As an introduction to this issue, view this cogent trailer from Illustra Media
How would you respond to someone making this statement to you, “You can’t prove there’s a God; so I don’t believe He exists.”? Well, most people would say, “You’re right. I can’t prove God exists. I just belief He does, it’s a matter of faith.” The first statement is usually associated with the rational, intelligent or well educated “Blue State” person, while the second statement is associated with the religious, non-rational, unsophisticated or uneducated “Red State” person.
These two positions appear to have nothing in common. The rationalist requires proof without faith; while the religionist requires faith without proof. In reality, they are similar in this respect; to hold either position requires faith. God cannot be proven to exist, but the rationalist must admit that God cannot be proven not to exist; it requires faith to be an atheist. Likewise, the one who believes God exists does so by faith, but the intellectually honest atheist must also admit that there is rational evidence pointing to God’s existence. God can’t be put in a test-tube or brought into a laboratory to be analyzed. But that does not prevent a rational, educated person from presenting much evidence that convincingly points to God’s existence. Thus, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary.
The problem with the atheist position is philosophical not scientific. Atheism is based on the philosophy of Materialism which holds that reality can only exist within the material realm. If it is not matter, energy, or space, existing in time, it does not exist, it is not real. From this philosophical basis, Darwinism arose. Darwinism presupposes Materialism therefore life arose by chance, time and the properties of matter without the necessity of a non-material God creating the universe. Atheists also raise the question of the existence of evil to ‘prove’ God does not exist, claiming that if God did exist, evil and suffering would not. Taken together, this is generally the atheist’s basis for believing God does not exist.
But without presuming the philosophy of Materialism to be true, can scientific evidence be presented that refutes Materialism and simultaneously undermine the very basis of Darwinism? Theists (those who believe in God) think it is possible.
Theists contend that although God’s existence cannot be proven, convincing evidence can be presented indicating God does exist. They hold that our entire reality exists is in a ‘Cause and Effect’ realm; that is, for every effect there is a preceding cause. Things happen for a reason; thus, things don’t pop into existence uncaused. Therefore, when the universe began, there was a pre-existing cause. Theists also point to evidence of design in nature as the fingerprint of the Cause that started the universe. In addition, theists, Christians in particular, state that they have a reasonable and rational response to the existence of suffering and evil.
The usual rebuttal from atheists to such claims by theists is that theist’s beliefs are religious in nature and the atheists are rational and scientific. They may even condescend to theists with statements that amount to saying, “Well, you’re free to believe in God if it works for you, but don’t claim your beliefs are rational.” However, rational scientific evidence and logic can be presented, apart from any religious reference or philosophy as a basis. In the following discourse, I will show how the Kalam argument and the Big Bang theory are convincing evidence for the existence of God.
The Kalam Argument
Kalam simply means ‘speech’ or ‘doctrine’ and it is the belief that the universe is not eternal but that it had a beginning. It originated in Christian thought to refute Aristotle who taught the universe was eternal, it was popularized by Muslim philosophers; then picked up again by Western philosophers into the 1800’s. The argument sates,
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.98.[/ref]
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
This is obvious from every reality we know. Things happen, or exist because something prior to it caused it to occur or exist. The ball lands over the outfield fence because the batter hit the pinch; the batter hit the pinch because prior to the swing the pitcher pitched the ball, etc. Nobody in touch with reality would ever conclude that the baseball cleared the outfield fence by itself and uncaused. If you ever tried to convince your parents that the window broke itself, you know first hand (and first bottom, after your spanking) how futile that explanation worked on parents bright enough to know that windows don’t break themselves.
The Atheist or Materialist response to this first premise is to attack it in two ways; first to deny that the universe had a beginning and second, to say that the universe originated out of nothing. Atheist Quentin Smith says, “…the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”?[ref] Craig-Smith, Theism, Atheism, and the Big Bang, p.135.[/ref]
So why would anyone try to convince others that something as massive and complex as the entire universe came into existence uncaused and without a beginning? The answer is clear; atheists want to avoid any evidence that points to God’s existence. If they admit that anything that begins to exist has a cause, including the universe, then what (or who) caused the universe must be found. And atheist can look far enough down the road to see the God they’re trying to avoid looming in the logical horizon.
