Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

In 1929, the idea for a big bang colossal explosion was born. Mr. Edwin Hubble, as was shared in Chapter Five, had observed that all the galaxies within the viewed universe seemed to be moving away from each other, plus they were, as he noted, also moving away at an ever increasing rate. About thirty or thirty-five years later, the big bang theorists took that tiny thread of information, combined it with some newly recorded cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) data, and then, fashioned the whole thing into a grand theory to explain the origin of the universe.

On paper, their ideas looked pretty good and even seemed reasonable, but over time, flaws were found with the original theory. As those various theoretical difficulties surfaced, however, the big bang theorists, rather than scrapping their ideas about a big bang, returned to the drawing board to rework some of their early assumptions. Despite such determined efforts, though, the problems, as was stated in Chapter Six, have continued.

To help explain the existence of dark matter, theorists once again returned to the drawing board. This time, they decided that the expansion caused by the big bang's original explosion had initially occurred at a very rapid rate and was immediately thereafter followed by a sudden, unexplainable slowdown to a much more conventional rate. This modification, however, which is called the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang theory, just like the original theory, cannot be proven!

This most recent attempt to make the Big Bang theory work, while being even more colorful and dramatic, does not possess true scientific foundation. Misters Kafatos and Nadeau have given this latest wrinkle a thumbs down by saying that the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang, which is a fundamental part of what has been referred to as the Grand Unified Theory, may not even prove itself to be a viable physical theory [1].

While these two men have expressed their concern over an obviously weak theory, many others have also been quick to express their criticisms with the overall theory. Consequently, amid all the setbacks and in the midst of a great deal of controversy, the search by cosmologists and physicists for credible explanations still goes on today. Now, these scientists seem to be at the point of trying just about anything, all in an effort to find some kind of workable solution for their theory!

One can see that the Big Bang theory has run into numerous difficulties. At the same time, the Theory of Evolution has not fared much better. This latter theory, which seeks to address the origins of life on earth, cannot stand up to close scrutiny, either. Yet, despite all its problems, theorists continue to charge ahead with their hypothesis, at times at a rate which seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of credible data. Such a comment might sound harsh, but it has been well-earned! The fact remains that the Theory of Evolution, like the Big Bang theory, still has not been proven. The Missing Link referred to earlier is still missing, and the fossil evidence talked about in Chapter Four still does not exist to support this theory at the macro or high level. Yet, evolution theory continues to turn up in public classrooms everywhere, and young people are still being forced to learn and even accept this highly controversial, non-proven idea.

Through the years, scientists have dedicated an inordinate amount of time, energy, and effort towards understanding the origins of the universe and life. Yet, most of their efforts, largely speaking, have been without much real success! Great minds of the past and present have argued both sides of the God-as-Creator question. But the mystery of whether or not God actually did create the universe and initiate life still has never been satisfactorily resolved.

Consequently, this whole matter of trying to prove or disprove God as Creator is not, in my mind, even a worthwhile pursuit! The entire topic, because of its futility alone, seems almost like a complete waste of time. Why commit so much energy and emotion to a question which obviously does not have a clear, easily verifiable answer? Besides, whether or not God did create the universe is really secondary in importance! One should stress the greater not lesser issue, and the greater issue from almost any perspective should be that of God and His relevancy to everyday life during these current times.

In my opinion, finding a god who is current in everyday affairs is far more significant than trying to prove or disprove that a creator did or might have initially set everything in motion. If one can demonstrate beyond doubt that some god, somewhere, at some time created the universe but cannot show that He is still around and available to all, then what good is such a proof? In the same manner, if one can apply any of the previously discussed arguments for the existence of God and positively conclude that He is the true Creator yet still cannot place Him in a current, everyday setting, then what good is that effort? My feeling is that one profits very little by being drawn into and consumed by this Age-old debate of how and when the universe and life actually began.

Some would perhaps describe this matter of searching for a current, relevant God as sidestepping around the existence of a creator issue. But is it really? Should the greater concern be for some distant, faraway event, such as a big bang which may or may not be true, or should one's focus be on a God Who exists today and Who can intervene in peoples lives? For me, the choice is easily the latter, and for good reason! People who live today can best discover the truth about God by directing their attention toward current, not past matters. If an individual can find and describe God as He exists in this current world, then that individual can potentially experience His goodness and mercy right NOW, rather than just dream about Him as some distant, long ago Creator. When God can be placed in a current setting, then the comments of scientists and educators about the origins of the universe and life really are not all that important. At that point, the whole matter of a creator, from a spiritual standpoint, actually becomes trivial. Show that God exists today and that He is available to all, and you will have shown that the universe had a Creator!

In considering this idea of a current God, recall the ontological argument which said that if God cannot be proven to not exist, then He does exist. A slight variation or maybe even corollary to that particular statement, and one which also reinforces the above remarks might go something like the following! If God can be shown to exist in the current world, then He has always existed. Forget all the interest in trying to prove the existence of a Creator, God or otherwise, and consider instead the far more important matter! Does God exist NOW? Can He be approached NOW? Does He care for us NOW? Clearly, if the answer to each of these questions is yes, then this should be all the proof necessary. If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then all should readily admit that God truly does exist and that He is the Creator!

