![](\"https:\/\/www.dailygalaxy.com\/photos\/uncategorized\/shutterstock_1306542.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nThere has been<\/a> quite<\/a> a<\/a> bit<\/a> of<\/a> discussion<\/a> of Stephen Hawking\u2019s new<\/a> book<\/a>, The Grand Design<\/a> I\u2019m underwhelmed. There are issues with classical theistic ways of thinking about God, but not because of multiverse hypotheses. An infinite universe-making mechanism that just happens to exist is surely no less mysterious, and\u00a0no more satisfying to our intellectual curiosity,\u00a0than a personal deity that just happens to exist? The same can be said of a universe that has a net sum mass\/energy of zero and yet contains entities that ponder its existence.<\/p>\n Presumably the more extensive the creative powers of the posited Reality which simply exists and is \u201cthe Creator of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen,\u201d the more the debate\u00a0may become one about the nature<\/em> of God or the preferability or otherwise of using that term, rather than about the existence<\/em> of God.<\/p>\n There has been quite a bit of discussion of Stephen Hawking\u2019s new book, The Grand Design, which I have not yet had the opportunity to read. But a review\u00a0by James Trefil\u00a0in The Washington Post suggests that the answer the book gives to why our universe exists is: the laws of physics, which produce infinite multiverses, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n