A Rebuttal to Donald Schneider's "Proof of a Creator," by SJK (continued)
"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
Because I don’t understand relativity well enough, I can form no opinion as to whether Einstein was describing the nature of time and the “block universe” the way you claim he was. But I would hesitate to use his personal correspondence to a grieving widow as evidence of the existence of a creator. When my father was dying, I read to him from the bible, not because I believed the bible to be true, but because my father did and its words comforted him.
Perhaps Einstein was just being kind. In any case, I see nothing in such a letter to indicate that he came “to embrace this view.” Indeed, he made it abundantly clear throughout his life that he was an agnostic who did not believe in any kind of sentient creator. Others have tried to twist his words to show otherwise, but he really was quite emphatic on the point.
As for your assertion that we all accept the concept of cause and effect, that is true—in this universe, under present laws of physics. But Stephen Hawking theorized that the laws of physics break down in the singularities of black holes. (And of course, some have speculated that our universe, and others, were created as a result of a black hole.) If this is true, then the singularity that was the universe at the moment of the Big Bang was not governed by the same set of physics that the present universe is. In such a state, cause and effect as we understand it could not apply. By definition cause and effect depends upon the forward flow of time, and until the moment of the Big Bang, there was no time, thus no cause and effect.
This puts science in the same “magical plane” your creator dwells in. Now, at least, the scientific (that is, non-creator) position is on even footing with the creator argument. Just as you can’t invoke current laws of physics to explain how your creator does his/her/its magic act, neither can you apply logic derived from current laws of physics to argue against the non-creator thesis. Our logic only operates within our physical universe, using our physical laws. If we’re talking about a Big Bang theory in which it was the first and only event of its kind, “before” it occurred our physical universe did not exist, nor did time, nor did its laws. Click to continue: