Physicist Stephen Hawking was undoubtedly a brilliant and courageous figure. But like everyone, he wasn’t perfect.
Stephen Hawking: “The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics. 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. The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own.”
Of course, this raises a question: what is the justification for Stephen’s assertion that the universe was already there to “launch its own existence” without any outside help?
To make an assertion like Stephen’s, one must be careful about how words like God, creation, and universe are defined. That is, one must first ensure semantic consistency by defining these terms in such a way that they can be meaningfully connected, and then one must justify the definitions in a reality-theoretic framework, or metaformal semantic network, which mirrors the universe as we know it by cognitive and perceptual experience.
As it turns out, there is indeed a highly generic cognitive framework in which reality requires no precursor. Basically, it identifies “God” with a “real universe” capable of self-configuring or “self-creating” by conspansive telic recursion. I’m talking, of course, about the CTMU. But despite the attempt of a major television network (ABC) to make sure that Stephen was duly informed of it, this was apparently forbidden by what amounted to an academic Praetorian Guard, or if one prefers, to priests jealously surrounding an inert idol of their personal god and conveying its otherwise unknowable will to the worshipful from on high.
Under the protection of these handlers, who by virtue of Stephen’s medical condition had sealed him in a shell of impenetrable bureaucracy, he was able to get away with the usual sloppy definitions of terms like God, creation, and universe, reaching flawed conclusions that were then cast down to the masses like Olympian thunder. Shielded from reality behind their self-dealing monopoly on his ear, poor Stephen remained locked into the obsolete metaphysical-naturalist perspective which continues to bear his brand.
But although Stephen was dead wrong about God not creating the universe - which may be why his academic handlers nixed the 2-way interview that ABC News tried to set up between us over two decades ago - there was something else about which he may very well have been right.
“If aliens visit us, the outcome could be much like when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans," he said in an interview. “Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach."
It’s actually a bit worse than that. The truth is that we may already be infested by alien intelligence ... the kind of intelligence that holds humanity in such contempt as to (1) lock down the world population on the pretext of an engineered pandemic, (2) wreck entire economies in order to “reset” the world to its exclusive advantage, (3) tell the public that "You will own nothing and be happy (or else), live in tiny urban coffins, and eat insects,” and (4) manipulate human population genetics by involuntary social engineering clearly designed to homogenize and genetically downgrade the human species.
Why are the human “elite” behaving like inhuman, power-drunk sadists and dysgenic livestock breeders without a single word explaining their apparent mischief? None of them seems to have an answer. It's almost as if they are hosts-of-convenience for alien, demonic, or egregoreal "walk-ins" whose motives their hosts cannot grasp despite being completely in their thrall.
The CTMU, which provides critical scaffolding for the metaphysical level of explanation, supports viable causal scenarios. Standard causal theory, on the other hand, explains nothing, relying as it does on a barren pseudo-causal determinacy-versus-nondeterminacy dichotomy that has run out of gas against the “big questions”.
Obviously, neither Creation nor the bizarre collective behavior of the overclass is satisfactorily explained by tiny particles randomly colliding with each other like microscopic billiard balls locked into a bankrupt causal dichotomy. Creation is too necessary and profound, and overclass inhumanity is too destructive and improbable.
© 2022 by Christopher M. Langan
His writing in that quote seems very specific. He didn't say God. He said a God. Semantically I read that as God as a word used how most understand it as. Due to His light, God's light, sentences using that word or synonyms are highly relative perceptually to the reader's own definition. I respect you both, it may indeed have been that things were blocked because they may have believed you would be too aggressive in debating him, and they didn't want the momentum of the public believing in his insights to get challenged, afraid so to speak. I think Hawking's issues with using the word God was from his own difficulty in defining the term. He believed but he dedicated his life to understanding the universe and surely in all his time sitting in thought he saw the universe and himself as extensions of each other. Perhaps he believed that if God made the universe he made a universe that was its own, that is, from a physical point it would have the form of a universe that came from nothing.
Besides, he didn't say the universe created itself from nothing exactly. He said it conditionally aka "X happened first and now this is the universe's state" and that the state of nothing is implied by that sentence to be a superposition of what is nothing and what is seen as nothing, that it was because of "a law" "such as" gravity. So he in this statement is defining the universe as being created because of gravity. He did not say gravity did not need a creator or have one. As far as I know he focused on black holes and not as much on what caused gravity. He said no one can prove God doesn't exist, and perhaps his proof of that is the same question of the source of gravity. Perhaps God made us like him to be self sufficient so he's spiritually saying that science or rather the pursuit of looking at information truthfully makes, the usual religion-bound definition of God, as unnecessary.
Chris, I'd love to know your views on Flat Earth in detail.
Thanks for all you do.