A Voyage through Stephen Hawking’s Universe, Inevitably Emerging out of Nothing by Physical Law (1)
Reflections
I
“Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.” (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 180)
Self-pride through, for example, presupposing that all with a different viewpoint to ours are simpletons or wrong; ego-satisfaction through ridiculing stereotypes about a school-of-thought while enjoying the company of comrades; self-deception through blind faith or evading the evidence opposing our views; self-consolation through reassurance by the like-minded; “enlightenment” through submission to popular ‘in vogue’ views; or a know-it-all disposition after, for example, a superficial survey of our opponent’s views etc., unfortunately, are still ubiquitous attitudes of “seekers” and “bearers” of truth in the modern world. Theism and atheism discussions, even at the academic level, are not an exception to that. In this paper, however, we will go into this discussion with a learning attitude. Stephen Hawking[1] – one of the finest physicists of all time and an epitome of fortitude – and Leonard Mlodinow[2] have recently argued for science-based atheism, as apparent from the aforementioned conclusion of their 2012 book The Grand Design (TGD).[3] Not being experts in theoretical cosmology, we will try to understand arguments of TGD like students, but inquisitive ones who, before agreeing or disagreeing, will critically discuss and compare the book’s stance with that of other experts. Let us begin this challenging but fascinating task straightaway.
The above conclusion of TGD immediately incites a number of important questions, like the following:
1) What is a law of nature?
2) Where do laws come from?
3) How could the law of gravity necessitate the whole universe out of nothing?
4) Is it time to celebrate/mourn the theistic God’s death?
By closely examining the answers that TGD provides[4] for each of these questions, we will try to evaluate its conclusion on the merits of evidence and reason.
1) What is a law of nature?
Prevalent definition in science: TGD (27-28)says that most scientists today take a law of nature as a rule derived from observed regularity. Based on this understanding, “the sun rises in the east,” for example, is a candidate for a law, TGD argues, because it is a rule derived from the regular rising of the sun in the east that observers on the earth have been witnessing for thousands of years without exception. Because a law consistently holds, it is expected to provide predictions; for example, taking ceteris paribus[5] for granted, we predict on the daily basis that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow anywhere on the earth. TGD further qualifies this definition of laws as follows.
Definition of TGD: TGD (28-29)says that all observed regularities cannot be put into the category of laws. Seemingly, it says so in the wake of the problem of induction.[6]. A law, it argues, is more than just a description of what is normally observed to happen, for a law is based on unavoidable or necessitated regularity. TGD makes this point by quoting a statement suitable to be called a law: “All uranium-235 spheres are less than a mile in diameter.” The statement is not based on induction, but our knowledge of nuclear physics ensuring that if a uranium-235 sphere approaches a diameter exceeding ~6 inches, it will inevitably explode with a nuclear explosion.[7] TGD accepts Newton’s laws of motion, although they need to be modified for objects moving at a speed approaching that of light, because these laws prevail in our everyday world, where people, trains, or cars etc. obviously do not move at the speed of light. As per TGD’s definition, therefore, a law must precisely or approximately hold universally or, at least, “under a stipulated set of conditions.” Finally, TGD reminds us that a law generally exists in the perceived universe as part of a system of interrelated laws and that in contemporary science, laws are generally expressed in the language of mathematics.
Governing Laws: At several places, TGD (32, 54, 58, 72, 134, 171, 181, for example)talks about natural laws governing the whole universe. To avoid any confusion of what is meant by that, we should take into account the explanation that TGD (87)itself has provided: it simply means that behaviour of the universe (or entities within the universe) can be modelled. Let us explicate TGD’s position by considering, for instance, Boyle’s law, which can be stated as this: Under constant temperature, the pressure that an ideal gas exerts on the walls of its container decreases proportionally with increase in the volume of the container (expansion of gas): P = k/v , where P is pressure of a gas, v volume, and k is a constant equal to the product of volume and pressure. Once we have ascertained this law or model, we can say that gases will obey or be governed by this law under the stated conditions.
