We're not talking about those things. Stay on topic. We're discussing the creation of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. As usual, when pinned down with facts you guys change the subject. The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. There can be no other way. You claim to believe in atheism which proclaims to be certain there is no Creator. Certainty can only come from a strong religous belief.
You don't understand what's being said. You're quoting Hawking so you should start from here and stop confusing yourself with bits and pieces you keep lifting while attempting to form religious pre-conclusions ... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking Top down OR bottom up approaches would still rely on the same spontaneous creation.
Obama got good grades at Harvard. Big deal. I graduated from MIT with an A average. So what? Obama, the "Constitutional scholar", has clearly demonstrated that he either doesn't know what's in the Constitution or doesn't care. The politician who is a real Constitutional scholar is Ron Paul. Paul never got a law degree but he did do something Obama didn't do -- he read the Constitution and the writings of those who ratified and argued for it, and knows what it means. Obama started a war in Libya with no authorization of any sort from congress (never mind a proper declaration of war). Where does the Constitution say a president can do that? Obama pushed for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which strips away your 4th Amendment rights. God save us from Harvard educated "Constitutional scholars." Yes, Buffet and Soros are Democrats and much richer than me. There are plenty of Republicans who are much richer than me too. That proves nothing.
What troll you are... I have been spoon feeding this science to you for years... where now you finely make some reasonably close to accurate statements. You have been arguing that no scientists say our universe appears finely tuned... But, arguendo... And, after that spontaneous creation... you need to explain why the values for that universe turned out to be so finely tuned for life.
I am on topic. You are referring to unfalsifiable theories that lead to nowhere, whatever they may be. Whether they are about the creation of the universe or about imaginary celestial teapots presented for the sake of argument to show you how silly you are, they have a string of consistency. They are useless. So when you are pinned down with the facts, you resort to attempted gravitas ("creation of the universe!") when the QUALITY of that theory is no better than the one in favor of the existence of unicorns. Subject matter is irrelevant when discussing the quality of a theory. Whether you choose not to see it, or are genuinely incapable of doing so, well, only you know that for sure.
The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. Rubbish. Agnostic is 'can't know'. There's nothing in science or anything scientific that says it can't be known how the universe came about, or what you call creation. There is in practice, really no such thing as being religiously agnostic. It's just a term for someone who doesn't want to use a word stigmatized by the religious. If you don't know if you believe or not then you are not actually a believer. That's atheist.
I thought Obama never released his grades... how does brass know how he did at Harvard. Just a question, I just know I have never read about a grade and I know Brass has a habit of mis interpreting with massive left spin.