Genesis 1:1

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Verse < Genesis 1 > Next Verse

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (ASV)


Big Bang Theory, which is the only credible position on the development of the structures of matter we observe today, demonstrates a number of facts that gravely contradict the belief in divine creation :

  • Space and time are part of a unified whole, something which people living thousands of years ago wouldn't have known. If God created spacetime, then it would have no time in which to act. Theologian William Craig argues that God existed timelessly before Creation, and within time after Creation, but this only brings up a host of new problems.
  • The Big Bang singularity is fundamentally unpredictable, contradicting the belief in a planned universe.
  • The Hartle-Hawking model proves that the ante facto unconditional probability of the universe existing as it is is less than 1, contradicting the belief in a designed universe.

Furthermore, the belief in divine creation breaks basic logic, in demanding us to believe that everything came out of nothing.

We have zero information about what existed before this universe, if anything. We don't know the rules that would apply to anything outside of this universe. It could be that there is a meta-verse outside of this universe, or there could just be a void. And before the Pro side chimes in with "You can't get something from nothing", well, yes you can as long as the net energy is zero. Look into Hawking Radiation and virtual particles for more info on the topic. The only thing we know is that the conditions that existed before this universe were sufficient for this universe to happen.

About the "outside space and outside time" God

Anyway, everything that exists required a time and a space to take place at, and to claim that creation took place outside of the rules of time and/or space, is illogical, since EVERYTHING is located within time and within space, and an entity existing outside of these, but who has existed forever and wherever, is contradictory, since everything claimed to exist, must exist, and yet, going back to the start: we say that something is, when it can be located either in time or space. Otherwise it is not, it exists not. In synthesis: something can't be everywhere if it's not located in space, because it would be nowhere, and something can't be forever if it's not located in time, since "everywhere" means in all the space, and "forever" means for all the time. Something can't be occupying all of them without even being in them.

--AFOH 20:03, 21 Oct 2007 (GMT -6)

Therefore, to claim that a god created this universe is akin to stating, "Humans are ignorant about this, therefore God did it." That argument, however, just doesn't hold water.


Argument from philosophy


There are only two major options:

1. God has always existed, and the universe has NOT always existed.

2. The universe has always existed, and God has NOT always existed.

Theists generally hold to the first option, atheists to the second. Atheists usually affirm that not only has God NOT always existed.... He simply has never existed AT ALL.

However, the Big Bang theory supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, and thus backs up the Theist claim.

If someone says, "The Big Bang was the origin of the universe," I simply ask, "What caused the Big Bang." The obvious answer is that God caused the Big Bang.

If an atheist says, "God didn't cause the Big Bang. Rather, material warping in from other parallel universes are what caused the Big Bang...." They may feel they have sidestepped the problem. But then I simply ask, "What caused the origin of all these various other parallel universes" and we are back to square one.

Einstein informed us that time and space are inter-related. Thus, for time to exist, space must also exist. Also, for space to exist, time must exist as well. Space and Time go hand in hand.... you cannot have one without the other.

There is a BIG problem with the idea that the universe that has always existed. Here is the problem, in the form of a logical IF/THEN clause:

IF the universe had always been in existence, THEN an infinite stretch of time would extend backwards into the eternal past. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite length of time, this means that we could NEVER have arrived yet at the present moment.

Thus, since we actually HAVE arrived at the present moment, THIS MEANS the universe did NOT have to traverse an infinite length of time to get here. Therefore, the universe has NOT always existed, ergo, the universe had a beginning, ergo, God exists.

This problem with traversing an infinite stretch of time applies to the universe. However, since God is neither spatial NOR temporal, this same problem does NOT apply to God. God resides NEITHER in space NOR in time, and therefore He could quite easily have always existed, outside of time. Therefore, the Atheist position is false.

Argument from Literature

While the Pro argument definitely gives reason to doubt a literalist interpretation, it must be realized that--just as the map is not the terrain--the interpretation is not the text. True, there are those who state that the Genesis account should be taken as a word-for-word account of the Creation, these are the minority--the majority even of Judeo-Christian believers take this passage as figurative or mythic.

--JustinEiler 10:06, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Justin, do we have any data suggesting what proportion of Christians & Muslims see this as figurative? Being that liberal Christians are a minority confined mostly to America, Australia and Europe, and that most Muslims appear to be rather literal, an assertion like yours needs data or is worthless. Yes, I have ignored the paltry number of Jews worldwide.

--Equinox 7.27.06

Not from Nothing ...

Furthermore, the belief in divine creation breaks basic logic, in demanding us to believe that everything came out of nothing.

Actually that claim is mistaken. Creation ex nihlo is not exactly claiming everything came from nothing, it is claiming God created the universe without using any existing material. There is nothing illogical about it at all. It is a perfectly reasonable claim. --Jason 17:41, 7 Sep 2005 (CDT)



  • "Furthermore, the belief in divine creation breaks basic logic, in demanding us to believe that everything came out of nothing." This is exactly what the Hartle-Hawking model states: Hartle and Hawking assert quite explicitly that the wave function gives the probability 'amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing' (1983:2961). So it, too, seemingly breaks basic logic and brings science closer to the idea that nothing physical caused the universe's existence.
  • If God wills that a Hartle-Hawking universe shall begin to exist, the probability of its beginning to exist is not 95% but 100%, since God's willing is omnipotent. This logic is flawed on the following accounts:
    • Hartle-Hawking provide a theoretical model, which cannot create any universe, but may explain this one's uncaused existence.
    • God's willing is omnipotent - and by this definition not subject to the laws of physics or mathematics. Consequently, God is able to create the universe such that H-H are able to formulate their model. God's name YHWH carries the idea of both self-existence and existing in any shape, form, or apperance. This transcends known physics and permits God to act supernaturally.
    • But the Hartle-Hawking probability is not dependent on any supernatural considerations; Hartle and Hawking do not sum over anything supernatural in their path integral derivation of the probability amplitude. - and therefore arrive at a .95 probability.