The idea of laws in nature is misleading. The problem with the idea of laws of nature is that it creates a misleading picture in one’s mind as if there are powerless passive entities in the universe, which are controlled and governed by laws external to them (For a quick summary of major problems with the idea of laws, see: Mumford 2004, 204). The confusion worsens when, for example, TGD (8-9)claims that out of nothing “multiple universes arise naturally from physical law” or the eminent physicist Paul Davies[8] says (as quoted by Lennox 2011a, 41)regarding the origins of the universe or life that “for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being.” Such statements seem to assume that laws existed before anything else and, in fact, brought into existence everything we see in the universe. The problem with these statements will become apparent when, instead of laws of nature, we will consider another view that explains regularities and causal necessitation[9] in nature in a much clear, direct, and intellectually appealing manner.
An alternative view to that of laws: Rather than conceding the rule of law in nature, Stephen Mumford[10] in his book Laws in Nature (2004)has traced the regularities and necessitation to causal “powers” (or potentials) in action that entities in the universe possess due to their innate properties. Let us take Boyle’s law again to illustrate this view. It is an inherent property of gas molecules to diffuse away from each other, and it is an inherent property of the solid material with which gas containers are usually made to resist anything trying to pass through it. Thus, inherently active gas molecules have the power to “punch” the walls of their container and the inherently solid container has the power to ‘feel’ that punch. When these powers will meet, force per unit area will manifest, which is called pressure. Suppose a container with gas having pressure = 5 newton per each square meter (m2), where the total area of the container is 20 m2. If we increase the volume of the container, its area will obviously increase too. Suppose an increase in the volume resulting in increasing the internal area of the container from 20 to 40 m2. Now if everything else remains constant, the pressure of 5 newton per 1 m2 of total area = 20 m2 will necessarily reduce to 2.5 newton per 1 m2 of total area = 40 m2. This is exactly what Boyle’s law tells. Hence, laws – if we accept this rather misleading metaphor for a moment – are actually manifestations of internal causal powers that entities in the universe inherently possess.
2) Where do laws come from?
This question is raised in Chapter 2 of TGD (29), but the answer is deferred to later chapters. The question, however, is immediately followed by a quick comment on the idea of God being the originator of laws as merely “substituting one mystery for another.” The rest of Chapter 2 is devoted to the discussion whether laws can be suspended through miracles or God’s intervention in the universe. Since this is an important issue, we will take it first before moving to the question of how laws originated.
From Laws to Scientific Determinism: TGD (30-34, 171)assumes scientific determinism.[11] Since science has discovered laws that hold without any exception, “there must be a complete set of laws” that would fully determine how the universe will behave in future from any time onwards. This implies that there is no room for miracles, God’s intervention in the universe, and even free will. Our bodies and brains (with all their thoughts) are governed by biological processes, which ultimately are governed by fixed laws of physics and chemistry forcing us to adhere to them; therefore, “it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”To provide evidence against Descartes’ (1596–1650) idea of an agency (mind or soul) within us which is not subjected to any physical law, TGD (32)refers to modern experiments in neuroscience. In one such experiment, regions of the brain were electrically stimulated in patients going through awake brain surgery, which produced “desire” in them to move various parts of their bodies including lips, thus encouraging them to talk. If there is anything like freewill, TGD (31)asks its proponents to show where it developed in the evolutionary tree. Quantum physics (due to its probabilistic nature) may seem to weaken the idea that the universe is governed by laws with fixed outcomes, hence challenging scientific determinism. But, to the contrary, TGD (72)argues that “it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilitiesof various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty.”
