In two videos Re: Refuting Atheistic Naturalism Part 1 (HERE) and Part 2 (HERE), Chris addressed the arguments of another You Tube advocate in an effort to counter the statements he made against Chris’ worldview. I believe the point made against naturalism was that the only evidence a naturalist could gather to support his worldview could be found only in our own universe. Strong, physical and objective evidence cannot be sought or found outside our universe. One may postulate about membranes colliding together and causing the Big Bang that resulted in our universe (as Chris does HERE), but that is all it would be—a postulation, based upon the best guesses he could make about the universe we see and experience every day.
Chris also claimed, and in my opinion did so correctly, that the supernaturalist, or believer in the God of the Bible, has only the evidence that he can find within the universe we see and experience every day to use to support his worldview concerning God. I say this, however, with this qualification, namely, as it pertains to objective evidence, Chris’ statement is true. In other words the believer is stuck in the same universe as the naturalist and has only the same evidence for his worldview that the naturalist has for his. Christians do have subjective evidence for God such as prayer and our relationship with God through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit within us. Nevertheless, the naturalist is unable to receive such evidence, since he either doesn’t have the Holy Spirit or simply is not listening to him. Therefore, only objective evidence can be used by the believer to prove the existence of God from a naturalist’s perspective.
The Christian views the Bible as objective evidence for God’s interaction with us, and there are good grounds for accepting the Bible as good historical evidence even from a naturalistic point of view. One of the major reasons for discounting the Bible is the record of miracles found therein. Nevertheless, if there is a God, miracles aren’t a problem, but even if one does not accept the existence of God, miracles should not be a factor in determining the historical value of the Bible. How can I say this? Virtually all of ancient records about historical figures such as Caesar and Alexander the Great contain miracles of one kind or another. Historians simply discount them and receive the rest of the content at face value. This simply isn’t done for the Bible, and the only reason I can see is that the naturalist worldview would be at stake, if the Bible could be shown to be accurate even from merely an historical perspective.
Since we live in an intelligible universe, that is, it can be understood; the laws governing it are constant and can be measured; they can be studied and information can be gained in such an exercise. Since this is so, the information we find about our universe points to an intelligent cause. That is, our universe cannot be the result of a random act. Scientists postulate a Big Bang which might have been caused by the collision of two or more hypothetical membranes, but if this is so, from where do we get the intelligible laws that govern our universe? If they come from the hypothetical membranes that caused a theoretical Big Bang, where did they get the intelligible laws contained in them? No matter how far back we go, we must ultimately come to an Intelligence to which all other intelligible universes and membranes etc. point.
Similarly, our physical laws point to a cause for our universe. Science postulates a Big Bang. Fine, but what caused it? Science postulates the collision of two or more membranes. Fine, but what caused that to occur, and what caused the membranes? Since we can tell through studying our universe that all physical matter had a beginning, ultimately somewhere in the past eons, we must come to the beginning of all matter. What or who caused it? The logical answer points to something other than a physical cause. That is, logic points to an uncaused cause or God—our Creator.
In part 2 of Chris’ video named above he asks which is most logical that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or only 6,000 years old. I believe there is just cause to believe we are only about 6,000 years old, but whether 6,000 or 4.5 billion, the point is moot, if we are speaking of the ultimate source of all things including the earth. The age of the earth doesn’t prove God exists or disprove his existence. What points to God is that our universe had an ultimate cause, and, because our universe is intelligible, that ultimate cause must be intelligent itself. Since matter has a beginning we cannot go back infinitely to find the cause of all things. Time is limited, and therefore, God or the non-physical, uncaused cause of all corporal things exists.