Divine Hiddenness

[Neo-Scholastic]

We can’t (yet, or maybe ever) rule out that our universe has some cause which is separate from space-time itself, but even if we assume that this is the case for the sake of the argument, it doesn’t necessitate that the cause is a god. We currently have no way to investigate anything beyond the local presentation of our universe, so I can’t see any rational justification for multiplying entities (Occam’s Razor) in such a case.

LFC, a parsimonious hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions while at the same time addressing the most phenomena. The second part insures that the simplest approach isn’t too simple. The most relevant phenomena needing explanation isn’t just that the world exists but that this particular world exists as it does.



As I see it there are three main approaches:



1) Brute fact – this world exists as it does and could not be any other way. No explanation required.



2) Contingency – many different worlds could have existed but this particular world exists for some reason.



3) Multiverse - many worlds exist and, by chance, we just happen to be in this one.



Bertrand Russell took the first approach. Leibnitz took the second in his proposed law of sufficient reason. The last finds philosophical expression in Jorge Louis Borges (in an infinite universe, all possibilities will be exhausted) and Nietzsche (and all possibilities not only occur, but keep happening). Each has its merits and deficiencies. The first is simple but IMHO explains too little. The second answers the question but raises other problems, which IMHO is normal. When has it ever been the case that answering one question didn’t raise others? The third avoids theological dilemmas but at the cost of multiplying entities to infinity. Pick your poison, I guess.