KMAN, in actuality what you just posited is pure common sense, but as you can see these secular scientists will jump through hoops and dodge missiles to avoid the most simple and common sensical explanation for it all, that the universe was created by a divine mind.KMan87 wrote:" As I have already mentioned, I did not find the multiverse alternative very helpful. The postulation of multiple universes, I maintained, is a truly desperate alternative. If the existence of one universe requires an explanation, multiple universes require a much bigger explanation: the problem is increased by a factor of whatever the total number of universes is. It seems a little like the case of a schoolboy whose teacher doesn't believe his dog ate his homework, so he replaces the first version with a story that a pack of dogs--too many to count--ate his homework. "
--Anthony Flew, "There is a God", Chapter 8
"What is especially important here is the fact that the existence of the multiverse does not explain the origin of the laws of nature. Martin Rees suggests that the existence of different universes with their own laws raises the question of the laws governing the entire multiverse..."
"So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine mind."
Both quotes from " There is a God", I am reading it on my Kindle as I type so I don't have page numbers.
And Antony Flew understood it and to his credit wasn't afraid to philosophically follow the evidence to where it lead him and it lead him to the concept of God which for him was on pure evidence with no faith required.
Richard Conn Henry another former atheist who came to believe in the existence of a creator from the scientific evidence alone had this to say in his paper published in nature in 2005
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... -designer/
“The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”
The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe the unbelievable — this time, that the Universe is mental.
According to Sir James Jeans: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual.
Richard Conn Henry
The Mental Universe: Nature Volume 436
To be fair, Henry is NOT an ID proponent, but some of his further comments in connection with his Nature essay are astonishing. Is Henry arguing that one of the main pillars of atheism has been taken away by quantum mechanics? Is he saying that quantum mechanics has shown that there are no mind-independent realities, therefore the cure for atheism (to paraphrase Newton) has been found?
Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality….
Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.
Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. Palmquist
Journal of Scientific Exploration Issue 21-3
In his Gifford lectures, very shortly after the 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics, Arthur Stanley Eddington (who immediately quantum mechanics was discovered realized that this meant that the universe was purely mental, and that indeed there was no such thing as “physical”) said “it is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character.” What an understatement! On this fundamental topic, physicists are mostly terrified wimps.