Freewill is essential not only for religion but for our whole social setup to function. Freewill is essential not only for major religions but for any human society to function (Ghamidi 2013). If a person is not free to choose between right or wrong choices, God is unjust to promise reward for good and warn of punishment for mischief. Similarly, courts of law have no right to punish criminals, employers cannot hold their employees responsible for their actions, a student cannot be blamed for bad grades, Hitler cannot be questioned, and Martin Luther King, Jr. does not deserve any appreciation. However, religion (at least, Abrahamic ones) and societies on personal and institutional levels acknowledge that sometimes a person’s freewill is hampered by events beyond his/her control, is not employed in his/her thoughtless actions, or produces results other than that intended. Hence, for example, the Qur’an (24:33) does not consider blameworthy (but sympathises with) the maids who were forced to prostitution in the Arabian Peninsula. The Qur’an (5:89, 33:5) also explicates that man will only be answerable for his wilful actions, not unintentional or thoughtless mistakes. Similarly, courts do not prescribe any punishment for crimes committed by, for instance, children and mentally disabled or ill persons. It would have been a problem for believers only if lack of freewill had implications for religion alone but the idea becomes equally threatening for the whole of mankind, for if any human society has to function, it has to assume freewill for individuals. Negation of freewill is also dangerous because it tends to provide all murderers, terrorists, rapists, child abusers, and other horrendous criminals with justification that it is not their fault, for just like robots they are forced to “dance to their DNA’s music.” (Dawkins 1995, 155)In addition, when a message comes from prestigious thinkers that, ultimately, we have no control over our thoughts and behaviours, it tends to take away what we humans take most pride in: the motivation to take control of our false temptations and bad habits to evolve ourselves towards a high moral stature. With so much at stake, we must ask the question what bases there are for us to negate freewill.
Does freewill have to be an outcome of evolution? TGD is correct to ask the question where freewill developed in the evolutionary tree for, in a naturalistic worldview, it seems difficult to argue for freewill. That is because whether we are a product of the so called fixed laws or probabilistic lawless events, so neither makes us free in our decision-making (Mumford and Anjum 2013, 45). For example, if pumping of adrenalin is an outcome of a fixed law or certain probabilistic processes, it does not matter. Once pumped, it may incline one to be violent. In order to overrule that inclination and act civilly, one needs willpower. But if our willpower is again at the mercy of fixed laws or probabilistic behaviour of molecules that make us up, then one has to wonder whether there really is any room for freewill. However, if willpower is a function of a non-physical decision maker in us (spirit, soul, or mind), then it does not have to be enslaved to the material that makes up our physical being. In that case, many aspects of the mind are likely to remain hidden from scientific inquiry simply because of the limitation of our scientific tools. Is this contradictory to science, naïve daydreaming of religious people? I think not. First, rather than being contradictory, it should be seen as complementary to the scientific information about our physical being, for it completes our understanding of man as a combination of both a physical and a spiritual being. Second, rather than daydreaming, the information of a nonphysical being in us is claimed to have come from God Himself, the originator of the whole show. That is reasonable because if there is an immensely intelligent and wise mind behind this universe, He is expected to communicate with His sentient creatures and guide them in matters beyond their scientific and intellectual capacity (such as the problem of freewill and the purpose of creation). So, the answer to the question where freewill developed in the evolutionary tree is that it might not be a product of evolution at all. The Qur’an (32:9) informs that, after proportioning the offspring of man in mother’s womb, God infuses spirit into the offspring[12], which is what distinguishes man from animals (Islahi 2009, 161)and bestows him with higher functions like contemplation, planning, a clear sense of discerning right from wrong, and willpower to choose between them. The Bible (Genesis 2:7) also informs about God blowing the breath of life into man. But, of course, the idea should not be accepted without a proper scrutiny of the evidence and arguments that the Bible and the Qur’an present to establish their veracity. It is beyond the scope of this article to reproduce here the historical, literary, and empirical evidence along with philosophical arguments that these scriptures provide. However, rather than drawing any premature conclusions that it would all be absurd like many religious-minded people, a sincere seeker is expected to consult scholarly translations[13] and sound interpretations of the scriptures (For example, see Ghamidi 2012a, Lennox 2011b).
