[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your analysis of the Hawking article! Again, I agree with you. The very points that grab your attention are the ones that leave me shaking my head.

...the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Great catch on the word "therefore" and the tautology. There is no sense per se in declaring that because a thing had a beginning, it must therefore have begun on its own.

With regard to the other questions you raise, IMHO, Hawking evidences an “end justifies the means” motive. He cannot entertain the possibility of an external cause and thus tortures the Big Bang with imaginary time to avoid the meaning. He reveals the motive here:

Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe

[betty boop]

There is no sense per se in declaring that because a thing had a beginning, it must therefore have begun on its own.

I can't think of a single example in nature of a thing that has a spontaneously self-generated beginning, "out of nothing," as it were. Maybe there are such things; just I haven't seen one yet. Can anyone here point out to me a single instance of such a thing?

WRT Hawking, A-G I agree with your perception that he is beginning with a conclusion, and is marshalling his "evidence" to make sure his preferred conclusion can be reached. It seems quite an odd way to approach scientific questions....

Thanks for your kind words, A-G -- and for this wonderful post!