Much as been said about Stephen Hawking’s new book “The Great Design” and that he basically says the universe does not need God to exist. In his new book he writes a detailed explanation of his new equation proving that indeed matter can come from nothing. Forget ex nihilo nihil fit since his equation indeed shows that out of nothing matter can spontaneously arise. Hard to argue with the mathematical proofs he provided and of course as a brilliant physicist he would use the scientific method to prove his case. Someone devoted to science as he is wouldn’t venture into philosophy to make his case.
Oh wait – that is what he did. And as many atheistic philosophers before him he is a much better physicist than philosopher and makes rather simple philosophical errors. Intelligent Design is often critiqued as a non-science since it is not using the scientific method and arises with a volitional explanation. Though when Stephen Hawking’s does the same thing and enters the realm of philosophy and not repeatable experimentation I somehow doubt we will hear the same complaint. Only a very educated man could say something like “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist” and think that the statements means anything. Though I do believe in a spontaneous creation of BS. Fr. Barron replied to this statement.
Well, first of all, which is it: nothing or the law of gravity? There’s quite a substantial difference between the two. If Hawking is saying that the universe, which is marked in every nook and cranny by stunning and mathematically describable intellegibility, simply came forth from Nothing, then I just throw up my hands. The classical philosophical tradition gives us an adage that is still hard to improve upon: ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing). Any teacher worth his salt would take a student to task if, in trying to explain why and how a given phenomenon occurred, the student were to say, “well, it just spontaneously happened.” Yet we are expected to be satisfied with precisely that explanation when it comes to the most pressing and fascinating question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? In my dialogues with atheists, I often come up against this total non-explanation, and I can only smile ruefully. Apparently, the affirmation of God involves far too great a leap of faith, yet the assertion that the universe just popped into being is rationally compelling!
It was scientist and Catholic Louis Pasteur who debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation and it is rather sad to see someone of Stephen Hawking’s status to advance a spontaneous generation of the universe out of nothing.
I also wonder if the title of his book was intentionally ironic. A book that in part denies God’s existence is called “The Grand Design”? I guess that would be spontaneously designer-less design. Really from the materialistic worldview shouldn’t it be named “The Random Happenstance”, “Inferring meaning on the universe for no reason”, or “Nothing Matters: How nothing spontaneously produced matter.” I really have to question his seeming first cause of the law of gravity existing and thus the universe can exist. Hmm, was there a originally just a chalkboard with the law of gravity written on it that exploded into the big bang? Someone smarter than me – and that doesn’t take much – can hopefully explain to me how gravity could exist without matter? We infer a scientific law based on observations, I didn’t realize that the law itself could create the matter we observe.
I do think the Stephen Hawking could do with the same reply that God gave Job and his friends in Job 38.
[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:
[2] “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
[4] “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
[5] Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
[6] On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
[7] when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Related Reading:
- Stephen Hawking should first consult a young child, then a dictionary, then…
- Stephen Hawking & More Tiresome Atheism
Update: Jimmy Akin reviews the book in the first of two posts on the subject and offers a good critique and the fact that the book does not deny the possible existence of God.
18 comments
When I was a young student, I used to admire very intelligent people with their vast knowledge; that is, until I got older and realized that very smart people can say such asinine things and believe in enormous stupidities. Knowledge is so different from Wisdom; Stephen Hawking needs to work on acquiring the latter.
When I was a young student, I used to admire the so called intelligent people with their vast knowledge and command of facts; that is, until I got older and realized that very smart people can say apodictically such asinine things and assert enormous stupidities. Knowledge and Wisdom are related but not the same. An illiterate may not have knowledge but may abound in Wisdom. Stephen Hawking needs to work on acquiring the latter.
>>Any teacher worth his salt would take a student to task if, in trying to explain why and how a given phenomenon occurred,<<
For what "IT" is worth, I'm sure that Jesus loves to listen to children and I believe that He got many brain waves from their ESC Mother Ship off their far Galaxies.
When they, the student children, finish helping Stephen Hawking answer what he should already know, I would appreciate "IT" if they help me to explain a few of my own delemad. Maybe some of these angel children could do a
better job of explaining "IT" science wise, without trying to con science like some do?
In reality, I've figured out or should I say that "I" blamed "IT" on being home sick couse where really not of this world you know and I likes that cause then we're not really crazy, are we now?
I'm not going to get into any of "IT" here but I did write of my adventures to my good Bishop and I even sent some of "IT" to one of our past prime minister and I think that shortly after, he came out with that famous true phrase, 'Just cause you're paranoid does not mean that no one is out to get you! " 🙂
I'm also learning every day and knowing that you are now a true Christian, I'll close by saying that you're doing a "Great JOB" so
God Bless you.
