Unbelievable? Chapter 2:

In this chapter, Justin is trying to make a case for god, the christian variety, as the reason for the universe. He tells the story of Rogstad who one night upon looking at the stars concluded therefore god.

He writes we have two choices, to believe the universe is a result of natural processes or the working of his god (emphasis his). He leaves out the most correct answer that we don’t know, can’t know but can speculate as to what have caused, if it were, the universe into being or whether it has always been in some form or other.

In making his case, he uses as props for his argument, the intelligent design claims- made famous by Behe among others. He however doesn’t go into detail on this argument.

To Justin, the Big Bang theory leaves room for god. He posits the question, who set the ball rolling? He raises the point of disagreement between Alan Guth (is the universe eternal) and Alex Vilenkin (does the universe have a beginning) as further proof that science cannot adequately answer the origins question. On this point, since Justin is making a case for the Christian god, one could easily argue that the big bang and the creation story contradict each in every detail. The world is created in 6 days, a mere 10K years ago. Big Bang theory posits a much longer duration requiring expansion and cooling. I don’t think he can have it both ways. Secondly, the big bang as a singularity is outmoded.

His next prop is the fine tuning argument. There is no denying that the universe is actually fine tuned. What we need to answer is by who or what? Is there a natural explanation for a fine tuned universe? The answer is yes. Cosmic inflation creates the right conditions for a fine tuned universe. But if the universe is a miraculous event, we need not even have arguments about fine tuning. It would be sufficient as an answer to say god works in mysterious ways. He alludes to, briefly, the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Craig who claims positing an eternal universe would mean we can’t arrive to the present.

Are we to say with Bertrand Russell that the universe is a brute fact, that is, the universe is without explanation or agree with Justin and others that the universe is a work of god which pushes the argument just a step further to saying god is a brute fact and that’s it.

Or are we to say with Jinasena,

Some foolish men declare that Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised and should be rejected.  If god created the world, where was he before creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? No single being had the skill to make the world- for how can an immaterial god create that which is material? How could god have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression. If you declare that the raw material arose naturally, you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might have been its own creator and have arisen equally naturally. If god created the world by an act of will without any raw material, then it is just his will made nothing else and who will believe this silly stuff? If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could. If he is formless, action-less and all embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul devoid of all modality would have no desire to create anything. If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then god is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble. If he created out of love for living things and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful, free from misfortune? Thus the doctrine that the world was created by god makes no sense at all.

there was no

wait for it

big bang singularity

Every time you see a diagram, an article, or a story talking about the “big bang singularity” or any sort of big bang/singularity existing before inflation, know that you’re dealing with an outdated method of thinking. The idea of a Big Bang singularity went out the window as soon as we realized we had a different state — that of cosmic inflation — preceding and setting up the early, hot-and-dense state of the Big Bang.

Pope cuddles word on evolution and big bang theory

In a recent address at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, pope cuddles made comments that suggest evolution and big band theory are not in contradiction with the existence of a creator but requires it.

Pope cuddles said

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,”

I don’t know where pope cuddles gets his information, but the Genesis story has a magician saying let there be and eventually getting tired on the sixth day. We agree the pope must believe the bible story true, but what happens to the other creation stories like that of my great grand fathers? Are they any less true?

He added,

He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.

Cuddles must know something we don’t but as far as I can tell, the god of the bible’s only concern is to be worshiped on end. Whether that is what fulfills the puny humans we are I don’t know.

Cuddles also said

The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.

Yours truly doesn’t know how these fit in with the genesis story, but well, let’s hope there is some progress towards acceptance of naturalism.