The atheist may have thought he found a way out of this predicament when Quantum Physics claimed that certain sub-atomic particles appeared to come into existence uncaused, out of nothing. These ‘virtual particles’ were never actually observed; the assertion was derived from mathematical models.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.101.[/ref] In addition, the ‘quantum vacuum’ within which they are thought to appear is not a place of “nothingness.” In other words, this ‘vacuum’ is actually a “sea of fluctuating energy, an area of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to arise from fluctuations of energy in the vacuum.” [ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.101.[/ref] So these particles are not popping into existence uncaused, they come from energy which is a physical reality that originated at the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe.
So even Quantum Physics can’t save the Atheist’s position; namely, that the universe caused itself or that nothing caused the universe. It is both intuitively and scientifically false. But what about the other premise; is the universe eternal or did it have a beginning?
The universe began to exist
The ancient Greeks asserted that the universe was eternal. Thousands of years before them, the Hebrews believed the universe had a beginning, it was created by God. Early Christian scholars, like the Jews, also believed the universe had a beginning and used mathematical reasoning, apart from the Bible, to demonstrate that belief. They demonstrated that it is impossible to actually have an infinite number of things using logic and mathematics.
Using mathematics it was shown that in our present time-space existence “the idea of an actual infinite is just conceptual.”[ref] Strobel quoting L. Craig, The Case for a Creator, p.103.[/ref] If one were to use the infinite in actual mathematical subtraction or addition, it would lead to contradictions. This is illustrated by cosmologist William L. Craig, Ph.D. using bags of marbles.[ref] Strobel quoting L. Craig, The Case for a Creator, p.103.[/ref] He gives three examples showing than an infinite number of marbles could be used in addition and subtraction, resulting in three contradictory results. If I wanted to give someone an infinite bag of marbles in my possession I could do it in three ways. I could give you the entire bag and have none left for myself (Infinity – Infinity = 0). Next, I could give all the odd numbered marbles and keep all the even numbered for myself. Since each amount would be infinitely large, we would both have the same number of marbles (Infinity – Infinity = Infinity). Finally, I could give you all the marbles numbered four and above, resulting in an infinite amount, and leaving me with only three for myself (Infinity – Infinity = 3). So subtracting infinity from infinity yields three different results:
Infinity – Infinity = 0
Infinity – Infinity = Infinity
Infinity – Infinity = 3
However, Mathematics, under certain restrictions, can use infinite quantities as concepts only, but it’s not what happens in the real world. Therefore, there could never be an infinite number of events in the past which means the universe could not be infinitely old.[ref] Strobel quoting L. Craig, The Case for a Creator, p.103.[/ref] If an infinite number of past events existed for the universe, we could never reach “today” because there would always be another “yesterday” to add to the past.
For most people the concept of time is a mystery, it’s hard for most people to think of time as it is, a physical property subject to gravity and acceleration. People usually refer to our present existence as being three-dimensional, consisting of length, height and width. But actually we live in 3½ dimensions; length, height, width and ½ a dimension of time, since time only flows in one direction, forward. Albert Einstein, using his famous equation E = mc2, demonstrated that atomic clocks at different elevations (meaning different forces of gravity) ran at different speeds. Einstein is also known for his famous illustration of how time changes on two astronauts; one on earth and the other traveling at the speed of light (meaning different accelerations). Time for the astronaut at the speed of light elapsed slower than the one on earth, thus, when the astronaut returned to earth, he was hundreds of years older than those he left behind. If time were not subject to properties of matter and energy, time all over the universe would the uniform, but as shown above, it is not.
Dr. Hawking agrees with Einstein’s assertion that time is not uniform throughout the universe
So why is this important when discussing time? It is because time as a physical property, subject to gravity and acceleration, had a beginning! Time has not always existed, as a physical property it began when all matter, energy and space began, at the Big Bang! It is wrong to think of time as always existing in eternity past and then one day, Bang!, the universe came into existence, and time continued. In reality, before the Big Bang, there existed nothing; no space, no energy, not matter, and no time. Since time is subject to gravity and acceleration it could not exist before energy (gravity and acceleration) existed. Stephen Hawking said, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.107.[/ref]
How does this contribute to the argument for God’s existence? Well, let’s remind ourselves of what we’ve discovered so far. First, anything that begins to exist has a cause, things do not cause themselves, and even Quantum Physics fails to prove matter coming into existence uncaused. Second, mathematics and Einstein’s E = mc2 show that time is subject to properties of matter and energy and had its beginning at the Big Bang, time did not always exist. Therefore the cause of time had to exist before time existed; it had to exist outside of time. In addition, the cause of time is not subject to time, it’s not bound by time as we are who live in time. Keep this in mind when I bring this and other points together concerning God’s character.
