Stephen Hawking Does it Without Singularity
Stephen Hawking attempted to propose a universe that has a beginning but no boundaries, in order to eliminate the question of what happened before the beginning. According to his proposal, the beginning is a beginning, but at the same time, it is not a boundary in order for someone to ask what came before the beginning, as what came before was the universe itself. What Hawking proposes is that, as we look back to the beginning of the universe, time ceases to exist, becoming an additional dimension of space. Hence, there is no time, and to ask what happened before the beginning becomes a meaningless question. The universe becomes self-sufficient, relying on the possibilities coming from within. (Please refer to the book below for the detailed quote by Hawking)
In this manner, Hawking avoids the hypothesis of the singularity at which physical laws break down and, in his view, he now has a chain beginning of the universe at which the laws of physics (such as quantum mechanics) function. At the same time, he got rid of the persistent question of what there was before the universe, or who set the universe in motion. As such, he believes he has rendered the universe self-contained without needing anyone external to set it in motion, based on what he imagines.
To solve the dilemma of the probability of our very universe specifically coming into existence, Hawkins hypothesized that there are multiple possibilities, based on the same uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.
Assuming there are multiple histories and possibilities for the universe (which we have previously discussed), I believe that the mere assumption that many other histories or possibilities of the universe evaporate and disappear just because we exist here to observe the universe places importance on our existence that is inconsistent with what atheism postulates. At this point, I will repeat what I said before:
If the collapse of the wave function is caused by the observer or the recording of the quantum event by the observer, as the Copenhagen interpretation states, this means that if it weren’t for the existence of the human being or the intelligent being, there would be no universe. The universe owes its existence to our observation of it, as the entire universe is a quantum system with a wave function and many possibilities, and it only exists when we observe it and the wave function collapses and it is identified in reality. This issue means that we humans, or let’s say intelligence, pose the axis for which the universe was brought into existence (see page 418).
Hawking’s aforementioned statement that “we create history by our observation, rather than history creating us” does not help him prove that the universe does not require a god, because in short, it makes us a condition for the existence of the entire universe. In other words, the universe was made to exist for us and, consequently, we are a purpose and there is a purposeful entity. I have discussed the issue of us creating events in the section entitled, ‘Do we observe things or do we create them through observation?’
The Multiplicity of Universes Is Enough to Unravel the Yarn
We can also say that a percentage of these possibilities, although perhaps small, are suitable for matter to form therein, and then for intelligent life to emerge to observe it. Therefore, these universes, or some of them, must exist and these beings must observe them. Otherwise, what distinguishes us and the universe we observe from them and the universes they observe?
Thus, there is no escape here from the hypothesis that the multiplicity of universes is true. The multiplicity of universes alone is enough to unravel the yarn, since it can be assumed that the quantum vacuum fluctuations (which supposedly brought the current universe into existence) are the effects of other universes.
Space and Consequently the Hypothesis of God is Still Required
Moreover, Hawking’s hypothesis for the universe to begin and be self-sufficient with the rolls of the dice from within (as he likes to call them) would require the prior availability of space, no matter how infinitesimal—such as a singularity like in the other hypotheses—in order for us to achieve quantum fluctuations that bring the universe into existence. This moves the question from being about the beginning to being about what preceded this space. It is either that this initial universe (space and quantum fluctuations) is new (which would mean that someone brought the universe into existence, and the universe is not self-contained), or that the universe is old but at the same time allows for new events, which is impossible. What allows for new things is new itself. Thus, according to the above, the hypothesis of a god and lord is still required. Even if this requirement is not on the level of energy and cosmic matter, it remains on the level of the cosmic space that is qualified for the appearance of quantum fluctuations therein, no matter how infinitesimal this space is.
This is in addition to the fact that these quantum fluctuations are unexplained; their existence is only decided by the uncertainty principle without knowing its cause and source. Even if we do not find a source for them within our universe, that does not mean they are unexplained. All there is to it is that their source can be from outside our universe – an issue we have previously discussed, and we demonstrated that the multiple universes hypothesis is the correct one.
Page 471, The Atheism Delusion
Ahmed Al-Hasan