Rejection or acceptance of freewill depends on one’s worldview, not science. The noteworthy point here is that it is one’s worldview, rather than science, that encourages one to accept or reject freewill. From the perspective of a materialistic worldview, the mind (a non-physical entity) will be a taboo, whereas from a theistic worldview it will be completely acceptable. The stance that there is no mind, hence, no freewill is not the answer of science; instead, it is a philosophical position. The electrical stimulation of various brain regions producing “desire” in people to move various parts of their bodies does not have any implications for mind or freewill. That is simply because the mind can still choose to follow or reject that desire. However, rather than a mere desire, our brain is also known to compel us towards certain actions. For example, let us consider the case of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), which is a psychological disorder that forces people to excessively repeat certain actions like washing hands, blinking, or counting trees along the highway etc. According to biological theories (supported by evidence), OCD is caused by imbalances in certain brain chemicals or other physical abnormalities or damages to the brain. Thus, all we see is the physical brain at work, obstructing the freewill of OCD patients. Does this mean that mind is unnecessary or even non-existent? I do not think so. That is because the brain can be thought of as a screen on which the mind’s “sight” is dependent. As dirt, damage, too much sunlight, scratches, or other problems with a car’s windscreen may seriously hinder our ability to see the road ahead, the mind’s functions can also be seriously hindered by problems with the brain and its physical processes. Some people present a similar argument that, after a brain injury, people have been repeatedly observed to lose their mental abilities, like remembering, which suggests that the brain is all that there is. A similar analogy to that of a screen can be employed to answer this objection as well, where we can think of the brain as the information source for the mind just like an internet cable serves as the source through which information flows to our computers. Although damaging of the cable will make any data on the web inaccessible for the computer, it obviously does not negate the existence of the computer. Similarly, damage to some brain region making it impossible to, for example, retrieve something from the long-term memory does not necessarily negate the existence of the mind. Thus, in the light of modern science, Descartes only needs to be corrected for the assumption that the pineal gland is the place where the soul resides (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 31), but as for his distinction between the body and mind, science does not have any verdict to pass.
Has necessity in nature rendered God’s intervention in the universe impossible? First, rather than adopting the misleading view of laws in nature, we should go back to Mumford’s (2004)view (introduced above) that regularities and necessitation in nature are an outcome of causal powers or potential that entities in nature inherently possess. Because entities have limited properties that restrict the powers they can exhibit, they are predisposed to behave in a certain manner under a given set of conditions. For instance, because the earth has mass (property), making it heavy (power), and the space-time fabric is subtle (property), making it warp (power) against heavy objects, the interaction of the earth and the space-time will necessitate gravity[14]. For simplification, let us refer to it as the gravitational attraction of the earth. The earth possessing the power of attraction, under natural conditions, will make an apple fall towards it – the example often given to illustrate the so called law of gravity. So, the earth and the apple are disposed to behave in a certain manner, ceteris paribus. But this does not put any restriction whatsoever on an agent to intervene in this process and stop the apple from falling (Lennox 2011a, 86-87). Therefore, the idea that the so called laws of nature can somehow restrict an agent like God to intervene in the universe is simply false. God should not only be able to intervene but exploit those properties and powers of things that might be hidden to our science. Similarly, since we know very little about the universe, we can safely assume that there must be entities that our present scientific tools cannot observe or even predict. But if God decided to utilise powers of those entities for various purposes, we would not even be aware of His interventions.
Miracles and their purpose: Miracles, by definition, are exceptions and, as per the Quran (54), were performed to establish the veracity of God’s Messengers on empirical grounds for their respective nations. These nations were selected by God, according to His wisdom, to be rewarded or punished (on a prior warning) right in this world. If such a nation or a fraction of it persisted on rejecting God’s message even after witnessing miracles (along with other evidence), it was destroyed or punished through humiliation. On the other hand, if a nation (or a fraction of it) acknowledged God and submitted to moral standards, it was bestowed with honour and political authority over its rivals. This process was repeated many times in human history so that empirical or historical[15] evidence could be provided for entire mankind for a day on which such judgment will universally take place for everyone. (Ghamidi 2012a, 163-171)The word miracle, however, is often misused by religious people, which is equivalent to shooting oneself in the foot. Francis Collins[16] thus warns, “The only thing that will kill the possibility of miracles more quickly than a committed materialism is the claiming of miracle status for everyday events for which natural explanations are readily at hand.” (Collins 2007)Perhaps, it is misuse of the word miracle that scientists rightly show antipathy to (Lennox 2011a, 84). If miracles happened on a daily basis, it is difficult to see what would remain of our scientific inquiry and conviction in the functioning of the universe. If alcohol in the lab mysteriously turned into water overnight as the experimenter slept, what would become of her experiments? Similarly, if mysterious forces started interfering with our flights from time to time, who would be ready to fly anymore? We know that such miracles do not happen, and it is absurd to think of God, who is also the God of science, to interfere in the universe like this. TGD (29-30)refers to Newton’s belief (in what it calls a sort of miracle) that God would have to periodically adjust the orbits of the planets. If Newton were alive, I am sure he would have happily accepted the naiveté of his assumption and would be even more humbled to know that God works in much more sophisticated ways than he discovered through his laws. (For a detailed discussion on science and miracles, see Lennox 2009, 193-206, 2011a, 81-95)An issue related to that of God’s intervention in the universe and miracles is that of prayer. Since the issue is of great importance in religious systems, we should also consider what TGD has to say about it.
