Further to the Sean Carroll–William Lane Craig debate, “The existence of God in contemporary cosmology,” Kirk Durston, whose background is in biophysics, addresses Carroll’s objection that there cannot be a final cause outside nature, an objection which Durston says he often encounters:
In reflecting upon this, three things come to mind.
First: His naturalistic belief that the universe/multiverse is the sum total of reality, a priori rules out any possibility of a cause for physical reality by definition. This is always a risky thing to do and amounts to simply asserting a conclusion with no supporting argument. In a subsequent post, I will argue that there is rational justification for the belief that there is more to reality than nature.
Second:He states that, if we have a complete model that describes physical reality then ‘we have no right to demand more’. Would not rational inquiry be sufficient to justify at least asking why physical reality exists? Defining the universe as ‘all that exists’ seems to be a rational inquiry stopper. More.
(More background here.)
Follow UD News at Twitter!