Stephen Hawking Reasoning And Posture Errors

Stephen Hawking reasoning and posture errors

Stephen Hawking was a British physicist and disseminator (he was born on January 8, 1942 and died on March 14, 2018 at age 76), mainly known for working on the basic laws that govern the universe. Stephen Hawking is the author of multiple books, including "the great design" in which he mentions, the most recent technical discoveries and progress of physics, presents a new image of the universe, and the place of humans in him. In the great design, Hawking assures that

Since there is a law like gravity, the universe could create itself from nothing, as happened. Spontaneous creation is the reason that there is something, instead of anything, that the universe exists, that we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to turn on the fuse and put the universe in operation. (Stephen Hawking, 2010, P. 68)

In this quote from the scientist’s book, he makes multiple statements, however, Jhon Lennox, a doctor in mathematics at the University of Oxford and associated with mathematics and philosophy of science at the Green Templeton College. Mentions that there are 3 argumentation errors in that sentence, based on circular reasoning. Under this idea, Lennox declares that

But contrary to what Hawking affirms, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws by themselves do not believe anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. (Jhon Lennox, 2017)

According to Jhon Lennox, the arguments given by Stephen Hawking have several reasoning errors. It is necessary before looking at Lennox’s arguments, which no contradiction is generated to his word. He admires Stephen Hawking as a mathematician and physical, is a genius. He also describes it, however, to someone like him, can fall into some kind of error. Once this is understood, you can analyze the errors of which Lennox speaks.

Jhon Lennox, who is the main reputant of these reasoning, gives his explanations of the counter -arguments under the same areas of knowledge by which they were given, so that this way can a valid counter -argument can be made and capable of convincing the people whoThey were previously convinced under that argument.

Stephen Hawking with Leonard Mlodinow, try to give explanation and update people about their knowledge of the laws of the universe in their book El Gran Design. This is because before, these two physicists had different ideas from those of the moment they wrote the book. Such as his ideas about the origin of the universe. Previously, Hawking wrote that the laws of physics meant that it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang. Wrote in a brief history ..

If we discover a complete theory, it would be the final triumph of human reason, because then we should know the mind of God. (Stephen Hawking, 1987)

In this event, the scientist implies that he believes almost openly in the existence of some god. And later in 1993 he affirms that the discovery in 1992 of a planet in orbit around another star other than the sun, helped to reconstruct the vision of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have emerged from chaos, but thatwas created by God. However, in the great design, (a more recent book than the previous ones) changes their minds and proposes that the universe was created by itself. Therefore, it is also important.

Continuing with Stephen’s argument, Hawking, like many other critics of religion, proposes that human beings are nothing more than a collection of molecules, the final product of a meaningless process. This, if true, would end in the mere rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an un directed process, then there would be no reason to believe in its ability to tell the truth. Although they are the thesis and arguments given by one of the greatest geniuses of science that has existed, it should not be taken as a true without before having done a deep analysis, since it is usually not done because of the person who said it. Intelligence comes from distrust, and as Jorge Luis Borges said "doubt is one of the names of intelligence"

However, various counter -arguments have been generated to Jhon Lennox’s counterarguments, despite most of these make argumentation errors or are fallacious, or contain explanation without solid empirical evidence, this of course does not mean that there is no valid counterargument to that ofLennox, only that the reasoning is very well exposed. This of course is not even close to testing the existence of God, but if it can be close to thinking about the possibility that with the arguments of Stephen Hawking, the possibility of ruling out a supernatural being for the creation of the universe is decreasing, it is preciselyFor these reasons, that it is important to abound in this debate, estimating to what extent both positions are admissible.