PART 2

 THE LOGIC OF FINITE TIME

        Biblically speaking, time had a beginning.  This is clear based on several key passages of Scripture including Genesis 1:1 (referred to above) and Colossians 1:16, 17.  Scientifically speaking, there is plenty of debate.  Although science is supposed to be an objective study of the facts, it is difficult to study science without allowing one’s worldview to determine the outcome. Sometimes a person's worldview will influence the outcome of a study before the study even begins. The principle of causality seems clear to the theist to argue in favor of God’s existence.  Yet, no matter how compelling the logic is to a theist, others will see it differently and the debate rages on. This paper will take a brief look at the notion of time from a theistic perspective, making every attempt to be objective.

        It is common for non-theists to assert that the concept of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) is a relatively new concept that developed gradually during church history.  One writer states, “In the earliest Christian traditions there is, accordingly, no ready-made inherited position about the creation of the world out of nothing. . . . for nowhere in the New Testament writings is the doctrine of creation out of nothing explicitly taught.”[1] 

        It is true that the concept is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, but the idea is there.  Colossians 1:16 states, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”  If all things were created by Him, this eliminates the possibility that God created the universe out of pre-existing, eternal matter.  He must have created the universe out of nothing save the power within Himself.  When the universe was created, time began, at least as far as the existence of matter is concerned.

        Carl Sagan wrote, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[2]  This is the mantra of much of the scientific community.  However, this statement is in direct opposition to the theistic worldview.  The implication is that there is no transcendent, necessary being apart from the cosmos.  If there is no God, then the only logical conclusion is that the universe is eternal.  However, one can clearly demonstrate the conflict with causality in the case of an eternal cosmos.

        The usual response is that it is just as absurd to suggest that God is eternal as to say the universe is eternal.  One writer states, “We either have to ask what caused God, or cut off the regress by arbitrary fiat.  But if we exercise an arbitrary right to stop the regress at that point, we might as well have stopped it with the physical cosmos.”[3]  This writer makes a categorical mistake.  If God were made up of the same essence as that of the universe, then perhaps this statement would be worth considering.  But the theistic concept of God is dimensionless.  God dwells in eternity.[4]  God is a spirit. God is not limited to space, matter, or time. Since God is transcendent, He is not bound by the same natural laws which govern the material universe.

        If Einstein is correct, time and space cannot be separated.  If space is finite, then so is time.  If one is infinite, then both are.  The logical problems with an infinite series of events have already been presented.  Modern science has made many contributions to the human understanding of the cosmos.  However, recent developments in physics have not really given any definitive answers about why or how the universe came into existence.

       According to Stephen Hawking, modern science has actually contributed to the idea that the universe has a beginning.  He writes that the old idea of an unchanging universe “was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to have begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future.”[5]  The observations of the Hubble telescope led to the idea of the Big Bang theory.  These developments contributed to the theistic view of a finite universe.  Hawking writes, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”[6]  Though many theists reject the Big Bang theory, it does give scientific evidence for a finite universe with a beginning of time.  Hawking adds that subsequent theories were motivated by a drive to eliminate divine intervention.  These subsequent theories were unsuccessful attempts to find an alternative to the Big Bang theory.  Each one failed as new evidence was discovered. 

        In the mid 1960s, Hawking and the British mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose presented data that proved the Big Bang theory to be true, assuming that general relativity was correct and the matter of the universe was limited to that which can be observed.[7]  As a result of their work, many physicists accepted the idea of a finite universe with a singularity at the beginning.  The irony is that later Hawking wrote A Brief History of Time in which he argued against this type of universe and presented a new theory about an oscillating, finite universe without boundaries.  His new theory proposes that though the universe has existed forever, this can never be measured because each new oscillation represents a new “history.”

        After presenting his unification superstring theory, Hawking presents an interesting observation in his conclusion.  He points out that until the eighteenth century, philosophers knew science very well.  However, “in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except for a few specialists.”[8]  He also candidly admits that most of modern science is so occupied with the “what” of the universe that it has little regard for the “why.”[9]  His hope is that a complete unified theory that explains the universe comprehensively in terms of general relativity and quantum physics will also unite the world of philosophy and science once again.

