A lot of Christian vs. atheist debates break down into the Christians saying that they have personal life experience for their faith while atheists claim they have no such personal life experience and therefore have no faith. At this point the debate goes around in circles, and nobody gets anywhere. Now, the Christian's point is valid, but I won't address it in this post, focusing rather on each argument's fundamental points.
Atheists (I'll include them under the term naturalist, because of their love of that philosophy) must believe in an ultimate uncaused, non-sentient, causal force. Christians must believe in an ultimate uncaused, sentient, causal force. The naturalist must posit a multiverse of infinite universes in which infinite opportunities for the astronomically small chance that such an elegant universe as ours came about by random chance. The Christian must posit only one universe and a sentient causal force. Both hypotheses are not eliminated by Ockham's Razor, because both are reduced to the most reductionist form necessary in order for the hypotheses to work. For example, naturalists do not posit a multiverse + pink unicorns caused our universe, and similarly Christians do not posit a sentient causal force + green unicorns caused our universe. Both eliminate extraneous information and keep only those pieces necessary for both hypotheses to function adequately. Or do they function adequately? I'll come back to that point.
Next is the evidence. What evidence is there for a multiverse? I have it on decent authority that we honestly do not know if there is a multiverse. We can claim one hypothetically, but the hypothesis may fail. Any "truth" that may fail is not an established fact, and requires a certain amount of faith. There may be evidence, but we may still draw incorrect conclusions based on the evidence available. So, yes, you need faith to take the naturalist position.
So what about the evidence for the sentient causal force? That's a bit more complex, since it can be based on physical evidence rather than philosophy or theory. And we can find or not find evidence for that in Scripture, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Psychology, etc. And there is evidence, but as the Bible, itself, clarifies, faith is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Ultimately the debate will be a philosophical one and will also require faith to fill in those gaps where evidence is lacking. And I am confident that, as Archaeology has steadily been doing, those gaps will largely be filled. But, again, this position will require faith.
So both positions - naturalist's and Christian's - require faith and are not proven factual 100%.
Now going back to whether these hypotheses function adequately, I feel that the naturalist's does not. Because he bases his on reductionist, naturalistic grounds. That is, nature can be explained in terms of natural laws. But how does one explain natural laws? He claims that the fabric of our universe (natural law) came about from the symmetries within the void (that which is outside of our universe). Ok. Explain with a naturalistic explanation where the symmetries of the void come from. There is no current naturalistic explanation. So does this explain how our universe was created? In one sense it does. But in the larger sense of explaining the origin of the multiverse, the void, etc. there is no explanation offered.
If we can simplify the hypotheses about the origin of natural law we get:
1. Christians say, "God did it!"
2. Naturalists say, "We don't have a hypothesis, because that would be self-contradictory."
3. Non-naturalistic atheists say, "The void did it!"
Let's examine each conclusion:
2. Naturalism believes in a reductionist approach to the natural explanation of the universe. It will never be able to explain natural laws, because when it attempts to do so in naturalistic terms it becomes anything but reductionist, adding to its explanation an infinite number of explanations that all need each other. An attempt to explain natural laws naturally is self-contradictory. What is self-contradictory is not logical.
3. Saying the void did it is just as metaphysical as saying God did it. Only, it multiplies universes to an infinite number. And if you believe in the metaphysical, why be an atheist? This position, while having a modicum of logic, appears to be supported by personal taste rather than superior logic.
So which makes more sense to you? The multiplying of universes to an infinite number in order to get one universe such as ours where natural laws make sense? Or the belief in a sentient, causal force that had the intelligence to create a universe in which the natural laws make sense? Can you spot errors in the logic of this post? Let me know.
Atheists (I'll include them under the term naturalist, because of their love of that philosophy) must believe in an ultimate uncaused, non-sentient, causal force. Christians must believe in an ultimate uncaused, sentient, causal force. The naturalist must posit a multiverse of infinite universes in which infinite opportunities for the astronomically small chance that such an elegant universe as ours came about by random chance. The Christian must posit only one universe and a sentient causal force. Both hypotheses are not eliminated by Ockham's Razor, because both are reduced to the most reductionist form necessary in order for the hypotheses to work. For example, naturalists do not posit a multiverse + pink unicorns caused our universe, and similarly Christians do not posit a sentient causal force + green unicorns caused our universe. Both eliminate extraneous information and keep only those pieces necessary for both hypotheses to function adequately. Or do they function adequately? I'll come back to that point.
Next is the evidence. What evidence is there for a multiverse? I have it on decent authority that we honestly do not know if there is a multiverse. We can claim one hypothetically, but the hypothesis may fail. Any "truth" that may fail is not an established fact, and requires a certain amount of faith. There may be evidence, but we may still draw incorrect conclusions based on the evidence available. So, yes, you need faith to take the naturalist position.
So what about the evidence for the sentient causal force? That's a bit more complex, since it can be based on physical evidence rather than philosophy or theory. And we can find or not find evidence for that in Scripture, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Psychology, etc. And there is evidence, but as the Bible, itself, clarifies, faith is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Ultimately the debate will be a philosophical one and will also require faith to fill in those gaps where evidence is lacking. And I am confident that, as Archaeology has steadily been doing, those gaps will largely be filled. But, again, this position will require faith.
So both positions - naturalist's and Christian's - require faith and are not proven factual 100%.
Now going back to whether these hypotheses function adequately, I feel that the naturalist's does not. Because he bases his on reductionist, naturalistic grounds. That is, nature can be explained in terms of natural laws. But how does one explain natural laws? He claims that the fabric of our universe (natural law) came about from the symmetries within the void (that which is outside of our universe). Ok. Explain with a naturalistic explanation where the symmetries of the void come from. There is no current naturalistic explanation. So does this explain how our universe was created? In one sense it does. But in the larger sense of explaining the origin of the multiverse, the void, etc. there is no explanation offered.
If we can simplify the hypotheses about the origin of natural law we get:
1. Christians say, "God did it!"
2. Naturalists say, "We don't have a hypothesis, because that would be self-contradictory."
3. Non-naturalistic atheists say, "The void did it!"
Let's examine each conclusion:
2. Naturalism believes in a reductionist approach to the natural explanation of the universe. It will never be able to explain natural laws, because when it attempts to do so in naturalistic terms it becomes anything but reductionist, adding to its explanation an infinite number of explanations that all need each other. An attempt to explain natural laws naturally is self-contradictory. What is self-contradictory is not logical.
3. Saying the void did it is just as metaphysical as saying God did it. Only, it multiplies universes to an infinite number. And if you believe in the metaphysical, why be an atheist? This position, while having a modicum of logic, appears to be supported by personal taste rather than superior logic.
So which makes more sense to you? The multiplying of universes to an infinite number in order to get one universe such as ours where natural laws make sense? Or the belief in a sentient, causal force that had the intelligence to create a universe in which the natural laws make sense? Can you spot errors in the logic of this post? Let me know.
