Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Jenny A]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

Hmmm. Yes and no. There is a whole lot human beings collectively do not know. That proves precisely nothing.

However, if we actually know a thing, than that thing should be provable. I don't investigate all provable knowledge but I have a few measuring sticks for determining what is and isn't truly proven. What we know of physics, genetics, and other fields is not only peer reviewed, but eventually tested independently and often used to create technology that works. For example, my knowledge of how a plane flies is pretty theoretical and sketchy. But I can see it works. Ditto much medicine, the internet, and the keyboard on which I type. The fact that I don't understand how the computer works precisely does not negate the fact that it does work.

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

The Christian understanding of god, according to fundamentalists contradicts everything we know about the way life and the universe were formed. It's not even arguable really. The earth is much older than 6000 years, it was formed after, not before the stars, there is no vault holding water up in heaven, people are not made of clay. Mammals and reptiles began before, not after birds. And so on.

If you merely mean that god created everything, but we don't know how, in what way does god explain anything? It's an explanation in the way that a stork brought you is an explanation for your existence. But unlike most explanations produced by science, the god story has no predictive powers. It provides no more information than "because." Nor is there anyway to test it. Or even to choose between god hypothesizes: Yahweh or Allah, the explanation has the same lack of predictive power.

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

If there were any evidence of a god, than that would be so. But there is no difference between saying there must have been a god and there must have been a magic mystic force. Neither explains anything. But are just a dressed up way of saying "we don't know," but suppose it was "fairies."

But sure, I'm predisposed to accept naturalistic explanations. So far they are they only explanations with any predictive power whatsoever. If god made the heavens and the earth were an explanation of the heavens and the earth than knowing that would tell you something useful about the heavens and the earth. But it does not.