What place, then, for a creator?

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is a fascinating book. I can't imagine there's a better primer out there explaining space-time to ordinary folks like you and me. I'm glad I've read (almost finished) it.

I must admit, though, to my bias. I believe in a creator. I'm not a literal Biblical creationist in the sense of believing that in the span of 6 earth days as we know them God created everything we see. But I do believe He is the creator in some form or fashion.

I was concerned that reading something like this book might shake my faith. I feared that rational, scientific data and argument would punch holes in my worldview, my cosmological view and, ultimately, my personal faith. Much to my surprise, Dr. Hawking, quite inadvertently, has bolstered my belief in God.

How could that be? Hasn't our modern understanding -- knowledge -- of the universe eliminated the need for a creator? Surprisingly, the view Dr. Hawking refers to as the "classical" modle of the universe, i.e. that, it is finite, has boundaries and presently expanding at the same rate in all directions, is the adopted position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican embraced wholeheartedly the "Big Bang Theory" because it holds that the universe had a beginning, precisely what is suggested in Genesis. Dr. Hawking would agree that a boundary-less space-time, begun at a point of singularity, would suggest the necessity of an "appeal to God" as the spark (since there is no better explanation, seemingly.)

Not surprisingly, Dr. Hawking and others in the scientific community are not content to leave it at that. Perhaps they are right to continue to probe these questions. However, Dr. Hawking and some colleagues seem hell-bent to get around what the observable universe shows.

This is not the place to address Dr. Hawking's "proposal" in detail. Frankly, I am not sure I could explain it to anyone, certainly not in a more intelligent, easy-to-understand way then he does in the book. I suggest you read Chapter 8 to get a grasp of what the "proposal" is.

To grossly oversimply his position, Dr. Hawking argues that any understanding of the universe should incorporate relativity and quantum mechanics. Because the laws to which the universe now holds did not apply in the trillionths of seconds after the start of the "Big Bang," a new model should be constructed such that the laws always held. To do that, Dr. Hawking proposed an infinite universe with a boundary, a universe which has always been:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 1996, p. 181.)

As of the time of writing the book, Dr. Hawking was careful to say, "I'd like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite 'without boundary' is just a proposal. It cannot be deduced from some other principal." (Hawking, p. 175).

So what's the harm in this proposal? I suppose there is no harm in us humans asking these questions and coming up with the best answers that can be deduced. My gripe (among many), if you will, is that scientists, often in their arrogance, fail to explain that how thin some of the evidence is for their conclusions. Dr. Hawking admits that observable universe lines up with the "classical" model. Why abadon a model that fits the evidence for one that is purely theoretical and, worse yet, not supported by the evidence?

Maybe I am naive or just ignorant. I'd not be shocked if I turned out to be both. But I was surprised to see that Dr. Hawking's proposal is based on "imaginary numbers" and simple "mathematical devices" he admits are "tricks":

That is to say, for the purposes of the calculation one must measure time using imaginary numbers, rather than real ones. This has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely. A space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of the geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two. In Euclidean space-time there is no difference between the time direction and directions
in space. On the other hand, in real space-time, in which events are
labeled by ordinary, real values of the time coordinate, it is easy to tell
the difference – the time direction at all points lies within the light
cone, and space directions lie outside. In any case, as far as everyday
quantum mechanics is concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time and Euclidean space-time as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real space-time.

The book details the reliance on "imaginary numbers." Again, I suggest you look more closely at it if you want your own understanding. Still, it seems to me that an appeal to numbers that do not exist and which are not part of "real space-time," i.e. the space-time in which we actually exist, seems like foolishness at best and bad science at worst.

Paranoia might be driving my feelings on this. But I can't help but feel this type of scientific approach is all some kind of shell game, designed to direct attention away from the evidence of divine intervention in our universe. It appears that science simply isn't content to coexist with belief in the Almighty (or an almighty), even when the evidence dictates it should.

unOriginal Sin

I'm a Christian and consider myself more or less a fundamentalist. In my case that means I believe the Bible is true and tells literal, objective, truths. Like many things in life, though, that's not without qualification or exception. Even the most conservative Bible believer would have to admit that some things in the Bible are not intended to be taken literally but, rather, are figurative, symbolic or allegorical. It is hard to imagine that most of what is in the Book of Revelation will occur exactly as it is written and described. Jesus told parables to explain principles, but they weren't stories that had actually occurred as told.

For the last few years, I've had to come to grips with this issue as it pertains to the creation story told in the Book of Genesis, man's origins, God's role in our creation, evolution, etc. Lately I've settled comfortably into accepting that the Bible as a whole, and Genesis in particular, can be (and is) true in its essence but not literally true in every respect. Being frank, I do not believe, for instance that the entire earth and all the creatures on it were created in 6 (human) days within the last 10,000 or so years. I do not take as scientific fact that woman was created from the rib of man or that Adam and Eve lived in a garden paradise.

There's no place here to say why I no longer believe those things, but let's just say my doubt about the literal truth of the creation story goes back to this: there was no one there witness creation unfolding as it occurred. Who was around to see light created and set apart from darkness? How are we to know when the creatures of the earth were created since that occurred before life was breathed into Adam? Unlike the life of Jesus, which was witnessed and observed, no one was around to see the void that was the earth before God set his hand to all the finishing touches.

Certainly, I have no problem believing God created us through processes that the Bible never intended to describe nor which its authors could have understood or explained. Darwinistic randomness makes no sense to me at all and "intelligent design," or something close it, seems the best explanation of how things came to be.

Because so much of the creation and origin of man story in the Bible is, to me, figurative, I do not buy that sin necessarily originated in two people. The amazing thing that hit me the other day though is whether or not Adam and Eve literally ate from a "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the Garden of Eden is beside the point. Whether or not sin originated in those two naked people, somewhere in Mesopotamia, really doesn't matter a whole lot. What matters is that sin did originate somewhere. It's here and there's no getting around it. There's no denying it. There's no avoiding it. Only a fool could look at the whole of human history -- or even the last few months of news -- and conclude that sin does not exist.

Even beyond that, what struck me for the first time in my 38 years of life is that I am daily confronted with choosing between God's plan for my life or my own plans. I am daily tempted to eat from the proverbial tree, disregarding the warnings of dire consequences. Often times I do not eat; other times I do. The "fall of man" plays out in me continuously. I will not be able to give an account to God that pins my failings on Adam. I am tempted, I have ate and, but for God's grace, I would be expelled from paradise. The story of the fall of Adam and Eve is story. It's my story. It's our story. It may not have ever happened -- or it may have -- all those thousands of years ago somewhere in present day Iraq, but it happens daily with me. I have to choose between God's system and man's system. I pray for the strength to choose wisely.