A common critique I hear from seekers and skeptics is that the design of the world, the miracles of Jesus and answered prayer can all be explained in natural terms. God not needed.
Key response: Alternative explanations are not necessarily true.
Take design, for example. Design refers to the idea that the world seems to exhibit amazing “purposive” order. The motions of the planets and stars, the systems of the human body, the mind’s ability to reflect and plan: these are all indicators of an intelligent, intentional Designer at work.
But apparent design can also be explained by . . . natural forces. So says the skeptic.
Yes, that’s an alternative explanation. But is it a good one?
It seems to me that God as an explanation solves more problems and accounts for more phenomena, with fewer difficulties, than does natural forces.
The comparison between the two is for another time. The simple point here is that just because something can be explained in “natural” terms doesn’t make it a true explanation.
I’ll dig deeper into this clash of explanations in my next post.
Image courtesy of vectorolie at FreeDigitalPhotos.net