The Programming Model Of Creation
How God Can Speak the Worlds into Being
By James Haines
Copyright 2011 James Haines
Smashwords Edition
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
Thank you for downloading this free ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.
Note: All Scripture references are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted.
“How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.”
Psalm 139:17-18
“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Colossians 1:17 King James Bible
“Two minutes?”
“Two minutes!”
No negotiation. Ethan’s little eyes darted left, then right, then quickly all around, trying to spot anything unusual. He hated secrets. What were they hiding from him? They wouldn’t allow him more than these few, precious seconds to study his surroundings.
Mountains towered on both sides. The highway beside them was just a sliver of ribbon. It struggled for space around a small lake. The notch was really too narrow for both. Time was running out. He tried staring at the other tourists. Would they reveal some hint? But their faces were mute.
The deal was two minutes of blindfold for a mouthful of gummy bears. “OK”, he surrendered. He snatched the candy from his sister’s hand and shoved it all into his mouth. “No negotiation!”, he thought, smiling. “Two can play at that game!”
His brother and sister carefully fastened the blindfold. Then each grabbed a hand and began to lead him forward. After fifty paces, the gravel was too much for Ethan’s badly worn sneakers. “Oush!”, came his garbled protest. “My feet hurt!”
“Just a few more steps!”
Ethan tried to get clues using his remaining senses. He noticed a whiff of pine from the forests on the mountainside. He loved the smell, but it mingled strangely with the sour taste in his mouth. He could now just barely hear the sound of children splashing in water some distance away. A beach, he guessed, since he had already seen the lake. He realized they must be nearing the intended spot, because their pace slowed. He could hear people nearby remarking about something they were watching. “Amazing!”, one said quietly. “It's so clear!”, whispered another. He guessed it must be some sort of animal, since everyone was being so quiet.
His brother turned him slightly to the left, then gently lifted his chin. Apparently the object to be observed was elevated. “Not an animal.”, he concluded.
“Are you ready?”
“Go for it!”, he replied.
His sister slowly untied the blindfold until it fell off. Ethan squinted and blinked while his eyes adjusted to the light, but he spotted it immediately. “Wow! I see it!”, he exclaimed, quickly chewing the remnants of the candy so he could talk more clearly. “I can't believe it! You can't see anything from just over there, but it's clear as a bell over here!”
This was Ethan's first trip to Franconia Notch, New Hampshire. For the first time, he was seeing “The Old Man of the Mountain”: that striking profile of a man's face formed by huge blocks of granite, hanging from the top of a mountain. Something like Mt. Rushmore, but carved naturally. The profile could be seen from alongside the highway, but only from one vantage point of just a few yards width. Walk just beyond that point – to either side - and the image quickly disappeared. Ethan was seeing it for the first time...
Now, reader, hold that thought. We're going to shift gears dramatically. We'll call this next one, “Second gear”. In this section, you'll no longer be reading a story, but following a set of instructions. Please be sure to follow them slowly and carefully. Think about the answer to each question asked here. You may now begin.
This is a reality check. What do your senses tell you about the real world? First, you're looking at this book. Specifically, you're looking at these words. Now glance for a moment at the surface of the page itself. Does it appear rough or smooth? Run your fingers across it. Feel it. Is it what your eyes suggested? Rough? Or smooth?
Try to judge the weight of the book. Lift it a bit. Gravity pulls one way; your muscles, the other. It's a never ending tug-of-war. Slight, but it's there.
Now, turn the page. Turn it back. Can you hear anything as the page turns? A crinkling sound, perhaps, if its paper? The tapping or sliding of your finger on the screen if it's an eBook?
Does your nose smell any chemical odor from the pages? Perhaps a bit of solvent or ink? Or maybe the smell of plastic if it's an e-book.
Finally, taste. OK, don't lick the book - that's disgusting! But if you did...you'd probably sense either no taste, or perhaps a slightly bitter one.
Inventory complete. You have five senses: seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, and tasting. You just used them all: once in your mind, while reading about Ethan at the mountain; once during the reality check. With these five senses, you experience the world. With them, you tell what's real from what's not. Admit it: we usually don't think about using our senses. We just use them.
Now, back to the mountain. Was it nice? Could you smell the pine in your mind? Did you complete the assignment? There was one! Were you able to hold onto the thought of Ethan's mountain, in detail, while you checked your senses in the real world? Or did you, like most of us, put the first thought aside to start the other. Grade yourself and then push on. We still have some distance to go...
Now we'll shift to “Third gear”: Computers.
“What's that?”, you ask.
Yes, computers. We'll need them for where we're headed. They aren't alive, but they act in some ways like our minds...only better. They hold "thoughts" for a long time. A million years? No problem! Just keep the power on! In fact, they hold many thoughts at the same time ...thousands ...millions ...billions ...all at the same time. So the computer could have held onto the detail of Ethan's mountain while it checked its five senses regarding the book.
Feel inferior? It gets worse. Computers can allow thoughts to interact. Our thoughts of the mountain with our thoughts of the book. All details of all thoughts. Simultaneously. The computer could have tasted Ethan's gummy bears while weighing the book and still have been able to focus on the sound of children splashing - all at the same time! Every thought mixed with every other thought. All sharply in focus. All at the same time! Are you dizzy yet?
