The following is a fictional account inspired by watching part one of the debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll.
C: We are theists, and we have adequate explanations for why the world is.
A: Silly man. We are scientists, and we only deal with the observed data, not theories of how things could be or might be. You should not have beliefs, but base your knowledge on how things actually are, instead of your own speculations.
C: There needs to be a cause for why the universe is here. The universe is an effect, therefore it needs a cause.
A: Silly man, your theories are so ancient and naive. I can do calculations that show how the universe works. My calculations are self-contained, and explain everything about how the universe is working. There is no need for a cause, since the calculations explain all the current motion and energy.
C: Okay, but doesn’t that merely explain how things work now?
A: Certainly, since “how things work now” is all the data we have.
C: Your statements are similar to saying “I have opened the back of the clock, measured all the gears and motions, and have a math formula that explains how the clock works. Therefore there is no need for a cause for the clock.”
A: Silly man, your theories are so naive. My calculations explain all the motions and energy.
C: Do they explain all the motions and energy? Every last bit?
A: Well, not every bit. But they generally work, and we will find the theory of everything someday.
C: So your math formulas don’t explain all the current data, and do not explain how the clock was put here in the first place.
A: It’s true that we haven’t gotten all the calculations to work yet. But they still explain why we don’t need an explanation for why the universe is here.
A: But it could be there are an infinite number of universes . . .
C: It could be? I thought you atheists only dealt with observed data? Isn’t the multiverse idea speculation?
A: Well, yes, that’s true, there’s no data for the multiverse. But if God were really Creator, the world ought to be different. We can know theism is false because I know how God would have created it, and the world is not like that.
C: Isn’t it true that you’re expressing your personal beliefs? And wouldn’t it be true, that if an infinite God existed, then us finite humans might not understand how God would do things? Wouldn’t it be better to base our beliefs on how things actually are, instead of our own speculations? It seems that “how things are now” is all the data we have.
A: Silly man, you are so naive. You have said nothing about my calculations.