An infinite number of beginnings and endings, for a system which is itself of infinite proportions; an infinite system which expands for an infinity of time; a finite system with an intriguing boundary; or Hawking’s finite universe without boundaries which appears from, and ultimately extends into the fifth dimension. These are the explanations which become necessary when the prospect of an absolute beginning is removed from the picture: we are forced to contend either with infinity or with higher dimensional reality - there are no other alternatives. It seems that, no matter how far we push back the frontier of our knowledge, ultimately we will always have a ‘beginning still waiting to be explained46’ .

According to Aristotle, there must have been a first cause which was not caused by anything else if we are to be able to explain all subsequent causes. Candidates other than God have indeed been advanced as first cause possibilities; for example, mathematical and logical consistency47 is one suggestion. However, Leibnitz said that nothing would take place without a ‘sufficient reason’ and went on to postulate that we could never come to a complete or sufficient explanation of the existence of the cosmos unless we accepted the reality of something which does not depend upon anything else for its existence; and that, he concluded, must be God. In fact, the proposal that God was present at the absolute beginning, not created, but pre-existent and infinite, and all that exists was created by him is the only explanation which permits us to escape from the infinity cycle.

BONES OF CONTENTION

A slight variation in the axioms at the foundation of a theory can result in huge changes at the frontier. - Stanley P. Gudder

You are sure to have seen many reconstructions of dinosaurs; some of the most spectacular of which appear in Stephen Spielberg’s film, Jurassic Park. There is undeniable truth preserved for us in the fossilised skeletons of these fascinating reptiles, but such raw evidence requires interpretation in order to arrive at a reconstruction. The degree of accuracy obtained is believed to be high but, but we can never be absolutely certain what dinosaurs looked like. With regard to the skin of the animals, for example, we can only guess at its colour and consistency because the skin does not fossilise; it simply perishes. We can make intelligent guesses, of course, based on our knowledge of living, and presumably related reptiles. But we must concede that the popular picture of the dinosaur may be inaccurate in this detail.

It is impossible for us to travel backwards in time in order to observe living dinosaurs; we must be satisfied therefore with our best guess based upon interpretation of the available evidence. Our task of building up an understanding of the truth concerning the origins of mankind is a similar undertaking. Like putting together an artist’s impression of an extinct animal from fragments of bone, we too must make assumptions and educated guesses. Our final understanding of the truth, just like the artist’s representation, is unavoidably dependent upon these assumptions. Wrong assumptions can lead to false conclusions.