In Their Own Words IX: What Breathes Life Into The Universe?

[An ongoing series about the profoundly ironic theological / philosophical quotes that scientists or those in academia make.]

I've never made it a secret that sometimes atheists amuse me with the inadvertent and unintentional accuracy of their statements. The following is no exception.

“Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” ~ Stephen Hawking

I literally have to laugh out loud at this statement from Hawking. He literally sticks his foot right into in his unbiblical mouth. I have to assume that he doesn’t have any idea of how close his statement is to Biblical truth. If he did, I'm guessing he would’ve never framed his statement this way since he is so devoutly atheistic. In this statement Hawking ironically plays right into a Christian worldview. This one was too rich to pass up.

First, he admits that the universe had a beginning. Therefore it had to have had a cause. This is the quintessential Cosmological Argument for existence of God. He then segues directly into biblical concepts that are unavoidable. 

"Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? What is it that breathes fire into...?" 

It is funny that Hawking uses the analogy of breath in his rhetorical question.

Psalm 33:6 ~ “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. 

Colossians 1:15-17 ~ “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” 

2 Timothy 3:16 ~ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”

As I said in a previous post, I will have a constant string of Richard Dawkins comments to add to this series. Here's another for you to ponder. Some of Richard's are so funny that not stating them would be a waste of the humor that they contain. Because this statement sort of plays into the last one from Hawking I will add it as a sardonic twist.

“My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. When we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.” ~Richard Dawkins  

Dawkins, while speaking about the origins and nature of the universe makes a theological statement that is quixotically accurate and biblically exact. He says in reference to God that He is, “…going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed”.

He would be absolutely correct and any theologian that believes Scripture is inerrant would admit the exact same thing. Although God has revealed many aspects of Himself and can be accurately communicated, there are many attributes of God that cannot be accurately communicated and theology calls them the Incommunicable Attributes of God. Things like His holiness, infinite nature, immutability, timelessness, etc. Scriptural truth for these attributes are everywhere in the Bible.

Isaiah 6:3 ~ “And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glorthan

Hebrews 13:8 ~ “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Dawkins is way more theologically accurate than most would believe with that statement. What is intellectually startling is that Dawkins essentially admits to not being an atheist here when he entertains the thought that, “If there was a God,” that prefaces his theological statement with.

Addendum: Since anyone that can read this post can also use the Google search engine, it will not be hard to find the following fact on the Internet. It turns out that Dawkins, in a debate with Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury in February 2014 has indeed admitted that he is not an atheist but rather an agnostic now. I suspect that some of his atheist colleagues will now attempt to distance themselves from Dawkins for having made this statement just as many did when Anthony Flew converted to Deism.