ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

Is there Evidence Supporting the Existence of God?

Updated on August 26, 2015
Source

Was it strictly by chance that life on this planet began? It's been suggested that the odds of the correct molecular mixture responsible for giving rise to the first living organism on this planet were similar to the odds that a whirlwind could create a perfectly functioning Boeing 747 out of debris in a junkyard. Needless to say, it would've been virtually impossible if this planet had been all there was to the world as we know it, but given the immense size of the known universe a large number of scientists still believe the beginning of life on this planet could've occurred by chance. Assuming they're right, is there anything we know about that serves as considerable evidence for the existence of God? If one were to summarize everything we know into one sentence, life exists on this planet, and there's a really big universe out there could perhaps be the best way to word it. While science has for the most part explained most of the known universe, and while life on this planet may very well have began by mere chance, has science provided a good explanation for what life really is?

In addition to the construction, presumably by chance, of the first living organism on this planet, by demonstrating that the fittest amongst species survive and, as such, with assistance from favorable genetic mutations, evolution leads to the development of stronger and more intelligent species, science has shown "why" life is, and how it's become what it is today. I wouldn't dispute any of that. But rather than provide a detailed explanation as to why only the fittest amongst species survive, it's offered the notion that the selection of the fittest species for evolution is merely accomplished by way of nature. In the absence of further detail, this notion seems to imply that the evolution from single-celled asexual organisms, as were the first known living species on this planet, to the intelligent homosapiens that exist today resulted entirely by chance.

However, to merely observe today's world one can clearly see that survival of the most fittest species is not a mere chance occurrence. Species compete for survival consciously. As such, the selection of which species reproduce and survive is accomplished by way of knowing efforts. It's these conscious knowing efforts that distinguish living organisms from mere matter. Thus, life can be defined as consciousness, and consciousness can be defined as an instinctive goal to evolve. Considering the outcome of evolution thus far, from single-celled organisms to intelligent homosapiens, it would seem the quest for perfection is the ultimate drive behind this goal. The only thing in this universe that we know of that's perfect is theoretical from a scientific perspective. Yet if life can be defined as the instinctive drive for perfection, as seems to be the case, would it be safe to assume that the existence of God is more than just theory? If nothing else, I think it clearly demonstrates that the existence of something divine is more than just a mere idea.

Source

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Good point. And if someone can actually demonstrate that you can get something from nothing, (and energy is something, despite it's lack of mass), if they're attending the Nobel Award Ceremony, I think it would be fair to say, with regards to the supporting evidence thereto, it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring it with.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Josak, your understanding of how life began is rather simplistic. The simplicity in and of itself may not be a bad thing, but the fact that cells are much more complex than the simple steps you laid out makes progression by chance pretty slim. Just to come up with one protein by chance is near an impossibility with the combinations which would have to form... let alone an entire cell made up of many proteins.

      In your opinion you do not think there is a need for a god to explain life... though I would argue that there is at least a need to explain life. How did we get here? How did the world come into being and was the universe always here? I think lukemike92 has implied that something has always been... and it stands to reason that either the universe was always around, or something... or someone was if not the universe. The redshift and expanding universe should at least make us wonder if perhaps the universe had a beginning... if it did then it was created.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      I don't need to explain anything to you? If you didn't expect a reply to your comment, you shouldn't have commented, unless it was to apologize for forcing me to wast time replying to your original comment.

      My Hub is titled, Is There Evidence for the Existence of God? That doesn't mean the content was reserved only for evidence in favor of God's existence. I wrote the whirlwind analogy to the construction of the first living organism to rule out the origins of life as a potential option for good evidence in favor of God. Why is that odd and intellectually incompetent? Seems to me you're failure to pick up on what I was talking about is what's intellectually incompetent. You should read an article carefully before commenting. I didn't ask why it's been debunked, I asked for your source supporting that it's been debunked. You just said in your comment it was debunked without including any citation to back up your statement. If you're gonna attack something written in someone else's Hub, that wouldn't be a bad idea to include for future references. As we've already clarified, however, it's irrelevant here. Furthermore, I said "it's been suggested," in my opening. I didn't say it's a proven fact. Moreover, your explanation had to do with evolution, and again I'll remind you that the whirlwind analogy had to do specifically with how the first living organism came to be, (likely a single-celled organism that was not very complex, relatively speaking), and not with the evolutionary process that followed. There was no lack of understanding on my behalf. I believe I made myself clear that I understood your explanation had nothing to do with the whirlwind analogy.

