When I was in a Graduate level Christian philosophy course in the early 2000’s the professor would take a a few of the postulates or hypothesis from Stephen Hawking’s book and we would examine them. He would point out why virtually all of his reasoning would get a person a failing grade at the graduate or doctoral level. He was guilty of all kinds of logical fallacies and special pleading and unfounded presuppositions that might have been the norm in the mid twentieth century but are a big no no the last 30 years.
The book is more fanciful scientific speculation than real science or philosophy.
“He was guilty of all kinds of logical fallacies.” I accept your statement. Maybe you can name two fallacies that were broken by Hawking? I detect two fallacies in your text: poisoning the well (”the norm in the mid twentieth century”) and red herring (”this book is more fanciful...”).
Stephen Hawking is brilliant. Went he uses the desk of Newton and is very humble about it.
Do you recall if there was a conflict with Goedel’s Theorem involved?
I am sorry you feel this way. Mr Hawkings Master’s Thesis earned him a Nobel Peace Prize in Physics back when that award actually meant something. What are your credentials?