In addition to describing the properties of time, Einstein’s theories of relativity also gave science the basis for the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin. Remember, prior to Einstein, scientists generally believed the universe was static (remained unchanged over time) or that it was eternal. But according to Einstein, the universe had to either be exploding or imploding.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.105.[/ref] By the 1920’s two scientists predicted that the universe was exploding and if that explosion was followed back to its origin, it would mean the universe had a beginning point, before which it did not exist. Three ways of verifying this prediction was devised by experiment; one measured incoming light to the earth from stars, the other measured the background temperature of the universe, and the last accounted for the light elements in the universe (H2, He). Without going into detail, the result of all three experiments confirmed the Big Bang model for the universe.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.105.[/ref] Since the 1920’s experiment after experiment has verified the validity of the Big Bang model, but even amid some challenges to it, Professor Stephen Hawking concludes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.107.[/ref]
So thus far we’ve been able to see that the first two premises of the Kalam argument are established using logic, mathematics, and the science surrounding the Big Bang model for the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe had a beginning, the universe must have a cause that existed before all time, energy, matter, and space existed. But what can we know about this cause, is it God?
Therefore, the universe had a cause
Remember earlier in this discussion I mentioned Materialism as the philosophical basis for science and Darwinism? And remember that Materialism states that the only reality that exists is material; consisting of matter, space, time, and energy. If it does not exist in this realm we experience, it is not real. Any belief in an existence beyond this reality is a religious or spiritual belief but not a scientific fact. But we have just seen how mathematics, logic, and science establish according to Stephen Hawking, “…that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.107.[/ref] We have also shown that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Given those two facts, Materialism as a philosophy is in big trouble; Materialism has to be false! How so?
For the Materialist, all reality stops at the beginning of the Big Bang (also known as the “singularity”) because before the Big Bang space, energy, time and matter did not exist. But since the universe had a beginning, the cause must precede or exist prior to the singularity! The universe can’t create itself, and the Materialist can’t go prior to the Big Bang to explain the cause of the universe because they believe beyond energy, space, time and matter there is no reality! For the Materialist to explain the cause of the universe would require them to admit to a reality beyond the Material and therefore, would render their philosophical position of Materialism false! These conclusions are clear to anyone paying attention that is not blinded by their tenacious grip on Materialism as a tool of philosophy to avoid admitting God’s existence. In light of this, to remain a Materialist you are left to say, “First there was nothing; then nothing exploded.”
But the theist is not trapped by the conclusions of science and mathematics like the atheist. The theist can point to a cause that precedes all matter, space, energy, and time. He can go beyond the Big Bang because for the theist reality does not stop at the Big Bang. Furthermore, from our previous findings, we can describe what the Cause is like.
Since the cause of the universe had to precede it, the cause can not be any of the parts that constitute the universe; that is, it cannot be energy, space, time, or matter, it has to be beyond these things. Given that, what would a Cause be like that existed outside of those parameters?
Well, if it existed before all energy, it could not be any kind of the energy forces in the universe. It would be something other than gravity, electro-magnetic energy, electricity, nuclear energy, static forces, or light energy. In fact, the Cause would have to be more powerful than all the energies of the universe combined in order to cause or create those forces. In other words, the Cause would have to be all-powerful or omnipotent.
In addition, the Cause would have to exist in dimensions above and beyond the dimensions of our present reality. We live in 3½ dimensions, length, height, and width, and ½ a dimension of time since time only moves in one direction, forward. Some scientist and mathematicians theorize that in the earliest moments after the start of the Big Bang, there existed as many as 10-11 dimensions of space, 7 to 8 of which quickly collapsed upon themselves leaving the three dimensions we now have.
A Cause with the ability to exist beyond our three spatial dimensions could easily be in more than one place at a time. For example, we exist in three dimensions and a plane exists in two dimensions, length and width. For illustration purposes, let’s assume that this plane is a sheet of paper. On a large piece of paper I could take my left finger and poke a hole through the plane of paper at one end and simultaneously poke a hole with my right finger at the other side of the plane of paper. From the perspective of life on the plane of paper “something” is present in two places at the same time. According to their reality, it’s impossible for one being to exist in two different places at the same time. But that’s because they are unable to exist in more than two dimensions. But in three dimensions, one being present in two places simultaneously in a two dimensional plane is as easy as punching one hole through paper with each index finger. The point is that the Cause of the universe must exist in dimensions much higher than the three we experience. A Cause with multi-dimensional spatial existence could be everywhere at once or omnipresent.
