What Closed Timelike Curves Reveal About God
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”
— Psalm 90:2
What If Time Looped?
Imagine you could go back in time and prevent your own birth by causing your grandparents to never meet. The paradox is immediate: if you were never born, you couldn’t go back to prevent your birth in the first place. This is known as the grandfather paradox, and it’s not just science fiction. It’s a real-world problem that emerges in some solutions to Einstein’s equations in general relativity — solutions known as Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs).
CTCs allow for the theoretical possibility of time loops — paths through spacetime that bring you back to your own past. In principle, a particle, or even a person, could enter such a loop and interact with earlier versions of themselves. The implications are astonishing, and they raise questions that reach far beyond physics.
Some physicists have proposed alternative ways to resolve time-travel paradoxes. The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle suggests that events in a closed timelike curve are self-consistent—any action taken by a time traveler was always part of history and cannot change it. In contrast, the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that every possible timeline exists in a branching multiverse, so a paradox is avoided because the traveler’s actions create or enter a different timeline altogether. While both models attempt to preserve causality, they often come at the cost of philosophical coherence or parsimony. The very need for such complex mechanisms underscores the deeper question: why does the universe appear wired to avoid contradiction in the first place?
If the universe could allow such paradoxes, why don’t we see them? Why isn’t history constantly being rewritten by time travelers? The late physicist Stephen Hawking proposed an answer in his famous Chronology Protection Conjecture. According to Hawking, the laws of physics may contain a built-in safeguard that forbids paradoxical situations from occurring — essentially ensuring that the timeline remains consistent and contradiction-free.
This is where science meets theology in a startling way. For if our universe is built not merely to operate but to protect itself from logical contradiction, then we are not looking at random chaos. We are looking at a cosmos embedded with rational boundaries — a logical grammar — that looks remarkably like the work of a mind!
I. Closed Timelike Curves: What They Are and Why They Matter
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. In certain extreme conditions, the geometry of spacetime can form loops — CTCs — where time, quite literally, folds back on itself.
Solutions to Einstein’s field equations involving CTCs include the Gödel metric, the Kerr metric (describing rotating black holes), and traversable wormholes stabilized by hypothetical “exotic matter.” These solutions are mathematically consistent, but they suggest strange scenarios where cause and effect can circle back on each other.
CTCs are troubling because they allow for violations of causality, a foundational principle of both science and reason. If causes can follow their effects, or if the past can be rewritten, our entire understanding of reality collapses into absurdity.
But here’s the twist: as strange as CTCs are, the universe seems to actively prevent the paradoxes they would cause. The very laws that allow us to model these curves seem simultaneously rigged to stop them from ever becoming real. This intriguing phenomenon raises questions about the fundamental structure of reality itself and challenges our understanding of causality and time. The limitations imposed by these laws appear to suggest that while the mathematics of Closed Timelike Curves can be beautifully articulated, their physical manifestation is inherently curtailed. As physicists delve deeper into this conundrum, they uncover underlying principles that hint at a universe finely tuned to maintain a coherent narrative, one where causative loops are not permitted to spiral out of control, thus preserving the fabric of time and existence.
This duality — the mathematical permission of paradoxical paths and the physical prevention of them — points toward a deeper coherence that is neither arbitrary nor accidental.
II. Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture
Stephen Hawking, always skeptical of “anything-goes” science fiction interpretations of physics, took the paradoxes of CTCs seriously. In 1992, he proposed the Chronology Protection Conjecture — the idea that the laws of physics prevent CTCs from forming in any real-world situation. He suggested that some quantum effect, such as vacuum fluctuations or backreaction from radiation, would destabilize any attempt to create a time machine before a paradox could emerge.
In his own words:
“It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes the universe safe for historians.”
While tongue-in-cheek, the claim is profound. The very structure of the universe, Hawking argued, seems rigged to avoid logical contradiction, suggesting that the laws governing reality are intricately designed to maintain coherence and prevent paradoxes. This concept not only challenges our understanding of physics but also invites deeper philosophical inquiries into the nature of existence itself. The universe, in all its complexity, may very well operate under rules that ensure a balance between order and chaos, highlighting an underlying intelligence that orchestrates the cosmos in a way that aligns with rational thought.
