Stephen Hawking's answer to God question tiresome

Whether or not Stephen Hawking's position is philosophically sound, this response certainly isn't. The question is where does the universe come from? The author's argument is that something can't come out of nothing. You can't use the laws of nature (like Hawking does) to explain where the universe came from because those are something. Therefor, the universe must have been created by God.

Except that the next obvious question is "Well then, where did God come from? God is something, isn't he (she/it), and you just said that something can't come from nothing." Ah, but when you define God, you define God as something that didn't have to be created. But if one is allowed to define God as something that didn't need to be created, certainly, Stephen Hawking should be allowed to define the laws of nature as something that didn't have to be created as well.

If your argument is that there had to be a "something" that got the universe moving, then I wouldn't disagree. But it's a pretty huge leap from, 'there is "something" that got the universe moving' to 'that something is an omnipotent, omniscient being.'

I shouldn't get drawn by this stuff but I do.

Here's the line of thinking that gets me: current scientific theory suggests the universe started with the big bang. It doesn't suggest how or why the big bang started, but let's assume a cause. Then the cause must be a deity (in this article "the true God", or "he").

All this assumes far more than is warranted. Even if you choose to say an "entity" caused it, rather than a "process", or something else entirely, why assign such an entity (or group of entities) with number, gender, agency, and magic powers (beyond the ability to start the big bang, once, back then)?

"I confess that something in me tightens whenever I hear a scientist pontificating on issues that belong to the arena of philosophy or metaphysics. I will gladly listen to Stephen Hawking when he holds forth on matters of theoretical physics, but he’s as qualified to talk about philosophical and religious issues as any college freshman."

The existence of the universe is very much a matter of theoretical physics and Steven Hawking, understanding this, is surely more qualified to talk about such issues than Rev. Robert Barron regardless of his opinion that they are philosophical or religious.

I don't know what prompted Steven Hawking's appearance in the media with this opinion, but here is a lecture on one explanation for why the universe does not need any first cause, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Eh, he makes valid points. There are areas of knowledge outside of the purview of the dynamics of energy and matter. For example...math. Hawkings book from what I can tell doesn't really add anything new to the dialog.

Also, if you got ANGRY reading that, I feel sorry for you.

It's amazing stuff like this can get published in large newspapers and probably shows a bit about how religion is in America. So I guess because spontaneous existence from nothing sounds ridiculous it must not be possible.

Why is this anti-science, irrelevant to business and technology trash on here? Not more than 3 hours ago I scolded a friend for posting political material on here and then I come home to find this?

I thought god wuz a hacker