Stephen Hawking's Regressive Cosmological Theory

Professor Stephen Hawking
Professor Stephen Hawking | Source

According to, in Professor Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, the professor states that a creator is 'not necessary' for the origin of our universe. Rather, he says that the physical laws, namely the Law of Gravity, is responsible for a Big Bang beginning of our universe. Here are Hawking's words:

"Because there is a law such as 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."

To boil down Hawking's position, the universe exists because it has no choice but to exist. The universe must fill the form provided for it by physical laws. To most scientists, it would seem, this is a great step forward in theoretic cosmology. However, I argue that this theory is a giant leap backwards, about 2350 years backwards.

Aristotle lived, according to Wikipedia, from 384 to 322 BC. His ideas about scientific inquiry were a bit different from modern thought. In Aristotelian thinking, the physical universe exists based on a rational goal or purpose, called the Aristotelian Form. For Aristotle, a chair exists because is follows the necessary Ideal Form. Once the form has been ascertained, the physical properties of the object can be determined by logic alone. There was no need for scientific inquiry.

Hawking has followed the same method with his new theory. He has ascertained that there are laws of physics which, by necessity, must produce our universe. He has no need for true scientific inquiry into the validity of his theory. Indeed, his theory is quite untestable, because we cannot reproduce the conditions of the event in a controlled laboratory setting. We are expected to take his word for it, to believe it.

Why would modern physics accept such a shoddy product? Because we have to accept something; we have to adopt a belief in one of these theories. Whether it be a necessary universe based on physical laws or a specially designed universe created by an all-powerful God, we must choose. Both positions are a belief system; both positions are inherently religious.

While Hawking may in fact be quite brilliant, his life has been spent theorizing rather than truly observing. He has become lost in his ideas rather than seek the truth of reality. His lifetime of fantasy conjecture has yielded only a questionable theory which denies observable reality.

More by this Author

  • Axis and Allies: Playing Japan

    This Axis and Allies wisdom is based on hundreds of games, played as either the Axis or the Allies, over more than two decades. The notes here refer to the Classic game, 2nd Edition. As with Germany, your primary...

  • Four Player Chess - Introduction

    When we speak of chess, we usually imagine 2 players facing off in a battle of creative tactics and strategy. But Chess 4 offers the next level of chess fun: 4 players facing off in a wild, chaotic melee. The normal...

  • Fortress America: Strategy and Tactics

    In 1986, Milton Bradley released its second Gamemaster board game: Fortress America. Having played Fortress America over one hundred times in the past decade, I offer the following wisdom for play. For the invaders to...

Comments 2 comments

Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 5 years ago from Sacramento, California

You know what? No one from either side of the ideological spectrum can argue with your post. At the very least, we on the God fearing side freely admit we are of a religion and therefore practice it tenements. Those who follow the supposed validity of Natural Selection or Hawking type theory will never admit they practice and evangelize in its name. Great hub, voted up. Cheers

Porshadoxus profile image

Porshadoxus 5 years ago from the straight and narrow way Author

Thanx for stopping by, Jason.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article