The Cause of the universe would also have to exist before all time because before the Big Bang time did not exist. So this Cause is not bound by time, it can exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Furthermore, this Cause is un-caused by anything prior. The first Kalam premise states that everything that begins to existhas a cause. But the Cause of the universe being outside of time never had a beginning; it existed before time and is not bound by it. A Cause existing outside of all time would be uncaused and eternal.
Also, the Cause would also have to be beyond all intelligence in order to cause the incredibly complex and inter-connected systems of the universe that make life on earth possible. There is an aspect of astrophysics that deals with the very narrow parameters needed in fundamental forces of nature that if they varied slightly one way or the other, life would be impossible. For example, if the force of gravity was slightly stronger or weaker, no life would exist. And if earth’s distance from the sun was slightly closer, the earth surface would boil; if slightly farther, the earth would perpetually freeze. There are about 20-30 additional parameters that all need to remain in a very narrow band in order for life on earth to exist, if only one parameter varied outside its narrow window, life would cease to exist. The name given these observations and measurements is The Anthropic Principle; “anthrōpós” (άνθρώπόσ) is Greek for “man” and refers to the indication that the universe seems to be designed specifically for Man to have a comfortable existence on earth.[ref] Glynn, The Making and Unmaking of an Atheist in God: The Evidence, p.22.[/ref]
This video clip illustrates the microscopically complex machinery of the human cell
The DNA in living cells also points to the infinite intelligence of the Cause. the sophistication of today’s technology is measured by miniaturization. The smaller the device and the higher its capacity to work indicates a higher degree of intelligence and design compared to a similar device. For example, the memory and processing capacity of an iPod is far more advanced compared to the first Apple Computer that hit the market in the 70’s. But these advanced technologies are tinker-toys compared to the miniaturization technology of the nucleus of a cell and its DNA, which can store more information than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica in a space thousands of times smaller than the head of a pin! Think of the level of intelligence required to create that degree o advanced technology! Do the Materialists and Evolutionists really believe than can occur by chance? The more reasonable conclusion is that an infinite intelligent Cause created the cell and the DNA molecule. Thus, a Cause possessing infinite intelligence would be omniscient.
Finally, the Cause would have to be non-material, loving, caring, and possessing a will. It could not consists of matter since matter had not existed before the start of the universe. Remember, that this aspect is damning to the materialists who believe that if it cannot be perceived by one of our five senses it’s not real.
But why would the Cause need volition or a will? Remember early I discussed that time and matter did not exist before the start of the Big Bang? I quoted Stephen Hawking who said, “Almost everyone now believes thatthe universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.107.[/ref] Again, that statement implies that the Cause has to be immaterial and timeless. There are only two things that can be immaterial and timeless; one is abstract objects, like numbers or mathematical entities, the other is a Mind.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.110.[/ref] Since the universe did not choose to create itself, a timeless Mind that existed before the universe chose to cause the universe when it did, as oppose to all the other “moments” in eternity past. British physicist Edmund Whittaker put it this way,
There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex hilo [out of nothing] – Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.[ref] Whittaker, The Beginning and End of the World, quoted in Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p.103[/ref]
And most of all, the Cause had to be loving and caring. The extreme complexity of the entire universe with its hundreds of forces and systems orchestrated to make life on earth comfortable, enriching, and beautiful to gaze upon indicates the caring and loving nature of its Cause.
The Response from Scientist and others to Kalam and the Big Bang
The strength of the evidence for God’s existence that I have presented can be seen by the reaction to this evidence from scientist who can evaluate it with an objective mind. Dr. William Lane Craig, Ph.D., while attending the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation in Germany, met a prominent Eastern European physicist who claimed that her study of physics destroyed her faith.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.121.[/ref] Dr. Craig was working on his second doctorate and was using the Kalam argument as the topic for his thesis. Mrs. Craig invited the physicist to read her husbands thesis which uses physics to prove the existence of God and the scientist agreed to read it.
