It’s not uncommon to see arguments stating that God is not necessary to explain the natural world. That one could just as easily give explanations using nothing but naturalistic processes. I agree that one could explain things without such an entity; but providing such explanations is not an argument against God. Here’s why:
Imagine you are working with a computer. You input some numbers and recorded the following outputs:
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
5 = 5
6 = 126
You attempt to figure out the rule with which it responds, and after some thought come up with the following:
If n, then (n - l) (n - 2) (n - 3) (n - 4) (n - 5) + n
You then proceed to test the rule with numbers 7 and 8 and get matching results. However, the programmer now comes and tells you that your rule is wrong. The rule is actually:
If n, then (n - l)(n - 2)(n - 3)(n - 4) (n - 5) + (2n - n)
Notice that both equations are logically equivalent. However, only one represents the reality of the transformational procedures (Flanagan, 1991).
Conclusion: Explanations are always abundant. You can explain the whole of reality without putting God into the equation; but having done so does not mean you have accurately represented reality. To claim victory because you can predict or explain a phenomenon, does not imply it is the explanation by which reality has produced that phenomenon.
Flanagan, O. (1991). The science of the mind (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.