Nature is strange. In its order. And getting stranger (accelerating with the expansion of spacetime for a start). Unapprehendable. With a strangeness, order that does not suggest, let alone require, meaning. Theism explains less of reality than metaphysics. Why choose stars? They are easily explained. As for Leibniz’ question, there is no answer. Therefore there is no question. It’s no claim. It’s a fact. About the ergodic multiverse. Pretending like WLC that there is only one universe (possibly conceived by the clash of 11D branes, not in a brain in a vat or anything else as silly as many worlds) can’t help. It makes God out to be absurdly stranger than it. And by Kolmogorov He’s not. And He can’t be unique either of course. He has no way of knowing.
I don’t see how we are justified in not accepting naturalism. I.e. meaninglessness. How are you different to Platinga’s specious doubt of doubt?
NOTICE
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitely inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it’s always reality that’s got it wrong.
This was the gist of the notice. It said “The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”
This has led to some interesting consequences. For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Traal literally (it said “Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists” instead of “Ravenous Bugblatter beasts often make a very good meal of visiting tourists”) they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening’s ultragolf.
The fact that rationality deconstructs itself in the strangeness of nature does create space for God in its ergodicity by making Him only marginally infinitely stranger by comparison.
You can add that to this perfect list if you like.
I’m reminded of the staggering hubris of a preacher I heard 40 years ago, who said that with regard to the universe, in the resurrection we’ll go ‘Doh! It’s so simple!! THAT’S why!!!’.
Even if there is transcendence because nature is in (the mind of) God, how can anything other than God understand what He’s had to do for forever?
Life is impossible to describe in terms of unguided natural forces, let alone supernatural ones. So what? That’s about us. Our pathetic egoism with its inherent inability to explain. We have no justification whatsoever in doubting the ineffable power of nature. To suggest that God has to sprinkle fairy dust on the trillions of life worlds in this fairy dust nucleated infinitesimal universe from eternity because we want to feel significant is very sad. And rather funny.