In the Introduction to his book “A Brief History of Time”, Hawking provides evidence he is a Creationist. Creationists are Mystics. Mystics accept Supernaturalism as fact. Creation Theory is one of the theological arguments against the natural universe. Hawking also has no absolutes. He doesn’t come right out and say that nor does he shy away from some absolutes but he for example regards nothing as something. The problem is there is not something that exists that is called nothing. Nothing means, well, nothing. An old example is to claim that there is something in my pocket called nothing but nothing means an absense of something. Nothing either exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t exist it cannot simultaneously exist.
It’s a flaw in a person’s metaphysics. Usually it’s related to the acceptance of the supernatural or to other characteristics which don’t exist. The problem is resolved by Aristotles: “Existence Exists”. my favorite expression is: “A is A”. Existence has characteristics which in turn exist. Nothing has no characteristic at all because it doesn’t exist.
Often the problem manifests itself as the acceptance that Zero has characteristics. Mathematically, and Hawking is a mathematician, the idea of a zero is useful to hold a mathematical place however holding a place open doesn’t mean there is such a thing as nothing.
This is not some “Number of Angles on a Pin” argument. Metaphysics is serious stuff. It’s the basis for everything. A flawed Metaphysics sooner or later provides wrong answers. Wrong answers are against survival and that can be fatal.
Hawking calls himself a cosmologist. Cosmology is a set of beliefs about the creation of the universe and it is a set of contradictory information compared to science. Using science Hawking argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary.”
Here’s a flash. The people who need to prove something are those who bring it up. People who want to prove God should do it themselves. It’s not up to Hawking to prove God doesn’t exist. That’s the job of those who claim he exists. It’s logically wrong to demand that others prove them wrong. That’s another fallacy of Hawkings. He believes it’s up to him and science to prove God doesn’t exist. It’s up to those who bring up the idea of God to prove his existence. It’s curious why Hawking doesn’t get that.