So what's the point? Where are we headed with this? Well, computers can model - in some ways - the mechanics of a perfect mind. They can maintain and control a near-infinite number of thoughts - simultaneously - for a near-infinite period of time.
What can you do with such brain power? Run simulations! Years ago, computers ran flight simulators. Today, they run World of WarcraftTM. And each year, the graphics get better and better. The "worlds" they create become more and more vivid...more and more like our own world - or some version thereof.
"But!", you protest, "Our world's real. It's different than those. We can touch it and feel it."
This is where it gets spooky. Ever hear of a haptic display? It allows you to touch and feel things in simulated worlds. Yes, it's new. And it allows us to interact with simulations using the sense that we depend on to judge what's real: the sense of touch.
Let's review. We pictured the mountain. We sensed the book. Computers do both at the same time. They let us play God with a really huge mind that holds lots of thoughts that all interact at once. With their brain power, computers can generate simulated worlds. Haptic displays allow us to touch things in those worlds.
Pause. Take a breather. You'll need it. We're shifting to Fourth gear...
Question: Do you really have to have chips and circuit boards to make a computer?
Answer: No! I once had a book that showed how to make a computer out of paper clips! It wouldn't work as fast or be as powerful as your laptop, but it would work. In fact, you could make computers out of lots of things. Anything that can show an "on" and "off" position will do. Electronic relays will do. Toggle switches will do. These were, in fact, used many years ago, but they weren't very fast. Chips are faster, cheaper, and smaller.
If your mind were powerful enough - and clear enough - you could even do what computers do by running thoughts in your head. Here's how:
Instead of holding the thoughts of the mountain and the book in your head, hold thoughts that are a bit more specific. (Yes, that's a pun for computer geeks.) Here's a sample:
Hold these numbers in your head, in this exact pattern:
" 1-0-1-1"
Now, slide the numbers half an inch to the left and add a space on the right:
"1-0-1-1 - "
Now, pick off the first "1" on the left:
"0-1-1 - "
And stick it around on the right side:
"0-1-1-1 "
Congratulations! You're a computer! You just did the type of things computers do. This is called "rotating bits". The bits are the ones and zeroes. We shifted them sideways and wrapped the first bit around to the other end. Wasn't it exciting! Alright, so the mountain was more fun.
Anyway, you get the basic idea. Computers store ones and zeroes. They shift them around and do other things like that. Multiply the number of numbers by trillions and do it all in millionths of a second and you can use such powers to create worlds.
Time to shift again. Fifth and final gear...
We've spent a few paragraphs telling you how superior computers are to your mind. Now, we're going to turn the tables: Suppose you had a mind that could number-crunch just like a computer, but better than our best computer. You'd have a pretty big mind, that's for sure, but just suppose you could...
Remember, computers just juggle ones and zeroes, so that's what you'd be doing in your great big mind. Computers run simulations, so you could, too. They allow people to interact with each other in the same simulation, regardless of where they are in the real world. So could you. They generate distant lands, oceans, air, daytime, nighttime, planets, stars, unending space. So could you. Though computers lack some detail now, they gain more with each passing year. We'll imagine you're already at the point where you can handle as much detail as we have in our own universe. That's a stretch with present technology. But that's also the direction in which this technology is headed. And it's accelerating there at an exponential rate!
Now shift perspective. Instead of running the universe simulation in your big, giant head, suppose you exist somewhere within the simulation. Computers can mimic all five senses now, so all of your senses would be firing in the simulation. Would you be able to tell that it was a simulation and not reality? Or would the simulation be reality – at least the reality given to you for the present time? How would you judge what was really real? By the sense of touch? Remember what we said about haptic displays!
So, what would be the “real you”, then? Would it be the simulated body in the simulated world? Or would you be something else that is merely attached to the simulated body in the simulated world? Would you really be alive? What would your life be, anyway?
This sounds like a concept that's going to leave the Bible far behind, but it's not. In fact, I'll argue that this perspective is more in line with what God has been trying to tell us about Creation all along, than what we were usually willing to believe. Creation by words: this is it. We're doing it now. We've developed a technology that allows us to model this Creation better than anything else we've used before. And the parallels are striking.
Lots of questions. Lots of answers. There are so many similarities between the worlds we create in software and the one in which we live, that it's time to make a good thorough comparison of the two. You may find this concept unnerving at first. I did. But your view of life afterward may, surprisingly, be richer and more secure. That claim will require some explanation to support. So let's begin by taking a drive...
Chapter 2 - Just Drivin' Through
"Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists."
Hebrews 11:1 International Standard Version
Role play. You're sixteen. You just got your license. The car's a beauty! You climb in, carefully back out of the driveway, and slowly, responsibly, accelerate down the road. Past your parents' earshot, you floor it. The power! The freedom! You lower the window. The wind confirms your speed. Everything smells so good. Essence of Spring. You and the car are one. You steer. It answers. Grace in motion. You gently brake. The car bows to a stop.
How does your car work? At sixteen, you couldn't care less. You're too busy enjoying the drive. Your reflexes are perfect. You can make the car do anything you want.
