Over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, he says this...

For me, the core argument for some force behind the universe, revealed metaphorically in Scripture, is affirmed by science as we currently have it. Our universe came from nothing and is still expanding. What conceivable force made this possible? The second question is the nature of that force. The core revelation of Jesus - and the Buddha, for that matter, in some respects - is that the force is good, not evil. There is hope. Death is not what it seems. Love prevails. In this tragic, fallen, cruel world, this is not an easy doctrine. It cannot be inferred from the evidence. Which is why it is the gift of faith, from some source so deep, so great and so benign it defies any human description. Even metaphor fails.

To shear theology of its architecture and expose the rawest of its foundations is, I believe, part of what we need to do now as Christians. As our organized faith crumbles into archaism and fundamentalism, we need to re-imagine again what we already know, to take the so-familiar concepts, and make them real again.

First off, he asserts that science has revealed the truth about the origins of the universe. Here is where he first runs into problems, because although the current theory is that the universe began with the big bang, it is still just a theory. The universe and the physical laws that govern everything are so complicated that we haven't even begun to approach anything that resembles a true understanding. But he asserts this as fact, and continues to build toward his determined conclusion of a higher power using this as a foundation.

This is necessary though if he is to reach the foregone conclusion, the next step of which is the question of the force behind the assertion. This is of course the worn out rhetoric of the uncaused causer, the concept that the existence of the universe precludes a beginning. This reasoning fails with the question of, if everything has a cause, then why stop at 'God'. He barrels over this obstacle however, obviously never having considered the full import of his argument, and asserts there must have been a creator if there was a beginning.

His reason for believing? Hope. His argument for this? There is none, because, "It cannot be inferred from the evidence." Thus he falls back to the crutch that has been used for centuries, that "it defies any human description". This is akin to the argument that 'God' is unknowable, which refutes any assertions made in the name of religion, and is essentially a circular argument because any assertion made that refutes critique with "God is unknowable" invites the question of how this is known.