On the question of the Universe....

First, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

In response to Dr. Hawking's article:

In raising the question of the origin and nature of the Universe, it is important first to define terms and examine two mutually exclusive states: "is" and "is not". Anything that "is", or even "was", has definite attributes and can be described in terms of those attributes -- from the simplest to the most complex of things. The state of "is not" is definable only in that no attributes exist.
Relying on these terms we will consider three scenarios for the origin and nature of the Universe.

In the first, we consider that the Universe has a point of origin (a popular theory, and one Dr. Hawking seems to espouse in his article); a transition from a state of "is not", where nothing existed -- no matter, no time, no information, no state of being, total nothingness where attributes cannot exist -- to a state of "is", the Universe springing into being in whatever form it first took, with its original attributes. It seems impossible for the Universe to have come into being through such a transition; "is not" utterly lacks attributes, including the attribute by which a Universe or state of existence can be issued. No such mechanism could exist in a state of nothingness -- for if it were possible, the state of nothingness would indeed be somethingness, in that it possessed the attribute necessary to trigger the Universe and would itself as a state of somethingness have required its own point of origin. Such reasoning leads nowhere useful, requiring an infinite number of prior states and points of origin, each triggered by the one preceeding it, and never answering the question by which "is not" births "is".

The second scenario is that of an eternal Universe (a theory growing in popularity amongst quantum theorists), where a universal state of "is not" never was; only "is", possessing no origin and not destined for an eventual end. Such a scenario is problematic from the perspective of science, for "eternity" and "infinity" cannot be examined scientifically; an eternal state is not objectively observable, testable or falsifiable. Equally problematic in this scenario is conjuring up a mechanism by which the coherent laws of the Universe as we know them came into being, along with all matter, energy, information and states. Even if we consider Dr. Hawking's suggestion that quantum mechanics and gravity are the fundamental creative forces responsible for all things, whereby did quantum mechanics and gravity come into being? The reply of science must therefore be, "Whatever mechanism was ultimately responsible has always existed and will exist eternally". In this way, the scenario of the eternal Universe is philosophically and scientifically indistinct from belief in God -- an all-powerful being who likewise has no origin, and is not observable, testable or falsifiable in terms of science.

Belief in such a Universe to the exclusion of God becomes arbitrary and a matter of preference over probability. The question of "how did God come to be?" is no more troubling than "how did the Universe come to be?" -- and in fact, requiring no answer to satisfy the question of origins, it seems intellectually more palatable to place belief in an intelligent force as the 'cause' and existence as the 'effect', than random inexplicable happenstance as a 'cause' and orderly law-bound existence as an 'effect' (indeed an increasingly long chain of inexplicability: something from nothing, order from disorder, coherence from incoherence). Skepticism in this case isn't brought on by ignorance of science, but instead by reason; and is much the same as the reasonable skepticism one might feel if, while enjoying a sandwich, a colleague insisted that the sandwich had been skillfully prepared by a passing flock of birds.

Having admitted the deficiencies of science in describing the origins and nature of the Universe, and admitting the requisite "supernatural" -- that which cannot be described scientifically -- nature of the Universe, we allow the emergence of a third scenario, the original scenario arrived at by early humankind as it happens and the scenario the majority of humans past and present have professed belief in through "common sense": the existence of God as the originator of our Universe, a being with no origin who exists outside the laws of time and space and science as we know them -- and through whose will all existence, laws and states have come into being. In truth, a being who is simply not wholly comprehensible in human terms nor examinable from the scientific perspective.

As I've demonstrated in scenarios #1 and #2, trying to answer the question of the Universe and its origins from a strictly scientific viewpoint is not only problematic; it's futile. Modern science has set 'falsifiability', 'testability' and 'empiricism' as the standards by which reality must be judged; yet, those same principles fall short in providing a reasonable description of the origin and nature of the very Universe and laws they purport to describe. In this sense, we must concede "the supernatural" as the only reasonable mechanism by which we can understand the origins of the Universe. And, having come thus far - acknowledging that scientific scrutiny alone is insufficient to provide an answer to the question of origins - is it so unreasonable to place belief in an intelligent, purposeful, all-powerful God?