Over the course of the convention they were attending, the Eastern European scientist read the dissertation with increasing excitement remarking, “I know these people you are quoting! These are my colleagues!” After reading the entire work she announced to Mr. and Mrs. Craig, “I now believe in the existence of God. Thank you so much for restoring my faith in Him.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.122.[/ref]
Thrilled to hear the good news, the Americans invited her to know God in a personal way. Dr. Craig pointed out to the scientist that just as there are physical Laws that govern the universe there are spiritual Laws that govern our relationship with God. She replied, “Oh, Physical laws! Spiritual laws! This is something I can understand. This is just for me.” After explaining how to receive Jesus as her Savior and Lord, she was asked if she was willing to accept Jesus for herself. Preferring to think on these things in private she delayed responding. But the next day the Craigs met her and noticed her countenance was radiant. The Eastern European scientist explained how she went to her room and prayed to receive Jesus as her Lord and Savior. She then flushed her booze and tranquilizers down the toilet. Several months later at another convention, she was still as radiant and joyful as the day she received Jesus.[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.122.[/ref]
A similar incidence occurred when Dr. Craig was speaking at a college in Canada. An agnostic student after hearing Dr. Craig use the Kalam argument to prove God’s existence changed his mind and confessed to Dr. Craig, “I’ve been an agnostic all my life. I’ve never heard anything like this. I now believe that God exists! I can hardly wait to go share this with my brother, who’s an atheist.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.123.[/ref]
Another man named Patrick Glynn, an atheist and former arms-control negotiator for the Reagan administration investigated the evidence for God’s existence after his wife became a Christian. Having received his doctorate from Harvard University, he was convinced that science and reason were the only legitimate tools for assessing truth and Darwinism had eliminated the need to believe that God was the creator of Life. But at the urging of his wife, he agreed to examine the evidence from science for the existence of God that previously Mr. Glynn thought did not exist. Mr. Glynn comments that since his days at Harvard “…a vast, systematic literature had emerged that not only cast doubt on, but also, from any reasonable perspective, effectively refuted my atheistic outlook…”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.125-126.[/ref] He concluded the account of his investigation by saying, “Today it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made.”[ref] Strobel, The Case for a Creator, p.126.[/ref]
So while the objective investigator responds favorably to the evidence, others are still reluctant to accept God’s existence because of the existence of evil and suffering. But before I discuss that issue, here’s a note regarding the popularly accepted age of the universe verses the young earth position.
A Word Regarding the Old Verse the Young Earth Positions
Like the entire issue of atheism verse theism where the secular atheist claims that the theist is by default and uneducated and irrational, so too regarding those who hold to a young earth position. Secularist and some theist, likewise claim that anyone holding to a young earth position are basing their position on faith, rather than science and truth. But taking in consideration what is known about the Cause of the universe, time and what is written in the biblical text, a case for a young earth can be established.
From earlier in this discussion it was shown that the Cause of the universe fit the biblical description of the God who created all things, that is, God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and a Spirit. As such He would transcend all the limitations of those who find it difficult to accept that such a vast and complex universe could be brought into existence in six literal 24 hour days as asserted in the Book of Genesis.
The most difficult hurdle seems to be the time involved. Those who hold to the popular age of the universe contend that age indicators in the universe destroy any possibility that the universe could be “young.” They insist that age determining developmental stages prohibit an old universe. Star formation, galaxy expansion, etc. give them every proof thy need to hold to an old universe. In addition, it’s impossible for them to accept that the complexity of everything from a macro to a micro level could arise virtually over night.
Let’s take the age indicator issue first. Those holding an old universe position claim that the speed of light and the closest star prohibit the existence of a young earth since the time required for the light from the closest star would take more time to reach planet earth than the age the young earthers assert. They have a good point, if it weren’t built on one assumption. They assume the light from that star reaching earth, started its journey to earth from the star itself. Well, from where else would it originate? Answer: the Cause (e.g., the God of the Bible) could have created the light from that star as already reaching earth when the stars and the planets were created, giving both the apparent age of things much older than they actually were. We see this clearly depicted in the creation of Mankind in Genesis 2. When God created Adam and Eve, He created them as fully adult with the immediate ability to reason and speak. Nobody knows how old they appeared when created, but it was clearly at an adult stage. Had you been placed in the Garden of Eden and been introduced to Adam and Eve, and a short time later asked to estimate their age, you likely would give an age range of between 20 to 30 years old. I’m certain you would be shocked to learn that in reality they were both just days old. Impossible! you exclaim. Nobody can be days old and possess that level of development and cognition. Normal human development requires decades to grow an mature to that level. You’d be right if you were applying our present conditions to the past, but you’d be dead wrong in doing so because our present conditions were vastly different than those in existence at the time God created Mankind.
