Clue #3: Regularity of Nature

A third clue to the existence of a creator is the regularity of nature. All scientific, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption of the regularity of the “laws” of nature. For example, it cannot be proven by the scientific method that water will boil tomorrow under the identical conditions of today. This “law” can only be assumed through the method of induction. The method of induction is generalizing from a specific example that we observe to all similar situations. Without inductive reasoning we would not learn from experience, we couldn’t use language, we couldn’t rely on our memories.

Most people find that normal and not worth understanding the basis for believing this is how things work. But philosophers David Hume and Bertrand Russell, as good secular men, were troubled by the fact that we haven’t got the slightest idea of why regularity is happening now, and moreover we haven’t the slightest rational justification for assuming it will continue tomorrow.

In other words, science cannot prove the continued regularity of nature; it has to be accepted on faith.  As a proof for the existence of God, the regularity of nature is deniable. Those who do not want to accept a creator can simply say, “We don’t know why things are as they are.  They just are.” As a clue for God, however, it is reasonable to suggest “There must be a cause, an explanation, a reason for why the world works this way. And there being a creator is a possible and reasonable explanation.”

Next time: Clue # 4: Love and Beauty.  In Christ...