How does your car work? Gas. Oil. Tires. Engine. Lots of parts. Runs on gas.
How does your car work?
Really.
Stop. Think about it. You know that somewhere in the past, someone had to design the thing. Probably lots of engineers, architects, and so forth. You know it has lots of parts. You know that the parts work together. Some of the settings are very precise.
Cars are really very sophisticated, wonderfully designed machines. The fact that they're so easy and comfortable to drive is testimony to good engineering; their beauty, to good architecture. You could easily go your entire life without knowing exactly how they work. Most of us do!
The same is true of both your body and the world it inhabits. Most people use their senses easily and gracefully. Playing the piano. Dancing. Even football. Like driving the car, most people enjoy experiencing this world without ever knowing how it really works. So let's change our perspective. Let's stop the car. Let's get out. Let's look under the hood. Let's see how this thing we call reality really works.
We “lift the hood” of our reality by examining the major blocks from which it is built: atoms. Of all the amazing discoveries made about atoms, perhaps the most astounding was the one made by Ernest Rutherford, about 1909. What this man discovered completely changed how we view reality. His work not only earned him the title, “The Father of Nuclear Physics”, it also forced Christians to reconsider how God created our universe.
It was 1909. Rutherford's coworkers were preparing some tests on the latest theory of atomic structure. The latest theory was based on the “plum pudding” model. This model basically said that atoms have matter dispersed throughout their insides like a pudding.
Now, there was no way the workers could see inside the atoms...at least, not directly. Things were too small in there! So they did the next best thing. They went bowling! They figured they'd shoot little bowling balls through the atoms and see how the bowling balls bounced off of things inside there. They wouldn't be able to see the “pins” - the positive charges inside the atoms. These were far too tiny to see. However, they might be able to tell what it was like inside by how much the bowling balls were deflected as they hit the pins.
For their target, they used thin gold foil. This would give them atoms with lots of pins to hit. For their bowling balls, they used alpha particles. They had equipment that would let them see how the alpha particles bounced as they hit pins inside the atoms of gold.
So the team aimed a beam of alpha particles at the foil. They expected most of the particles to pass through the foil undeflected, just as you'd expect the bowling ball to pass mostly between the pins, if there were only two or three pins left and if they were spread far apart. They also expected a few of the particles to be deflected just a little, just as you'd expect to see the bowling ball to be deflected a little, if it hit a pin or two. That's what they thought would happen.
They started the experiment. Everything seemed OK at first. Most of the beam passed straight through without hitting anything. Maybe the pins were just hard to hit. But suddenly, some of the particles shot backward! It was as though the hidden bowling pins were throwing the bowling balls back at them! Rutherford, himself, later described the strange results as follows: "This is almost as incredible as if you fired a fifteen inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came right back and hit you!"
Rutherford thought about what the results were telling them. He realized that the model they had been using for reality was wrong! Instead of atoms being solid, they must be hollow! It was as if hundreds of bowling pins had been compressed into one, tiny super-pin! So most of the time, the bowling ball would miss it entirely, but once it a while, it would hit the superpin head-on and bounce backward off of it! We call that superpin the nucleus of the atom. (You can view a simulation of the experiment on the web.)
It is difficult to convey how very much our concept of reality was changed by the discovery that atoms are hollow. Until that time, people presumed matter was solid. That only made sense: Things must be solid, because they looked and felt solid! Our senses were telling us things were solid! So although we then believed and still believe that God called the worlds into being, we thought we understood fully what that meant: that things were solid, through and through.
Now all that changed. Was God deceiving us because things weren't as solid as they appeared? Of course not! It just meant that we had misunderstood how our reality was constructed. We had been judging our reality by our senses. That was a mistake! Matter throughout the universe is now understood to be hollow. Yet, today we still tend to judge reality by our senses. We think things are solid, because they look and feel solid! Yet after knowing for about a century that atoms are hollow, we have lost the shock of how that news changed our understanding of reality!
So what would we be seeing, if we saw things as they really are, based on how much matter they actually contain? Rutherford gave a great analogy to help us picture it. He said that the actual amount of matter in an atom is like “the fly in the cathedral". Try to imagine that. Would you be able to spot one lone fly if you walked into a cathedral, given no hints, no buzzing, and if it didn't move?
Here's another analogy. Have you ever seen a rain gauge? The water in the gauge starts as tiny cloud droplets, which collect, commonly, around a tiny piece of dust. The size of the dust in each droplet is often just one percent of the size of the droplet. So about ninety-nine percent of each droplet is clear. Yet in the average atom, the amount of space that is empty or "clear" is about 99.9999999999999%1! So the average atom should be far more clear to you than rain water! If you can't see the tiniest dust in rain water, how could you possibly see the infinitely smaller amount of matter in an atom.
A full-size glass picture-window might be a good example of the clarity one would think we should see in atoms. But the way light passes through the glass, though it seems simple, involves some hefty quantum mechanics. However, if you took a small, felt tip marker and put the tiniest dot somewhere on the window, you'd get something of the view of the actual mass present in the entire panel of glass. The rigid window would illustrate the strength of the structure generated and the tiny dot would illustrate the size of the mass generating it!
