[SeekAndFind]

Theoretical physicist professor Stephen Hawking is pictured during his lecture on the creation of the Universe at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Meyrin near Geneva

[cripplecreek]

If he wants to talk about physics, I’m interested but outside his field he’s no different than anyone else.

[Huskrrrr]

“I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind’s greatest achievement,” he said.

The laws were there before we “discovered” them.

[oh8eleven]

the "laws of science" can explain how the universe created itself from nothing.
BS

[Little Ray]

I’m sure he believes in the spontaneous generation of life, too.
Right?

[GunRunner]

Lawrence Krauss gave a good lecture on this. You should be able to find it if you google Krauss universe from nothing.

Goes something like, in a flat universe the total amount of energy is zero when add up energy and negative energy. Quantum fluctuations within the subatomic particles are what create something from nothing.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

In the 1970s a British astronomer, Sir Frederick Hoyle, calculated the probability of spontaneous generation of a single celled organism. He determined that the probability of generating the proteins necessary to form a single celled organism was one chance in 10^40,000. To put this in perspective, if an event has the probability of one chance in 10⁵⁰ it is considered a mathematical impossibility.

[RecoveringPaulisto]

Questions for Dr. Hawking: Who created these Laws of Nature of which you speak?

How does a thing create itself? Does that not mean that it existed before it created itself, thus preexisting its own creation? Is your head spinning at that idea? I know mine is.

[ngat]

“Because there is a law such as gravity...”

So where did the laws such as gravity come from?

[4yearlurker]

I'll have to quote Colonel Potter on this one:...”Horse Hockey!”

[Revolting cat!]

Don’t question a poor cripple. He has a right to park in blue zones!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"Nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever will!"

[Revolting cat!]

Nothing From Nothing!

[longtermmemmory]

lectures, beliefs, and tv aside, I understand that hawking has the personality of a first class jerk.

that has nothing to do or not do with science, it is all him.

[right way right]

Stephen is wrestling with God.

[mjp]

or was it determined by a law of science.

What is the origin of these particular laws of science. Why are there laws of science rather than nothing? Why do these laws of science have the nature that they have rather than some other nature?

[beethovenfan]

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”.

[MNDude]

here’s what I don’t get with these scientist atheists...

Suppose they are right, that the other 90%+ of humans are idiots and there is nothing else.

In any case, the remote chance of an after-life is their only chance to have the answers of the universe, or have the possibilities of seeing what’s on other planets or to see back in time what the dinosaur age was really like or in Mr. Hawking’s case, to walk again.

They spend millions of dollars on the tiny remote chance that they discover aliens on another planet, but go completely against something that anyone can know absolutely yes or no for sure.

[Califelephant]

Hawking says it is likely the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature.”

Wow. For many people, belief in God requires too much of a leap of faith. But believing that the universe just “popped into existence” requires a much, much, much longer leap.

[LearsFool]

“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,” Hawking writes in The Grand Design.

That's a valid question, but it falls outside the purview of science. Hawking is free to pursue the answer, but it falls outside his area of expertise.

His conclusion that the universe created itself is the only one which science can reach. Since God created all things from nothing, science, in tracing backward to the universe's origin, must eventually reach a point at which nothing existed (nothing which science can detect, that is).

There are therefore only two possible conclusions: Either (A) someone or something created the universe, or (B) the universe created itself.

If Hawking is so philosophically prejudiced against the existed of a Creator, he is forced to adhere to the auto-creation conclusion in spite of its illogic, implausibility, and utter silliness.

He has led us to the answer, and then turned his back on it. We can thank him for guiding us here, without following him into foolishness.