Let that sink in: the universe doesn’t just function — it polices itself to maintain coherence. That is a profound theological and philosophical insight.
“The intelligibility of the universe is not just a happy accident. It is a sign that the mind of its Creator lies behind its marvelous order.”
— John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology (1998)
III. Time Is Not What We Thought: The Clock That Proved Einstein Right
In 1971, physicists Hafele and Keating tested Einstein’s theory of relativity by placing synchronized atomic clocks on commercial airliners — one flying eastward, the other westward — and comparing them to a control clock on the ground.
The results were astounding: the moving clocks registered different times than the stationary one. The eastbound clock ticked more slowly; the westbound clock ticked faster. Time, Einstein said, could stretch — and now it had been measured. Time, it seems, is not absolute. It is contingent, affected by motion and gravity.
And if time is flexible — if it can be altered — then it cannot be ultimate. It is not the bedrock of existence. Rather, God must stand outside of it, unbound and eternal. As Psalm 90:2 reminds us, “from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” Philosophically speaking, this affirms what Christian thinkers like William Lane Craig have argued: God exists timelessly apart from the created universe but enters into time at the moment of creation. Craig has stated:
“God is not merely earlier than the universe; He is the timeless cause of time’s very beginning. Once time begins, God relates to His creation within it, interacting, responding, and revealing Himself in real temporal sequence — but He does so without being constrained by it. This makes Him the Author of time, not its prisoner.”
This is constant with our understanding of physics, the nature of time itself, and scripture.
IV. A Quantum Glimpse at Time Travel — and Its Limits
In recent years, scientists have taken this one step further by attempting quantum simulations of time reversal. In one such study, researchers used a quantum computer to simulate sending a particle’s state back a fraction of a second — to see how it might interact with its past self.
But the results were unexpected: the system refused to stabilize. The simulation, while theoretically possible, continually canceled out. In other words, even in theory, the universe resisted paradox.
This aligns perfectly with Hawking’s Chronology Protection idea: the laws of nature seem wired to prevent contradictions. Reality itself refuses incoherence. And that’s not randomness — that’s design. It’s as if the universe is scripted to keep its story straight.
If CTCs suggest potential for disorder, yet the universe persistently disallows it, we are looking not at accident but at teleology — purpose, intention, a goal-oriented cosmos structured for rationality.
“There is something very extraordinary about the laws of physics, namely that they seem to be constructed to produce a universe that is orderly and comprehensible.”
— Roger Penrose, in The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004)
V. The Self-Creating Universe: Did the Cosmos Cause Itself?
One of the more exotic ideas to emerge from speculative cosmology is the notion of a “self-creating universe.” Princeton physicist J. Richard Gott proposed a model in which the universe essentially loops back in time and causes itself into existence via a Closed Timelike Curve (CTC). According to this idea, the universe doesn’t come from nothing, nor from an outside cause, but from itself. In a strange twist of relativistic physics, the Big Bang might be caused by a later state of the universe “feeding back” through a time loop to become its own origin. Gott described this in terms of “time travel on a cosmic scale,” proposing that just as a particle might loop through time, so might the entire universe—bootstrapping itself into existence.
But while intriguing, the theory is riddled with philosophical and scientific problems. First, it entails causal circularity. If the universe causes itself, it implies a logical contradiction—namely, that something must exist before it exists in order to bring itself into being. That’s not mysterious; it’s incoherent. Second, even if the universe loops causally, the loop itself still requires explanation. The entire structure—the laws that allow the loop, the geometry that makes it possible, and the stability of such a loop—still cries out for grounding in something necessary. Third, as discussed earlier, Stephen Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture suggests that the universe actively resists time loops that lead to paradox. Gott’s model requires a causality-violating loop on a cosmic scale, but if small-scale time loops are unstable, it is implausible that a universe-spanning loop would be physically possible. Finally, there is no experimental or observational evidence supporting the notion of a self-creating universe. It is a mathematical possibility, not a physically motivated or confirmed theory.
