So, has the riddle of how the universe began been solved, all without resorting to a divine being? Is this idea logical and does it resonate with known scientific findings?
One issue with this is that it's just one more turtle on the way down. It does explain why we have a universe filled with matter; but it's not a creation of everything from "nothing" in the true sense of nothingness.
Even when Hawking says, "Because there must be such a law, the universe created itself from nothing." If we take "nothing" to literally mean the absence of everything, the contradiction should be readily apparent: whence, then, came laws like gravity?
So, regardless of knowing now why matter exists, we don't know why "something at all" exists rather than "the absence of anything." This finding does not absolutely vindicate atheism; rather it just makes the necessity of a God-like being that much less likely and that much less rational to believe.
However, it would be unfair to say that god(s) have no place anymore with this understanding -- if, even as an atheist, I must be perfectly honest. The "nothing" from which matter comes from that Hawking mentions is a lot more of a "something" than his poor choice of words indicates: there is still the existence of energy (via quantum fields -- energy, as a property, is always carried by something rather than existing unto itself) and there is still the existence of logical and natural laws to account for.
Now, to step away from objectivity and into the realm of speculation, I suspect that the reason "somethingness" exists rather than "an absence of everything" is because some aspect of "somethingness" is ontologically necessary: it's not possible
not to exist, so the notion that it requires an explanation for existing may be false (again, this is my speculation).
Back to objectivity, it can already be demonstrated that there are some necessary laws which aren't possible not to be true: logical self-identity is my favorite example. If we suppose the existence of anything and then try to negate that, we find that we can't -- so by reductio ad absurdum, we must agree that at least something
must exist.
If we substitute "the existence of anything" with the symbol x, and then we propose ¬x, we still find that we must agree with the foundations of logic and its corollaries:
(¬x = ¬x) --> T (true)
(¬x V x) --> T
¬(¬x ^ x) --> T
Even assuming the absence of anything demonstrates the efficacy of identity, negating the original premise that there isn't anything (since we must agree there is still identity!)
This doesn't get us very far though. That doesn't explain why things like energy and natural laws exist. But in my opinion, it's a large step forward in explaining "why something rather than nothing:" because "nothing" in its truest sense is an impossibility. No gods are required for that, but it doesn't discount their possibility either -- however small.