God listening to prayers:
TGD (29)shows resentment to what it calls“the biblical view” that “God not only created the laws but can be appealed to by prayer to make exceptions – to heal the terminally ill, to bring premature ends to droughts, or to reinstate croquet as an Olympic sport.” Later, TGD (87)refers to a biblical account of a war that included a miraculous event. It is mentioned in the book of Joshua[17] (10:13-14): “And the sun and the moon didn’t move until the Israeli army had finished the destruction of its enemies! …So the sun stopped in the heavens and stayed there for almost twenty-four hours! There had never been such a day before, and there has never been another since, when the Lord stopped the sun and moon – all because of the prayer of one man. But the Lord was fighting for Israel.’ [18]The narrative implies, according to TGD, that the earth stood still, which according to Newton’s laws means ‘anything not tied down would have remained in motion at the earth’s original speed.”
Before proceeding, one should consider what a prayer is. The Online Oxford Dictionaries website (accessed May 25, 2014)presents a reasonable definition: it is “a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.” If I make an earnest request to Bill Gates to grant me one million dollars for free, I know, in principle, he is capable of doing that. But knowing very well that people do not give away such large sums for free, it will be rather foolish of me to make such a request. Similar is the case with God. Religious people know that God is capable of doing anything; therefore, sometimes they make naïve requests, ignoring the fact that God does not fulfil any request which goes against His attributes or the scheme that He has devised for the universe. For example, He will not miraculously change a student’s grade from F to A, nor will He will appear before us no matter how hard we pray. The latter would be tantamount to nullifying His whole scheme in which He has deliberately kept Himself hidden so that people can freely exercise their will to choose between right and wrong, without being overwhelmed by His presence. After physical evolution has furnished our bodies, according to Abrahamic traditions, now a conscious evolution is at work, where only those will “survive” who are morally fit enough to make it to the next stage of life.
Regarding Joshua’s prayer and its fulfilment, the Bible explicates that it was not a normal prayer, but a unique event in the entire history of the universe. Again, in principle, why should it be impossible for an omnipotent God to halt the earth’s rotation and, at the same time, stop everything from flying off? After all, there can be numerous ways, beyond our comprehension, in which God can (and should sometimes) intervene in the system of the universe. Similarly, what can possibly stop God from devising a mechanism that, given certain conditions, if people pray for the drought to end, winds are made to carry the rain clouds towards them? It may sound like fiction, but that is only because we have no idea of various mechanisms that can be employed by God to intervene in the workings of the universe. A parable may help elaborate this: If we somehow go back to the 17th century and tell a person living then that people by the end of the 20th century will be able to see and talk to other people thousands of miles away, that person will most probably laugh in our face (Ghamidi 2012b).
Religious determinism: Briefly, we should also touch upon the idea referred to as religious determinism: because God is omniscient (having knowledge of all future events), it implies that everything is predetermined; hence, it is an illusion that we are free to act according to our will. I do not understand this position because knowing something in advance is totally different than to impose something on someone. If I somehow happen to watch a video of a murder that will take place tomorrow by the murderer’s own will, I do not understand how my mere act of watching the video in advance is equivalent to impeding the freewill of the murderer. Similarly, what God knows in advance is that we, employing our free will, will act in a certain way tomorrow. No doubt, certain things seem to be predetermined like where one will be born and what skin colour one will have etc. but, in such matters, religion does not hold anyone accountable. (Ghamidi 2013)Next, we will move on to our original question: where do laws come from?
