Before You Reach Twenty, You Need to Know What Scientific Evidence Exists to Support the Existence of God
Before you reach the age of twenty, it is important to know that there is a substantial list of scientific discoveries which point in the direction of the existence of God, or at least of some sort of a supreme being that exists outside of time, space, and energy.
Your faith shouldn’t be a house of cards: remove one card and the whole thing falls down. There are a number of lines of evidence that together provide a strong argument for at minimum the possibility that God exists. I suggest that God is the most likely explanation to account for all of the lines of evidence laid out in the list.
But before I give you that list, it is important to understand a few things about it:
Knock ’em down proof
There is no one single piece of evidence that is a ‘knock ‘em down’ absolute, undeniable proof for the existence of God.
There is likewise no ‘knock ‘em down’ absolute, undeniable proof against the existence of God (i.e. that undeniably supports atheism).
I get the impression that many people, particularly atheists, are looking for such an overwhelmingly positive piece of evidence to prove the existence of God. Outside of God performing some sort of an undeniable miracle, we will never possess such an absolute piece of evidence.
But the logical reaction to this isn’t a retreat into atheism because science can’t say that it has discovered the final truth about anything either.
When scientists say that they have proven that God does or does not exist, what they are saying is that the weight of the evidence as they interpret it points them in this direction. What they are not saying is that they have found that elusive ‘knock ‘em down’ absolute, undeniable proof for their position.
“If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.”
Richard Feynman (1918-1988), winner of the Nobel prize in physics.
“A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.”
Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
Another thing to know about the list of evidence is that there are always alternative explanations for each line of evidence. However, an alternative explanation is not a refutation. Alternatives must provide a better explanation for all the lines of evidence.
Take, for example, the evidence that established that the universe had a definite beginning. There are basically two alternatives that I can think of to explain this evidence:
- All time, space, matter, and energy was spontaneously generated out of nothing and organized with exquisite and precise detail all on its own and in a manner that supported life, or
- A mind/something supernatural was behind the origin of time, space, matter, and energy and caused it into existence and designed it precisely to support life.
Both alternatives must explain the same set of evidence, and we must judge which does this best.
There are other evidences that point toward the existence of God, and particularly the Christian God, that I will discuss in future posts. I am only focusing on the one relating to science here (origins, life, and the universe). I’ve added some quick links to give you a taste of why these are arguments for the existence of God.
Okay, now for the list
Nanoengineering inside the cell (and in general that the more we learn, the more complexity we find in the universe and life.
Failure of evolution to provide a robust mechanism for the origin of the universe and of the first form of life
Is there anything on this list that you were unaware of? Did I miss something important?
Which of these evidence do you think are the strongest and weakest evidences for a creator?