Few scientists have shaped the modern debate about God as forcefully as Stephen Hawking. In his final years, the cosmologist turned his attention from black holes to the oldest human question of all, offering a stark, carefully argued verdict on whether a creator is needed to explain reality. His last published work, along with earlier public statements, amounts to a clear, provocative answer that still reverberates far beyond physics.
Hawking’s closing message was not a mystical hint or a hedged maybe, but a direct claim that the universe can be understood without invoking a divine mind. Yet the way he reached that conclusion, and the limits he acknowledged, matter as much as the headline-grabbing sound bite. To understand what he really meant, I have to follow the path from his early reflections on cosmology to the uncompromising language of his final book.
From cautious agnostic to outspoken atheist
For much of his career, Hawking spoke about God in metaphor, describing the search for a “theory of everything” as knowing “the mind of God” while insisting that he was using religious language as shorthand for the laws of nature. Over time, as his work on cosmology matured, he shifted from suggesting that science left room for a creator to arguing that the universe could be fully described by physical principles alone, a move that turned a poetic metaphor into a pointed philosophical stance. In interviews about his own mortality, he rejected the idea of Heaven as a literal place and described himself plainly as an atheist, framing death as a final shutdown of the brain rather than a passage to another realm, a position reflected in his comments on God, Heaven and his own death linked to Stephen Hawking Was.
That evolution culminated in his posthumous collection of essays and answers to big-picture questions, where he addressed the existence of God head on. In that volume, which readers can find through Brief Answers, he no longer treated belief in a creator as a harmless personal comfort but as an unnecessary hypothesis that science had rendered obsolete. By the time those pages were assembled, the careful agnostic had become a scientist willing to say, in unambiguous terms, that he saw no place for a personal God in the story of the cosmos.
The universe that “creates itself from nothing”
Hawking’s most controversial claim was that the universe can “create itself from nothing,” a phrase that enraged some theologians and philosophers but, in his view, followed from the mathematics of cosmology. Drawing on quantum theory and general relativity, he argued that when gravity and the laws of physics are in place, a spontaneous Big Bang is not only possible but expected, so no external push is required to light the fuse. In a widely discussed passage, he wrote that because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, a line that crystallized his argument that the Big Bang does not need a divine trigger.
In his later explanations, Hawking also emphasized that time itself begins with the Big Bang, so asking what happened “before” is, in his words, like asking what lies north of the North Pole. He insisted that “you can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang,” a line that appears as a popular highlight in the edition of his final essays available through Popular. If time and space emerge together, then the idea of a creator existing in time “before” the universe becomes, in his framework, a category error rather than a necessary explanation.
What Hawking actually wrote about God
When Hawking finally addressed the question “Is there a God?” in print, he did not hedge. In his final essays he stated, “There is no God,” and went further, arguing that there is “no possibility” of God in our universe as described by modern physics. He framed this not as a casual opinion but as a conclusion drawn from decades of work on cosmology, black holes and quantum theory, a stance that was summarized in coverage of his last book as saying there is No Possibility of God in the universe he described.
He also rejected traditional religious comforts about the afterlife. In one of his most quoted lines, Hawking compared the brain to a computer that stops working when its components fail, adding that there is no Heaven or afterlife for “broken down computers” and calling such stories a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, a formulation reported in detail when his book was described as saying there is no God and no Heaven. For Hawking, the absence of an afterlife did not make life meaningless; instead, he argued that it made our responsibility to each other and to the planet more urgent, since this finite existence is all we have.
Redefining God as the laws of nature
Even as he denied the existence of a personal deity, Hawking sometimes played with a different definition of God. At one point he suggested that “one could define God as the embodiment of the laws of nature,” effectively turning the word into a poetic label for the mathematical structure of reality rather than a being who listens to prayers. In that sense, knowing God would simply mean knowing physics, a view reflected in commentary on his work that quotes him describing centuries of belief in a created universe giving way to the idea that it is governed entirely by But the laws of nature.
That redefinition did not satisfy religious critics, who argued that equating God with equations strips the word of its traditional meaning and dodges questions about purpose and morality. Some Christian commentators, for example, accused Hawking of smuggling in metaphysical assumptions while claiming to speak only for science, and they highlighted his emphasis on a universe without God as a philosophical, not purely empirical, claim, a critique developed in an analysis of Universe Without God. Yet Hawking was explicit that he was not trying to answer every human longing; he was narrowing the question to whether physics requires a supernatural agent, and his answer to that narrower question was an unambiguous no.
How his answer fits into the wider debate
Hawking’s stance did not emerge in a vacuum. Within theoretical physics and cosmology, he was part of a broader effort to describe the universe as self-contained, finite yet without boundary, and governed by impersonal laws. In discussions of his legacy, some physicists have noted that he advocated for an eternally existing, self-contained universe and that his atheism was one strand of a larger set of philosophical perspectives tied to his scientific work, a connection drawn in a summary of his Cosmology and Athe views. For many colleagues, his rejection of God was less shocking than his ability to communicate that rejection so vividly to a global audience.
For believers, Hawking’s final answer may read as a challenge to reconcile faith with a universe that appears increasingly self-sufficient. For nonbelievers, it offers a kind of intellectual permission to see meaning in curiosity, cooperation and responsibility rather than in a divine plan. In either case, his closing message is clear: the story of the cosmos, as he understood it, does not need a creator, and the task of finding purpose falls to us. His words on death, God and the universe continue to echo in debates about science and religion, not because they settled the question, but because they forced everyone else to sharpen their own.
More from Morning Overview