God is no longer necessary, the famous physicist Stephen Hawking claims in his and co-author American physicist Leonard Mlodinow’s new book, The Grand Design. The universe does not require a divine creator because it “can and will create itself from nothing.”

In the conclusion of Hawking’s best-selling Brief History of Time, he said, “if we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we should know the mind of God.”

The line’s fame is amusing considering its misuse by religious blockheads, especially since the line only uses “God” as shorthand for an answer to the cosmos.

Hawking has always been concerned with the philosophical question of origins and the involvement of divinity. For example, in the main text of Brief History of Time, we read the Hartle-Hawking hypothesis: there is no t = 0, no first moment of time. Therefore, if there is no “moment of creation,” there is no need for a Creator.

According to Hawking’s new book, “spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Idiot Cal Thomas, on FOX news, responded with scripture: “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” So “if Hawking thinks it’s all foolishness, isn’t that evidence he is perishing?”

Hawking’s claims also received backlash from scientists attempting to reconcile modern science and religious attachment who argue the more progress made in the field of physics, the more we find evidence of God’s handiwork, a creator whose purpose and organization keeps the cosmos in order.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins responded to Hawking, saying, “Darwin kicked [God] our of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace.”

Dawkins’ comments reflect the movement of science peeling away from its dependence on theology similar to the positivist theory advanced by Auguste Comte, where societies progress from the theological to the metaphysical and finally to the positive or scientific.

In The Grand Design, Hawking posits an unproven, theoretical hypothesis that we exist in one out of many, perhaps an infinite number of universes. According to M-Theory, “the only viable candidate for a complete ‘theory of everything,’” the multiverse was created spontaneously and life could have developed in any one universe.

It’s important to note that his arguments are full of “ifs” and “maybes.” Also, these are philosophical arguments even though he and Mlodinow declare, “philosophy is dead” on the first page of The Grand Design.

Still, Hawking defends M-Theory with “model-dependent realism,” asserting that there is no one, definitive theory of the universe but that several theories may exist and they’re all equally true. How convenient.

Hawking has said that since the universe has not existed forever, it is finite. But the universe is full of infinite possibilities that our finite minds cannot contain. Why set limits on the mysteries of the universe such as the role of a divine creator? Doesn’t that kind of infinite mystery fit what Hawking has been advocating all along?

In response to Hawking’s determination towards making God irrelevant, Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, said, “Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the universe.

The conflict between religion and science is unnecessary. When religion attempts to squash science or vice versa, the advocates of either are missing the point. There are mysteries which scientific progress cannot control. Religious faith is one such area where empirical explanation comes up short.

Too many religious evangelist nuts try to win the maximum amount of souls for Jesus like prizes at the fair. It’s obnoxious. But isn’t it equally intolerant and obnoxious for Hawking and others to declare God insignificant?

If you believe God exists, live your life accordingly and don’t shove it down other people’s throats. If Hawking and Dawkins believe there is no God, why are they trying so desperately to prove their point?

Hawking says, “as recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” If the law of gravity exists unto itself, it logically follows that the law also arose spontaneously from nothing.

But as Billy Preston sang, “Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.” If that’s the philosophical stance you want to take, marvelous. To put it crudely, it’s not a matter of science; it’s a matter of faith whether you believe one way or the other.

Don’t act the fool spouting pointless arguments about how God exists or how He doesn’t. That is, unless you’re doing it to boost book sales, which has already happened with The Grand Design, and in which case, you’re a marketing genius.