The Natural Realm Implies Naturalism

One of Ray Comfort's little evangelistic tricks is his use of the word "creation" to describe the universe itself, which both sides can agree exist, so that he can (1) define God into existence, and (2) belittle atheists for not seeing the "obvious." It's a meme that all of us Raytractors have come across repeatedly: "Creation implies a creator."

But consider this: we could just as easily call the universe "the natural realm," which defines metaphysical naturalism into existence, and belittle Ray for not seeing the obvious.

(Ray might respond that the word "universe" means "one word," which implies the existence of a Speaker. But when using the word "universe," I no more mean to say "that which is spoken by God" than Ray, when saying "bless you" to someone who has sneezed, means to say "you appear to have the Black Plague, please keep your distance.")

So we can both do a service to our respective theories depending on what term we use for the universe. Ray can say it implies a creator, I can say it implies naturalism. But who's actually correct? Whose theory does the universe we observe confirm?

To answer that, let's look at what each of our theories predicts and compare those predictions to what we observe, keeping score along the way.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which Earth and humans are the main feature, the basic reason for it existing in the first place.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which neither humans nor their homeworld are anything special in the grand scheme of things.
What we observe: A universe in which humans and their world are lost among countless trillions of stars; not only are we not the center of the universe, we can't even see the center of the universe, being so far away.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 1.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe and the beginning of humans are seperated by a matter of days.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe adn the beginning of humans are seperated by vast periods of time, millions or billions of years, it taking that long for life to develop from inanimate matter through natural processes.
What we observe: A universe that has been around for about 14 billion years, but a human species that has only been around for several thousand.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 2.

Christianity predicts: A human race created by as simple and efficient a means as an extremely powerful spiritual essence could manage.
Naturalism predicts: Life arising, if at all, through some sort of chemical "code" which copies itself and is subject to mutation so as to be able to change form from inanimate to animate matter.
What we observe: Billions of years of evolution, and DNA.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 3.

Christianity predicts: Intelligent minds which, being made of spirit (whatever that is), exist and function completely independently of any physical body.
Naturalism predicts: Any mind which exists is made of the same stuff as the universe and biological life, and therefore suffers from the same limitations and drawbacks as that stuff.
What we observe: Intelligent minds are produced by a physical machine, the human brain; by altering the physical state of this brain, we can change the mind itself.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 4.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who is powerful enough and knowledgable enough to prevent human suffering, and who loves them and cares about them enough to do so.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: The existence of enormous amounts of unprevented suffering.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 5.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who has a specific and vitally important message for mankind, namely the gospel message, and is powerful enough to deliver that message individually to each and every human.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: Widespread unawareness of the gospel message, and equally widespread reasonable nonbelief therein.
Score Ray 0, atheists 6.

With some creative work, any theory, including Christianity, can be modified to become compatible with these observations, but that proves nothing unless the modifications themselves are independently proven. For example, Joe killing Steve is inconsistent with the proposition "Joe is a morally good person." A Joe-apologist could modify that theory to state that Steve had a nuclear bomb, was about to detonate it in the middle of a city, and that killing him was the only way to stop him. But the fact that the theory is able to be modified in such a way is, by itself, insufficient to salvage the "Joe is good" theory; we would have to have independent confirmation that Steve had a nuke, that he was about to detonate it, and that Joe's only option was indeed to kill Steve.

Therefore, if the Christian wanted to solve the problem of, say, the vast size of the universe by saying that God had some important reason for creating trillions upon trillions of light years of apparently empty space for a universe created especially for humans, that would not prove anything -- not unless the Christian could prove, to the same standard of proof as the original question, that such a desire on God's part actually exists. He can't.

Similarly, any attempt to make God compatible with suffering by citing, say, free will fails unless accompanied by (1) a logical proof that a world in which all beings freely make choices that avoid suffering is impossible, (2) some sort of proof of the existence of Satan or whatever malevolent entity is responsible for natural suffering, and (3) some sort of proof of the existence of a desire on God's part that all beings have free will, and that his desire that this obtain is greater than his maximal love for us. These must all be proved independently -- both from one another and from the original theory that God exists in the first place -- and to within the same standard of proof as the original theory. Needless to say, this has not been done.

So there you have it. The natural realm implies naturalism -- and this is so obvious that Ray and the Raybots are fools for not seeing it. Now let's look at how this meme defeats Ray's meme:

Q: Doesn't a builder imply a builder?

A: Is there any building in New York City that was built by a discorporeal spirit? In Chicago? In Moscow? Tokyo? Sydney? Cape Town? Bellweather, CA? Of course not -- all buildings were built by physical beings who arose by natural processes.

Q: Doesn't a painter imply a painter?

A: Was the Mona Lisa painted by a ghost? Starry Night? The Last Supper? No, they were all painted by humans. Physical beings. Natural beings.

Q: Doesn't creation imply a creator?

A: Christians and atheists disagree on whether the universe is a creation -- in the sense that it was created by an intelligent being -- but there is a set of objects -- buildings, painters, cars, etc. -- that we do agree are creations. Can the Christian name one of those objects, just one of them, that was created by something other than a finite physical being? Of course he can't!

So if the universe is a creation by an intelligent being, then all the evidence suggests that the creator of the universe is some sort of finite physical being as well, and none of the evidence suggests the contrary.

Therefore, the universe was caused to exist either by a natural person or by impersonal natural processes -- consistent with the predictions of naturalism, contradictory to the predictions of Christianity.

Score: Ray 0, atheists 7.

The natural realm implies naturalism. QED.