Contrary to what many may think, an attempt to show God's relevancy in a current setting is not entirely original. In their pursuit of the truth, many scientists have already dealt with this same thought, but by considering the flip side of the same issue instead of by focusing on the same side. In other words, they have tried to identify the smallest possible role which a creator god might have had. Their approach has not been to show God's relevancy and currency in the present world. Instead, their goal has been to say that God, if He exists at all, is not current, that He cannot now be found, and that He is not currently needed! As a result of such thinking, the term "lazy creator" has been suggested by people like Dr. Peter W. Adkins, in his book Creation Revisited, to indicate this very thing, a god who created the universe but then simply disappeared [2].

In the book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking makes a similar comment by suggesting that God may have decreed the laws of nature but that He does not now interfere in the evolution of the universe [3]. Mr. Jim Baggott also makes a remark which implies the existence of a creator who just got things started and then left. In his book, The Meaning of Quantum Theory, he indicates that scientists have not felt a need to ask God for solutions in a post-big bang universe [4].

Many scientists argue for an infinite universe, hence no god! Some, as can be seen from these latter writings, at least consider the possibility of a god who got things started, but then, they relegate him to the sidelines with nothing further to do! What we are dealing with in this type of belief is deism, the belief that God created the universe but then simply left it to run on its own.

The reasoning behind the above group's dismissal of a creator god is simple. Consider the words of Mr. Baggott! His discussion, in leading up to the comment just given, pertains to what he has called a modern application of the cosmological proof for the existence of God. Recall the syntax of that earlier argument! If one traces all things back to the beginning of time, then he or she will come to that person or thing which was not created.

By combining the Big Bang theory with the cosmological proof, the author has merely suggested that God, as the first uncaused Cause, would not have been needed after He had created the single, compact, highly dense mass. The author is saying that after the colossal explosion of that mass, which of course is their big bang, that the fundamental physical and chemical laws of nature are sufficient enough to explain how the universe has evolved. Thus, he does consider the possibility of a god in the beginning, but he clearly argues against the need for or the existence of a current God.

From the perspectives of Dr. Adkins, Dr. Hawking, and Mr. Baggott, and many other scientists, the idea of either a lazy or non-existent creator even makes sense, and there are two basic reasons why this is so. First, all the pieces appear to fit! According to these gentlemen, the laws of nature satisfy most or all the observations of nature. Where doubts do exist, most scientists believe that a solution is achievable in the near-term. Because of their anticipated success with this realm of the unknown, most cosmologists do not believe that God is needed to make the universe go. Therefore, he, meaning their concept of God, can afford to be lazy. Secondly, because of the many real-life difficulties and calamities which befall others, the human side of these individuals view a troubled, struggling world and conclude as many that no god would ever inflict so much hurt and suffering on humanity! In concurring with this second type of reasoning for not recognizing a current God, Dr. Weinberg writes about the God of the birds and trees as also being the God of cancer. He then goes on to reveal his own disgust with the God who had allowed the Holocaust [5].

By such writings, Dr. Weinberg has pointed to some of the more obvious forms of pain which have been felt by many, and clearly, these instances of anguish have added support to the idea that either God does not care, that He is unable to defeat evil, that He is too lazy to get involved, or that He is simply nowhere to be found! Consequently, take your choice! In the eyes of science, the idea of a lazy creator works equally as well as the idea of no creator. Yet, one must realize that these scientists may have been too quick to reach such a conclusion. Just look at what they have already done with the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution!

Because they believe that the world is on the verge of uncovering a whole system of laws and equations which will completely unlock all the mysteries of the universe, scientists do not expect to find God in a current setting. Because of the two reasons just given above, they also are not really looking for Him! Dr. Weinberg, in fact, asks and answers his own question when he asks if we will find an interested God in the final laws of nature. He tells his reader that he does not think we will [6].

In this quest to know the truth about God, the battle lines have already been drawn or at least are now being drawn, and the direction is clear! Rather than argue for the existence of God as Creator, which is probably an impossible and senseless task since Creation is so far in the past, the plan for knowing the truth and overthrowing the plot against us must be to counter this "lazy creator" hypothesis and show that the world really does have a present, available, infinite, non-lazy, and interested God.

Thus far, science has not been able to find such a Being. They have only found data which makes them doubt Him and His existence. But He is out there, just waiting to be discovered!

The way that one demonstrates God in a current context is to establish meaningful criteria for such an undertaking. See Table 6 for my list of such criteria. My opinion is that for God to exist and be proven in this present world four conditions must be met. First, if He exists NOW, then His things must have survived. To be perfectly candid, what this first criterion says is that a god who cannot continue, plus at the same time preserve His things through the Ages, is not much of a god! Second, if God exists NOW, then the ungodly must feel something missing or not quite right in his or her own life by not having Him. Third and the opposite of the second is that if God exists NOW, then the godly must not feel that same something missing in his or her life. Between the second and third conditions, if God does exist, then one should correctly expect to see various internal and external differences between the godly and ungodly. Fourth, if God exists NOW, then He must have the ability to change and improve those who receive Him. To satisfy this final condition, the Lord must be able to fix whatever ails the person in need. He must also be able to give that individual a better reason for living. If any of these criteria cannot be satisfied, then God probably cannot be proven to exist, and certainly, He cannot be shown to exist within a current setting. Over the next four chapters, each criterion will be discussed, along with my rationale for each.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6. Showing God In A Current Setting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------