlefaith.com and tweets at twitter.com/jasonboyett .

Written by

  • SpecTP

    so how long did it take before Godwin’s law took hold?

  • ThomasBaum

    In the Times of London excerpt, “He wrote in A Brief History … “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.””If we think of God as only a “bigger version of man” than we may think something like this.He also wrote, “”That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings,” he writes.”Did God make earth just to “please us human beings” or did God have “something else in mind” in creating, not just the earth but absolutely everything, than just to give us a “place to live”?He also wrote, “”Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.”Something to think about: Is there a “law of gravity” because it was always “hanging around”, so to speak, or did God in His creation also create all of the “laws of nature” and time itself.God becoming One of us is just part of God’s Plan which God has had since before creation and God’s Plan will come to Fruition.If God is doing things in other parts of the universe or even in other universes, for that matter, that is up to God, we, as a species, do tend to try to put God “in a box”, don’t we?Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • dwicker

    If more people had the mentality of Jason Boyett what a much better world we could have.

  • pr_koflove14

    If his personal theory is a fact, then…who provoke the explosion of the Big Bam? NOTE:In reality we people see and know that explosion can not be done by an accident; but by someone who created it.Analyze the question!

  • chanceward

    The Big Bam? Thank you for your intelligent contribution. I applaud Jason Boyett, he’s the kind of Christian that I could hang out with. Stephen Hawking is a genius who has fought through his physical ailments to contribute to the knowledge of the human race. And his thanks is to be reviled by people who haven’t even bothered to attempt to understand his work. Unfortunately many of them couldn’t even if they tried. Bravo Mr. Hawking, and bravo Mr. Boyett.

  • kri5

    I thought calling Hawking “a retarded monkey in a wheelchair” was a bit crass. When there’s no intelligent arguments, name-calling is a guaranteed way to make people appreciate your point of view.

  • utsavmone

    I have sympathy with Stephen Hawking who can not understand basic thing.

  • kri5

    My apologies, it was “a deformed monkey in a wheelchair”. Not that it makes it any more acceptable or, you know, Jesus-like.Neither science or religion will ever provide all the answers. Admitting that God is not necessary for the universe to get started shouldn’t destroy anyone’s faith. Hawking could be right, and accepting that should have no effect on someone’s religious beliefs.

  • box2005

    The Big Bang theory is incomplete according to everything that I’ve read about it. Further research could eventually render it even less than a theory.I don’t believe that we humans can truly fathom infinity except as a mathematical concept, or that we can fathom that something can have no beginning.Isn’t it possible that the universe is infinite and has always existed? Could it not also be that God is part of the infinite universe rather than it’s creator? Couldn’t God be the creator of life as we know it even if not the creator of the universe?

  • crum1743

    With all due respect ….. what has this guy done to advance society or even maintain same ?

  • badashe

    Jason,While I appreciate your tolerance and kindness, let’s not pretend that theists are the only reactionary ones here. Atheists on Twitter and various talkbacks have been blasting believers with pejorative labels (Christards, etc.) and ad hominem attacks. This sword cuts both ways and it is unfortunately human nature to behave in such a matter. Of course, believers should hold ourselves to a higher standard in that regard, but if you somehow think that the faithful are the only ones at fault here, you are being intentionally obtuse.That being said, bad atheist arguments should be pointed out as such. From what I’ve read of excerpts from this new book, it is essentially Hawking’s old quantum-gravity model which attempts to get around the big bang singularity and therefore a created universe. However, in order for this model to hold up, Hawking must use imaginary time. When “real math” is brought back into the picture the model fails and you are back to standard big bang cosmology which carries theistic implications. Needless to say, Hawking’s gravity model has not exactly been embraced by cosmologists, and as far as M-theory goes, atheists have been using this for decades as an attempt to get around the fine-tuning issue, unfortunately for them there is more reasonable evidence for the existence of God than of a series of metaphysically necessary universes. Per Ockham, God is also the simpler and more elegant of the two explanations.Either way, the content of Hawkings book is not new and this seems to be a bit of a “cash-in” to take advantage of a rabid UK audience who eats up any anti-religious argument, no matter how poor, and a U.S. audience who tend to be interested in such arguments if only so they can rebut them.