So if you saw an atom for the mass that was actually present, you'd see something clearer than the clearest water, or the clearest glass! What that means, practically speaking, is that you wouldn't see anything! That's if you actually saw the empty space. You don't. What you do see is a representation generated for your benefit. Again, if you saw this reality based on the matter that was truly here, the world would be invisible and your eyes would be useless! You'd stumble around, bumping into things, because everything would be invisible.
Atoms. Clearer than rain water. Empty as a cathedral with one lonely fly. What we see is not what's there. What we see is an image based on what's there. We need to be reminded of this when we consider the reality we inhabit. Our eyes do deceive us, but for our own good! We tend to think of things as solid - through and through - even though they're not. When you sit on a park bench, you think the bench is able to hold you up because the wood appears solid to your eyes. That appearance is generated. The real bench is, mass-wise, invisible.
Given such little mass, how do atoms keep their shape? How does the fly single-handedly support the structure of the cathedral? The same way city people keep their backyards: by force! God help anyone who challenges a property line, whether the neighbor be human or atom! Think of an atom as a row home with a backyard the size of the whole city, but that guards the space as stubbornly as if it were the size of a welcome mat.
So when you sit on the park bench, the atoms refuse to budge. None of them want to give up any portion of the space they occupy, so they don't! The atoms of bench are unyielding, fortunately, when you rest your atoms of rump upon them. They may shift position a bit, and this is shown by any flexing the bench does. But give up any of their property? Not a chance! Super-flies supporting Cathedrals! Each almost entirely empty!
And yet the park bench appears solid. So what are we seeing, if not the empty space? We usually think that when we see the bench, we're seeing light that bounces off the solid object and into our eyes. Yes, light does strike the atoms of the bench and later light does strike our eyes. In school, they usually just teach that the light bounces off the bench and strikes your eyes.
The reality is much more complex. In fact, it's not the same light coming out as going in. Rather than rebounding from the bench, the light actually interacts with the electrons orbiting the atoms of the bench and produces a negotiated result. It is the result, rather than the original, which we see. But we rarely consider these things. Most of the time, we're too busy using the system to consider how it works. Like driving the car.
So there you have it. Our reality is almost completely empty of matter. If we saw it for what it really was, everything would be invisible. And what you thought you were seeing when you looked at the park bench was actually what light and atoms decided to show you.
If you consider that you simply drive through this reality, enjoying your five senses as you enjoyed steering the car, that may help explain our dilemma. We operate in the natural world. We see things as solid, though they're really not. We sit on things, because they look solid enough, even though they really have nowhere near the density our eyes suggest. Our senses make it so easy for us! Just like driving the car, we really don't have to know how this reality works to be able to enjoy it.
But if all you ever do is joyride through life, you'll miss out on the best part of all. The whole point of this experience is to get to know the Creator better. Understanding the evidence of His work all around us is part of that. Understanding The Programming Model may help you see that evidence more clearly. So let's take a closer look at the model itself...
1The volume of an atom (roughly 1 angstrom, or 10^-10 m in diameter) is about 15 orders of magnitude larger than the volume of a nucleon (roughly 1 fm, or 10^-15 m in diameter). It seems rather silly to express that ratio in percentage, but it would be 99.9999999999999% (13 nines after the decimal point).
Chapter 3 - An Overview of The Programming Model
"...upholding all things by the word of his power..."
Hebrews 1:3 King James Version
A note on the structure of the next few chapters...
This chapter sets the foundation for a discussion of The Programming Model. It answers a few basic questions, lays the legal basis for it, and then details the tools and key terms we will use while discussing it. How the model addresses subjects such as Energy, Matter, and the Scientific Method, will be introduced here, but then dealt with in more detail in separate chapters which follow. Each of those topics rightfully deserves its own focus. Some may wish to jump to that detail immediately, but we ask that you bear with us here, until we finish laying the foundation and present the framework's basic definitions.
So what, exactly, is “The Programming Model”?
The full name is “The Programming Model of Creation”. It models the mechanics of how God could have created all things: energy, matter, atoms, air, land, sea, outer space, our universe, the supernatural, heaven, principalities, powers... pretty much “the whole shebang”!
Did God create all things this way?
Maybe. Maybe not. It is not testable, in the sense that it cannot be proven either true or false. That is why we call it, “The Programming Model of Creation”; not, “The Programming Theory of Creation”. However, it may well have been the way God created all things. We believe that the model fits so well, that the difference between what we would experience in a universe made in this way and the universe that we actually inhabit would be indiscernible to us.
Why should we use this model?
Most ideas that propose how God created the universe begin with the basic entities, such as light, energy, and matter, already created. The creation of the basic entities themselves (“out of nothing” as the Hebrew word “bara” in Genesis 1:1 indicates) is left as a matter of faith: that God can do it, even if we have no idea how. This remains a good, solid foundation and will always be true: that God is able to do more than we know; that His limitless resources and abilities are accepted by us through our trust of His Word, through faith which He gives us (Ephesians 2:8-10).
