Stephen Hawking doesn’t know what created the universe, but he’s sure God didn’t do it.
So says Mr Hawking in his recent follow-up to his best selling book “A Brief History in Time”.
In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is “not necessary”.
Interesting that he won’t say what created the universe, but somehow he is absolutely sure God isn’t a candidate. Odd how that works.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”
Ok, well then _what did_? Mind you, purely physical theories won’t work here specifically because physical forces do not decide to create and, being physical, fall prey to the simple laws of thermodynamics and entropy. So a metaphysical force is needed (as Hawking himself noted in his first book). So what is it? And why does he feel confident in ruling out God as a possible answer?
“The fact that we human beings – who are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature – have been able to come this close to an understanding of the laws governing us and our universe is a great triumph.”
How can a guy who is so brilliant commit the most basic of logical fallacies? He is assuming exactly what he supposedly is setting out to prove. Sorry, but it is far from settled that we “are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”. That’s exactly what is at issue! However, assume we accept this at face value. Why does it not follow that mere particles of nature can understand anything?
So it seems that Mr Hawkings, in his quest to rid the universe of the God particle (which logically follows since as mere physical particles of nature, there must be a particle in some of us that predisposes us to belief in God), Mr Hawkings is willing to embrace a larger epistemological issue.
Good luck Mr Hawkings.