Introduction
Stephen Hawking, renowned as one of the foremost theoretical physicists of the modern era, has significantly influenced the fields of cosmology and quantum mechanics, especially through his groundbreaking work on black holes. However, his assertions in The Grand Design, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, present a substantial philosophical challenge to the traditional theistic worldview. In this work, Hawking posits that "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." 1 This claim, while celebrated by some as a revolutionary statement in the debate about the origins of the universe, suffers from severe logical, philosophical, and scientific shortcomings. These deficiencies not only challenge the cogency of Hawking’s argument but also underscore the necessity of a theistic explanation for the existence of the universe.
The Inadequacy of Hawking’s Explanation of the Law of Gravity
At the crux of Hawking’s argument lies the law of gravity, which he proposes as the mechanism by which the universe spontaneously created itself. However, his proposition rests on a crucial, unexamined presupposition: that the law of gravity exists independently and eternally, without requiring an explanation for its own origin. This oversight presents a glaring philosophical problem. To posit the existence of a law without addressing its source is to leave a significant gap in the explanatory framework. As cosmologist George Ellis observes, any comprehensive theory of cosmology must grapple not only with the nature of the universe but also with the origins of the fundamental laws that govern it. 2 Hawking’s failure to account for the genesis and constancy of the law of gravity leaves his explanation philosophically deficient.
Moreover, Hawking’s claim that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" 3 runs afoul of well-established metaphysical principles. The axiom ex nihilo nihil fit - "out of nothing, nothing comes" - remains a cornerstone of both classical metaphysical reasoning and contemporary scientific understanding. Self-creation is inherently paradoxical. It presupposes the existence of the very entity that is supposed to come into being. As philosopher Richard Swinburne has pointed out, such a claim violates the logical principle of non-contradiction by suggesting that the universe could exist and not exist simultaneously.4 From a metaphysical perspective, the notion of self-creation is not only counterintuitive but untenable.
Philosophical and Theological Implications of Spontaneous Creation
The philosophical and theological ramifications of Hawking’s theory extend far beyond cosmological concerns. If the universe could indeed create itself out of nothing, the necessity of a Creator, as posited by classical theism, would be rendered obsolete. However, this line of reasoning overlooks the foundational question of why anything exists at all. Physical laws, such as gravity, are descriptive of how matter behaves under certain conditions; they are not generative causes of existence. Philosopher David Bentley Hart critiques this aspect of Hawking’s reasoning, noting that physical laws describe regularities within the universe but do not offer a reason for the existence of those laws themselves.5 Without an explanation for the origin of these governing principles, Hawking’s model remains incomplete and ultimately unsatisfactory.
From a theological perspective, Hawking’s rejection of a Creator echoes the claims of ancient skepticism. The Apostle Paul’s interaction with the Roman governor Festus, as recorded in Acts 26:24-25, highlights the tension between the pursuit of truth and the accusation of irrationality. When Festus accused Paul of madness due to his extensive learning, Paul responded that he spoke "the words of truth and reason." 6 This exchange underscores the importance of grounding philosophical claims in both truth and reason, qualities that seem conspicuously absent from Hawking’s assertion of a self-creating universe.
Furthermore, the Psalmist’s reflection that "the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"7 resonates profoundly in this context. The denial of a Creator, in light of the overwhelming evidence of design and purpose in the universe, constitutes a rejection not only of theological truth but of reason itself. Modern theistic philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue that the fine-tuning of the universe provides compelling evidence for the existence of a rational, divine Creator.8 The laws of nature, rather than existing autonomously, point toward an intelligent source of their origin.
Conclusion
While Stephen Hawking’s contributions to theoretical physics are indisputable, his rejection of a divine Creator in favor of a self-creating universe fails to provide a coherent or comprehensive explanation for the origins of existence. His inability to address the origin of the law of gravity, coupled with the philosophical contradictions inherent in the notion of spontaneous creation, undermines his argument. Theism, with its affirmation of a rational, purposeful Creator, offers a far more satisfying account of both the universe and the laws that govern it. As scholars continue to investigate the origins of the cosmos, it is imperative to remain guided by reason, evidence, and the pursuit of truth—principles that, in the final analysis, align more closely with theism than with Hawking’s atheistic model.
References
1. Michael Holden, “‘God Did Not Create the Universe,’ Says Hawking,” Reuters, September 2, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking.
2. George Ellis, "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" The Philosophy of Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 301.
3.Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 180.
4.Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), 141.
5. David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 59.
6. Acts 26:24-25 (KJV).
7. Psalm 14:1 (KJV).
8. Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 273.
Comentarios