One of the problems of the inflationary theory is that it does not explain what may have occurred before the inflation of the universe. In an attempt to resolve this issue, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking proposed another theory in for the creation of the universe in 1983. The theory was based the idea that the universe did not have a boundary, just as the earth does not have a boundary. For example, one may travel around the earth and not come to a boundary or fall off. In addition, the theory was based on quantum theory, a superset theory encompassing general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Quantum theory defines a wave function that describes all of the possible states of a quantum particle, such as an electron. The values of the wave function indicate the probabilities of the particle being found in the various states. For example, if the value of the wave function is high for a particular state, then the particle is likely to be found in that state. Conversely, a low wave function value suggests that the particle is less likely found in that state.

Hartle and Hawking's new theory treated the universe like a quantum particle. As a result, they created a wave function that describe all possible universes. The wave function is assumed to have a large value for our own universe, and small, non-zero values for an infinite number of other possible, parallel universes. The other universes are expected to have different physical constants than our universe and are believed to be devoid of life.

One of the problems of the inflationary theory is that it does not explain what may have occurred before the inflation of the universe. In an attempt to resolve this issue, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking proposed another theory in for the creation of the universe in 1983. The theory was based the idea that the universe did not have a boundary, just as the earth does not have a boundary. For example, one may travel around the earth and not come to a boundary or fall off. In addition, the theory was based on quantum theory, a superset theory encompassing general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Quantum theory defines a wave function that describes all of the possible states of a quantum particle, such as an electron. The values of the wave function indicate the probabilities of the particle being found in the various states. For example, if the value of the wave function is high for a particular state, then the particle is likely to be found in that state. Conversely, a low wave function value suggests that the particle is less likely found in that state.

Hartle and Hawking's new theory treated the universe like a quantum particle. As a result, they created a wave function that describe all possible universes. The wave function is assumed to have a large value for our own universe, and small, non-zero values for an infinite number of other possible, parallel universes. The other universes are expected to have different physical constants than our universe and are believed to be devoid of life.

The problem with Hartle and Hawking's theory is that it predicted the universe is "closed." Consider a closed universe to be the surface of an inflating balloon. Objects such as galaxies on the surface of the balloon would move away in one direction as the balloon inflates, and eventually end up at their initial positions. In addition, the concept of a closed universe implies that the universe will one day stop expanding, and collapse under the force of its own gravity.

Observations suggest that there is insufficient matter in the universe to create enough gravity to recollapse it. In fact, there is evidence predicting the universe to be expanding at a faster rate than the inflationary theory predicts. Thus, observations favor the idea of an "open" universe, a universe that will continue to expand. One way of picturing an open universe is thinking of it as a horse's saddle, which curves up on one side and curves down on the other.

Hawking’s no-boundary proposal. Others point to Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal for space-time as an alternative to a beginning and a Beginner. Carl Sagan said that Hawking’s proposal is about "the absence of God." But when I asked Stephen Hawking himself about it, he told me: "I do not believe the no-boundary proposal proves the nonexistence of God, but it may affect our ideas of the nature of God." The question Hawking raises is this: Is God’s nature such that He is merely related to the beginning of the universe? Or is He related to the universe as a whole?

The "imaginary time" of Hawking’s proposal would not eliminate God, but only the deist’s weak notion of a God who winds up the universe and then lets it go. In his no-boundary model, Hawking told me, "We do not need someone to light the blue touch paper of the universe." But even a universe without a hard beginning does not necessarily result in a universe with nothing for a Creator to do, for there is apparently more to running our universe than merely igniting it in a big bang.

From a biblical perspective, Christians agree that it is even more in God’s nature to be the ruler of the universe than to be the mere initiator of it. The Bible tells us that everything in the universe is subject to the upholding power of God and could not exist on its own (Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-17). Physicist Robert Gange says that, according to quantum physics, any universe that lasts more than a Planck time (10-43 seconds) requires more than chance to explain it. Gange believes that quantum physics points to an outside sustainer, not merely an outside initiator.

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 BaskinRobbins. "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 curveand 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 endno 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.
He pointed toward his rendering of Hawking's model. "Granted, there isn't any singular point here, but notice this: the universe is still finite in its past. It still has a beginning in the sense that something has a finite past duration. In other words, pick an interval of timesay, a second, a minute, or a year. For any finite interval of time you pick, there are only a finite number of equal intervals prior to that time. And in that sense, Hawking's model has a beginning. Even he says that the universe has an origin out of nothing in the sense that there's absolutely nothing that comes before it.
"So this would be an example of a model that has a beginning but doesn't involve a singularity. That's what many scientists are trying to come up with, because the laws of physics would apply all the way back. They don't break down in a singularity. And that's more palatable to them."
Before I could ask another question, Craig added: "Now, I've been taking Hawking's model at face value, but it's also important to note that he is only able to achieve this rounding-off effect by substituting `imaginary numbers' for real numbers in his equations."
"What are imaginary numbers?"
"They are multiples of the square root of negative one," he said. "In this model, they have the effect of turning time into a dimension of space. The problem is that when imaginary numbers are employed, they're just computational devices used to grease the equations and get the result the mathematician wants. That's fine, but when you want to get a real, physical result, you have to convert the imaginary numbers into real ones. But Hawking refuses to convert them. He just keeps everything in the imaginary realm."
"What happens if you convert the numbers into real ones?"
"Presto, the singularity reappears!" Craig said. "In fact, the singularity is really there the whole time; it's just hidden behind the device of so-called imaginary time. Hawking concedes this in a subsequent book he co-authored with Roger Penrose.47 He said he doesn't pretend to be describing reality, because he says he doesn't know what reality is. So Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin; it's merely a mathematical way of modeling the beginning of the universe in such a manner that the singularity doesn't appear."
I was amazed! Even though Hawking's Internet site says his theory implies that the universe "was completely determined by the laws of science,"48 even he wasn't able to successfully write God out of the picture.
"What's important to understand, Lee, is how reversed the situation is from, say, a hundred years ago," Craig continued. "Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of
nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly the opposite.
"It is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all. So the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian can stand confidently within biblical truth, knowing it's in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. It's the atheist who feels very uncomfortable and marginalized today."
As I sat there in Craig's office, my mind could conjure up no rational scenario that could derail the inexorable logic of the kalam argument. The philosophical and scientific evidence of contemporary cosmology was pointing persuasively toward the conclusion that a personal Creator of the universe does exist. This was powerful stuffand I still had a long way to go in my investigation.