Hey guys. It’s been awhile since I’ve been on here, but I just wanted to reach out for some help. For the past two weeks, I have been having some serious doubts on God’s existence. Thankfully, I have some evidence, but I am trying to find some more. All of my evidence surrounds prayer. I know that this isn’t a bad thing, but I would like to have some more arguments. I believe in evolution, and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, so all of the ID arguments are really unconvincing to me. I am on the hunt for good scientific arguments that use evolution and such. Do you guys have any you could share? I would prefer not to go over astronomy, because I have a hard time understanding it. But things about evolution, or animals having a sense of purpose, or something in nature that points to God. I found one that shows that elephants, chimps, and some species of birds have their own sense of spirituality, things like that. Thanks
I would recommend Maggie’s testimony.
Oh yes. I have that saved. Thank you though.
Hi Sam – good to see you again. I’m sorry I don’t really have much in the way of specific scientific arguments. But for myself, my thoughts are more along the lines of “What doesn’t point to God?” In my mind it all works together – the complexity, beauty, perseverance, and strength of all of nature makes me think that all of this could not have simply appeared or developed by itself (so sort of focusing on the lower-case “intelligent design”). That may not convince others, but I try to keep in mind that if a scientific argument can be used to attempt to prove the existence of God, then it can also be used to attempt to disprove him – so maybe I’d call it less of an “argument” and more of a sighting and acknowledgement of the power of God.
It is a hard question.
I think that when we talk about God it is difficult to find a proper “scientific” argument.
I personally refuse to think that everything that exists came from nothing. I see also evolution as a proof for God not looking at it in the catastrophic and cruel way materialists see it. I see it as a long wire that connects all living things that have a unique ancestor.
I don’t see anything bad in being cousin of modern apes.Think that God made these connections to let us know that we must respect the environment and other living things. I am strongly against antropocentrism.
My statement is more philosophical but here it is
There is no objective evidence – certainly nothing that science would call evidence. I don’t think that is even possible. For me that would even defeat the purpose – because for me it is all about the belief in a subjective aspect to reality. Science is all about objective observation, but science is not life, and life requires subjective participation. In science what we want and believe is irrelevant, but in life what we want and believe is central – we cannot live without it.
So what you should be looking for are reasons for belief not objective evidence. Otherwise you are just indulging in self-delusion. Ultimately what God wants is faith and too great of a demand for evidence is a refusal to have faith. But I don’t think it is a blind faith which God is asking for – that which ignores the evidence. In other words, the most you can expect is an argument for this as a possibility and it is up to you to choose what you want and who you are.
The only purpose for objective evidence is a demand other agree with you. But personal belief is all about your own personal experience of life – not only what you have experienced but what you want and need. So is this really about what you believe or is this about pushing your beliefs on other people?
And I would also suggest that a good part of this is not looking for new evidence to prop up old conceptions but finding new understanding of God which better fits the objective evidence.
The thing is that our recent discoveries from what we can do with evolutionary/learning algorithms on computers is that these can surpass all human intelligence and abilities for design. This suggests to me that the search for God in intelligent design is misguided. More and more it is looking like the ultimate designer is a computer algorithm simulating mechanical evolutionary processes. Why would we look for God in something like that? So I would suggest that we go back from the largely Deist conception of God as a great watchmaker back to the traditional conception of God as shepherd. After all the first of these reduces us to little more than mechanical devices as well.
So I would say not only that we are not machines but that that design is the very difference between machines and living organisms. We are quickly progressing in the understanding and use of the machinery of life to create virus like bodies for medical purposes. But I do not think this is an example of creating life, because life is all about self-organization rather than design.
It is my belief that too much of our religious past has been obsessed with power and control, painting God in such terms because of our own misguided values and thus misrepresenting God as well. It has all been very convenient for those who would use religion as a tool of power themselves. So I believe in a God who chose love and freedom rather than power and control, for only the former would create life at all, let become a helpless human infant to grow up among us and die for us on a cross. I think it is time to remove the distortions so suited to those who would use religion as a means of power.
There certainly is no scientific evidence in the sense that “if you do this experiment and get a result A, that will be proof of God.”
But in my opinion there is prima facie for the existence of God. And the strongest such evidence is the success of godless materialism, or methodological naturalism if you prefer, or better yet let’s use its common name: science. Specifically, it is the so-called “unreasonable success” of math and physics.
Now the argument is quite simple. The bible tells us things like the heavens declare God’s glory and that the study of creation (that would be science) leaves men without excuse. As I read it, if science leaves men without excuse, then science must be possible. That is, a prediction of the bible is that science, if is to leave us without excuse, will work.
But science could easily be a fool’s errand. If the basic physical laws (like Newton’s 2nd) were not simple linear differential equations but nonlinear, science would have been dead in the water. The very fact that human’s intellect can comprehend science, is capable of developing theories, and most amazingly the theories are amenable to mathematical analysis is taken more or less for granted, but it shouldn’t be. When a scientist tells you that science requires no faith or presupposition, he either isn’t being honest or hasn’t thought it through. All of us who are scientists work under the presupposition that science is not a fool’s errand. That we at least have a decent chance to be successful—that all of a sudden nature will not decide that enough of her secrets have been revealed.
A weaker but still interesting piece of prima facie evidence is cosmological fine tuning. It suffers, if that is the right word, from the fact that it can always be explained by the multiverse, and while detection of parallel universes is probably forever beyond our reach, it nevertheless remains a viable explanation.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.