Atheists generally say that the existence of God is a great
claim. Therefore, this claim requires great evidence.
Actually I tend to agree. However, I would insist that the
evidence for the Creator should be compared to its competing great claim – that
natural forces (NFs) are the creators. Both of these are necessarily extraordinary
claims, which require extraordinary evidence. Both claim that either these NFs
or the Creator must be eternal and therefore don’t require an illogical and
endless source of causes to explain their own existence. Instead, they are
eternal. However, I think that the God hypothesis has more support. From the
little we understand:
1.
NFs cannot explain the creation of matter,
energy, time, and space. Instead, NFs would require that these already exist
before they can act upon them. Besides, time cannot be eternal. It would mean
that an infinite number of years would have to be fulfilled before we could
arrive at the present.
2.
NFs could not explain their elegance of formula.
Instead, this suggests ID.
3.
It is more parsimonious to accept the initial
existence of one creative Force than many NFs.
4.
The omnipotent God hypothesis can explain
everything. The initial Cause must be adequate to account for the rest of the
universe. However, NFs are hard-pressed to account for many things – life,
consciousness, freewill, objective moral law.
5.
There is no evidence that anything has ever been
caused by a NF. Perhaps instead, these NFs are created by God and emanate from
His Being.
However, theism and ID have other great claims like
miracles, one-time phenomena, which go beyond the grasp and purview of science.
Consequently, don’t miracles require extraordinary supportive evidences (ESEs)?
At this point, we need to make a necessary distinction
between a single miracle and miracles in general (MG). MG already possess ESEs
in the form of millions of supporting testimonies or reports.
But where are the scientific evidences? They do not exist!
Why not? Because science can only address repeating events, events that can be
retested! But miracles are anomalous, one of a kind. Therefore, they cannot be
repeated. It is therefore not appropriate to ask for scientific proof for things
outside of the reach of science. Consequently, science cannot disprove miracles.
But what do we make of the claims for individual miracles,
like the Bible’s insistence on the Virgin Birth? From a materialistic and
naturalistic perspective, the Virgin Birth would require extraordinary evidences,
but not from the perspective of ID. If there is a God, then all of His
creations are miraculous and transcend the grasp of science.
In light of this, we are taken back to the original question – “Does the Creator exist?” If He does, then He is the ESE.
In light of this, we are taken back to the original question – “Does the Creator exist?” If He does, then He is the ESE.
This doesn’t mean that we should not be diligent about
examining miraculous claims. In fact, the Bible tells us to examine all things,
including ourselves. However, assuming ID, we test in different ways, using
different criteria.
No comments:
Post a Comment