In the end, a self-creating universe amounts to a philosophical evasion rather than a serious alternative to theism. Rather than accept that the universe came from a rational, timeless Mind, this model proposes a universe so desperate to avoid a Creator that it loops through time to give birth to itself. Yet this proposal only reintroduces the very paradox the rest of the cosmos seems structured to prevent. A self-caused loop is no substitute for a self-existent Logos.
VI. Steinhardt’s Cyclic Universe: Loops Without Chaos?
Physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton has developed a theory of the cyclic universe, in which time unfolds in endless cycles of expansion, contraction, and rebirth. Each cycle lasts trillions of years. In this model, the Big Bang is not the absolute beginning, but the bounce point between previous universes.
On the surface, this sounds like science fiction — but it’s a serious cosmological proposal, designed to solve certain fine-tuning problems in inflationary models. Yet even here, Steinhardt admits: for such cycles to work, precise parameters must be met, and the laws of physics must cooperate across transitions.
Cycles require timing, pattern, and law. And wherever you have patterned law across time, you have what classical theists call a Logos — an underlying Reason that sustains coherence.
Whether the universe is linear or cyclic, it is governed by intelligibility. The question is: why?
VII. Why Paradox-Avoidance Points to a Rational Mind
Let us now restate the point with clarity.
A universe that avoids paradox, sustains law, and follows symmetry cannot be attributed to randomness. It reflects a rational order. That order must have a source.
We are not merely speculating from gaps in knowledge. We are drawing conclusions from what is known: the universe behaves consistently, avoids contradiction, and resists chaos — even in the most speculative frontiers of time, gravity, and quantum mechanics.
A philosophical syllogism
- If the universe permits time travel (CTCs), it must logically guard against paradoxes to remain coherent.
- The universe does exhibit such guards — e.g., Hawking’s Chronology Protection Conjecture and quantum instability in time-reversal experiments.
- This coherence suggests teleological structure: the laws of nature are not arbitrary but goal-oriented (toward logical consistency).
- Goal-oriented structure, when embedded in the fabric of reality, is best explained by a rational cause, not by unguided material processes.
- Therefore, the consistent avoidance of paradox and the preservation of causal order point to the presence of a rational, purposive Mind behind the cosmos.
- This conclusion aligns with classical theism, in which God is the uncaused cause, the source of rational law, and the sustainer of time and logic.
- Thus, the structure of time itself — especially its resistance to contradiction — serves as evidence for the existence of God.
VIII. Scientific Reinforcements: The Logical Grammar of the Universe
The claim that the universe resists paradoxes and conforms to logical consistency is not merely philosophical — it is grounded in core scientific discoveries that further reinforce the argument.
Let us examine three of them:
1. Noether’s Theorem and the Rationality of Law
In 1918, mathematician Emmy Noether demonstrated that every conservation law in physics corresponds to a symmetry in nature. For example:
- Conservation of energy ↔ symmetry in time
- Conservation of momentum ↔ symmetry in space
- Conservation of charge ↔ symmetry under field transformation
This elegant theorem reveals something profound: the laws of physics are not random. They follow from deep patterns — symmetries — which exist independent of observation.
Why should the universe be governed by mathematical symmetries? Why should equations describe not only what we see, but also predict things we have not yet observed? As theoretical physicist Paul Davies has noted:
“The mathematical underpinnings of the physical world are too good to be true — they hint at something deeper.”
This “something deeper” is not an illusion. It is the fingerprint of rational design. Symmetry and law are not brute facts — they are the marks of order embedded in the cosmos by a Mind that thinks in terms of logic.
2. Entropy and the Arrow of Time
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy — disorder — always increases over time in a closed system. This is why we observe a consistent arrow of time: eggs break, but do not unbreak; people age, but do not grow younger.
But here’s the mystery: why did the universe begin in a state of extremely low entropy? Roger Penrose famously calculated that the initial state of the universe was fine-tuned to one part in 10 to the power of 10¹²³ — an unimaginably precise figure.
This low-entropy beginning is what allows for the arrow of time and makes chronology even possible. Without it, no coherent timeline — or avoidance of paradox — could exist. In other words, the conditions that allow CTCs to be blocked are themselves fine-tuned.
This is not chaos. This is choreography.