        Ironically, it does not seem to be a departure of science from philosophy that has led to this division, but a shift in the philosophical views of the scientist.

        Perhaps the problem with much of modern science is that it has divorced the physical from the metaphysical.  New theories often begin with the presupposition that there is no God or that He has no involvement with His creation.  All data is therefore interpreted naturally.  New equations are sought after to solve the riddles of the universe.  God is not permitted as one of the variables of the equation.  If the scientists are right, then their research may very well lead them to find all the answers.  But if they are wrong, some answers, such as the “why” of being will never be found out.  Those questions which are answered will have no purpose or ultimate meaning.

        Every human being has a worldview.  The dominant philosophy among modern scientists is “the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.”[10]  A closed system here is not to be understood only as a finite system.  It is a system that is also closed to the idea of God.  It is analogous to Sagan’s famous statement—that the cosmos is all that is.  If one decides to adhere to this doctrine, no amount of logical reasoning or scientific observation will convince the scientist otherwise. It is a logical fallacy, if one is trying to understand something, to rule out one of the possibilities before the evidence is studied. If there is a God, the scientist is bound to miss Him unless he is open to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural.

     In simpler terms, the scientist is trying to discover the origin of the universe and of life. If his scientific method excludes the possibility of the supernatural, then his conclusion will not be valid. It is like taking a poll of white middle class males regarding a particular social issue and then publishing the result as a poll representing the opinions of Americans. The data may or may not be accurate by leaving out certain demographics of the population. What people choose to believe and what is true knowledge are two different things.   

There is No God

        If one begins with the presupposition that there is no God there are several implications.  If there is no God, then man is rather insignificant.  Earth is just a speck of dust without purpose in a sea of billions of galaxies.  The universe must be uncaused, likely part of an infinite series of moments in history.  At some point, natural law must have not been in effect as it is today, for the position of an uncaused or infinite universe contradicts certain scientific laws such as cause and effect and conservation of mass and energy.[11]  If there is no room for God, then scientists are forced to view the data differently, sometimes resulting in different conclusions. 

        There is no absolute point of reference by which truth can be measured.  Man’s task is very difficult as he tries to figure everything out—and to what end?  Each individual will die and return to the dust.  If he is trying to achieve something great for mankind, it too is in vain.  When the universe finally unwinds, or collapses on itself, there will be no human life left.  Everything will have been meaningless.

There is a God

        If one begins with the presupposition that there is a God, the implications are just as profound. Each human being is very significant. He is made in God’s image according to the Bible. He has a purpose in this life. He has a destiny in the life to come. His actions in this life have bearing on the life to come. Earth is a special place in that it was created especially for humans in their journey through time. Theistic scientists will view the universe as God’s Creation. They will see evidence of a Creator as they study the cosmos.  Each human life will only be in vain if it refuses to acknowledge God. 

No Presuppositions

        It may be impossible to begin without some kind of presupposition. People have taken various approaches.  Some have studied the Bible itself, and have come to the conclusion that it is a divine book.  Others through hardships in life are driven to question God’s existence and they find Him as a consoler and helper.  Some read the Bible and choose not to believe in God. Some find the notion of a benevolent God incompatible with the suffering in this world. 

        Some will attack the experience and say that it is too subjective.  Some will say that God is a crutch for the emotionally weak.  Those who study the Bible and come to believe in its divine authorship may come to this knowledge through the Spirit of God.  What is the unbeliever to say of this?  He has never had such an experience.  Perhaps the student of the Bible found what he was hoping to find.

        Logical reasoning is all that is left for the skeptic, apart from divine intervention. It may be the closest one can come to an objective, no-presupposition approach. Depending on how far a man goes in his skepticism, even logic may not do. (The agnostic may want to read Descartes if he finds it difficult to believe anything in the factual sense). However, if he is willing to admit that there is such a thing as truth that is knowable, then there is the possibility of reaching the conclusion that God exists. 

        Assuming first principles of logic to be true one can establish certain fundamental ideas.[12]  Once these premises are established, certain conclusions can be drawn.  One such example is with the logic of efficient cause.

