Move over, Nietzsche. World’s-greatest-physicist Stephen Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design, has “settle[d] the God question once and for all.” At least that’s how one blogger headlined it.
Full disclosure: I hate science and it hates me. Really. In that long-ago, uninspired, and nearly-forgotten stage of my life called “school,” I took science. I think. At least I remember doing unpleasant and smelly things because sadistic adults made me.
On the other hand, Hawking just retired from the same position at Cambridge University held by Isaac Newton. It’s really amazing that we even belong to the same species.
That’s why I feel ridiculous writing this, but then that’s never stopped me before. So here goes: Am I the only one that finds his statement a little, well, ridiculous? Contradictory? Dare I say, illogical?
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing,” the excerpt says. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”
Huh? I gotta be missing something here. Is he saying that the existence of gravity created the conditions that made the universe the first thing to exist? Hmmmm. That makes me want to knit my Neanderthalish beetle-brow and scratch my head.
But then what do I know compared to this intellectual descendant of Newton; who, incidentally, said, “This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
He must have been referring to something like this:
Every time I watch this I get goosebumps! Amazing how great our God is!
Awesome. I don't know how people can look at the intricate and beautiful and wonderful world and not see God.
> I gotta be missing something here. Is he saying that the existence of gravity created the conditions that made the universe the first thing to exist?
Gravity isn't a thing that exists; you might as well talk about 2+2=4 being a thing that exists. Both of them are abstract concepts with no existence, but they are useful for *describing* the world. They are also testable, and happen to match reality whenever we test them.
So, the point in that passage is that we don't need any more explanations than the ones that stand up to all the tests. The reality-tested explanations do all the work needed to explain the existence of the universe as we experience it.
Hi Bignose, Still scratching my head! And still feeling ridiculous. But I can't help it. If gravity is an abstract concept, or an absolute law, or a testable description of "the world" before there was a world — in complete nothingness with no framework or container — in order to be the explanation for the universe it still preceded the universe. That is something was there before. Even if it was a lonely little concept just all by itself in…nothing. Sorry, just doesn't make sense to me.
Elena,
If it was simple to understand,we'd all understand!
"That is something was there before"
This of course is meaningless, before the big bang, before creation time did not exist, or has Hawkins puts it "Time as we know it", you can't look for a framework or a container when these things only exist in what we understand (space and time, as we understand), Hawkings book is actually quite easy to read, pick it up and read a few pages, it gets a bit theoretical and heavy, in places (imagine time so compressed it acts like a dimension of space), but as I said, if it was easy we'd all understand!
Take Care