As God created Mankind with the apparent chronological age of full adulthood being merely minutes old, He could likewise create the universe with those same characteristics. For those who reject God’s Word as true, they come to the wrong conclusion since the factors they choose to accept exclude God’s ability to create fully formed, fully mature, fully developed human beings living in a fully formed, mature, and developed universe.
Another aspect of time that needs to be considered is the lack of universal uniformity to the flow of time throughout the universe. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity demonstrated that time is subject to force of nature; namely, gravity. The stronger the gravitational pull, the slower time flows and the weaker the gravitational pull the faster time flows. Therefore, time flows slower in Death Valley and slightly faster atop Mount Everest. Why? Because he variation in gravitational pull creates a measurable difference in the flow of time since Death Valley, being the lowest spot on land, is nearer the earth’s core than the top of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth, being the farthest away from the earth’s core. This same principle applies to other places in our universe. A Black Hole is a place of virtually infinite gravity. The gravitational force is so strong, light is trapped within its pull. And since time is altered by variations in gravity, time inside a Black Hole stops completely. If you could survive the inside of a Black Hole, one reason you could never escape is because you would not have any time to escape: time would be at a stand still! But time within the vicinity of a Black Hole, though not stopped completely would flow dramatically slower than time on the earth.
So what? The point is, which “clock” is the correct Time for the universe: the one on planet earth; the one near our sun; the one near a Black Hole; or the one inside a Black Hole? Since there is no way to determine which flow of time is the standard for all things in the universe, it’s impossible to know how old the universe is. How do you measure the age of the universe when within that universe there are places where time flow stops? This, however, does not alter the biblical narrative in Genesis regarding the six days of creation. The Bible never says when the universe was created, it merely states that when it was created, it took six, twenty-four hour days for God to download it into our three-dimensional existence. When that occurred, nobody can know for sure.
Did God Download the Universe?
If you were to ask most writers to proportion their projects regarding the time spent thinking through a project verse the actual time creating the physical aspects of their creations, my guess is that the vast majority of their creative energies were spent in thinking through the project at hand. For writers, their time is spent primarily in pondering profound issues regarding ethics, history, sociology, culture, human behavior, whether their work is fiction or non-fiction. They spend countless hours in research in an effort to “get it right” before they actually embark on typing their first sentence of a manuscript. As a result, by comparison, the time spent actually typing the manuscript for the book is minor because all the background and foundation work has already been done. In essence, the book is already written in the mind of the author before they type it out onto paper.
The same principle can apply to God when He created the Universe. As discussed earlier, God transcends time because He existed before time and He created time itself, therefore, He has never been restricted by time’s restraints like Mankind. So God had “all the time in the world” to create the Universe in His Mind because time did not exist yet. Every single detail, every principle of science, every dynamic of the natural forces that orchestrate our continued existence, God had worked out in His mind before He typed one sentence of His manuscript into physical existence. In other words, His entire Creation and all the necessary details were completed before the first moment Creation was made manifest.
Computers and the digital age are making the printed word almost obsolete because it much faster and cost effective to digitize texts rather than print and publish them in the traditional way. Go onto any website that sells published material and the eBook or PDF downloadable version of the print copy is offered much cheaper, minus any shipping cost! Entire multi-volume sets are as easily downloaded as a short story. Their are entire Bible Commentary sets on every book in the Bible, available for download onto your computer that is compatible with popular Bible Study programs and ready to use after the download is completed. To write these commentary sets took decades or even the entire life-times of the pastors and Bible scholars who created them. The life long devotion to the study of God’s Word manifested in their grand opus. To think that what took a life-time to create could be in one’s possession in the matter of seconds, living miles away from the location of the retailer in amazing. This level of convenience and efficiency was science fiction fantasy just a few decades ago!
God could easily “download” Creation from His omniscient Mind onto the “hard-drive” of our three dimensional existence in merely 6 days.
So what does that have to do with anything we’re discussing? Here’s the connection. If Man can create such a system of transferring large amounts of data into physical form, in a very short amount of time, that required decades, even life-times to create; so can God! If the entire Encyclopedia Britannica can be downloaded from a retailer in the U.K. to a consumer in California in the matter of minutes; then God could more easily download the entire Universe from His Mind onto the hard-drive of this present time-space existence. The fact that He chose to take 6 days to do it, indicates He was taking His time. This understanding removes any obstacle to accepting the biblical account of Creation. For a God that transcends time and space, six days is well beyond the time needed to bring His Creation into physical existence, since it was already completed in His Mind before time began: God merely download Creation onto the hard-drive of Time-Space.