  • allknowingguy

    I am a secular humanist and a lifelong atheist. But I recognize that dedicated theists will not be swayed by Hawking’s argument. They have been indoctrinated since birth and their sense of self worth is too invested in theism. But I also know that there are many young people out there who question theistic dogma and need role models to support their free thinking. Hawking, and others like him, are there for you. It is OK not to believe in god.To Badashe, who attempted to discredit Hawking, you need to check your facts. The quantum gravity theory, and indeed M-theory, is not Hawkings’ idea, it came from others. I don’t know what you consider “real math”, but one of the main supports of M-theory is the fact that it makes the superstring equations balance. Also, atheists have not been “using M-theory for decades”. it has only been around since 1995. Finally, your invocation of Ockham is ridiculous. God is not the simpler answer, it is the more complex answer because god’s origin in the holy spirit is defined as “mystery” and therefore undefinable. You can’t get more complex than that.

  • kri5

    “Of course, believers should hold ourselves to a higher standard in that regard”Everyone should hold themselves to higher standard. The religious aren’t any more moral beings than non-believers (and some might want to argue the exact opposite).I think the hostile reaction in this instance suggests how frail the faith of many people actually is. It’s like the only reason these people believe in gods is because they like the idea of god creating the world. If someone makes a reasonable argument against the necessity of a divine creator as far as the beginnings of the universe are concerned, all the sudden their faith is thrown into crisis.

  • maadram

    if you are not god conscious, find where your consciousness goes after your demise, follow straight path, get peace and heaven, after this dying worlds, as there is nowhere to escape, except to GOD, the null, if you believe god is nothing, if so,believe in nothing. anything can happen and proven. please refer to Surat YASEEN – in HOLY QURAAN

  • shaiarra

    SO DON’T BLAME:”Secret Fraternal Societies .^. / or a Shadow Goverment Empires etc.” You All go Willingly to it. SO MUCH TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICAL HELP WAS AND STILL IS HELD BACK BY MIS-USED AND MIS-GIDED RELIGION, Nicola Tesla had Wireless control , wifi internet etc IN THE LATE 1920s and yet in his day “religious” people called it demonic, a lot of psych is due to a mineral imbalance at low levels ie Magnesium/ zinc/ chromium can held symptoms of schizophrenia / Paranoid/ and manics alone,its not demonic , only misdiagnosis , thats why the military etc gets advance tech 1st,FROM JOHN GALT of Ayn Rand’s Book Atlas Shrugged concepts paraphrased (see Wikipedia/ Google and Youtube Who is John Galt Speaking) ..ALL XTIANS STOP USEING THE ” SATANIC ” TECHNOLOGIES OF SCIENCE/ ENGINEERING THEN (PHONES/INTERNET /Rx/ MEDICINE/ TRANSPORTATION/ MEDIA /MUSIC Farming /ELECTRICITY AND APPLIANCES/ GO BACK TO PREINDUSTIAL- TECHNOLOGICAL etc ,EXISTANCE Then!)If Science is of the “Evil One” then easy, just stop useing it period, No more Malls, SuperMarkets, I-PODS/ Cell Phones , /TV Laptops/ Theater/ Convenience Stores, Clothing-Shoes/ Hospitals/ Resturants/ Autos/ Construction, those that are responsible for this Technologies Lived Lives that today we would call Same Sex and/ or New Agers ie Nichola Tesla/ George Washington Carver/ Thomas Edison/ Sir Issac Newton ,etcScience IS NOT a Religion, Science starts with Mathmatical Theories then Test them to see if it is so (ie Fact or Fiction) , Most Religions on the other hand just belief but don’t Question Faith ( ie Will it become a fact or remain a Fiction of “Blind Faith”or you’ll get Death Penalties, some loving faith huh !, The Deist .^. Liberal Arts and Science Create a better Human Civility than Inhumane Archaic Beliefs “Death Penalties” because the RELIGIOUS Superstitious Public cant handle it , but then complains about “Secret Societies NWO” stuff, blame yourselves for being dumb sheep, not others (EUREKA IQ)(GOOGLE:”Church ATM Regulation Laws”), CHURCHES ARE THEIR CORPORATE BANKS THAT DON’T CONTRIBUTE THRU TAXES SO THEY SHOULD HAVE NO SAY NOR INFLUENCE IN DADT etc.its internesting that people demand a separation of the church and of the state yet quote the bible on how to run the state…which way do you want it?”I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”~Mahatma Gandhi

  • gmichael52

    Absolutely. Must have been a bad day for celebrity gossip on TMZ, and no new “what kind of popsicle R U?” quizzes on Facebook for the internet herd culture to strain their intellect on- Now they’re all at the level where they think they are capable of critiquing Hawkings and not one of them can make an intelligent statement to refute him- much let alone achieve second grade spelling and grammar literacy.

