Penrose & Hawking used mathematics to conclude the universe had a beginning, along with space, time, matter & energy.
Is there really any difference in a universe that dies and is consequently reborn and the one they imagine? If the former could Penrose and Hawking tell the difference? It is probably better said that Penrose and Hawking solved the mathematical problems of theory by making up a creation story where all there is ... even the laws that govern all there is ... were created by a god named Nothing.
Their findings have been confirmed by physicists & mathematicians.
It may be better said that physicists and mathematicians agree with the analysis and the methods.
In fact, more recently other astrophysicists found that any universe that is expanding on average must have had a beginning, again by peer-reviewed math
But does this really matter when it is what they want to believe already? Ask yourself is there any difference in the evidence that fails to falsify a universe that starts from nothing or one that collapses and expands again? How can they be so cock-sure? I recall Hawking claiming a Theory of Everything was 20 years away and that was close to 40 years ago. Think about it ... a theory of all there is ... so close ... that doesn't leave much room for skeptical thinking.
