The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [62]
A theoretical physicist who is currently the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a post once held by Sir Isaac Newton, Hawking has become a science icon. He has sold millions of copies of A Brief History of Time, although Business Week once quipped that the book is “the least-read best-seller ever.” 40 His celebrity status was validated when he achieved cartoon form on The Simpsons and played a cameo role on Star Trek, where he challenged a holographic Einstein to a game of chess.
Hawking, who uses a wheelchair for mobility and a synthesizer for speech due to a progressive neuromuscular disease, has been on a quest for the elusive Theory of Everything, which would unify general relativity with quantum theory. Along the way, he has proposed a quantum gravity model for the universe that he says eliminates the need for a singularity—that is, the Big Bang.
When actress Shirley MacLaine asked Hawking whether he believes God created the universe, he replied simply, “No.” 41 He told the BBC: “We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence.” 42
In a chapter called “The Origin and Fate of the Universe” in A Brief History of Time, Hawking says: “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 boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” 43
I broached Hawking’s theory to Craig. “It sure sounds like he has finally managed to put God out of business,” I said.
“Not quite,” replied Craig.
When I asked him to explain why not, Craig pulled a piece of paper and pen out of his top drawer. “Let me draw you two pictures that will clarify what I mean,” he said.
“The standard Big Bang theory can be represented by a cone,” he said, drawing what looked like an empty sugar cone from Baskin-Robbins. “The point of the cone represents the beginning of the universe—the singularity where the Big Bang occurred. It’s the beginning point, and it has a sharp edge to it. 44 The expansion of the universe, as it gets older and grows, is represented by the cone’s overall expanding shape.”
I nodded that I was tracking with him. Then he took a second sheet of paper and began drawing a picture of Hawking’s theory. “Hawking’s model is like a cone, too, except it doesn’t come to a point.” He drew a picture of what resembled a badminton birdie; instead of coming to a sharp point, the end of the cone was rounded.
“As you can see, there’s no singularity. There’s no sharp edge. If you were to start at the mouth of the cone and go backward in time,” he said, his pencil tracing the long side of the cone, “you would not come back to a beginning point. You would simply follow the curve—and suddenly you would find yourself heading forward in time again.”
This was consistent with the way Hawking’s biographers envisioned his theory. They said it would be like walking northward until you reach the North Pole, and then suddenly, if you keep walking, you find yourself heading south. 45 “There is no beginning and no end—no boundaries,” one writer explained. “The universe always was, always is, and always shall be.” 46
Craig put down his pencil. “Presto!” I exclaimed as I looked at his drawing. “No beginning, no singularity, no Big Bang—no need for God.”
Craig grimaced. “Let’s think about this for a minute before you come to that conclusion,” he said.
THE WORLD OF IMAGINARY NUMBERS
“Has Hawking made a mistake?” I asked. The mere suggestion sounded impossible!
“I think he has made a philosophical error by thinking that having a beginning entails having a beginning point. And that’s simply not the case,” Craig replied.