I have not met my soul and/or spirit yet but me, myself and i say, keep "IT" UP.
Peace
Paralyzed guy in a motorized cart. Can’t talk. Can’t eat. Can’t wipe his ass. Takes a team of attendants, 24 hours a day to keep him alive.
Big threat. Says something about where your security boundaries are set.
Get a grip.
YAHWEH’S
WINK
The tiny little man
In the tiny little chair
With a great big mind
Created who knows where
He wrote a little book
Called The Great Design
Which means “to plan” out
In a human being’s mind
But if there was no mind
Or human being around
Where came the law of gravity
That keeps us near the ground
Yes, he is of science
Will interpret and apply
“I think therefore…I AM”
And Yahweh winks His eye!
Someone devoted to science as he is wouldn’t venture into philosophy to make his case.
I’m inclined to think he still hasn’t ventured into philosophy.
Reddog: This isn’t a fistfight, where the size of his support staff or his the thoroughness of his paralysis might have some bearing. I can’t speak for Hawking, but if I knew people were pretending my bad ideas were pretty good because they felt bad that I needed both medical care and correction of misconceptions, I’d be insulted. Hawking is a clever physicist who will be viewed–apparently by himself as well as others–as qualified to speak on philosophical issues because he is a clever physicist. Not even because he acquired the reputation or bona fides of a philosopher.
I get the propensity for scientists working at the cutting edge, in fields far removed from normal human experience, to wax philosophical, but that’s not a shortcut to proficiency in the subject.
Reddog, your comments are really extremely rude and very insulting to anyone who suffers from a disability. Why should Stephen Hawking’s disability have any bearing on the matter whatsoever?
Don’t we need a second random happenstance on top of the first one? Namely, that the Universe, which spontaneously and randomly created its non-existent self out of nothing, has somehow continued in being for several billion years without suddenly winking out of existence? How is that not too much to ask of a highly educated intellect like Hawking’s?
I find that the biggest problem I have with materialist explanations is that while there’s a certain appeal in being able to say “This thing that we know is real and that we experience everyday created the universe,” is that in the end you simply replace God with nature or gravity or whatever. So if the question “If God made the universe, who made God?” is taken for a clever deconstruction of God’s existence, then it is equally valid, and just as clever, to ask “If gravity created the universe, what created gravity.” You’re left, in both cases, with an eternal, uncreated something. So why go for gravity?
The various atheistic solutions keep coming back to either infinite series, or to uncreated entities.
So an updated version of Pascal’s wager may be in order, is it better to wager my eternal happiness on an uncreated universe, or an uncreated creator?
I bet one way in my youth, and I’m betting the other way in my old age.
If Prof. Hawking has really proven that the law of gravity suffices as a condition to create the universe, that’s a remarkable scientific achievement. (Though I recall him 20 years ago saying there was no need of God because the universe could be eternal, with the Big Bang being a singularity it passes through on occasion.)
Does anyone know if anyone is planning on testing his claim?
Mother Angelica would say he is educated beyond his intelligence.
“It was scientist and Catholic Louis Pasteur who debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation…”
Actually, an Italian scientist named Francesco Redi debunked the idea of spontaneous generation through experiments in the 1600s; Louis Pasteur studied bacteria and its connection to diseases, leading him to invent vaccines.
Sorry, my children were just studying this very topic, and the homeschool mom in me couldn’t let this go…. 🙂
reddog has a bit of this right. if this guy wasn’t a weirdo in a wheelchair, whe wouldn’t give a single solitary shit about him, his ideas or beliefs. we’d just toss him in the box of ignorant atheists and not think twice about it.
paraphrasing fr. groeschel: i don’t really care what a scientist beilieves. I care what my mechanic believes, or my dentist, or any other person I deal with on a day to day basis.
Love the quote from Job. Excellent response!
Fr. Robert Spitzer is supposed to debate him tonight on Larry King. Should be very interesting.
A fundamental tenet ofthe Big Bang Theory is that ALL physical laws break down at the point of the BB. ALL laws. That would include gravity. Hawking having made the existence of gravity the crux of his position now needs to disprove the Big Bang. Otherwise the foundation of his position is invalid and therefore the position is false.
Old age: when good scientists become bad philosophers
Based on the outtakes I’ve seen, I can’t tell whether Hawking has made “mass” and “matter” the same thing, or whether he’s tried to make gravity independent of matter. Either way, these would seem to be basic errors a Nobel prize-winning physicist should not be guilty of. Moreover, as far as cosmological arguments go, bringing in M-theory to introduce a theoretical infinity of universes (on the idea that so many will have a chance of producing life) is a waste of time if you can’t demonstrate how life arose by chance … it begs the question. The simple cell is precisely where both physics and biology fail to make naturalism credible.