  • dricha8548

    As an evangelical Christian and scientist, I have always been amazed at the “faith” of atheist scientists in evolution, big bang, or countless other scientific theories. I don’t understand why I am considered a dolt to have faith in a creator, when most scientists have faith in their theories, and those theories will never be absolutely proven as fact. Mr. Hawking only continues what has been the mainstream scientific community’s self importance and distain for faith centered living for hundreds of years. No big deal – no big bang.

  • american_conundrum

    The proposition that God isn’t necessary for the formation of the Universe isn’t a new one, nor is it particularly contentious. I do wish people would consider the full line of reasoning before condemning someone to eternal damnation.Note that Hawking is simply stating that divine intervention is not NECESSARY for the universe to have formed and evolved the way it did. The laws of the universe we currently understand are sufficient to explain that evolution. That is not the same as saying God doesn’t exist, nor even that God didn’t have some hand in guiding the Universe along.

  • rcc_2000

    Hawkings is a scientist. Religion is about faith, not proof. For the most part, when you look at religion and human history it becomes clear that all human religions are based on man’s interpretation and no hard facts. When you look at the evolution of Christianity it is man who has determined its changes in doctrine, sects, etc. Even the Bible was written and complied by man. Certain books of the Bible were omitted, some included not based on God but on the politics and culture of the day. This has been the pattern up until today where we have humans saying what God intended for us.So I go back to Hawking’s being a scientist and that science is based on fact not faith. He is simply pointing out that given the body of evidence the reasonable, logical conclusion is that the Universe is likely a natural occurrence.Personally I believe, out of faith, that there is something greater than us. However I do not believe that man is capable of explaining it. We are simply microbes compared to “God” and we can explain God no better than a microbe can explain us.Zeus, Ra, God (judeo-Christian), Allah, whatever you wish to call God they all are equally viable since they all depend on faith. Yet none of them are based on laws of the universe. That, in the end, is what I believe Hawking’s is saying.

  • rcc_2000

    Basically, when we look at religion and some of the anti-hawking’s posts. The argument tends to discredit science as unproven (such as big-bang) yet there is far less proof of God if we measure it using the same basis. Furthermore, if we take all the religions and analyzed and compared them logically, none of them offer any proof that theirs is in fact the true religion since all of them are 100% dependent on faith. Ancient Greek, Egyptian Sun Worship, Druids, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant all of them have nothing to offer as proof that they are the true vision of God. All are, in fact, as viable as the next. The only theory of creation based on fact is the scientific one. One that does not allow faith to interfere in the conclusions.And to all the religious fanatics out there who think I am going to burn in hell because I did not sign up for their particular brand of religion I can say that I really do not care. Because my God is like a father, always willing to forgive and help his children and does not relish the concept that the Southern Baptists are the only ones who got it right and that Gandhi is burning in Hell.

  • amstphd

    I wonder when Hawking will be explaining to us the origins of the laws of physics.

  • GBJames

    “This is why people have trouble taking us seriously.”This is only partly the reason. More so is the fact that theists simply never produce any evidence to back up the god hypothesis. All these centuries and no evidence. That’s why it is hard to take you seriously.

