An extract of Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design, was published in Eureka magazine in The Times, in which the professor said: “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.” Comfort, said, “It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing. Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn’t nothing, it was something — a very intelligent creative power of some sort.”
This (below) looks like a good link. It has the following understandings of Prof. Hawking’s thought processes.
“Philosophy is dead …… But the authors then produce their own brand of humanistic philosophy, christen it ‘science’ and base their book upon it.”
“But ‘scientific determinism’ is simply the philosophical assumption that the laws control all events.”
“Hawking’s ‘reality’ excludes God while my ‘reality’ majors upon God.”
“The authors also embrace another philosophy, namely, scientific determinism. ‘Though we feel we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets’.”
“Furthermore, if our minds are simply by-products of molecular processes in the brain, then all our thoughts are meaningless including the authors’ own theories. Thinking atheists such as Bertrand Russell and J. B. S. Haldane long ago recognised and admitted this dilemma explicitly.”
“by ignoring other formulations of quantum theory the authors give the false impression that Feynman’s [‘many histories’] is the only valid approach.”
“this intractable mathematical model [M theory] is somehow transformed into a theory so powerful that its laws are ‘more fundamental’ than the laws of nature and ‘allow’ for ‘different universes with different apparent laws’. This is a huge leap of atheistic faith.”
“”the universe began life as such a tiny object that quantum theory must be applied to its origin” …….. ???? that might be for conditions observed now; but does it apply when space is intensely warped; time is fuzzy; temperature and pressure is near infinite.”
“Hawking does not say that he used “imaginary time” in his space time idea instead of “real time” to say time did not begin ….. But if time and space were equivalent, and time did not begin, then space didn’t begin either!”
“So apparently the universe did ‘begin’ after all, but not in time. Confused?”
“This tells us nothing about how or why the universe began; simply that it did begin. We knew that already.”
“Because a law of gravity exists it must and will of itself create universes out of nothing (no reasoning given).”
“So gravity is God. Unfortunately the authors have no time to tell us what created gravity (earlier they rule out God because no one could explain who created him).”
The best-selling author and TV co-host, Ray Comfort, added, “Hawking has violated the unspoken rules of atheism. He isn’t supposed to use words like ‘create’ or even ‘made.’ They necessitate a Creator and a Maker. Neither are you supposed to let out that the essence of atheism is to believe that nothing created everything, because it’s unthinking. It confirms the title of another book I wrote, called, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think. Nor should an atheist speak of gravity as being a ‘law,’ because that also denotes the axiom of a Law-giver. Laws don’t happen by themselves. But look at how careless the professor was, with his, ‘The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe.'”
It seems that Professor Hawking has changed his mind about the need for God. Back in 1988, in his book A Brief History of Time, he said, “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.” Einstein said that he wanted to know the mind of God. Comfort maintains, “Both men can easily find the mind of God and through it see how we were created — ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’ something of which we were reminded when the first manned mission to moon read from Genesis chapter one. We need to read it again.”
Comfort is writing a series of books on men who, for good or evil, changed the course of history, and what they believed about God.
Professor Baroness Susan Greenfield , former head of the Royal Institution, said:
‘All science is provisional and therefore to claim to have the definitive answer to anything is a hardline view. It would be very great shame if young people think that to be a scientist you must be an atheist.’
……’Science can often suffer from a certain smugness and complacency.”….. What we need to preserve in science is a curiosity and an open-mindedness rather than a complacency and a sort of arrogance where we attack people who come at the big truths and the big questions albeit using different strategies.’
sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have created out of chaos.
says that form of complex theoretical physics known as M-theory, a type of string theory, could be the ‘holy grail’ that will explain everything in the known universe.
argued that it is ‘perfectly rational’ to assume intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.