Time&Eternity

Time in the Formulation of Scientific Theory 163
edges and, yet, is self-contained—a finite space-time without border, comparable
to the surface of the earth, only richer by some dimensions. In this
case, space-time would have “always” existed, and every physical event
could be explained by laws:
There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no
edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to
set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition
of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely
self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created
nor destroyed. It would just BE. 267
In models of this type, time is therefore not activated by some type of
cause, but rather, it turns itself on, so to speak—an elegant yet speculative
theory. Nevertheless, the thought that the universe began with an accidental
event on the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation, has become a frequent
component of current cosmological theories. Processes in which particles
suddenly develop in a vacuum and immediately disappear again are constantly
occurring in scientific laboratories. That the entire universe itself
could have begun in this manner sounds quite fantastic. There are signs,
however, that point in this direction. Thus, there are good reasons to assume
that the discussion of cosmological theories that explain the genesis of
the universe by a quantum fluctuation will continue.
In some cases, the results, premises, and problems of these theories have
been related to theological themes, such as creatio ex nihilo and cosmological
eschatology. 268 Here, a number of ideas are awaiting theological reflection
and reception. Generally, it may be said that theories of this type do
not necessarily lead to atheism; instead, they cause what we may call
“adeism,” that is, a refutation of deism rather than of theism. 269 Hawking
emphasizes the challenges with which cosmological models based on quantum
fluctuation models confront theology. In the same breath that he closes
the door on uncritical theistic explanations of the world, he also opens a
window here and there for a larger perspective: “Even if science may possibly
be able to explain the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer
the question: Why does the universe make the effort to exist?” 270 And:
“What is it that breathes fire into equations and makes for them a universe
to describe?” 271
Viewed from a theological perspective, these thoughts bring up the
question of how to talk about God. When God is discussed exclusively in
connection with the boundary conditions of the universe, it is difficult to
reach beyond an image of God of the type that was found in Newton, for
example. According to the legacy of Newton, which in this respect is unfor-