I think scientists generally agree that there are things about the natural world that we not only will not know, but that we cannot know. Examples sometimes cited are the nature of the universe before the Big Bang (if, indeed, there was one). It’s unknowable because a force of that nature would have altered everything beyond any possibility of reconstruction, physical or theoretical. Another, of course, is what precisely goes on inside a Black Hole. Nothing can enter without being torn apart and utterly altered. Nothing can escape (though I guess Hawking thinks some particles escape) Absolutely nothing can go in or be sent in to observe.
So, if there are barriers in the natural world, beyond which we cannot have knowledge, no matter what, one cannot say that a purely natural explanation for the universe is ever possible.
I am neither a scientist nor a theologian. But something that has bothered me about the quest for natural explanations is the limitation that many wish to put on the term “natural”. By “natural”, they actually mean “observable and comprehensible to me”. Most scientists who concern themselves with such things readily conclude that there may be (some say must be) in the universe creatures that are as greatly more advanced relative to me as I am to, say, a sea slug. If that’s true, then it is absolutely arbitrary to say that the superiority of such a creature or being can go so far and no farther, because I cannot define “farther”. If I impose, as a limitation on such a being, that it must be comprehensible to me (unlike the sea slug which cannot possibly comprehend me, but perhaps only ignore me) then I have decided to be arbitrary, not logical. I am simply refusing to allow of the (seemingly quite likely) possibility that any creature could be as much more advanced than me than I am than a sea slug. Since both sea slugs and I obviously exist, then it is illogical and irrational to believe that distance cannot be applied above me, since it manifestly applies below me.
Now if I allow of the possibility that some being out in the universe somewhere could be as more advanced than me than I am than a sea slug, I have a problem in explaining it “naturally” in the same way that a sea slug cannot explain me “naturally”. Actually, the only thing I could know about that being is what it elected to communicate to me in a way I could comprehend, much as I could “communicate” with a sea slug only by, say, touching it, but in no other way. It would then be aware of my existence, and it would know something of my touch, but nothing more could be learned by it about me. The sea slug, moreover, cannot search me out. I must go to it if there is to be contact.
If I say the distance between a sea slug and myself is “X”, then I cannot deny that a being could be beyond me by X. Nor can I deny that it could be beyond me by X to the tenth power, or the millionth power, or to a power that I cannot comprehend because of my limitations. Nor can I say that such a being is “natural” or “unnatural”, because I cannot perceive as “natural” anything that is beyond my power to perceive or comprehend. “Natural” is a construct of my mind only, coextensive with my power to comprehend. So, if there is a being so vastly beyond me that I cannot comprehend that vastness or know its limitations or even know that it has limitations, I cannot say that that being is not “natural”, viewed from its perspective, however “non-natural” it may seem to me.
What’s intriguing is that we have some kind of perception of a being so far beyond us that we can’t really comprehend it. We can only apprehend it in a limited fashion. People believe in a being they call God. Why? We have either fabricated it, or it has communicated something of its existence to us. It is unlikely we have fabricated it because we admit right off that it is beyond our power to comprehend or to even imagine. The sea slug can’t “dream me up” in the least way, because it has no means of doing so. Yet it is “natural” from the sea slug’s perspective, to perceive me if I touch it. Is it “natural” then, for us to perceive a being which we call God, but in a limited way? It is, but only if the being impels us to do so.
If, indeed, there is a creature so far beyond us, and if it is benignly inclined toward us, it would be “natural” for it to attempt to assure us of its benignity and intentions toward us, but in a way we could get into our minds. Some would call that Revelation. So the question whether or not there is a “natural” explanation for the universe is irrelevant to the question whether or not there is a God; “natural” being, as I said, a totally arbitrary concept.