3. Wheeler–DeWitt Equation and the Timeless Origin
In quantum gravity research, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation suggests that the universe, at its most fundamental level, does not evolve in time. Time emerges only in relation to observers and measurements — not from the core fabric of spacetime.
This points toward a timeless origin of the cosmos. Time, then, is a secondary feature — not primary. It must be contingent upon something outside of time: the eternal.
This dovetails beautifully with our opening Psalm above (as well as with classical theism): “From everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”
The directionality of time, its constraints, and its structure all point beyond itself — not to eternal matter or impersonal fields, but to a timeless Creator.
IX. Possible Objections and Rational Replies
Let’s anticipate the most likely challenges and offer reasoned responses:
Objection 1: “Just because time travel is logically paradoxical doesn’t mean it’s evidence of God. It may just mean our models are incomplete.”
Reply:
This argument isn’t based on mere gaps in knowledge. It is based on what the universe does — it resists paradox reliably. That resistance is not arbitrary. If the cosmos were chaotic, we would expect breakdowns in logic and consistency. Instead, the universe behaves like it knows when it’s being asked to contradict itself — and it says no. That’s not a gap; it’s a feature.
Objection 2: “Maybe the laws of physics just happen to be that way. You don’t need God for symmetry or order.”
Reply:
This is the fallacy of brute facts. To say “things are just that way” avoids explanation. It’s no better than shrugging. Moreover, the mathematical elegance, predictive precision, and consistency of physical law demand an account. As Einstein put it: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Order demands an Orderer. Rationality flows from Reason.
Objection 3: “Even if the universe is rational, that doesn’t prove it was designed. Maybe it just selected for coherence through natural selection of universes.”
Reply:
This is speculation. The multiverse hypothesis introduces countless untestable assumptions — and ultimately pushes the problem back. Who structured the meta-laws by which universes “select” for order? Why does anything exist rather than nothing? A rational multiverse still implies a rational source.
Objection 4: “Avoidance of paradox is just a necessity of logic. It doesn’t need to be caused.”
Reply:
Logic is not a material force. It doesn’t build universes. For logic to be embedded in the fabric of reality, it must be actualized. If logic governs the physical world, then something must have translated abstract logic into the concrete world. That’s what theism proposes: the Logos became flesh.
Rational Law, Timeless Source, Theological Implication
Time travel may be science fiction, but paradox protection is not. It is baked into the laws of physics, threading through general relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology.
The more deeply we study reality, the more clearly we see that it is:
- Rationally structured
- Resistant to contradiction
- Governed by elegant symmetries
- Dependent on a finely tuned beginning
- Emergent from a timeless source
This is not what we would expect from chaos. This is what we would expect from a rational, eternal, immaterial, powerful Mind — what classical theism calls God.
Science has not replaced God. In fact, science — at its highest level — increasingly points toward Him. This raises the question: “If the universe is wired to reject incoherence, what kind of mind could wire it so?”
From the arrows of time to the elegance of law, from the impossibility of paradox to the emergence of time itself, the cosmos testifies:
“From everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” (Psalm 90:2)
Let those with eyes to see — see.
Endnotes
¹ Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (New York: Bantam, 1994).
² J.C. Hafele and Richard Keating, “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains,” Science 177, no. 4044 (1972): 166–68.
³ Xiaoting Wang et al., “Quantum Simulation of Closed Timelike Curves,” Nature Communications 10 (2019): 2029.
⁴ Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, “A Cyclic Model of the Universe,” Science 296, no. 5572 (2002): 1436–39.
⁵ Emmy Noether, “Invariante Variationsprobleme,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse (1918): 235–257.
⁶ Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).
⁷ Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (London: Jonathan Cape, 2004).
⁸ Bryce DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory,” Physical Review 160, no. 5 (1967): 1113–1148.
⁹ Albert Einstein, quoted in Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1938).
¹⁰ William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001); see also William Lane Craig, “God, Time, and Eternity,” Faith and Philosophy 23, no. 1 (2006): 3–27.
¹¹ J. Richard Gott and Li-Xin Li, “Can the Universe Create Itself?” Physical Review D 58, no. 2 (1998): 023501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023501
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment