The Simplest Theory Isn't Always True
Simplicity is a guide to truth, sure, but not an infallible one.
We think simpler theories or principles are better because they have a higher likelihood of being true (I explain why in my forthcoming book). However, there are many instances where the simpler theory or principle is false. For example, “nothing exists” is a simple theory, perhaps as simple as theories come. Nevertheless, we think it is false – for good reason, I would say.
Here’s a simple principle: “everything has a cause”. How simple, for there are no exceptions. Unfortunately, it seems this principle is false. Consider everything, even just collectively. There can be no cause of everything, since (by definition) there is nothing beyond everything to act as case. So, not everything (collectively) can have a cause.
Sometimes, true theories and principles are more complicated than the simplest conceivable statement. Still, I believe it is definitely right to complicate something only as much as is necessary. For example, instead of committing ourselves to “everything has a cause”, perhaps we should commit ourselves to “everything that can have a cause, does”. That is still quite a simple principle, and the restriction is principled.
Simple vs. very simple, moderately complex, or very complex is irrelevant. God could make it very simple for us to understand and believe if He wanted to. For example, He could undoubtedly reveal Himself in many ways that would be obvious.
But He doesn't. So focusing on why He doesn't make His presence indisputable should be an important issue.
I maintain He doesn't make it obvious that He exists to create doubt. He reveals enough for us to believe, but what is revealed is limited so that many can also think that He doesn’t exist or, if He does exist, what His purposes are.
We nearly always focus on what evidence or logic is available to enable us to believe rather than why it is this way. We focus on the wrong issue.
A possible answer. God wants created beings with free will. For them to have free will, He mustn't be irrefutable. Otherwise, if we have certainty, any actions we take are not free and of no value.
A related issue is that if there is no God, where did everything come from? The universe can not be infinite in any way because this leads to absurdities and contradictions. So the universe must, by logic, be finite in time and space. Then what would force such a universe into existence? Only an entity, not in time or space.
That something exists is another proof of His existence. But then, what would lead us to His intentions?
For. this last question, the fine-tuning argument would be instrumental. It would indicate that His creation had a purpose because of the preciseness of it. Also the nature of His creation, namely human beings, would be essential to understanding His intentions.
It would also have the secondary effect of refuting those who say science says there is no creator.