The origin of laws: When asked where the law of gravity came from in a famous CNN talk show, Larry King Live (10th Sept. 2012), Stephen Hawking said,“Gravity is a consequence of M-theory, which is the only possible unified theory. It is like saying why is 2+2=4?”M-theory, according to TGD (8), is a set of mutually coherent theories each of which can be successfully applied in limited range of scenarios; whenever two or more of these theories overlap to predict or describe the same phenomenon, they mutually agree. In TGD (116-118, 140-142, 165, 181), M-theory is claimed to be “the only candidate” for the Theory of Everything: Einstein’s dream of a theory “that would account for every detail of the matter and forces we observe in nature.”In addition to the three space dimensions, M-theory predicts seven more dimensions plus one of time. These extra dimensions, however, are not visible to us because they are highly curled up on a scale too small to be observed. The shape of the seven curled dimensions “determines both the values of physical quantities such as the charge on the electron and the nature of the interactions between elementary particles, that is, the forces of nature.” M-theory “has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10500, which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each with its own laws.”’TGD (58-59, 135-36)suggests that “every possible version of the universe exists simultaneously” (multiverse)and argues that the idea should be accepted because it originates from the quantum theory that “has passed every experimental test to which it has ever been subjected.”
Despite the highly speculative nature of M-theory and severe criticism of it by top-of-the-line physicists (See: Lennox 2011a, 51-56), let us accept it for a moment.
M-theory allowing for 10500 universes ≠ Presence of 10500 universes: The other day, I was solving a mathematical equation for calculating the concentration of a gas in a liquid, and the equation predicted positive as well as negative concentration of the gas. Any concentration obviously has to be positive, and that was what I was looking for. But what about the negative concentration it predicted? That solution was completely meaningless. Since M-theory is also mathematical, the same applies to it too: merely because “it has solutions that allow for” 10500 universes does not necessarily mean that they exist.
Further problems with multiverse: The idea of multiverse is based on one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics (called many-worlds interpretation). Various other interpretations do not support multiverse, and which interpretation to choose seems like a matter of taste. Another problem is that the idea of many universes existing in reality conflicts with another concept that TGD proposes: the model-dependent realism. We will present and discuss that under Question 4 and also explore some more aspects of multiverse later.
M-theory did not create gravity!The equation I employed to calculate the gas concentration did not and could not create the gas; it only predicted its concentration. Similarly, gravity can be an axiom (given) for M-theory, but it – being a powerless abstract theory on paper – obviously could not create gravity (or the so called law of gravity). This point is important because, as we have seen (under Question 1), physicists sometimes give an impression as if theories or laws of physics can bring things into existence. The opposite of this is actually true: laws and theories depend on the prior existence of entities in nature. That is because, as Mumford (2004)has clarified (see the discussion under Question 1), there is nothing in nature as laws. What actually exists are entities with causal powers, which when mutually interact produce regularities and necessities in nature (that people take as law-abiding behaviour).
Properties and causal powers of entities in the universe might have been moulded as M-theory predicts, i.e., by the shape in which the seven hidden dimensions curled up. The shape, however, did not create the entities themselves, which came already loaded with tendencies to, for example, carry an electric charge. Then, how did the entities come into existence? TGD’s answer is: through the law of gravity, which directly leads us to our next question.
(to be continued…)
References
Oxford Dictionaries.2014. Available from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/prayer.
Chalmers, Alan F. 1999. What is this thing called science? 3rd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Collins, Francis S. 2007. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life. London: Basic Books.
Ghamidi#, Javed Ahmad. 2012a. Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction. Lahore: Al-Mawrid
Ghamidi#, Javed Ahmad.2012b. What is soul? In Ilm o Hikmat. Dunya News.
Ghamidi#, Javed Ahmad. 2013. A discussion on determinism and freewill. In Ghamidi. Geo News.
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. London: Bantam Press.
Islahi, Amin Ehsan. 2009. Tadabbur e Qur'an.Vol. 6. Lahore: Faran Foundation
Lennox, John C. 2009. God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion Books.
Lennox, John C. 2011a. God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? Oxford: Lion Hudson.
Lennox, John C. 2011b. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science. Michigan: Zondervan
Mumford, Stephen. 2004. Laws in Nature. Oxford: Routledge.
Mumford, Stephen, and Rani Lill Anjum. 2013. Causation: A very short introduction., Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swartz, Norman. 2009. Laws of Nature., http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/.
Taylor, Kenneth N. 1971. The Living Bible: Tyndale House Publishers.
____________