-
Conclusive Arguments For The Existence Of God
We infer the existence of God on rational basis after observing intricate design, intelligence, and precise fine tuning in our universe in order to support life on earth.
In Today’s time we know that Darwinism is being presented as almost a fact (Even though it’s science fiction) we think stressing in diversity of living beings is like stepping in grey water. We need some mutually agreed “established facts” that point towards Fine-Tuning of this universe.
My point is, when we’ll talk with some agnostics or atheists to prove diversity in present day species, we’ll need to start from the very premises where Darwinism has faults. I think that’s not very good idea because it’s something that has taken a form of “faith” in scientific community. Top universities are teaching it and it’s being widely accepted. I watched Ghamidi sahab about evolution and the questions he raises are worth to ponder a lot on.
But my question is do we have only evolution in living beings as a valid basis for rational deduction of God? I mean any rational atheist will come up with his own basis for believing in random mutations and an unguided process for this order and diversity on this planet.
Do we have other arguments for “Fine-Tuning” other than evolution on Earth? Like once fine-tuning is proved, any rational person is left with only two possible options to choose in between :
1. An Intelligent Design
2. Multiverse Theory
🌟 One of the strong evidences we have for fine-tuning is “cosmological constants”
The cosmic constants have been carefully prepared to the point where it is impossible to say except with prior preparation and special care, for example:
The ratio between an electron and a proton is 1: 10 to the power of 37
The ratio between electromagnetic force and gravity is 1: 10 to the power of 40
The expansion ratio of the universe is 1: 10 to the power of 55
The mass of the universe’s density is 1: 10 to the power of 59
The cosmological constant 1: 10 to the power of 122
These numbers define the physical values of the cosmic constants that if there had been any slight change in them, the universe would not have arisen.
🌟 Says Richard Dawkins in his interview with Stephen Weinberg on his official website
If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.
VOICES OF SCIENCE .. Richard-Dawkins-Steven-Weinberg-Lawrence-Krauss-PZ-Myers-David-Buss
So I’m asking for some established facts that are considered true all over the world where we can prove fine-tuning of this universe. Some facts that leave no space or doubt left to run way. Where one can be clear that this is this universe is Finely Tuned. I hope I’m clear this time 😄
-
5 Replies
-
Conclusive Arguments For The Existence Of God
updated 1 year, 10 months ago
2 Members
·
5
Replies
-
With our current knowledge in science, the theory of evolution is by far not science fiction. However, just like anything else in science, it is a working model that has changed drastically over time since Darwin and continues to evolve as we discover new things. Currently, there are many challenges to the theory as well as empirical data provided by scientists themselves that contradicts certain predictions of the theory, however, it should not be considered a false theory.
Evolution, however, does not provide any way to understand the origin of life. The most popular theory in that regard is called Abiogenesis. This theory, at this time, is largely a hypothesis without any significant observational data.
Fine-tuning is a cosmological argument and does not have anything to do with the theory of evolution. As you pointed out, it entails several finely tuned universal constants that can’t be explained in a reductionist or a naturalistic framework.
With that said, there are two things to consider:
1. There will never be any data that can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. Such evidence would go against God’s scheme of trial in this universe.
2. The evidence we present to establish the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt is first and foremost on the basis of observation and logical inferences thereof which are accessible to scientists and non-scientists alike (see Discussion 1630). There are several other supporting arguments that have been presented by philosophers, theologians, as well as scientists throughout history, the fine-tuning argument being one of them. Regardless of what Dawkins or anyone else says, the fine-tuning argument within itself is not and can never be considered a holistic argument for God. The reason for this is because fine-tuning can conceivably be explained away by some future discoveries.
At present time, since we have enough evidence to establish the existence of God and nothing to conclusively deny it, therefore the rational choice for anyone with a sound mind is to believe in God. If our data changes in the future, of course our conclusions can follow. This is exactly how progress takes place in the field of science as well. To deny God first and then hope for supporting data to appear in the future is neither a scientific way to approach things nor a rational one.
-
Fantastic answer sir …
– I think there maybe very few people both from religious community and atheists studying this subject without any predefined agenda.
I mean basically two approaches can be found in hindsight,
1. Believing in God and finding evidences to support it
2. Not believing in God and finding evidences to support it
Do you think I’m drawing right conclusion about people generally behave or react to this subject?
– Anyways whom do you think has the “burden of proof?”
– Beside this, The basic process in scientific method involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.
Do you think we follow same process regarding this subject ?
Thanks in Advance.
-
I don’t think that everyone blindly believes in their conclusions first and then looks for the supporting evidence, however, there are such people in both camps.
The last paragraph of my previous response sums up your question regarding the burden of proof.
The scientific method works well in applied sciences. Theoretical sciences, however, are more philosophically inclined until a time that something can become testable, at which time it really morphs into the applied field anyway. Scientists are also human beings just like the rest of us and are bound to view things in the context of their own prior experiences, education, beliefs, societal norms, peer pressure, etc. It is worth noting that not all scientists are atheists. In fact, according to the last survey in this regard, which I believe was conducted in 2015, about half of the scientists indicated that they believed in some form of a deity.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I don’t view this debate as science versus religion. Up until recently most scientists and natural philosophers used to be theists. In fact, it won’t be an exaggeration to say that theists have contributed significantly more to the field of science, and continue to do so, than anyone else. The learned scientists of our times who know the history well do recognize and appreciate this fact. It might be useful to note that I have used the word theist here to include everyone who believes in some form of an unexplainable conscious intelligent power.
-
The evidence we present to establish the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt is first and foremost on the basis of observation and logical inferences thereof which are accessible to scientists and non-scientists alike
While concluding this subject, does this mean we’ll observe and present planning, diligence, deep wisdom, meaning, beneficence, creativity, harmony, mathematical order, control in general environment, which is available infront of all of us, and then we can easily conclude the fact that the universe is or, at least, “appears to be” designed and requires explanation, thus it MUST have a creator. We’ll stick to this valid, obvious and logical conclusion until and unless anything in the realm of knowledge can conclusively deny it. am I drawing right conclusive approach to deal with this subject?
For example, we came across a running computer in the middle of a desert, we’ll conclude an intelligent mind behind this, in this case, a human being. We’ll believe it was created until and unless we get to know conclusively that it somehow got “poped up”
am I right?
-
Yes, in summary, our logical inference is based upon the observation of this universe as a whole and a logical inference that it must have a Creator. There is nothing in our knowledge that comes into existence by itself, especially anything functional with precise laws, beauty, order, etc. This logical inference has been verified by a long list of human beings (Prophets) throughout the history of mankind who were selected by the Creator to communicate with and deliver us His message. Through circumstantial evidence we know that those human beings were truthful. Also the message that they delivered is precisely in accordance with our own natural disposition (fitrah), so we inherently know that it is true.
Contrary to ignorant claims, in scientific terms this is very much a falsifiable theory. For example, it can be shown that the Prophets did not exist, or that they were not truthful, or that the existence of the universe has an alternate explanation. In the entire history of mankind, an enormous amount of effort has gone into falsifying God through various means, but thus far, other than wild speculations, there is nothing concrete to show.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
