The universe is vast. The preceding statement is arguably the only factual statement we can make about the universe. The universe is seemingly without end and without confinement as far as mankind is concerned. We have dedicated untold decades and centuries to prove the existence of other life forms, solar systems, and even alternate universes. Every now and then we stumble on something, but with each discovery brings more questions than answers.
Simply put, our minds cannot set the parameters for the universe, let alone the idea of God running it. Such a notion and ideal is simply a theological hypothesis that can meet at a stalemate for both sides at best. As a believer, I do believe that God is the “master of the machine” that we call the universe. Can I prove such a fact? Absolutely not. My faith in what the Holy Bible contains is my only basis for assertion. Assertion without proof sound familiar? (Faith, for those who are out in the dark, is assertion without proof). I admit what is perceived by man to be a fallacy.
Consider Christopher Hitchens coined the phrase that “what can be asserted with proof can be dismissed without proof.” Seems like a scientific “Gotcha!” moment. I’m sure there are some atheists who would agree. But, in pointing out what man deems a fallacy, Hitchens’ apparent mockery should make atheists bury their heads in the sand from embarrassment. Hitchens is insinuating that he has the capability of disproving the existence of God and would have no proof to back it up. His argument is contradictory at best. A man who prides himself on proving God does not exist would surely have to present proof for his claim to be valid.
What’s the point?
One thing Hitchens does do in the statement that makes logical sense is showing that in order to disprove God, we would have to make stuff up. For application, look at a quarter. The quarter has two sides. The front has a portrait of George Washington, the back has a symbol of the eagle. (Not discussing state quarters obviously as those are a temporary variation). I hold the quarter up between a believer and an atheist sitting at a table. The atheist looks at the picture of Washington and would discuss how Washington fought for our country and led it as the first president of this country. While looking at that side, the believer looks at the eagle portrait on the other side and discusses how the eagle represents our spirit on the wings of an eagle. (See Isaiah 40:31) and talk about how God led us to this country and its founding.
But who is right in a reasonable debate? When defining reason as something that can be tested and proven either valid or invalid, they are both wrong. Yes, Washington was the first president, we can look back and prove that, but the statement as a whole is flawed. The assertion that he fought for our country is incorrect insofar as the timing. We can agree that he fought for the thirteen colonies, but cannot prove that what he fought for was what our country has become today. We may have FAITH that our country is how Washington envisioned, but we ultimately do not know. Consider the expanding government, our spending consistencies and how the world has changed in general since his time.
Of course, the believer cannot assert God led our country with proof either.
So what we have to do is admit a failure. Science has no means of testing an omnipotent being nor a spiritual force that guides the universe, and in turn, our lives. In my opinion, man will never be able to develop a means to test such assertions. It is not logical to expect our puny minds to create a test that confines God.
The issue raised was whether or not our universe needs a force to run it. My argument is yes, but my assertion is just as driven by faith as the opposing view.
Having the faith that man is right when he says the universe is the big picture and nothing oversees it makes life like a series of landmines. By such logic, any step we take could very well be our last if the universe randomly eradicated the earth.