Hawking Says Universe Created Itself


Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010? And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end: something did or nothing did. On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something. For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?
you say creationists are loony.

I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions. Are you going to answer them? Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread. If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.


And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​
Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.

You clearly don't know with whom you've engaged.
He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof to me when it was never mine to begin with and you've not at all fulfilled the burden associated with your opening post's bare assertion that Hawking is wrong, which is the only thing I've asked that you do.
  1. You are the one making the claim that Hawking is wrong. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on you to support your refutation of Hawking's ideas.

    I provided a link to the whole of Hawking's book....I suspect you aren't aware even that his exposition of how a universe can be spontaneously created is not in the chapter from which that one sentence Brian Thomas quoted came. Thomas took his quote from Chapter 8. Hawking's explanation is in Chapter 6. The point of Chapter 8 in Hawking's book was to demonstrate that the existence of laws of nature, rules everything must follow," gravity being one such law, facilitate the the spontaneous creation outcome Hawking describes in Chapter 6.

    Hawking is not saying that gravity itself is why the universe could have been spontaneously created without the God of the Bible. Accordingly, all that rigamarole that Thomas went through in his essay misses the point because it doesn't refute the spontaneous creation model Hawking posited.
  2. In any discussion about a prime cause of everything, the burden of proof is on the people who assert God created the universe, not on the people who say there is no basis for thinking God created the universe, thus they don't accept as true.

    Why is that the case? Because regardless of what you post here, regardless of how you frame the matter, the fact is that the question of how the universe came into existence -- spontaneously or deliberately -- is "bigger" than you, I and everyone else here. In the realm of reality, the place were real people have to answer the question, the burden of proof lies with the theists. That's not going to change regardless of what you demand of me or what you or I write here.
Quite simply, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. You made the initial claim in this thread:
[Hawking]may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
Hawking, in his book, presented the case for the validity of his claim that it's possible that the universe could have been created from nothing, spontaneously. You aren't required to agree with him, but if you are going to assert that he is wrong, you have to, with reference to the case he presented, show just cause for why Hawking's support for his claim is insufficient to warrant your and anyone else's rational belief of it.

Lastly, on this matter -- what caused the universe to exist -- even though you opened the discussion by tossing up Hawking's claim that the universe did not need God in order to come into existence, the fact remains that's your doing so is nothing more than a transposition of the same and strongest theist argument that's been around since "forever." That argument is the Cosmological Argument, to which Hawking's book is and has always been a refutation. Recognizing that is precisely why I in my first response to your OP asked the following:
And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
I asked those questions because I was not willing to, out of hand, assert that you have nothing new and meritorious to add to the Cosmological Argument. You've, however, (1) thrice not directly answered any of those questions and (2) not put forth a refutation of Hawking's exposition. Accordingly, I am now certain that you have nothing new to offer and that as goes the matter of whether the universe could or could not have formed spontaneously and from nothing, there is nothing new for me to discover by continuing this conversation with you because I have no interest in playing a mere rhetorical game with you, and that is what you've been entreating for with me, whether you realize it or not.
Wrong. Hawking made the claim that the universe created itself from nothing. He has the burden of proof. He has failed to provide it. You lose.
 
Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.

If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.

Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.

God popped out of nothing! =
You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Wrong.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists – religion, and later ‘god,’ are creations of man.
 
SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.

Time also started with the big bang. As cause and effect requires time, it does not apply. There's no such thing as "before the big bang". Yeah, that's hard for us temporal creatures to wrap our minds around.
 
SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.

Time also started with the big bang. As cause and effect requires time, it does not apply. There's no such thing as "before the big bang". Yeah, that's hard for us temporal creatures to wrap our minds around.
There was also no space either. So where did the big bang happen? And change does not occur without time. The big bang was a pretty big change. Wasn't is? And where did the energy for the big bang come from? Where did the universal physical constants come from? Why is there order in the universe? None of these questions can be answered without a Creator, Order does not come from chaos.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top