| Kasz216 said: I'm guessing it's not that Hawking missed the point, but the people like Manus and reporters who are representing the work are missing the point, but regardless the point has been clearly missed... which i'm guessing is a point you are missign as well. The point being a very simple and basic one... One could say that putting extremely flammable liquids in an area can cause a fire without man's intereference because of the nature of the liquid it would catch fire spontaniously on it's own. Such a question ignores how the liquid was created and how it got there in the first place. Or even by saying an electric cucu clock doesn't need people because the bird will pop out without human interaction. Due to gravity there is no need for god to cause the big bang out of the compression that first caused it... but what does that really mean? |
It seems to me that Hawking is arguing (or at least proposing) that the creation of the universe is simply an unavoidable event which had to come into being and therefore was not necessarily created by some kind of intervention.
Now I won't pretend to be able to explain exactly how this can happen or even that it did but I don't understand how certain people seem to think that it is impossible for the universe to, for lack of a better expression, 'create itself'. If something had to be a prime mover, why not the laws of physics? The problem I have with the idea of a creator is that it doesn't help to resolve anything at all, it simply pushes back the first mover an extra step as we are then left with the issue of who created the creator? If we have to start somewhere, why not start with something we can observe and measure as opposed to some metaphysical entity of which there is no experience of?
