If you believe there’s more to our existence than what the research of an eminent physics professor indicates then you might be heartened when you consider the very limited knowledge and resources that brought him to a conclusion about the creation of the universe.
Science has Limitations might be a more appropriate title of the latest book, The Grand Design produced by the eminent professor Stephan Hawking.
People have heard different theories about almost everything from eminent scientists in their day whether it was a concept that the world was flat as thought by ancient Babylon and Egypt to the latest product of Stephen Hawking, ‘Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch-paper and set the universe going.’
Scientists claim that their findings are relevant to their specific fields of activity and who can dispute that, but their specific fields of activity are interacting with other fields of activity that they are less expert in. As the latest NASA photographs clearly show, the universe continues to expose mysteries at distances millions of light years away that no one here can do more than speculate about.
Herein lies the truth about a science that remains infantile by comparison to the knowledge necessary to be conversant with all aspects of the complexities interacting in our universe. Physics continues to evolve as fresh information arrives from research, aiding us with more understanding of the immense universe in which we live. However to suggest that mankind has today reached a point whereby it can evaluate with accuracy how the universe was created could be argued to be stretching our knowledge beyond its capabilities.
Additionally It also could be viewed as an attempt to merge our current knowledge with speculative theory in order to provide an alternative with the appearance of an informed assumption that denies the notion of a God.
For many the fact that scientists on one small planet in a universe of millions, whose species has not yet settled off world will continue to lack a credibility challenge by logic.
Mankind has set foot on only one small satellite the Moon, and spent only a very short time there. It uses telescopes and robotic probes to seek answers to specific questions that are all only relative to its own very limited terrestrial knowledge. If Stephen Hawking provided a caveat with his findings that warned readers that his theories were based solely on what our latest science had provided him, then in another twelve months or at some future time when more knowledge has been acquired the relevance of his initial findings could be better analyzed and would prove more credible as a result.
Science and Instinct
Science does not offer a reason why people on every continent around the world even before there was communication between them, felt an instinctive need to worship a ‘god’ like figure?
Science has never offered a reason why astrologers have existed for thousands of years on every continent even before communication between their countries was possible?
Man’s subconscious holds the key that may answer the truth about god and the universe. Yet science fails to comprehend our instinctive motivations in relation to a belief about the existence of a god-like figure, because science will not attempt to understand what cannot be measured in the physical world. The simple reason for this is that science appreciates its own limitations and maintains a barrier to protect itself from being drawn into arenas in which it cannot successfully argue.
Instinct is something shared by all, yet how many use this natural mechanism to appreciate our environment at a universal level? North American Indians arguably possessed a very instinctive relationship with their environment, but science did not appreciate its significance partly because machines appeared to offer a more practical solution to what mankind required in order to develop.
It is arguably not without reason that while we develop new technologies, an awareness of our spiritual existence should run in parallel. The most obvious route for this to do so remains an instinct driven by subconscious thought.
What Stephen Hawking has done by stating his physics related assumption is to expose that he and those who agree with him have totally failed to accept their own limitations or the limitations of their present day understanding in their field of science.
Stephen Hawking may want to be remembered as the scientist who truly provided the answers to creation, but whether history will crown him with such an accolade or relate to him in the same way as the misguided ancient Babylonians and their flat earth concept remains to be seen. However it seems reasonable to suggest that comparing the current level of this world’s comprehension of physics and applying it to the entire universe is possibly stretching probability well beyond either the external parameters that we acknowledge or are likely to encounter off world.