  • akl1951

    Though personally, I have very high regard for Stephen Hawking as a scientist, I nonetheless beg to differ with him about his announcement that God did not have a hand in cration of the universe. This is Ashwini Kumar Lal

  • ThomasBaum

    allknowingguy You wrote, “But I also know that there are many young people out there who question theistic dogma and need role models to support their free thinking.”Isn’t it even more “free thinking” to also entertain the idea that there is/could be Someone or Something “bigger” than us humans?It is good to “question” but to completely throw out something without “proof”, one way or the other, isn’t even in keeping with the “scientific method”, is it?Why would a “free thinker” need a “role model”?Wouldn’t that stiffle their “free thinking”?Granted, one will not prove that there is a God but I can guarantee you that no one will prove that there is not a God.You also wrote, “God is not the simpler answer, it is the more complex answer because god’s origin in the holy spirit is defined as “mystery” and therefore undefinable. You can’t get more complex than that.”As far as, “God’s origin in the holy spirit is defined as “mystery””, this is not an accurate statement, God has no origin.It, most definitely, is not “undefinable”, the “definition” was given thru Moses to us by God when God said to Moses, “I AM”, just because our “limited” brains, mind, whatever, cannot understand this, does not mean that it is not simple, what it seems to mean to some is that they just can’t accept that their intellect has limitations.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    american_conundrum You wrote, “Note that Hawking is simply stating that divine intervention is not NECESSARY for the universe to have formed and evolved the way it did.”Actually, the “simple statement” that Hawking is stating, is not that simple at all, it is taking a lot for granted.Was there always matter?Was there always a “universe” at least in some kind of form whether embryonic or not?Where did the “laws of nature” come from or were they always there somewhere waiting to come into effect?According to the article this posting is about, Stephen Hawking wrote, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,”.I am no scientist by any stretch by what happened to the “conservation of matter” law in the physical universe?Has this been discarded?He wrote, “that is “why there is something instead of nothing”, actually his premise is based on there being “something” to begin with, which is the “law of gravity”, is it not?His “theory” just does not fly, for it to be “something out of nothing” that “nothing” should also be the “laws” or else there was something, not nothing.By the way, besides God creating everything out of nothing, including all of the “laws of nature”, God also has a Plan, in other words there is a “why” behind creation, not just a “how”.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    rcc_2000You wrote, “The only theory of creation based on fact is the scientific one.”Actually, there seem to be more than “one” theory of creation in the scientific mold but they are all based on the “how”.Is there a “why” and not just a “how”?This “why” is outside the province of science.By the way, many people who know God’s Name seem to know absolutely nothing else about God.I thank God that God is not even remotely like what some think God to be.See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, God’s Kingdom.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • happy_guy_8

    It’s obvious that science has a fairly large amount of unexplained or disprovable statements, but science has made many leaps in advancement to prove old theories and statements (ex, gravity). Science has come a long way, and even though it hasn’t been around for that long (especially not as long as religion), it continues to grow and find more and more evidence for theories it develops. Like so many other commentators, I must ask: What evidence do religions have of there being a god? Do they have anything truly viable to this day? Also, I must say that yes, even science lacks evidence in it’s theories, but it’s still growing. It will only be a matter of time before we can deeper explore theories and ideas and further prove or disprove them, while religion stays exactly where it is. Does no one see that?Oh, and I noticed some comments about how science provides no “why”, just the “how”. Well, there doesn’t need to be a reason for everything. So many things in life happen without reason – random things. Besides, people are what give reason to things happening. Do you see anything else giving reason for things happening? No? “Reason” is an objective term that exists only to satisfy people. It makes us feel comfortable knowing that there must be a reason for everything, that there must be an answer to any “why”. Furthermore, science is about explaining how things occur, not ‘why’ then occur. It doesn’t need to explain ‘why’, unless it seems to help (such as a relationship between two things). If it were really necessary to explain the ‘why’s, then let me ask this: “Why was god created?” “Why didn’t whatever created god create everything else itself? Or was god able to create itself?” “Why, if god can create himself, would it make less sense for the universe to create itself?” “Why don’t we treat the universe as if it were a being, a god perhaps, that would be able to create itself and everything else out of nothing?”Personally, I don’t really care if there is a god or not, or if science is really true in it’s theories and evidence. However, I still look into both and try to understand them enough to have an opinion. I like the debating, if both sides make sense (in the case of religion, not so much). I hate the way those religious people (I guess Christians in this case, or correct me if I misread) treated Steven, just for stating his own opinion after a whole life of striving to find answers. It’s terrible and it made me read through the comments on the article and want to get in my own word. Well, here we go!

  • JonRicht

    Thanks Mr. Boyett. I’m an unbeliever, but just as some in the religious community use this quote as an opportunity engage in the culture wars, I cringe at unbelievers who crow that this strikes a blow at religious faith.Why did Stephen make such a provocative statement? Maybe he believes what he wrote; maybe he’s angry at the way his “mind of God” comment was co-opted by theists, maybe he was just stating an opinion without intending to be controversial; maybe he was trying to drum up book sales. I really don’t know, and I shy away from making too big of a deal about this whole thing.Like many things on the internet (and life in general), I suspect that the “majority opinion” of those in the moderate middle is underrepresented here. For that reason, your article is a breath of fresh air.Cheers

  • o123

    > I am no scientist by any stretch by what happened to the “conservation of matter” law in the physical universe?Yes the conservation of matter was discarded already by special relativity around 1905: E=m*c^2The total energy is conserved, not the matter. And now we know (by measurements) that the total energy of our Universe is zero. Therefore no problem with “where does all this come from” exists. It all comes from nothing. Here is a popular talk about this:

  • gratianus

    I’d also add that we also don’t need a divine father for the lessons Jesus taught and lived (and you enumerate):”slowness to anger, compassion for the sick, and love for our enemies.” That defenders of this non-existent father sound like exactly the sort of people that are incapable of accepting those virtues, and use religion as a weapon for whatever their true values are.

  • ThomasBaum

    o123 I wrote, ” I am no scientist by any stretch by what happened to the “conservation of matter” law in the physical universe?You replied, “Yes the conservation of matter was discarded already by special relativity around 1905: E=m*c^2The total energy is conserved, not the matter.”Actually, if I read this formula correct (E=mc squared), the “conservation of matter” was not even spoken of here, what is spoken here is that energy and matter are different ways of looking at the same thing, so to speak.In other words, energy equals matter times the speed of light squared, so that instead of the “conservation of matter” theory being discarded it is just looked at as also the “conservation of energy”.That (=) is an equals sign, is it not?You then wrote, “And now we know (by measurements) that the total energy of our Universe is zero.”Seems to me that by simple math if the total energy is zero then there is no matter or the speed of light is zero.You then wrote, ” It all comes from nothing.”If it “all comes from nothing” then the formula E=mc squared is meaningless since according to you or someone you are quoting (the total energy of our Universe is zero), then there is no matter.Since most, but not all, agree that there is matter then there is also energy.Where did matter come from?Where did energy come from?The answer “nothing” seems to be a cop-out or one who is content to say a whole lot of nothing, for whatever reason, rather than to say, I don’t know.Take care, be ready.Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • PSolus

    Thomas Paul Moses Baum,”Where did matter come from?””Where did energy come from?”Why don’t you have your imaginary bogeyman answer those questions the next time that you hook up with him?Take Beano before, and there’ll be no gas.Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

  • davidjdonovan

    Hawking has presented a belief statement on the absence of a God. The origin of belief is to wish or desire something as true. No proof is needed in a belief statement and in Hawking’s announcement, no proof is given. Instead, he has shown us that he has no “complete theory,” only that he does not know and is therefor an unknowing Agnostic.As academic research, Hawking has made a claim about the the absence of a God and the universe but has failed to justify his claim with specific evidence. In referencing Physics, he cites the laws of gravity as proof for an absence of a God. His premise is problematic in that he does not prove how or why God is or is not related to gravity.He claims that math is the method of his proof but fails to demonstrate his proof through the utilization of mathematical deductive reasoning. Reiterating, Hawking fails to demonstrate a math proof to us that shows us that his hypothesis is true in all cases… and that is the very definition of a proof. What he does do is truncate ( and take out of context) the ideas and work of others, such as Einstein and Aristotle, in a failed attempt to prove his own beliefs. His research is therefore akin to qualitative and not quantitative. But even as qualitative research, he falls short in the absence of correctly cited case studies. Instead, he simply references disciplines outside of Physics and Mathematics, such as Philosophy and Sociology and goes on to denigrate these disciplines with wipe sweeping and unsupported claims: In claiming that Philosophy is intuitive and anthropomorphism (sociology) is belief based, he leaves only dangling comments that are unfettered to own his belief based argument.Ultimately, his claim is not research, nor is it science…its just another faith.