[js1138]

And he fully admitted that his imaginary time scenario was untestable and therefore unscientific. Having a mathematical description does not mean it is an accurate mathematical description. That's one reason you probably read it out of a popular book rather than a scientific journal. Einstein was also wedded to a universe without beginning and added a cosmological constant to his general relativistic field equations to support a steady state universe. He called this "the biggest blunder in my career".

Both Einstein and Hawking on their dumbest day are more rational than someone who asserts they can solve the problem of first cause simply by asserting that everything was created by an invisible pink unicorn, or some equivalent invisible entity.

That is not an argument. It's an intellectual tantrum.

[cornelis]

Quite an abrupt lane change to leave off Aristotle and Aquinas for watching pink unicorns.

[dan1123]

Imaginary time, multiverse theory, expanding/colliding branes, string landscapes, or God may as well be “invisible pink unicorns” beacause all of them have equal experimental evidence—none. All of these rise to no greater heights than philosophy, falling far short of science.

It just goes to show that scientists are not without their philosophical biases.