Probabilites

In reading C.S. Lewis’s Miracles, he brings up the point that those who believe in the laws of Nature generally disbelieve God could be incarnate in the man of Christ, because it breaks the laws of Nature. It is a miracle. The laws of Nature are such because they are observed as commonplace, or probable. If those who believe in the laws of Nature believe only in the probable, then one reason for disbelief in the Incarnation is it happened only once. This poses one problem to their line of thinking since history happens only once.

In another essay, “Reason and Belief in God,” by Alvin Platinga, he brings up the argument of some that if God's existence is not proven, then a person should believe that God does not exist. In fact, we should start from the position of atheism, and demand that anyone who believes in God's existence should prove it. But why should atheism be the default? The ‘Evidentialists,’ as Platinga calls them, state that the existence of evil disproves the good God that Christianity describes. Is their disbelief in God based, then, on probability? The destructive nature of the universe disqualifies a caring God; evil disqualifies a good God. Is atheism the starting point because it is more probable that evil things will happen, or bad results will happen, rather than a miracle. As Lewis says, "A miracle by definition is an exception." So the atheist can say he is more of a 'realist' because his pessimism better predicts the negative outcome. He can say it is more probable that the Christian God does not exist because of events. The sea is more likely to drowned people in a shipwreck than part so they can walk to shore.

But if it is a question of probability, there may be a flaw in their acceptance of the natural law that acts contrary to God. The theory of Occham's Razor states the simplest explanation of something is most likely the true one. For instance, I could theorize that the woman at the counter smiled and said hello because she would like me to ask for her phone number so as to ask her on a date so as to develop a relationship so as to eventually marry me and have children. Or I could theorize she’s a polite person. The latter is more likely to be true because it is the simplest theory. In regards to natural law vs. God, and specifically the Big Bang theory vs. Creation, the former, promoted by the atheist, accepts a more complex theory, starting with the pre-existence of gasses that collide to cause an explosion, which causes the movement of matter, which then aggregates to become bodies which then arrange themselves by gravity, and so on for many more steps to come to human life on earth. The rarity of human life on earth has now come to illustrate the theory of Divine Intelligence, which states the universe is the design of a Creator, but does not mean describing its history as a literal biblical interpretation would, making the earth four thousand years old. Life on earth -- flora and fauna – is improbable, especially considering the destructive nature of the universe. The proof is in the lack of such life on other planets that we know of. When it comes down to it, the theory of a Divine Intelligence creating life becomes the simpler and more probable theory. If I were a betting man, I would bet on Divine Intelligence.