(Romans 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Alistair Begg had an observation on this. It has been a long time since I wrote it down so I don’t know if it is word-for-word but it went something like this: “There is not enough in nature to convert you but there is enough to condemn you.”
The point we can make from nature is that it isn’t that you can’t see. It is that you won’t see. In listening to podcasts by William Lane Craig I hear frequent reference to the fine tuning of the universe. Evidently this is well accepted. There are a multitude of scientific measurements that are very precise in producing the universe we know. If any one of them had been even slightly different then life would not be possible. It speaks of a designer. The data is there.
Many scientists will acknowledge this fine tuning but refuse to accept that it indicates the existence of a god of any kind. This forces them to come up with many creative theories to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of life. Some of this creative thought is true inquiry, seeking for answers that can be measured and judged. Some of it is simply a refusal to accept the simplest conclusion.
In the end believing a multi-verse or an eternal universe with no beginning does not seem to be backed by any scientific data. There is no evidence for one and the other has been proven impossible. Yet they are still proposed and defended. They are taken on faith. Just like creation but without the moral requirements.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is still a theory. Believe it if you like but don’t try to pretend it is based on hard science.
homo unius libri
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome. Feel free to agree or disagree but keep it clean, courteous and short. I heard some shorthand on a podcast: TLDR, Too long, didn't read.