Nay. - Edit 1
Before modification by Burr at 20/09/2009 07:16:17 AM
It just doesn't work. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that if the universe were compressed to a singularity at some point in the past, it should've stayed that way. To put it in Newtonian terms (and I realize the dangers there) an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, and "the universe" by definition precludes any force from outside, because there IS no "outside. " Entropy is always increasing in a closed system, and the universe is the ultimate closed system, so the suggestion it could naturally acquire kinetic energy when it had none initially is just bad science. Rebuttals of this come in two forms:
1) Concoct a hypothetical and unverifiable scheme wherein the known universe is just part of a larger one that supplies it energy, so that entropy decreases here while increasing at a greater rate in some other mystical place we can't perceive. Call it "the Flying Spaghetti Monsters pasta bowl. "
2) Vaguely and sagely assert that "we don't know much about the early universe; generally accepted laws of science may not apply. " Then, um, why are we trying to investigate it scientifically? If fundamental principles of physics are so deeply flawed, isn't that an argument AGAINST rather than FOR current physics models of the universes origins?
Why shouldn't we necessarily discontinue scientific investigation simply because any or all of our current laws may be stunted? Because the general philosophy of science assumes only that the ultimate answers will be rationally principled and theoretically observable. Within those bounds, science is a process of definition. The "laws of science" are not "the laws that encapsulate science" but merely "the best laws suggested through the conduct of science so far." Positively speaking, we necessarily should continue scientific investigation because the demonstrated accuracy of scientific laws correlates positively with changes to those laws over time, whereas the demonstrated accuracy of non-scientific ideas do not correlate positively with changes to those ideas over time.
Origins are, after all, the key problem, because thanks to entropy everything decays, all motion eventually ceases, and once that happens there's nothing possible to kick start it again. Not under a purely natural model, and there's the rub: The materialist view criticizes spiritual ones for not playing by the laws of physics, but supernatural theories by nature are not obligated to do so; natural ones very much are.
I don't agree with that last statement. The fundamental criticism is not that supernatural theories don't play by the laws of physics, but that supernatural theories don't play by the same meta-rules by which natural laws may be rationally accepted. If you would reject a natural law that asserts X, then why would you accept a supernatural theory that asserts X? And so if you are going to assert X, then you might as well accept it as a natural law, not a supernatural theory.
Say I owe you money and you ask me, "Where's the money you owe me?" And in reply, I suggest, "Maybe my bank has already paid you with supernatural coinage. It's not observable, so we can't prove it's not in your account now." You criticize me saying, "That's a ridiculous theory: it doesn't play by the laws of economics!" And I reply, "Maybe you're right, but it isn't obligated to do so. That's the beauty of supernatural money." When all and said and done, supernatural money is a cop-out. If I'm willing to assert a transaction at all, then I ought to be willing to back that assertion up with observable currency. Or, just because a theory is logically possible doesn't make it rationally acceptable.
Beyond that logic most of my evidence is anecdotal, like the time a crackhead plunged a knife into my gut a dozen times or so and couldn't even put a hole in my shirt, about a week after my mom had a dream she was in a hospital being told I was stabbed, a dream so vivid she called to wake me up and tell me. Or the dreams she had as a teen about a relative dying, shortly before they unexpectedly did just that. Or the... thing... that showed up in my bedroom door one night as a very small child and started trying to talk to me, then promptly disappeared when my parents rushed out and hit the hall light. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " To assume that because something can't be directly observed it doesn't exist is rather conceited, IMHO, particularly when purely natural models are so inadequate to full explanations of reality.
For me it's not about assuming that unobservable things can't exist, but rather about conceding our experiences will always be as if there were no unobservable things. Even if they do exist where they themselves are concerned, they don't exist where we are concerned. Whether or not Bob exists, if you know he'll never eat with you, then there's no point in setting a place for him at the table. (And in fact, to do so may be poor thing to do if it means paying less attention to Rita, who might or might not eat with you now, but at least you know she does so on occasion.)
The fact that you did observe all those anecdotal miracles and horrors is proof enough that they were natural, independent of meaning. We don't need to accommodate the supernatural to interpret those events as divine or demonic.
Ultimately, even when I wasn't a Christian, I was a Deist simply because a First Cause is inescapable, an infinite regression as impossible by physical law as by logic (though on the latter point see The Metaphysics Book II, Part 2; it's short, but does away with infinite regression nicely) and because since entropy makes an eternal unbeginning physical realm impossible, well, as Doyle says, when we have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
But it does not follow from "the First Cause is inescapable" that the First Cause is of a different substance or higher plane than the First Effect. The entire cosmos may be God willing His body to dance. Divine creation is possible without supernatural separation.