1. If I say that those who think that they could prove the non-existence of God are wrong and those who think that they could prove the existence of God are equally wrong, does it mean that I have proved that God can’t be proved? Can I say that I am simply asserting my belief? I think I can, but I guess the assertion must be explicated with what it implies accordingly. Similarly, if I say that apologetics are misguided, have I apologized against apologetics? What makes proclamation of the Gospel a genuine proclamation?
2. In The Grand Design, Hawking and Mlodinow has dismantled the god of Aristotle and I am happy for them as I, too, don’t believe in the god of Aristotle.
3. Hawking and Mlodinow propose what I would call as a legislative understanding of the universe: there are laws in themselves (immanent) and laws for us (economic). And these laws in themselves are basically sufficient to configure the whole universe (or, multiverses), whose effects for us can be observed and explained. To invoke Rahner’s axiom: the economic laws are the immanent laws, and the immanent laws are the economic laws.
4. In the acknowledgement, Hawking and Mlodinow wrote that “The universe has a design, and so does a book. But unlike the universe, a book does not appear spontaneously from nothing. A book requires a creator.” (187) I don’t believe it. The book must have appeared spontaneously from nothing! Have I transgressed Hawking’s laws?