A RESPONSE TO A SEEKER

I am glad that you are seeking, because a true seeker will find. I am also confident that you will see through Dawkin’s claim that science has made God irrelevant. Why?

For one thing, science has never demonstrated that anything ever happens naturally and without Divine guidance. To do this, science would have to demonstrate that our causal laws/forces of science are of natural derivation and continuation. However, science is ill-equipped for such a task.

More to the point, these laws or causal agents give every indication that they are designed and divinely pieced together (fine-tuned) to promote life. Science cannot disprove the divine origin of these laws but, instead, depends upon them for each of its findings. If these laws were simply a part of this universe, they would be changing as the universe changes, automatically voiding the possibility of any coherent scientific proclamation. Indeed, if it had been possible for our laws to have been created by an explosion (the “Big Bang”), there is no reason to expect them to be immutable and universal, making science possible.

We should not expect these laws to be elegant (simple), enabling scientific discovery and understanding. Instead, we should expect what explosions usually produce – Chaos!

But please continue your exploration. If you want the truth, you will find the truth.

“God of the Gaps” Fallacy

What is the “God of the Gaps” argument? Here is how atheism.wiki.com explains it:         

• God of the Gaps is a concept that comes from the fact that God is being squeezed into an ever smaller series of existential gaps… At one time, all the phenomena in the universe could be ascribed to God. The stars, the rain, the seasons etc. With time, and improved scientific explanations, the number of things for which "God did it" was a good explanation was reduced, and god was equally reduced to inhabiting ever smaller gaps in human knowledge… It should be remembered however, the fact that science has no present explanation in no way means that god (or Uranus, Zeus, Odin or any other god/goddess) exists or that the God/Gods of any other Mythology exist. Indeed, if we were never to answer these questions it still wouldn't mean that Allah created the Universe or that Thor causes it to thunder.

Through this incoherent thinking, atheists hope to demonstrate that any possible argument in favor of God is being pushed into the gaps or margins – those areas where science has not yet been able to provide an explanation. Once these areas have been scientifically explained, there will remain no further argument in favor of the existence of God.

However, there is a hidden and fallacious assumption here that has construed science to favor atheism – that scientific findings/understandings undermine the existence of God rather than validate the existence of God. It assumes that “God is being squeezed” out of consideration by science rather than being placed in stage-center.

The central question is this: “Who did it?” Do natural, undersigned laws account for scientific knowledge or do designed, purposeful laws account for them?

Of course, we cannot put God (ID) in a test tube. However, we are equally unable to put the concept of natural causation into a test tube. Both go beyond experimentation and replication. Instead, we have to examine them from a higher more philosophical perspective and ask:

• Which theory best accounts for the findings: naturalism or supernaturalism (intelligence, ID)? 

Here are some considerations in favor of ID:

1. There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that these laws are natural and unintelligent in origin. Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the natural hadn’t been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they find their origin and unity in the single transcendent Mind of God. 

2. Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion, naturalism can’t account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can! Only a transcendent (outside-of-this universe) God is impervious to change. Only transcendent laws can effect phenomena in this universe in a universal and uniform way.

3. Reason, logic, and the laws of science are uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter and energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.

4. The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism is unable to postulate such a cause. And there are also so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many desperate theoretical leaps into muliverses and the emergent properties of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. In contrast, ID need only postulate the Creator to explain all. Only He is adequate.

5. Our experience with causal agents informs us that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused - a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than His creation.

6. Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the laws of science. Nor can it explain how the laws work harmoniously and do not destroy one another. However, ID can!

Perhaps, then, we should be thinking in terms of “naturalism of the gaps.”

Proof of the Existence of God from Reason

 

There are many proofs for the existence of God. This is because this universe is His creation, and all of His creations point back to their Creator. Here is just one proof out of many – The proof from reason or logic:

1. REASON EXISTS.
2. REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is absolute, universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it would be like measuring a building with an elastic band. It must also be universal or it would change from day to day and from town to city, rendering it entirely useless for science or even intelligent conversation.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion. They can only be accounted for by an immutable and universal Cause and Sustainer – something that transcends this universe.

Some claim that reason is a property of this universe. However, the universe is changing. Therefore, reason would also be changing, obviating any conclusion of science. Besides, the things of this universe are impacted by other things, but nothing seems to be able to change the laws of reason and logic. (Admittedly, many things impact our use of reason and logic.)

Similarly, others appeal to evolution. However, there are many problems with this. First of all, they would have to prove that evolution isn't intelligently guided - something they can't do. Besides, evolution or naturalism would also have to account for the allied and immutable, universal physical laws, which it can't possibly do! Naturalism only has explanatory power  after “natural” laws exist.

Besides, Naturalism cannot explain the subtlety and freedom of thought necessary for science and creativity. Naturalism claims that thought is guided exclusively by bio-chemical laws. Laws work predictably and formulaically. However, these would impose such severe limitations on thought that creative and scientific thought would not be possible. It would therefore seem that more is necessary for thought to be what it is, something that accounts for some degree of mental freedom.

Reason is like the operating systems of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created the laws of reason, logic, and the laws of science, since these predate humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

Praise His glory, all you His creations!

ADDENDUM: Atheists claim that we have to provide a detailed explanation of how God created. Admittedly, we cannot provide this. There is much that we do not know. Nor do we know the basic things like the nature of time, space, and matter. These remain mysteries, but this ignorance does not prevent science. Likewise, our ignorance about God does not preclude any knowledge about God and ID.

Other claim that reason and logic are also in flux. Then I would have to retort that any scientific statement is in flux and therefore must be taken tentatively at best. Nevertheless, we still make solid assertions about this world. Reason is still reason and my measuring stick can still measure the reality of length and depth. They are still rock solid and require explanations that explain this solidity.

The Logical Case against Naturalism

Science has been co-opted by philosophical naturalism – the belief that everything originated naturally, operates naturally, and is sustained naturally apart from a Designer. However, there is not one stitch of evidence to support such a notion. Yes, we all agree that there are laws and that they operate predictably. However, there is no evidence that these laws operate naturally. Instead, there are numerous considerations that would lead us to believe that God created and sustains everything.

Here are some logical reasons I offered to an atheist:

1. There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that these laws are natural, unintelligent in origin and independent of one another. Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the natural hadn’t been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they find their origin and unity in the single Mind of God.

2. Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion, naturalism can’t account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can!

3. Reason, logic, and the laws of science are uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter and energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.

4. The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism is unable to postulate such a cause. And there are so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many wild theoretical leaps into muliverses and the emergent properties of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. In contrast, ID need only postulate the Creator to explain all.

5. Our experience with causal agents informs us that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused - a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than His creation.

6. Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the laws of science. However, ID can!

In response to this, the atheist will point to the body of “natural” explanations we have for all forms of scientific phenomena, and they’ll say:

• Look at all of the understanding that naturalism has produced. Therefore, naturalism is clearly supported by this evidence.

However, this claim can only be made by slight-of-hand. The explanations do not provide any support for naturalism, even though we call them “natural” explanations. Instead, they are explanations that invoke the various laws of science, without consideration of whether they are natural or supernatural. Therefore, calling them “natural” explanations is highly misleading. Instead, it would be better to call them something neutral like “scientific” explanations.