      You said in your first comment: "Moreover, to argue that as the universe is so complex that it needs a creator (as Hoyle did) is such an illogical move because this is to invoke something even more complex (God) than the complex thing (life) that you wish to explain, and so the newly invoked complex entity itself then needs explaining." Now you're suggesting you "didn't" say that? It seems we're both in agreement now that I didn't argue that in my Hub, so your seemingly contradicting statements aren't worth raising issue over.

      My statement, “While science has for the most part explained most of the known universe," was a throw out argument. If you'd picked up on that when you read the Hub the first time, we wouldn't be wasting time discussing it now. I also wrote, "has science a good explanation for what life really is," in the same sentence, clearly indicating the Hub's topic and, as such, the type of information I was planning to introduce before specifying the conclusion, which was what I think the information I included indicates. And if you think I'm not equipped to realize this, where's your contradicting evidence? You've said nothing in your comment to undermine my conclusion.

      I didn't assume something was always there. I know something was always there: it's one of the two things I can say I know with certainty, (the other being my own existence). I made no suggestion that I know what that something is, but whatever it is, an explanation as to how it came to be would obviously be unnecessary. I said this in response to your remark, "and so the newly invoked complex entity itself then needs explaining." If in fact the the "newly invoked complex entity" you referred to was what was always there, something I haven't once assumed, it's origins would not "need" explaining, as you suggested. If that originator had no origins, it simply means the originator was always there: it doesn't mean the originator would cease to exist. And you accused me of being illogical in your first comment?

      Where did I insert "consciousness" in my sentence “yes evolution starts with simple origins that become more complex. This would not, however, occur if they weren't consciously driven to survive and reproduce." I certainly don't see the word written in there. So if vision just improves without the will to improve, a genetically favored organism just survives without a will to survive? It wouldn't matter if the organism was genetically favored to the point where it could make superman retreat: it wouldn't make it long without a will to survive. I'm thinking you must've been one of those species who's 2 percent vision never got any better over time if you can think species don't survive by will, but accuse me of understanding evolution like Karl Pilkington. Take a look at yourself, buddy.

    • Comrade Joe profile image

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      If the Boeing argument is irrelevant then why is it the introduction to your hub? It seems very odd, indeed intellectually incompetent to open an article with an irrelevance. I said it had been debunked then told you why, if it is too difficult for you to understand then that is a shame. Or you could read the link that Josak posted, which while being wikipedia still gives further evidence to why this is so. Nor did I say that you said the universe is so complex so as to need a creator but it is the whole point of the Boeing argument. Which you may now say is irrelevant, but if it were irrelevant you would not have felt the need to appeal to it in the first place.

      And you may have said “While science has for the most part explained most of the known universe”, but this was a throw away comment, not a conclusion. Conclusions follow from premises.

      This is your conclusion “I think it clearly demonstrates that the existence of something divine is more than just a mere idea”, even if you yourself are not equipped to realise this.

      And yet again, you assume things you have no right to assume “there were no origins”. But more to the point, if there were no origins then your conclusion does not follow as no origins requires the lack of an originator and so that originator is itself a mere idea.

      And further assumptions “yes evolution starts with simple origins that become more complex. This would not, however, occur if they weren't consciously driven to survive and reproduce” You insert consciousness without any basis. When primitive life forms with 2% vision emerge they gradually improved as one’s with improved mutations had upshots and survived. It has absolutely nothing to do with that being thinking to itself, I need better eyes. Your conception of evolution is akin to that of Karl Pilkington.

