I actually accept a great deal of scientific truth, so don't think it disingenuous of me to present an argument from it. I was just giving my opinion on epistemology, which differs from yours. Establishing some sort of common ground is necessary to form a "jumping off" point in any discussion. If we have no common authority, we'll just be talking past one another. When discussing different ideas with other Christians, I will use the scriptures. When talking to naturalists, I often find an authority in science. Since you are not a strict naturalist, that may not be the best course of action. You're more familiar with my beliefs than I am with yours so I'll let you pick a common authority from which to argue.It seems a little disingenuous to use scientific arguments merely to find common ground with non-Christians, if you don't actually accept any of it. Anyways, using Newtonian physics to apply to quantum states is not a valid criticism of "naturalism" in regards to the universe.
Excellent question... allow me to share some background information. I was raised by agnostic, hippie parents. My father, an engeineer by trade, was a big fan of Stephen J Gould. He was a bit of a lay philosopher and taught me to devour books. So I was raised in an openly pagan home in which free thought was greatly encouraged. I became exposed to Jesus through picking up a Bible one day and reading the words highlighted in red. The things I read struck me as absolutely mind-blowing. Here's this guy talking about loving your enemies and doing good to those who hate you. In fact, everything he said seemed completely opposite to what I'd learned up to that point. I couldn't understand why no one was talking about this... it was revolutionary!I could say you place far too much faith in your religion, and I think it would be a good time to ask: Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you challenge yourself and ask why you believe what you believe? Do you try to find the weakest parts of your belief and why they are weak?
I believed that Jesus had special insight because his words seemed to match everything I observed in the world. This is all quite subjective, obviously. With those teachings in the back of my mind, I decided that Jesus was probably who he claimed to be (the son and voice of God) but I found following him quite difficult... so I stopped. I began reading a bunch of new age books and became convinced that this was true... although none of it seemed as true as the wisdom I had read from Jesus. Nevertheless, it was more fun and I got to indulge in my pleasures... which included women. That's a fringe benefit of the new age movement... sexual discovery.
It wasn't until my first year of college that I read some books by Christian apologists. I was surprised to find that there were not only good arguments for Christianity and the bible, but the arguments also seemed far more convincing than my new age/psudo-scienticfic beliefs. The arguments also seemed difficult to answer from a naturalistic standpoint. Since I'd already found Jesus to be rather unique among all the wise sages I had read... this sort of catapulted me toward belief in him. The problem was, I remembered that following him was quite hard and wouldn't allow me to indulge in my favorite activities. So it wasn't an easy decision, by any means. But nevertheless, I decided if anything were true, it was this. It answered every question I had about life, death, purpose, the problem of evil, justice.... and seemed to have some historical and philisphical backing.
Since that time I've read the opinions and challenges of many non-Christian thinkers and have pondered my own objections to the faith that they didn't think to ask. I've changed my opinion on many things over the years as my knowledge and experience progresses. The end result of all that is that I'm quite sure of my position at this time. So... my very long-winded answer boils down to this: yes, I've questioned quite a number of things. It's a recurring theme in my life.
For me, it doesn't come down to what's possible... it comes down to what's more reasonable. I think my position is the most reasonable of all the available options.Science is philosophy, an empirical philosophy, so empirical facts about reality are not ignored or denied simply because the topic of discussion changes. If we have the possibility that events occur with no cause, then the "law" of cause and effect is not valid in all events.
It's just not reasonable to conclude that the universe is eternal because science has proven (through red shift, radiation, thermodynamics, etc) that it's finite. It's also not reasonable to assume it sprang forth ex nihilo because we've never observed this happening. It's an unstable theory. An intelligent creator is the best option because:Because it doesn't explain anything. Why does it make more sense? What does an intelligent creator answer about the existence of the universe any more than an eternally existing universe or a universe that began ex nihilo?
A) The universe began to exist at a point in time, and
B) Intelligence and complexity exist
In other words, something had to have always existed to set everything else in motion. We know the universe is not that causal agent because it's finite.
If I say God exists I will explain why that's the most reasonable view. If you say God does not exist, then I'd like you to demonstrate how that's the most reasonable view.And I fully agree. So, in case I missed it, what views do you want me to provide a positive, assertive argument for? I'm not playing dumb, it has been awhile since I posted.
Take care.