Astronomical evidence for God's existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter phantom1998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think the fine tuning argument would cause as much trouble for theists as it does atheists, because it implies severe limits on the kind of universe God can make that is capable of supporting life.
 
The physical evidence for God is circumstantial at best. It is better to read Imanuel Kant’s Critique of pure Reason. There he points out that all human knowledge is broken up into 2 types…a priori and a posteriori. A priori is knowledge based on data (astronomical evidence would fall into this category). A posteriori evidence is based on experience. This covers things like morals, ethics, love, joy, art, music, beauty, spirituality and God. The body of a posteriori evidence for God’s existence is huge. Athiests who try to say that God is unscientific are ignoring half the body of human knowledge on this subject, so their analysis is flawed on this basis alone.
 
vz71 said:
Probability is great to put things in proper perspective, but it is not a proof.
Click to expand...
Fr. Spitzer always has talks on the probabilities and scientific arguments. They are fascinating. I love listening to him. I believe he has a website to but I can’t recall what it is called currently.
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
I have not read the book but I wonder if it includes the fact that no scientist can explain dark matter and dark energy, two fundamental concepts that are necessary for holding the universe together but remain ‘mysteries’.
Click to expand...
As @vz71 point out, this is the God of the gaps argument. That is a very dangerous place to put your God. Science works to close gaps, so any gods that are placed in those gaps have to get smaller in order to fit. It is a recipe for a shrinking god.

There used to be a gap called, “What causes thunder and lightning?” Gods like Thor and Zeus were placed in that gap. Then science closed the gap… Do you want your God to end up like Thor and Zeus?
 
phantom1998 said:
Is Hugh Ross’s book ‘The Improbable Planet’, an appropriate resource for a catholic to use to argue for God’s existence with help of evidences from astronomy?Is it scientifically coherent and does it oppose the Catholic view on creation and the origin of the universe?
Click to expand...
I cannot comment on the Catholic parts of your question. From the general scientific point of view there are two main arguments.

The Anthropic Principle: If humans are present in a universe to observe that universe then at least part of that universe must be suitable for human life. Hence, given that humans are observing this universe the probability of human life being able to exist here is 100%. A universe with no humans will not be observed by humans.

The Multiverse: I suspect that Hugh Ross’ calculation assumes the existence of only one universe. If there is more than one universe, then the number of universes needs to be taken into account. That means that he is implicitly assuming that he is more probably right about there being only one universe than whatever improbability number he arrives at in his calculation. That is a big barrier to cross, given that both quantum mechanics and cosmology can get very strange.
 
You might be interested in a similar book without the religious leanings, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee (2003). I have read it and recommend it (and other books by Peter Ward).

I haven’t read Improbable Planet but I think it is worth contemplating the coincidence of many factors leading up to man’s existence.

I am a scientist and a believer, and I see “evidence” of this sort as merely circumstantial. It allows other explanations. It does not compel belief through human reason alone. However, it can help to build up faith, that supernatural grace which God offers as a gift to each of us.
 
Last edited:
I provided evidence, evidence merely shows that belief in God who created all is valid.

Nonbelief of God, can not deny the existence of everything around us.

So the denial of creation by a supreme being , is invalid.

Jim
 
Last edited:
The problem with probability arguments isn’t merely that we don’t know whether there is one universe or many, but that we don’t understand physics sufficiently yet to even judge whether a probability question can be applied. Perhaps the laws of the universe are equivalent to 1+1=2, in other words the fundamental properties may be completely non-contingent. Maybe there’s only one way for a universe to function.

This, to me, is in the same category as the Drake Equation, a pseudo-probabilistic argument based upon a very large set of assumptions that themselves cannot be demonstrated (yet).

And still I fall back to the problem that the Strong Anthropic Principle creates some serious problems for theists, in that it means there are strong limits on the kinds of universes that God can create; at least universes that can support the kind of life that can ask the question (as you allude to).
 
The evidence of all that is around us, supports a belief in God.

Those who don’t believe in God, have no evidence to back up their non-beliefs

Hope this helps
 
JimR-OCDS said:
The evidence of all that is around us, supports a belief in God.

Those who don’t believe in God, have no evidence to back up their non-beliefs
Click to expand...
Let’s try that, transposed into a different key:
The evidence of all that is around us, supports a belief in Vishnu.

Those who don’t believe in Vishnu, have no evidence to back up their non-beliefs
Click to expand...
Do you believe in Vishnu? Do you have evidence to back up your non-belief?

You need to find a better argument.
 
Depends on who Vishnu is ?

I believe in one God revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

I have no doubt that people of other faiths have had truths revealed to them, especially since they predate Christianity by centuries.

However, Jesus Christ gave us the fullness of revealed truth that we can have in this life.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can’t prove a negative. More properly your argument appears to be a fallacious appeal to aesthetics. You’re seeing what you want to see, and demands for proof based on your subjective observation are really just trying to move the burden of proof over to your interlocutors.

To say the least, this is all problematic. To an atheist, your argument is circular (“the universe is designed because it looks designed”).
 
I’m not trying to provide proof, but “evidence.” to support belief in God’s existence.

The world around us, is the evidence I’m using
 
Right, there is no reason to disbelieve in Vishnu, being I don’t know who or what it is your asking me about.

But this is about evidence for God’s existence.

The evidence is in the world around us.
 
And my argument is that it isn’t evidence, at least not in the objective sense.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
But this is about evidence for God’s existence.

The evidence is in the world around us.
Click to expand...
And a Muslim will tell me that the world is evidence for Allah’s existence.

The existence of the universe says nothing about whether Jesus was a failed Messiah (Judaism), the Son of God (Christianity) or a Prophet of Allah (Islam).

Your evidence is ambiguous; it needs a lot more support.
 
Allah is the name for God.

So the Muslim’s evidence is valid 😀
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top