It is important to understand that God didn't just make a physical universe, but all the intangables too - mathematics, law, logic, physics, information, data, thoughts, ideas, life, morality, etc., while the H-H model limits itself to 3-dimensional space/time universes.

  • to claim that a god created this universe is akin to stating, "Humans are ignorant about this, therefore God did it. - The claim is about ownership, not ignorance. The Scriptures assert God made the universe, owns it, and we will acknowledge it. This verse therefore establishes God's ownership and defines the basis of all Scripture. Compare this verse with Isaiah_65:17 and Revelation_21:1. Evidently, God has plans to make other universes after this one has served its purpose. Remember, when some-one says, "God did it", they are asserting ownership and rights, not claiming ignorance (even if true). 20:08, 24 Aug 2007 (CDT)


One error in the Con argument is that not all atheists hold the universe to be eternal. Another error is that some theists hold the universe to be eternal (such as Aristotle and some Indian philosophers). --Peter Kirby 18:22, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)

The problem with the Con argument is that the existence of the Universe cannot be stated to be a "necessary" result of the existence of God without relying on a priori assumptions. Con takes the existence of the Universe as proof of the existence of God, but does not establish why this should be so.

I'm truly of the opinion that the Con proponent has an insufficient understanding of atheism and functional naturalism, and is conflating the two unnecessarily. This argument may have merit (once it is fully developed), but as it stands only works within the views of one who has already ascribed to the existence of God.

If the person who made the Con argument would care to expand on their reasoning for why the only two options both involve the existence of God, this may clarify the seeming confusion.

--JustinEiler 18:04, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)

1. Scientifically speaking, the question "what caused the Big Bang is meaningless" - just like a Christian would find the question "what caused God" meaningless. The difference is that God does not exist, and the universe does. There is only matter and energy in motion.

  • Actually, that's not correct: there is an incredible amount of work and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, and what conditions were like before that time. See the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang for more information.
--JustinEiler 10:12, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)
I didn't say there was no speculation about it, esp. in regards to String theory and its implications for the structure of the universe. But from the framework of the currently accepted theory, Big Bang theory, there is no place for speculation. And to answer "God did it" is to place oneself WHOLLY OUTSIDE of science and into delusion. Franc28 12:07, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)

2. The fact that space and time are aspects of the same thing is, as I pointed out in the Pro, a major problem with divine creation. I don't think whoever wrote the Con position understands the principle here : an action requires time, and Creation is supposed to have created both space and time, therefore the whole construct is circular. How can any Christian argue with that, except to reject modern physics wholesale ? Franc28 23:25, 26 Aug 2005 (CDT)

  • Again, you make the unwarranted (and quite incorrect) assumption that all Christians adhere to a literalist interpretation.
--JustinEiler 10:12, 27 Aug 2005 (CDT)
No... I don't care if Christians believe it or not. This wiki is about THE BIBLE, not INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, and I can read what it says. Why are you arguing on here instead of the talk page ? You are gving the appearance that there is a debate, when there is no debate anywhere on this question except in the minds of Christians. Franc28 12:07, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)

  • The Hebrew word "bara", translated here as "created", also means "to cut" or "to separate". Thus, Genesis 1:1 could be read as "In the beginning, God separated the Heavens from the Earth", which would be consistent with similar Middle-Eastern creation myths in which a process of differentiation occurs.
Some apologists argue that "bara" specifically signifies creation ex nihilo: this is clearly false, as the same word is used in Genesis 1:27 to describe the creation of Adam from existing matter (according to Genesis 2:7, "the dust of the ground") - by a process that, incidentally, also involves "separation" from the Earth.

--Robert Stevens 12:05, 24 Oct 2005 (CDT)

Although I, personally, do not accept the Bible as authoritative, much less inerrant, I fail to find anything inconsistent between Genesis 1:1 and the "Big Bang" (I hate that term) theory of the origin of the universe. I likewise find questions about what "caused" or "existed before" the "Big Bang" to be logically empty.
Tracking backward in time, human understanding of physics breaks down about .001 second after the initiation of the expansion of the universe. String theory may take us back to t = 0 or it may not. Time and research will tell. Although I am familiar (at an advanced layman's level) with M-brane and P-brane theory and I think the mathematical speculations about dimensions up to 11 interesting in a wierd sort of way, I personally find speculation about what existed prior to t = 0 meaningless.
As far as my mind can deal with them time, space, matter and energy, as we understand them all, came into being, in potential form at least, at t = 0. For all intents and purposes relevant to our present day existence, the entire universe existed, for ever how long it did, in the form of a singularity which we presently lack even the physical concepts to even describe much less analyze. T = 0 is rather like the speed of light. Since we exist on one side of that barrier we can never cross over to the other side by physical means.

--ninewands 11:14, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)

External links