Video: Youtube.com
At 25:00, the man digging the hole and creating the hill that represents the creation of the
universe, is an interesting idea. However, both the positive and negative energy still had to come
from something, represented by the flat piece of land on which the man began his work. Its
impossible for there to be absolutely nothing. Even the void from which the universe comes is
something.
The man's statement starting at 27:45 and ending at 27:51 cannot be used as proof nor can it be
proven itself as we cannot observe the universe and all of existence in it's
entirety in order to make that mathematical calculation.
Hawking's comment starting at 28:42 and ending at 28:55 is merely a statement of opinion, not
fact, and can't be backed up either. There is no human concept that can prove or disprove the
existence of God, not even mathematics. It should also be noted that just because
something/someone isn't needed for something to occur doesn't mean that that something/someone
wasn't behind it anyway.
At 30:32-30:40 the narrator states that at the subatomic level, things do spontaneously come from
nothing. Firstly, Einstein said you can't get something from nothing. Secondly, its impossible to
observe what a subatomic particle is doing, where it is going, and how fast is it moving at the
same time. You can only observe one of these at a time. Therefore one cannot know if anything on
the subatomic level is just popping in and out of existence because that requires that you know
everything about what each particle is doing, where they are going, and how fast they are moving
all at the same time. He also says that if you watch, you see them appearing, disappearing, and
reappearing all over the place. That doesn't mean they are popping in and out of existence. It
means the particles move at an unobservable speed.
At 35:03-35:10 he states that time simply "began". However, time is just a human concept and way
of measuring our movement through existence from one point to another. There is no actual physical
(energy or otherwise) thing that makes up "time". This would explain why time is relative to the
perception of the viewer and how time can appear to repeat itself, slow down, speed up, or stop
entirely.
At 39:20-39:35 his statement shows he's not done his own research on God or even what the Bible
says about God. God has no beginning and no end. He does not need time because He exists outside
of time. He can exist outside of time because "time" is a human concept, not an actual thing
that physically exists. His statement can also be used as an argument to explain how God's
existence is possible. Because time did not exist and does not exist for God, God can have no
beginning and no end and still exist Himself.
Hawking is a respectable man but the statement of "there's no God and no heaven, FACT. END OF STORY" really gives him no credibility considering he's a great scientist. He should know that you can't make such claims unless you have the evidence to back them up.
Has he discovered evidence that this universe arose from nothing or was always eternal? No otherwise we would have heard it long ago and they would be teaching it in schools, colleges and universities.
Has he discovered evidence that there are no others realms/dimensions behind our own? Nope.
His statement (as yuri said) is merely an opinion.
My personal belief is that he's only saying such things because of his medical condition which has made him question God's existence over the years. After years of having no miraculous recovery, he can't see how a god could exist because there's been no divine intervention and in spite of this, he's denied any heaven existing which he has dismissed as a fairy tale.
Fair enough. He has his personal view based on his life and experiences but that doesn't make his views factual. Any who take Hawking's quote and say "look, Hawking said God and heaven are fake and because of his intelligence he must be right" is using an argument from authority. I could easily quote Newton about atheism and use that and say that Newton was right because of his intelligence (which I've done in the past only to debunk an argument from authority that an atheist has put forth).
He also fails to consider something else. He has lived longer than any ALS patient. Obviously he didn't die by his late 20s or 30s even though thats what happens to people with ALS. Its possible God has allowed him to live WAAAAAAY longer so that he can eventually have his eyes opened and be saved. At least, I hope so and would like to think so. Science has provided no treatments, let alone cures, for ALS. So why is he even still alive? I say its God's will.