However, the last half-century has offered us a new window into the realm of “creating things out of nothing” (Ex Nihilo), by using thoughts expressed as command words. So this model runs to the opposite extreme. Rather than avoiding the questions of “how matter and energy were created”, this model embraces them. It starts its proposals for “how God created” at the earliest point: from the existence of God alone. It then proposes how God could have created all things, even the basic entities, simply by using words.
There is obviously very strong support for this perspective from Scripture. The most natural reading of the Creation account, as presented on the very first page of the Bible, describes God making things in this way. The verses of Genesis 1, which describe this, include the following:
Verse 3: "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."
Verse 11: "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so."
Verses 14-15: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so."
Verse 24: "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. "
Not only do these verses describe Creation in this manner, others elsewhere even amplify the meaning. Romans 4:17 (ESV) specifies that God did not start with previously existing materials, when it states, "...God ...who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist." And as if Genesis 1 weren't specific enough, Psalm 33:6 (NIV) focuses directly on the mechanism by which God creates: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Verse 9 of the same psalm reads, “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” It is difficult to read into these verses anything other than a deliberate attempt to convey that God was creating things simply by speaking them into existence.
Some commentaries point out allusions to the rest of the Trinity in these verses. Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as “The Word”. The word for “breath” used in this verse is rendered elsewhere as “Spirit”. So these commentaries note that verse 6 may therefore imply that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all working together in harmony to create all things. This is good. But the most natural reading of the verse leads one to conclude that God made the heavens by speaking them into existence. The mechanics of how this can be done will be explained through this model.
Hebrews 11:3 (NLT) contains a similar comment on Creation: "By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen." As a side note, this verse directly rebuts the view of naturalism. Naturalism believes that matter has always existed. This verse says it hasn't always existed.
But the verse goes further. It says that what we see now was built from things that can't be seen. Hollow atoms almost qualify, for they are mostly empty. But we can see even them, given the proper tools. The Programming Model presents an explanation for how things, including atoms, can be created from nothing more than thoughts, which are communicated to others as words.
What are the benefits of using the model?
This model offers an explanation of how God can create things by words. As part of the reasoning behind that goal, it also reveals how He can be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. The explanation demonstrates that God always has, at His disposal, all power for dealing with events. By satisfying the “how”, we are drawn to focus more on the “why”. “Why does He choose to limit His power, when He doesn't have to?”
So this model will also help us understand better why God may have acted in certain ways. For example, this model offers, in a later chapter, a simple explanation of why Jesus spit into the dust to heal a man's eyes. It also explains how He healed the man's eyes this way. We believe the healing method, viewed from the perspective of this model, is both reasonable and God-glorifying.
Is this a cult?
No. It's just a model. God is still God and the Bible is still the Bible. Salvation is obtained only through personal faith in Jesus the Messiah as Savior, who paid the full price for our redemption (tetelestai, “Paid in Full”). The Bible is still the ultimate written reference we have on Truth. If the model acts to contradict the Bible, than the model is wrong and the Bible is true.
In the example just mentioned (using mud to heal eyes), you are invited to consider how well the model explains what's going on in that interaction. If the meaning of the passage becomes more obvious and God-glorifying to you by viewing it through the model, then it has done its job. If not, don't use it. It's like using glasses: if they help you to see things more clearly, use them. If not, don't!
Can we get any special powers by using this model?
No. Sorry! This model's only good for giving us a better perspective on viewing concepts of creation described in the Bible. If you want special powers, you'll have to ask God. But this model may help you see why you can only do such things through Him.
Can we get our prayers answered any better by using this model?
No. Sorry! You still have to go to Jesus for answers to prayers. The model will, probably, give you a clearer understanding of why you have to go through Him and how thoroughly He understands your needs before you even ask Him.
Before we begin...
First, a disclaimer. It's important to remember that although God could have actually used these methods to create all things, He may have used other methods. We're using this one because we can create things this way. However, the worlds we create this way are puny compared to God's. But puny is better than nothing, so puny will do.
We now begin the foundation...
The Legal Basis for The Programming Model
We start with the three attributes of God which are held as part of classic Christian creed: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience. Omnipotence means God is almighty and all-powerful – able to do anything (except sin!). Omnipresence means He is able to be present everywhere and with everyone at the same time. Omniscience means He knows everything; that His mind is infinite.
Next, we're going to set aside the first two attributes as “not needed”. You'll see why in a moment. We're going to focus on just the third, Omniscience, and take only one subset from that one. Thus, The Programming Model will be constructed from a mere portion of just one of the three attributes of God which are a traditional part of classic Christian belief.
From the third attribute, Omniscience, we're going to focus on one characteristic: infinite memory (Figure 3-1). We're going to say, “Give us infinite memory with which to build all Creation and we'll give you all the rest: Heavens, Earth, powers, principalities, angels, people, galaxies and kitty-cats. We'll even throw in Omnipotence and Omnipresence for free!”
Figure 3-1. The Model is Based on Infinite Memory, a Subset of Omniscience.
How is Creation built, using The Programming Model?
We're going to construct Creation by words, just as described in the verses cited earlier. How we'll get from words to things you can stand on, touch, and walk around, we'll get to momentarily.
