Hawking says humans close to finding answers to origin of universe

Acclaimed British physicist Stephen Hawking has said that humanity is finally getting close to understanding the origin of the universe.

Speaking at a lecture in Hong Kong, Hawking said that despite some theoretical advances in the past years, there are still mysteries as to how the universe began.

"Despite having had some great successes, not everything is solved. We do not yet have good theoretical understanding of the observation of the expansion of the universe," he told an audience of 2,500 at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Thursday.

"New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly; cosmology is a very exciting subject. We are getting close to answering these old questions: why are we here, where did we come from?"

The 64-year-old also said his unfulfilled ambitions, among many, were to find out what happens inside black holes, how the universe began and how the human race can survive in the next 100 years.

On Tuesday Hawking said the human race should reach for the stars to survive as the Earth is at risk of being wiped out by a disaster.

He believes humans should settle in space, predicting a lunar settlement within 20 years and a Martian colony in 40.

Hawking, a Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, speaks with a voice synthesiser and has been in a wheelchair since developing motor neurone disease.

During his Hong Kong visit he also revealed he is writing a children's book with his daughter about theoretical physics.

Hawking is the author of international best seller "A Brief History of Time", which attempted to explain a range of subjects in cosmology, including the Big Bang, black holes, light cones and superstring theory.

He is on a six-day visit to Hong Kong and will meet Chief Executive Donald Tsang Friday before heading to Beijing Saturday where he will give a lecture on string theory.

I'm not really very religious, for better or worse, but I wouldn't wish to argue with you as to what part Jesus may play in the possible salvation of humanity from an asteroid strike, or the sun going nova, etc.

If humanity develops the technology and wisdom to forestall such a thing, whether through the ability to flee, to deflect an impact or some other way, Jesus can be given credit, and perhaps rightfully so. OTOH, if humanity is to be saved by old fashioned miracles performed by Jesus in "person," there will still be doubters and rivals, for whatever reason.

In any case, thank you for your thoughts.

You said -- "So let's break this down. We have a thread about the world's leading physicist, you quote scripture inferring he's a fool and your grand point is?"

There's no "inference" here. It's clear. God says he's a fool. Take it straight from God's mouth to your ears..., if you will...

Jesus said what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul. That's the definition of a fool. The Bible also said that it's a fool who has said in his heart that there is no God.

Like I said -- no "inference" -- just straight out...

Regards,
Star Traveler

Well you have no grounds to assume I am unaware of Velikovsky, and you miss the boat again by believing I am dazzled by Ward Churchill's or Angela Davis' "credentials". I'm very familiar with Velikovsky, and don't honor Ward's or Angela's credentials or opinions any more than I do yours.

BTW Sagan received his degrees from U of Chicago and taught at Harvard and Cornell. I happen to like Sagans' attempts to popularize astro-physics and some of his work. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of his work and opinions, but I don't claim to know about all of them.

If someone is a moron, no amount of credentials will cover over the flaws. I'd say that credentials generally give someone the right to be taken seriously, until thy start to sounds like a moron, and then you go to plan A (see above).

You said -- "But alot of your cohorts deem it necessary to do the same thing to scientific threads."

It's a "worldview" issue -- which deals with "truth". At the bottom line, what is at stake is something called "truth", which forms the "worldview" of the person who holds that position.

Now, in terms of public discourse, what that is all about (at least in democratic types of societies) is having these things hashed out public view for all to see, so the truth can rise to the top and untruth will sink of its own weight.

What's going on here is a clash of worldviews. One is right and the other is not. It's as simple as that.

However, in reality, there is no such thing as a clash between true science and what God has said in the Bible. True science will always find itself moving towards truth. And since God is truth -- true science will always come to the position of God.

The problem is that there is politics in science and it's not always faithful to the truth.

This is nothing more than coming into the public arena and saying "What you're saying is not true. Here is the reason that it's not true."

What is evident from many quarters (in this society) is that many prefer these kinds of "discussions" to be *sequestered* behind closed doors and not take place "in the public arena".

It's what is meant by "You do this over there (i.e., "keep to yourself") and we'll do it over here. However, the "over here" is the entirety of society -- while the "over there" is "behind closed doors".

That's why you see this happening the way you do. It's just as valid of an opinion about a scientist -- as if it were another scientist disagreeing with him on another so-called "scientific theory".

What's going on here is no too much different than what goes on in the political arena and just like what Ann Coulter is saying. That's a perfect example.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.