When science runs out of any plausible natural explanation, it has its own ‘god-of-the-gaps’ that it invokes to fill the empty space … a infinite or near-infinite number of universes it calls the multiverse.
Sean Carroll’s thoughtful defense of naturalism is insufficient to avoid a beginning to the universe with its theological implications. Here, Kirk Durston shows that the logical implication of a beginning to nature is that there is an eternal, supernatural Creator.
Just as it is impossible to count down through the negative integers from minus infinty to zero, so it is impossible in real time, for time t to run from minus infinity to plus infinity. The real past, therefore, must have a beginning, exactly as empirical science suggests.
Empirical, testable science points to a beginning for the cosmos. This has philosophical implications that point to ‘the hand of God’, as Stephen Hawking puts it. A possible way out is to propose a mathematical model of the cosmos that has no beginning. Will this work?
To explain the origin of the universe, in an attempt to avoid ‘the hand of God’, Sean Carroll argued that science produces mathematical models of the universe and theism does not. One must be careful, however, not to confuse the designing of mathematical models with doing science. Science is testable and none of the mathematical models we have produced actually work, according to Carroll. Also, Judeo-Christian theism, with its belief that God has established laws of nature that govern the cosmos, makes mathematical models possible. Thus, Judeo-Christian theism actually compliments science in this area.