The words we use will be adhered to absolutely, precisely and permanently until changed. This is very different from normal language that we use in day to day conversations. It goes far beyond simply being “adamant”. The words will be followed mechanically; that is, in a machine-like manner.
The words will represent concepts. We call words used in this way, “software”. We use computers to run software. But that's only because our minds are not sufficiently vast enough and clear enough to do it by themselves. Our minds were designed with these specific limitations. So we use computers as an artificial, mechanical enhancement for our minds as we would use a telescope to enhance our vision.
God's mind is infinite. So it already is vast enough and clear enough to operate better than the best computer. So He could run concepts in His mind as we run concepts on computers. He could dedicate a mere portion of His mind to run the concepts that maintain the reality we experience. Our model uses the “infinite memory” portion of God's omniscience to construct Creation as software: as commands – thoughts firmly held and executed as strictly as our machines execute them.
When we imitate His Creation in our own software, we call it a “simulation”. That is because ours is a lesser imitation of His. But God is the ultimate reality. And whatever He decides to define for us becomes our reality. All of the abilities we possess, as well as the limitations we have, are defined and maintained fully and completely by Him. This world that we currently experience is the reality He has given to us for the present time.
We design simulations with multiple worlds and differing levels of authority. Couldn't God do at least as much as we do?
Why do you call it “The Programming Model” and not “The Software Model”?
Simple. “Software” is only a noun. “Programming” is both a noun and a verb. “Software” implies passivity. “Programming” implies activity. Not only did God author our Creation; he also upholds it moment by moment. So we need a noun and a verb to express both concepts.
How are Omnipotence and Omnipresence achieved?
Omnipotence and Omnipresence do not need to be added in separately to our model, because running Creation as software means that these other two attributes will already be included! Here's why...
Omnipotence is automatically present in the model, because software is thought-based. The one who authors the thoughts may construct them in any way desired and may change them at any time, or even erase them all in an instant, to begin again. These actions are so common during everyday development of computer programs that we programmers rarely even think about them. Yet they model perfectly powers that reflect omnipotence.
Should God desire to destroy everything in an instant and replace it with something else, He could, because that would simply mean clearing memory and authoring something new. We do this on our own machines by performing a reset. Turn off the machine. Turn it back on. Memory cleared. Problem solved! God has never done this, nor intends to ever do so, but that is by His personal choice. Yet that absolute power always remains at His disposal.
The reason that He continues on with the Human Story, instead of erasing it and starting over, is that the whole point of His activity in Creation and history is us. We always were and still remain the focus of His attention. The idea that there is life on other planets ignores His focus on us. The reason Earth does stand alone as bearing life within this vast universe is because we and our redemption and relationship with Him ARE the whole point of Creation. If there is a limit to the size of the universe, that limit could be multiplied one thousand times over and our world would still be the only little speck of planet with life on it. That's how very deliberate He is about this plan. This is not to imply that we are that special on our own, but that He is that special in making certain both our creation and our redemption. So this experience of continuing history helps us to know Who He is and what He is like. We and our relationship with Him are the focus of His activity.
The fact that instead of a “reset” He has used lesser judgments, such as Noah's Flood, therefore means that He has certain purposes in implementing them beyond the simple act of elimination. Instant erasure is simple elimination. A year-long Flood generates a vast fossil record. And just as those who refused to get on the Ark certainly must have claimed that their science proved a Flood impossible - for none of them even tried to get on the Ark beforehand - so scoffers since then have claimed that the fossil record, which is the Flood's greatest and most obvious testimony, is no proof of the Flood at all! It is the serpent's argument to Eve all over again.
Often, little comment is added by God as to why He acts in certain ways. And yet, how few times have people even asked Him for comment. Yet, as we shall see by looking at a few examples later on, He is consistent in providing clues to His reasons for those who are willing to search. Proverbs 25:2 says, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” Walking on water was one such act that we will examine more closely in a later section. The model will answer the “how” of the miracle, so that we may focus more on the “why”.
So Omnipotence follows automatically the act of creating a reality through software. Omnipresence, meanwhile, is modeled by a particular way of structuring memory. In our model, we will use a structure of computer memory called “RAM”. “RAM” stands for “Random Access Memory”. In RAM, we can get to any point in memory in an instant. Flash drives are a good example of this. RAM stands in contrast to “sequential access memory”, where, as with old VHS video tapes, you'd have to wind all the way through the tape to get from one end of memory to the other.
These two methods of modeling memory are what we use with computers. When speed of access is unimportant, we can use sequential access. When speed of access is important, we use random access. Because true thoughts require no physical material as a basis for their existence, they may be structured entirely as RAM. So an infinite memory running thoughts as software in a style that we model by RAM would have instant access to any part of Creation at all times. Thus, Omnipresence. What makes all of this more fascinating is that since time itself is a Creation, it is not a limiting factor in speed of access!
So Omnipotence and Omnipresence follow automatically for a Creation implemented by software. Note as we proceed with this discussion, however, that it would be presumptuous to claim that software is the only means God has for maintaining Omnipotence and Omnipresence, for He is God! However, these two traits do follow automatically for a Creation designed as software. They don't have to be included on our shopping list, because they are already built-in side-effects.