        Norman Geisler summarizes Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God from efficient cause.  It is as follows:

1. There are efficient causes in the world.
2. Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, for it would have to be prior to itself.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes, for unless there is a first cause of the series there would be no causality in the series.
4. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused, efficient Cause of all efficient causality in the world.
5. Everyone gives to this the name of God.[13]

        Each step of this argument deserves a closer look.  If they stand true, the evidence for God’s existence is very strong.  The first premise which was established by Aquinas is that “there are efficient causes in the world.”  That is, there are certain things that cause a change, motion, or action.  These are the effects.  This premise is self-evident according to everything that can be observed. One cannot have change or motion without an efficient cause.

        The second premise is that “nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.”  This too is self-evident since nothing can be prior to itself.  No one can demonstrate an exception to this.

        The third premise states that “there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes.”  There must be a first cause, for the line of causes cannot go back forever.  This premise is logical and demonstrable.  The logic of this statement can be expressed in another syllogism:

1. Some things exist that are measurable.
2. Everything that is measurable is finite.
3. Therefore, anything that is measurable cannot be infinite.

        Examples of measurable things in the first premise include those things which are the objects of study in physics—time, space, matter, and energy.  Space is in question as something measurable only if it is merely the absence of matter.  But if it is something at all, then it cannot be infinite.  Time cannot be infinite because it can be measured.  General relativity does not nullify this point.  Perspective may alter one’s concept of time, but it does not change whether an event occurred in time or not.

        It is the opinion of this writer that the term “infinite” is used carelessly by physicists.  It is a convenient term when no other explanation will do.  For example, one physicist writes, “An infinite space can hold any amount of matter and, whether this matter is packed far tighter than herrings in a barrel or spread thin as butter on a wartime sandwich, there will always be enough space for it.”[14]  The idea of infinite space here certainly helps his position, but it is not scientifically tenable.  Hawking also departs from science when he begins writing about the difference in real time and imaginary time.[15]  Imaginary time can neither be measured nor proven to exist.

        The point is that in order to be truly infinite, time must be so vast in its essence, that it cannot be measured.  Yet time is measurable.  If time were infinite, it could not be traversed entirely by tangible objects.  Yet tangible objects exist within time.  An infinite regress in time is not possible.  Each cause happens within time.  There cannot be an infinite series of causes.

        This is logical proof for the third premise of Aquinas’ argument.  With the first two premises being self-evident, and the third being logically true, the conclusion should be true if it correctly follows the premises.  It states that “there must be a first, uncaused, efficient Cause of all efficient causality in the world.” 

        Aquinas’ argument is convincing for the one who begins without a presupposition about the existence of God.  Though evolutionists often appeal to their objectivity in science, it is obvious that their worldview is influencing the conclusions drawn concerning the cosmos. 

        Professor Michael Behe, a biochemist who believes in the intelligent design of the universe, writes,

            The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design that

its long, hard labors have made manifest has no justifiable foundation.  Scientific chauvinism is an understandable emotion, but it should not be allowed to affect serious intellectual issues. . . .  The philosophical argument (made by some theists) that science should avoid theories which smack of the supernatural is an artificial restriction on science.[16]

     If God exists, to restrict the supernatural from the study of the cosmos is a grave mistake.  It will affect the interpretation of the data so that wrong conclusions will be drawn.  If science is to be devoted to finding the truth, it must be open to all possibilities. 

CONCLUSION

        The kalam cosmological argument is very strong indeed for those who approach the argument logically and with an open mind.  The principle of causation applied to cosmology proves that the universe must have been caused to exist by an eternal, all-powerful, necessary being.  The efficient cause of the universe must be greater than and prior to it.  The theistic God is the only being known to man that completes the picture.  So why do many modern scientists and philosophers reject this idea? 

        The answer is philosophical and logical rather than scientific. Science is constantly evolving. A history of science will affirm this point.  The scientist, like all people, has a bias. He begins with certain presuppositions. These presuppositions will determine the orientation of his worldview, unless he is able to think logically through the issues with an open mind.  If nontheists choose to close the door of other possible worldviews it may very well be closing the door to the answers they so desire to find.