Atheist: "By Ockham's razor, God is an unnecessary being (because an eternal universe is a simpler explanation of our universe); therefore, I believe in an eternal multiverse that caused our universe and our lives."
Answer:
Ockham's razor is a problem solving principle developed by William of Ockham. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In short, entities/explanations are not to be multiplied beyond NECESSITY. Many people mistakenly assume Ockham's razor means "when it comes to explanations, simpler is always better." But as we will see below simpler explanations often fall short of SUFFICIENCY and are therefore NOT always the BEST (most logical) explanations.
God would be unnecessary (based on Ockham's razor) IF AND ONLY IF an eternal universe was a SUFFICIENT explanation for our universe (i.e. all of what makes up reality). But an eternal universe is not a SUFFICIENT explanation because:
1. An eternal universe violates known scientific laws (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) and therefore the explanation is logically inconsistent.
Ockham's razor is a problem solving principle developed by William of Ockham. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In short, entities/explanations are not to be multiplied beyond NECESSITY. Many people mistakenly assume Ockham's razor means "when it comes to explanations, simpler is always better." But as we will see below simpler explanations often fall short of SUFFICIENCY and are therefore NOT always the BEST (most logical) explanations.
God would be unnecessary (based on Ockham's razor) IF AND ONLY IF an eternal universe was a SUFFICIENT explanation for our universe (i.e. all of what makes up reality). But an eternal universe is not a SUFFICIENT explanation because:
1. An eternal universe violates known scientific laws (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics) and therefore the explanation is logically inconsistent.
In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have evolved—which some scientific popularizations have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have a beginning.
In his 2006 book, Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin emphasizes his conclusion this way: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (pg. 176)
2. An eternal universe does not coherently explain consciousness, intelligence, the laws of logic, information, evil/good, love, humor, beauty, meaning, value, and purpose; therefore, it is found wanting and INSUFFICIENT.
No matter how many universes atheists want to push this back on, they are positing some type of "eternal matter/energy". The bottom line is we all believe in an eternal something--either eternal energy or an eternal Mind. Atheists seem to be on the "eternal energy" side; thus, violating the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as not being able to explain the nature of our existence (consciousness, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality) coherently with mindless "energy." On the other hand, Christians believe in an "eternal Mind (God)" that can coherently explain consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality coherently and consistently because these are activities of a MIND!
In his 2006 book, Many Worlds in One, Vilenkin emphasizes his conclusion this way: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (pg. 176)
2. An eternal universe does not coherently explain consciousness, intelligence, the laws of logic, information, evil/good, love, humor, beauty, meaning, value, and purpose; therefore, it is found wanting and INSUFFICIENT.
No matter how many universes atheists want to push this back on, they are positing some type of "eternal matter/energy". The bottom line is we all believe in an eternal something--either eternal energy or an eternal Mind. Atheists seem to be on the "eternal energy" side; thus, violating the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as not being able to explain the nature of our existence (consciousness, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality) coherently with mindless "energy." On the other hand, Christians believe in an "eternal Mind (God)" that can coherently explain consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality coherently and consistently because these are activities of a MIND!
In conclusion, to say Ockham's razor favors an eternal universe merely because it is simpler than "God" is like coming across a book with no author or publisher page and saying Ockham's razor favors ink and paper over a human author because ink and paper are much simpler than a human mind. The chemical and physical composition of ink and paper, although simpler, cannot account for the INFORMATION transmitted in the book and therefore ink and paper are not a SUFFICIENT explanation for the book. The information contained in a book comes from an intelligent mind--which happens to be much more complex than other post hoc fallacy explanations. Again, just because an explanation is simpler does not make it SUFFICIENT.
This is why the major difference between the Christian worldview and the naturalist/atheist worldviews is found in the logical outworking of the worldview applied to reality. Any discrepancies in the Christian worldview are merely superficial; the deeper one digs, the more logical consistency and coherence is found. On the other hand, any logic and coherence in the naturalist/atheist worldview is merely superficial; the deeper one digs, the more contradictions and incoherence is found.