Datasets:
title: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016029)'
source: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)'
sourceUrl: https://www.justice.gov/epstein
date: '2026-01-01'
category: House Oversight
eftaNumber: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016029
ocrPages: 1
ocrChars: 1493
ocrElapsed: 0
parseTier: external-legacy
engine: engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)
externalSource: greg-ep-nov-12
externalLicense: not granted
externalCredit: ep-nov-12.greg.technology
externalUrl: https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology
Does God have Free Will? ny discussion of free will is incomplete without some mention of about such a fundamental concept, we must consider whether the Universe would be any different if it had a creator. Recently there have been two widely publicized attacks on religious belief from the scientific community: the head-on attack from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion or, the hard hitting sideswipe by Stephen Hawking in The Universe in a Nutshell. Hawking made the front pages in 2000 with the statement: "There is then no need for a creator." He was considering whether God needed to ignite the Big Bang or if it occurred as a natural result of the laws of physics. Hawking had run the mathematics and realized a god was not needed to light the blue touch paper for the Big Bang - the laws of physics spontaneously caused it. His argument does not actually preclude the existence of a god, but it does move the point where we need a creator one step further up the chain. This is not a fundamental change to the progress of theological argument over the last thousand years. Once we abandon our vision of God as a master builder, literally breathing life into Adam while putting the finishing touches to the Garden of Eden, we can move him up the causal chain as far as we like, eventually reaching a point where intervention is necessary to get things started. Hawking is only pointing out an intervention is not needed at the point of the Big Bang. It still begs HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016029