God as the origin of the universe...

God is often held to be the ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe. Various reasons are given for this, such as the various cosmological (Kalam, First Cause etc) and design (fine tuning etc) arguments.

I don't think these arguments are sufficient to convince a skeptic. They may (and seemingly do) sound very convincing to those who are already committed to a belief in a God or Gods, but that is only to be expected. As far as classical theology is concerned (and the more mundane beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews) the God they believe in already is the explanation for the universe existing. All these arguments are doing is highlighting what they already understand to be true.

To address each of these arguments in turn would take many books (and has), and so I'm not going to do that in this blog entry.

What I'll try to make clear is why I think God as explanation hypothesis fail.

God is a terrible explanation!
By that I mean either we're relying upon vague unknowns, more so than the most speculative scientific hypothesis. If Eternal Chaotic Inflation relies upon assumptions concerning physical conditions far beyond that which is conceivably observable, how much more so an immaterial, timeless being?
If String Theory is able to explain almost anything due to the degrees of freedom inherent in it's formulation, again, how much more so the God hypothesis?
God, as an infinitely complex being, doesn't seem to be much of an explanation for a finitely complex universe (as Hume's Philo observed, why not stop the regress at the universe), and positing a simple God (as many theologians do) seems to introduce even more mystery and our explanation becomes akin to:
"There exists a necessary, nonphysical, simple, largely incomprehensible
something-or-other that created the universe and
has no external explanation."
As Weilenberg [1] notes, it's not clear that this is even a theistic hypothesis.

There are various other arguments which show that God, as traditionally conceived, cannot exist. An agent seems to require being temporal, yet God is conceived of as atemporal. To have a mind and think seems to require a distinct location, yet God is conceived of as omnipresent. The list goes on.

So, while I understand there are difficulties with the current scientific hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe, as far as I can tell the issues with postulating God as classically conceived are far greater, and so while I'm not signing on to a particular explanation for the origins and am holding out for further evidence to help sort things out, I feel that the "God Hypothesis" is far and away less probable and plausible an alternative, and therefore I don't tend to consider it as a serious contender.

Hopefully the above is at least somewhat clear as to my position.

[1] Dawkins' Gambit, Hume's Aroma and God's Simplicity. Erik Weilenberg, Philsophia Christi Vol. 11, No. 1 2009

Genesis scientifically validated?

I quite often hear that science confirms the creation story as told in Genesis 1, and that this is evidence that the story was inspired by God. After all, how could a person from the bronze age (Moses, as traditionally claimed) know about the big bang, evolution etc.
When this claim is investigated, however, it seems it falls to pieces.
The Genesis creation myth only bears a very slight passing resemblance to modern cosmology. When this is pointed out to theists, they often claim that those parts which don't match are mere poetic language, and in no way undermine the miraculous concordance with current science.

I don't buy it.

When we look at the actual account of creation we see some of the problems it has when compared with what science tells us:

• The firmament separating the waters above from the waters below is a solid structure.


• There are waters above the firmament (causing the blue sky, as I understand it)


• Having waters above and waters below, and a solid structure separating them implies strongly a flat earth.


• The Genesis account has plants (including flowering plants) created prior to the Sun, Moon and Stars.


• The Sun is created after the Earth.


• The stars are created after the Earth.


• The Sun and the Moon are created at the same time.


• The Moon is is a source of light.


• The Sun, Moon and stars are embedded within the firmament.


• Flowering plants are created prior to animals.


• Birds are created prior to other land animals.


• Man was created after all of the other animals.

Now, each and every one of these can be (and has been) rationalised away.None of these post-hoc rationalisations is successful, as far as I can tell.

The account could be scientifically accurate and still contain poetic language. I think we can all imagine how that might read.
All of the concepts required - distance, time, were available. Sure science shows us a universe vastly different to that conceived by those in the ANE, but could God not have found a way to communicate this to the author? If not it seems God has something of a communications problem.

I'm sure there are numerous other rationalisations one can make to try to resolve the conflict between Genesis and science. Some "deeper" reading can perhaps be made. Or perhaps we accept Genesis as wholly metaphorical in nature, telling us "who" rather than how, when etc. These also seem to fail, as other creation myths are open to the same sort of re-interpretation and rationalisation.

On the whole, and in the absence of an argument which dispels these issues, I take it that Genesis 1 is a creation myth, much like the Enûma Eliš. I'm sure with a bit of effort other creation myths could also be rationalised to fit the science, and the results would look very similar to that carried out for Genesis 1.

I can't see any criteria by which to differentiate them, and therefore I don't.