Lennox uses some very simple logic to demolish the conclusions of Hawking/Mlodinov. You have to ask yourself how can they have been so stupid not to have noticed the obvious flaws in their arguments? But hang on a minute, how do we know that Lennox is accurately representing what Hawking/Mlodinow actually wrote? IMO, he is using the theist’s favourite tricks of twisting the semantic meaning of words (such as “nothing") and of “reductio ad absurdum” - i.e. mis-representing your opponent’s argument as an absurdity that can easily be demolished. I get the impression that not many of the commenters here have actually read The Grand Design and so are not able to make that connection.
An example of the flawed logic of Lennox is that he says repeatedly that eminent scientists such as Kepler, Newton, Galileo and Maxwell believed in God. Of course they did but, eminent as they were, they did not have the knowledge that we have today, e.g. relativity, the expanding Universe (hence Big Bang), atomic theory, quantum theory and Darwinian evolution of the human race. Even Einstein, not knowing about the expanding Universe, believed it to be in a steady state. And lets’ not forget that Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his discoveries.
And let’s say that we decide to accept God as the prime mover. Do we also have to accept the Old Testament accounts of creation, i.e. Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood and the subsequent re-population of the planet, and hence young-Earth creationism? Where is the dividing line where science is allowed to contradict religion, if at all?

In my opinion, Hawkins argues that because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing is a clear indication that God does indeed exist.  This is the best explanation that one of the world’s most brilliant scientists can give to eliminate the need for the Creator?

What I still fail to understand is (i) why God needs people to be constantly fighting for him, and (ii) why he can’t simply let us know FOR SURE that he exists if he does. Why all the mumbo jumbo?

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity, pertaining to general relativity.  It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.  As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time.  Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing.  Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity’.  It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation.  Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave, pertaining to gravitational waves.  It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it.  The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity ‘brings the physical interactions’, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses.  As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe.  As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing, pertaining to the gravitational lens.  It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer.  The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens.  Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

Refer to website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation, pertaining to gravitational time dilation.  It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential.  The following is the extract of the formula of gravitational potential:

The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
U = mV
where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object).  If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0.  Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos. 

Refer to the website address, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html, regarding to the 1st law of Newton¡¯s Principle.  It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.  If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change.  Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing.  Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc.  However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work.  If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton¡¯s principle?  Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view. 

Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here?  What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it?  For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive.  Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly put quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

This video points out something important. People are listening, there are going to be many intelligent children of God reading these comments, please do your best to spread the truth that Jesus exists, and loves us. God bless.

Professor Lennox, as both a physicist, mathematician, educator and fellow christian, I would like to compliment your ability to honour God on all these levels with the gifts he has given you, to be able to present your knowledge and understanding in this regard to the common man is a difficult feat, I know, I’ve tried, but to also have the faith and courage to do it against the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, (Hawking now too) and etc. is truly inspiring, and I want to thank you for sharing your gift with us.

I’d also like to leave you with something I’ve been pondering for sometime now, even though I may never meet you in person, nor might you read this, I don’t know, but it is one that has pressed against my heart quite firmly at this moment, though by no means does it have anything to do with faith in God, just something, for some reason, I feel you can use.

At what point in time for the Atheist does the word “luck” substitute for the word “God”?

I don’t know why, but I felt I needed to say that to you right you now.

Thank you again for everything you do in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,

The following are the evidence to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:

The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the “Nature Of Dark Energy” as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of “Cosmological Constant” for the main subject of the “Nature of Dark Energy” that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter and symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance (the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of the universe.

Refer to the website address pertaining to Isaac Newton’s theory pertaining to The Universal Law of Gravitation: ttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

Stephen Hawking might comment that Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong.  However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe could be formed initially.  To jump into the conclusion that the gravity could be created from something out of nothing is simply out of his own imagination.  Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles pertaining to gravity.

Well said John, Mr Hawkings is so wrong on this one.

“The Universe: No God required.
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.”
Stephen Hawking’s view, in his new book “The Grand Design”.
It’s well known that ANYTHING added to its opposite, is equal “nothing”.(2-2=0)
The problem to reverse this procedure, is: WHO is going to create, separate and isolate the two opposites,(matter & antimatter, for instance) so that “nothing” can become “something”?
You have no money. Zero. Nothing. But you want to open a store. To create funds for that, you go to the Bank asking for a loan. After you got the money, what you have? “Nothing”, divided in, let say, 50 thousand Euro credit at your disposal, and 50 thousand debt on the bank. Using wisely your positive side of “Nothing”, you can end the story with a profit over your initial “Nothing”. But, you NEED a bank. You NEED wisdom, to end with a positive balance after paying back the loan. In fact, you need someone, or something.
If you believe that something CAN come from nothing without an intervention, then I have a couple of Greek islands (on the moon...) to sell you.
Basic physics dictates that gravity comes from the matter. Where there is “nothing”, there is no gravity, in order to trigger the formation of matter from “nothing”, Mr. Hawking.
This is not a matter of science. It is a matter of common sense. It is ABSOLUTELY impossible for “something” in this dimention we are aware of (eg: the law of gravity itself) to come to existence from “nothing”, without an INTERVENTION from someone or something. ("In Nature, nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed” - Antoine Lavoisier)
If you want to go ahead and believe in the impossible, you are free to do it. You’re not the first. You won’t be the last…
“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name.
Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
All the nations are as something nonexistent in front of him; as nothing and an unreality (Virtual, pure condensed and combined Energy) they have been accounted to him.” - Isaiah 40:26, 17.

I wish John was my Maths Prof.  I would have cherished every lecture. Praise God for John Lennox.

Hmmmmmm good work people - very good! I’m no scientific or mathematician, just a man finding the truth in both arguments - plus only started (at 49yr)...? I still question the one god theory. How can this be so when it takes two to tango (minus- & positive+ in all thing’s)????… So you telling me God is both & not one!!? “Yes”???? Then he must of separated to cause the big bang? So the devil was also around? All play within this dark matter I’m hearing about, 90% I believe… When you guys think you’re close, you end up nowhere?? Yet you know both are right?? It must! To find the truth!! Still looking at what’s left of our one planet for answer!!

A very profound analysis by a world famous intellectual - a genuine criticism and opposition to the philosophy of Stephen hawking who is, no doubt, a great physicist of this age, but a speculative philosopher with a farcical, rickety, vague and naive point of view.

Well done Mr Lennox

Dr Lennox is truly Britain’s foremost Public Intellectual.

God certainly exists for those who believe in him. But then again there doesn’t seem to be too much agreement around the world of what is meant by ‘God’. Ultimately such definitions are all metaphoric in some way, and like all metaphors can only relate to core ‘meaning’ through the prism of imagination. John Lennox’s faith functions best for him by considering the idea of a single, personal God. His intuition and scripture help him in confirming this. Other scientists and mathematicians view it differently and can argue equally cogently. Ultimately it all comes down to ‘faith’ to compensate for what is unknowable. I don’t think atheism is an organised conspiracy against ‘God’ believers by scientists like Hawkins, but just where their science has led them.

Well said, John.

The following keeps running through my mind, and although I realize it’s context is quite different, it still seems apt:

Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 
Rom 1:25

“To those with faith, no explanation is necessary. To those without faith, no explanation is possible”

It would seem that those who hold to scientism are at long last running out of sustainable reasons for their a priori adherence to it. With the onslaught of leading atheist/agnostic scientists stepping up and claiming philosophy/theology dead all the while using these necessary avenues of knowledge to attempt to hold up their claim, it would seem, all things being equal, that the reasoning they so arduously demand from these other fields of study is slipping out the back door of their beloved scientism!

John Lennox was good enough to remind viewers that he was criticising extracts from a book that hadn’t been published.  Unfortunately he seems not yet able to admit that just because science today cannot answer the ultimate questions of the universe, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this will always be so. 

Lennox’s argument is the same as ever, the same as every civilised christian: God is eternal and made all the physical laws himself.  It’s the same worship of gaps in our understanding as ever, coupled with the misunderstanding that Hawking and others believe in complexity coming about by chance. 

I have not read Hawking’s book but one thing will be sure, it’s author won’t ask his readers to be content with NOT understanding.  The idea of God, now as much as ever, raises more questions than it resolves.

I LOVE John! He has such a way of explaining his points so directly and simply yet so fully. He is a wonderful speaker, and I can’t get enough of him!!