Doesn't this perspective make God part of His Creation?
No. God is transcendent over His Creation. As a programmer, I am not the software I write. If I were able to run the software in my mind, I would still not be the software I write. The software might reflect my nature and character, if I choose to write it that way. Similarly, God can choose to design His Creation to show evidence of Himself or not. He has chosen to do this, as Romans 1 clearly explains.
Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of evangelist Billy Graham, has explained the relationship of God to His Creation well in her daily devotional:
"God Himself is not in a sunset or in an act of human compassion any more than an artist is in his painting or a musician is in his music. You and I may see reflections of the artist's or musician's personality in his work, but the person himself is separate from it. Likewise, you may see the reflection of God's personality in a sunset or in an act of compassion, but He Himself is not in either one. He is separate from His Creation."
How must the “software” be written?
There are no restraints on how software can be written. Software is based on whatever rules you write, so if you want to create atoms that are hollow instead of solid, you can. You can write rules that make sense or rules that are nonsense. You can write rules that are stable or rules that change daily. You can write rules that are simple or rules that are not. You write all of the rules for how things interact: all of the rules for energy and all of the rules for matter. In fact, it's your decision whether or not to base humans' reality on a space-mass-time continuum at all!
You write all of the rules for how many senses people will have and how these senses will work. You define both the capabilities of all things and, perhaps more importantly, the limits to capabilities of all things. You also define the levels of effort required to overcome obstacles, including physical, mental, and emotional effort. You define how slow people's minds will work as well as how fast. In Exodus 4:11, God says to Moses, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”
How can mere thoughts affect us in reality?
Here's an explanation for the younger set. Have you played any of the video wargames recently? When bullets “hit you” in such games, the controllers commonly vibrate against your hand. Simple, but effective! You “feel” the impact of the bullets. You can run away from enemy fire and avoid the bullets or run into it and get clobbered.
Now think about what goes on in these interactions. All of the “reality” of the game is being managed within the computer – within the box – within the model of a mind. The results are being sent, as appropriate, to the vibrator inside the controller. If you want to make such a system more realistic, you could build a more advanced controller, or perhaps a helmet with wrap-around video and audio inside, or, theoretically, even hook the system directly to your nerves. The Cochlear Ear Implant already provides this ability for use by the hearing-impaired. The Argus II provides similar capability for video. Since the nerves simply transmit the messages to your brain, if you knew how to connect directly to your brain, you could do that, too.
God says your body is a Temple for the Holy Spirit. Guess what? It's a temple for you, too, as per the definition in Genesis One. That means that you could take a final step from the brain to your spirit – if you knew how and if God allowed. Fortunately, God reserves that power for Himself. I can only imagine the trouble we might get into if we weren't stopped at that point!
Are there any indications in Scripture that God uses the software approach?
Yes. In Luke 12:7 Jesus states, “Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” This is exactly the type of description we would expect from a Creation based on software. In our own simulations, we number all objects down to the smallest level. However, because our computers are more limited for space than God's mind, we are forced to run with less detail than He uses for His Creation. Still, we decide on a level of detail which is manageable for us and number all objects down to that level.
With the authority of the programmer, we can examine the status of each object, whenever we want, and make any edits or changes to them we like! Those within the reality our software creates would consider such changes miracles, because they could not make such changes themselves unless we allowed. But making changes to software as programmers and authors – even if the software generates a reality - is quite easy.
How do we relate reality to the software written for it?
For our model, it's easy! We'll use a software editor. Programmers have a more technical term for it. They call it an “Integrated Development Environment”, but we'll keep tech-talk to a minimum and simply call it a software editor.
Basically, a software editor's like a word-processor for developing and testing software. But instead of having just one screen, as with a word-processor, software editors have two screens. One screen contains rules written by the programmer. The rules are known as “program code” or “software”. The other screen displays the results generated by the rules. We'll call this the “results side”. For God's Creation, this screen would give us a view into our “real world”.
To keep things simple, we'll portray the editor for The Programming Model with screens side by side, like this (Figure 3-2):
Figure 3-2. The “Editor” for The Programming Model of Creation.
So in our editor, we'd see our rules appear on the left screen and the results appear on the right screen. Keep in mind, of course, that we're using two simple screens to illustrate something that is actually much more complex. For example, when you use a word-processor, the document you see on the screen is an image generated solely for your benefit (Figure 3-3). Remember that we said the same thing about how we saw the park bench in the chapter “Just Drivin' Through”? We don't see the true mass of objects. We see images of them generated for our benefit.
Figure 3-3. Screens Display Images for Our Benefit,
But the Document Exists in the Computer – in the Model of a Mind.
(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
If you were to turn off the screen of your word-processor, for example, the word-processor itself wouldn't be affected. But just try to type a meaningful document with the screen turned off! If you could memorize all of the keystrokes needed to type your document, you could type it into the word-processor with the monitor turned off. And if you didn't make any typing mistakes along the way, you'd be able to print your finished document without ever using the monitor screen! “Bravo!”, if you're that good!
