Spontaneous Creation Ex-Nihilo: “Because there is a law like 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.” (The Grand Design, p. 180)
Hawking evidently presumes the law of gravity is not merely an abstract concept capturing how we experience natural phenomenon, but that this particular law actually exists independently of nature as an agent capable of creating energy, matter space and time ex-nihilo – from absolutely nothing.
Yet this step is an unscientific one: the law of gravity doesn’t actually exist; the laws of physics are abstract concepts describing how we humans consistently experience the universe; they are not creative agents acting independently of nature itself. Something which does not exist cannot create everything which does exist out of absolutely nothing.
Hawking has essentially deified the law of gravity, making it into a god of sorts, yet a blind one without mind, will, purpose or personality.
Hawking is attempting to refute the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God:
-
-
-
-
-
- Everything that had a beginning has a cause (the Law of Causality).
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.
-
-
-
-
To describe the ultimate cause of the universe, the uncaused Cause, Hawking must invent a god; he must conceive of an active entity existing outside of space and time, outside of Nature (i.e. supernatural). In doing so he unwittingly concedes that the Big Bang is, in fact, a miracle: a supernatural being violating natural law (i.e. the First Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of Energy).
When it comes to addressing the singularity which persistently troubles Scientific Determinism (the denial of the existence of miracles), it turns out one must depend on a miracle and violate Scientific Determinism. In this particular case, in trying to refute the Cosmological Argument (“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and get the universe going.” p. 180), Hawking makes a blunder which even an attentive lay person can catch. He was certainly a brilliant man who should have known better.
An a priori assertion of Philosophical Materialism, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of a rational, personal God Who engages with His universe, produces Cognitive Bias, blinding those who refuse to see.
User
Does gravity exist independently of matter?
ChatGPT
Gravity is a fundamental force of nature that arises due to the presence of mass and energy. According to our current understanding in physics, gravity does not exist independently of matter; it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. In other words, gravity is a property of spacetime itself and is intimately linked to the presence and distribution of matter and energy within it.
User
Would you say that Stephen Hawking’s claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” is scientific?
ChatGPT
Stephen Hawking’s statement refers to the concept that the laws of physics, including gravity, allow the universe to emerge from what might be described as a “quantum vacuum” or “quantum fluctuations,” where seemingly empty space is subject to quantum mechanical effects.
Whether this claim is considered scientific depends on interpretation. From a scientific perspective, it’s a theoretical proposition based on our understanding of physics. However, it’s worth noting that the statement can be open to philosophical interpretations and debates about the nature of existence, causality, and the origin of the universe. It’s a complex topic that intertwines scientific theory with philosophical inquiry.
User
Isn’t he claiming that the universe created itself spontaneously out of nothing? Not out of a vacuum. Before the universe, there was no such thing as space. Isn’t that correct?
ChatGPT
Yes, you’re correct. Stephen Hawking’s statement does imply that the universe could spontaneously arise from nothing, without the need for a pre-existing space or material. This idea challenges traditional notions of causality and the origin of the universe. It suggests that the laws of physics themselves might be sufficient to bring about the existence of the universe from a state of “nothingness.” However, this concept is still speculative and highly theoretical, and it remains an area of active research and debate within theoretical physics and cosmology.
User
You said earlier that the laws of physics do not exist independently of matter, according to our current understanding of science. And yet Hawkins claim requires that the laws of physics exist independently of nature. So wouldn’t you say that Hawking’s claim is unscientific?
ChatGPT
Hawking’s claim does push the boundaries of our understanding of physics and cosmology. It challenges traditional notions of causality and the origin of the universe. While the concept he proposed is speculative and theoretical, it is based on mathematical frameworks within the realm of theoretical physics.
However, it’s important to distinguish between the concept of the laws of physics and the physical reality they describe. In the context of Hawking’s statement, the “laws of physics” refer to the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy within the universe. These laws are conceptualized within the framework of theoretical physics.
Whether this concept is considered “scientific” depends on one’s interpretation. It’s certainly a speculative proposition that goes beyond our current empirical observations and experimental validation. Some scientists view such ideas as legitimate avenues of theoretical exploration, while others may approach them with skepticism or consider them more philosophical in nature. Ultimately, the scientific community evaluates such propositions based on their consistency with empirical evidence, mathematical rigor, and potential for further investigation and testing.
User
How can you say that Hawkings proposition is based on mathematical frameworks within the laws of theoretical physics when we have already established that the laws of physics do not exist independently of matter according to the current understanding of science? Doesn’t Hawkings claim directly contradict our understanding physics?
ChatGPT
You raise a valid point. Stephen Hawking’s proposition indeed challenges our conventional understanding of the relationship between the laws of physics and the existence of the universe. His statement suggests a scenario where the laws of physics themselves could be sufficient to bring about the existence of the universe from a state of “nothingness.”
In our current understanding of physics, the laws of physics are descriptions of the behavior of matter and energy within the universe, and they arise from observations and experiments conducted within the universe itself. These laws are indeed intimately connected to the presence and behavior of matter and energy.
Hawking’s proposition ventures into speculative and theoretical territory, where the laws of physics are postulated to operate even in the absence of matter and energy as we know them. This concept does challenge conventional notions and remains a topic of active debate and exploration within theoretical physics and cosmology.
So, while his proposition may appear to contradict our current understanding of physics, it’s essential to recognize that it’s a speculative idea rooted in theoretical frameworks and mathematical reasoning. It serves as a thought experiment that pushes the boundaries of our understanding and invites further exploration and investigation.