BobCan British physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking’s contention that “God does not exist and did not create the Universe” be considered as tenable or conclusive?
Hawking, without doubt, is a towering figure in our contemporary age – both as an inveterate scientist and an undeterred atheist.
As topnotch scientist, he is widely known for his “Final Theory of the Big Bang: A Smooth Exit From Eternal Inflation”, which postulated, among others, that “After the Big Bang, the Universe experienced a period of exponential inflation; then it slowed down and the energy converted into matter and radiation."
Bubbles Of Space
"However, some bubbles of space stopped inflating or slowed down on a stopping trajectory, creating a small fractal dead-end of static space.
"Meanwhile, in other bubbles of space, because of quantum effects, inflation never stops, leading to an infinite number of multiverses.
"Hence, everything we see in our observable universe is contained in just one of these bubbles, in which inflation has stopped, allowing for the formation of stars and galaxies.”
As a dauntless atheist, his death in March 2018, at the age of 76, inescapably brought to fore his controversial assertions that “God did not create the Universe” and “God does not exist.”
A Critical Look
Now, let me try to put forward my modest critical examination of his purportedly scientific but atheistic contentions.
1. In his book, “The Grand Design,” Hawking wrote:
“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.”
Here, Hawking argues that the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Noticeably, laws themselves do not create anything; they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
And neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which the universe can be spontaneously created. What Hawking failed to answer was why such laws of physics exist? Who made them? Where did those laws come from?
2. Creation, as properly understood, is “from nothing into something”. Thus, we have the Judaeo-Christian notion that “the world came from nothing because it was created by God” – which equally means that “in the beginning, there was nothing except God, or nothing preceded God.”
On the other hand, production is “from something – that is, from raw derivative material – into something”. Hawking did put forward the argument for “spontaneous creation” – contending that in the beginning there was already “something” (the law of gravity or laws of physics), not nothing, which enabled the Universe to create itself.
Vis-a-vis this contention, Rich Deem, a science research practitioner with graduate degrees in science, reasons out: “Yes, it may be possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from ‘nothing’, but it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist in order that universes be created from nothing? Why wouldn’t a true nothing consist of new laws physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?”
Interestingly, indeed, skeptics always ask: “Who created God?” Perhaps they already have the answer to such question – Nothing! Because, again, nothing preceded God.
3. Hawking’s purportedly “scientific” assertions that ‘God did not create the universe” and “God does not exist” are inconclusive, just as science too is in itself scientifically nebulous or inconclusive on this issue.
In Hawking’s view, the concept of God as the “creator of the universe” must be scientifically testable, like the empirically testable law of gravity or laws of physics. But it has remained manifestly evident, since time immemorial and unto date, that science (which supposedly based on fact, evidence, or logic) has posed as inconclusive such propositions regarding the origin of the Universe – with theories having remained theories “from no-whence ‘till kingdom come”. This only proves the “finiteness” or “incompleteness” of empirical evidence, of scientific inquiry, and even of reason or logic.
On the other hand, one cannot fail to note that belief or faith in an all-powerful and all-intelligent creator, which purportedly shuns the necessity of rigorous scientific investigation or astute logical reasoning, may yet provide a pragmatically profound or meaningful life.
4. Can the “laws of science” be equally characterized as God? In his writings, Hawking stated:
“The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”
Likely so, there is an indicative tinge of “deism” in this statement of Hawking. Theism is distinct from deism. While theism views all things and beings to be limited and finite, and dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality, called God, with whom one may also speak in personal terms, “deism” proposes that God exists, created the universe or has laid down its laws – but does not interfere directly with the created world or is not involved in human affairs. For the deist, God is just in the shadows and beyond, and proceeds as if there were no God, or there is one except that he is ‘absent”.
Similarly, for Hawking to give in to the idea that the “laws of science” (which does not require a creator) may be ascribed as “God” itself is but a repudiation of the existence of a “personal God” whom humans can meet, walk or talk with.
Wanting To Find Out
In conclusion, hence, outside or beyond the rational ruminations, in the pragmatic or immanent scheme of things, proving or disproving the existence or non-existence of God cannot simply be based on a factual, testable or rigorous scientific investigation. Way beyond such investigation is yet the equally meaningful reality or significance of human faith or belief.
Hence, for the ordinary humans or common folk – regardless of “fear” or emotive reasons, or perhaps of simply “not bothering or wanting to find out” – a comforting belief in a personal creator is yet more plausible than not.
Life’s meaning, after all, cannot be solely sourced from hard facts or rational musings, but more significantly from “faith, hope and love” as enlivened or concretized in real life.