The point is that the word-processor runs internally – in the box; in the model of a mind that we call a computer. It doesn't need the screen to exist. It doesn't even need the keyboard. You need the screen so you can see what's going on as you type. You need the keyboard so you can tell the word-processor what to do. But the word-processor can exist happily all by itself, inside the box; inside the model of a mind.
In their truest form, the word-processor and document are simply thoughts modeled in the physical world by the physical model of a mind: the computer! All physical objects, like our park bench of the previous chapter, exist in such a software-based world just as this document exists: as firmly held thoughts in the Greatest Mind.
So our discussion of The Programming Model will involve two screens: a rules screen and a results screen, for our benefit, so that we can see what's going on. Just as with the word-processor, though, the program running reality can exist happily without screens or keyboards and even without the box of the computer. It exists in the Mind that is better than any computer. So that we can follow along, however, we'll describe it as running on two screens that we can see: the Rules Screen and the Reality Screen (Figure 3-4).
Figure 3-4. The Two Screens of the Programming Model:
Rules and Reality.
As of the date of this writing, there is an impressive video of this concept on the web. The left side of the screen in that video displays an actual program running. The right side, meanwhile, contains two sequential scenes of reality. Although the program displayed is simpler than that required for most simulations, it illustrates how programs appear when they are running. The speed of the program has been greatly reduced to allow you to follow the program's work. Programmers actually use slow-motion techniques like this to perform maintenance and repair on real programs.
The reality side of the video displays two scenes in sequence. The first scene shows a radio controlled model airplane taking off. The second scene shows a brief drama of Isaac Newton under the apple tree. Interestingly, the scene of the airplane is a computer simulation, though it appears quite realistic. The scene of Isaac Newton, meanwhile, uses a real actor. The video provides a good demonstration of the concept of our "software editor" used for The Programming Model.
As this video illustrates, when we use software editors to create computer programs, we actually see both sides as needed: the rules side and the results side. Note that for the discussion of The Programming Model, we will sometimes use the phrase “results side” and other times, the phrase “reality side”. “Results side” is the more general term for any piece of software, be it an accounting package, a Nasa application, or anything else written as a computer program. The Programming Model considers our reality as the “results side” of God's software running Creation. So for the purpose of considering the model, it seems more appropriate to refer to the “results side” as the “reality side”. However, from time to time, we may use the term “results side” if we're referring to software in general or of we want to remind the reader that the reality we inhabit is modeled as the “results side” of God's software.
How we perceive reality.
For the present time within our reality, we see only the results side. This is where we interact. This is where we can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste things. We can't see the rules side, but this model illustrates how it exists and how it relates to our reality. God does describe some of the rules from time to time. But other than a few hints, we're left to discern the rules only from within our position on the results side.
Discerning some of the rules God has written.
Now, there is a way to discern some of the rules written on the “rules side” even when you only have access to the “results side”. The trick is to use the Scientific Method! Isaac Newton used this method to discern the Law of Gravity and the basic Laws of Motion. As long as the Author does not change the rules on the rules side, and as long as the rules on that side are not unfathomably complex or chaotic, they can be discerned by repeated testing from the results side – that is, from within our reality.
For example, Newton discerned the rule for gravity by repeatedly dropping objects from the reality side and noting the consistent patterns to the objects' behavior as they fell. In industry, we call this technique, “Reverse Engineering”, which implies an original design! We will discuss more about this in the chapter, “The Scientific Method”.
The Scientific Method has allowed us to build the vast base of knowledge which we use in our modern world. The base of knowledge has, in turn, allowed us to develop marvelous and powerful technology as well. From the effort endured and the knowledge shared and acted upon, we now live like kings and queens compared to times past! How many people had hot and cold running water to use whenever they liked just two hundred years ago? How many people of that time could travel hundreds or thousands of miles in a day as we are able to do? A prophecy in Daniel 12:4 predicted both the increase in travel (rush hour) and the vast increase in knowledge!
How the rules we discover testify to God.
The fact that the rules on the rules side of our world are orderly and sized so that we can discern and understand them is testimony to us of the existence and wisdom of our Creator. But the world as a whole, tends to scoff at such ideas. It always has! "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. " (Romans 1:20)
How permanent is Creation?
We get distracted into thinking our reality is more permanent than it is. We do this by allowing our senses to rule us. Things appear to be solid and permanent and they feel solid and permanent, so we presume that they are. But the Bible says that God has created all things by His word, that He sustains them by His word, and that He will replace them with something newer and better in an instant, by His new word, when He deems the time is right. So how “real” and permanent is this reality, really? Isn't it up to God to decide how long it lasts and whether or not to change the rules, as appropriate? Flexibility of design such as this is a normal characteristic of software!
Is God within time as we are?
Software editors allow programmers to test software in slow-motion, to watch specific objects as they change, or to pause or interrupt the results side to check or change values and rules. It is, actually, like operating outside of the time domain of the reality side, because while pausing the rules side to make changes, the reality side stops and is unaware of the time used by the programmer. When the programmer resumes execution, which could be anywhere from a minute, to an hour, or even days later, the reality side continues from where it left off – as though no time had passed at all! Any edits or changes made by the programmer appear in the reality side as though they were made instantaneously! We, as programmers, do this routinely. If we can do this, can God do less?
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-30 show above.)