      You don’t need to “explain” anything to me later, as in the words of Duncan Bannatyne, I’m out.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Number one: the Boeing argument is irrelevant, as I clearly offered that life could've began by chance, regardless of the odds against the correct molecular combination. Scientists today believe the immense ancient tides that resulted from the proximate moon may have given rise to the first living organism. Regardless of the odds, likely or not, that's irrelevant to my article. Also, that had to do with how the first living organism came to be, not the process of evolution that followed. I read the Boeing argument several years ago in a book by Paul Davis. If you want to argue it's been debunked to make yourself seem smart, show me evidence, (even thought it's irrelevant).

      Number two: I never argued that the universe is so complex it needs a creator. If you read my article, you would've noticed that I said "While science has for the most part explained most of the known universe," and I stand by that conclusion.

      Number three: there's obviously always been something in existence. There's no way around. Whatever it is, or whatever you want to call it, the fact that it obviously has ALWAYS been here means that it's origins DO NOT need explaining, because there were no origins.

      Number four: I'm not "wishing" to explain anything. I'm telling you how it is.

      Number five: yes evolution starts with simple origins that become more complex. This would not, however, occur if they weren't consciously driven to survive and reproduce. Worms, plants, they all do it. Why would plants develop thorns, and poisons, if they weren't compelled by some instinct to survive? They're not as intelligent as homosapiens, but they possess the same life instinct.

      Number six: I did not suggest that genetic mutations evidence any purpose or goal. Genetic mutations occur, and in the rare instances they result in more favorable organisms, the possibility for the evolution of a stronger and more intelligent species is created. It's the instinct that enables the organism to survive and procreate that's indicative of a goal for perfection.

      I have to go to work. Will deal with further comments later.

    • Comrade Joe profile image

      Comrade Joe 4 years ago from Glasgow, United Kingdom

      The Boeing argument has been long debunked. Evolution is nothing like the process of a whirlwind creating a Boeing 747. It doesn't happen in one fell swoop. Evolution occurs with slight adjustments and improvements over long periods of time. Complex life does not just appear as the Boeing in the example does. Moreover, to argue that as the universe is so complex that it needs a creator (as Hoyle did) is such an illogical move because this is to invoke something even more complex (God) than the complex thing (life) that you wish to explain, and so the newly invoked complex entity itself then needs explaining. That evolution starts with simple origins working towards complexity is what makes it so much more plausible.

      In the last paragraph there seems to be many inaccuracies. The suggestion that life relates to consciousness is just clearly not true. That a worm or maggot competes consciously just seems absurd. Or that plant-life is in anyway sentient would be equally ridiculous.

      Then you continue that "Considering the outcome of evolution thus far, from single-celled organisms to intelligent homosapiens, it would seem the quest for perfection is the ultimate drive behind this goal". Here you are assuming that which you would seek to prove. Because there are genetic mutations of life adapting to it's surroundings does not mean there is any purpose or "goal". Neither does adaptation mean there is a drive to perfection. That there is a goal is just assumed and so there is no reason to hypothesize a goal setter or purpose giver.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Btw, by using the word "theory" I was illustrating how the existence of God would be described in the language of science. If I was talking about it in the language of religion, I probably would've used the word faith. I don't think science can find God. The fact that they can thoroughly explain things 10 billion light years away, but struggle defining the mere consciousness of themselves suggests that consciousness is something science was not intended to explain.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      So it's an "animalistic" desire. Okay, if that's what you want to call it. Animals are adapting to changing environments and new species develop that way. Right, but stronger and more intelligent species prevail over weaker and less intelligent ones. This results because of the "will" as you referred to it, that exists in your opinion by mere chance, to reproduce and survive. How does this not result in species that are more perfected over time? Again, the only thing I've referred to as theory is the existence of God from a scientific perspective. How is that not theory? Are you one of those anal types of people who when someone calls something green, you say no it's navy green? It's a belief that can't be proven.

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      I'm sorry, but how are you comparing our animalistic desire to reproduce and spread our dna to a god? All animals do this - if they don't, their species dies off. We're not getting more and more perfect. Animals are adapting to a continually changing environment, not reaching perfection. Viruses are adapting to differences in the immune system and they are becoming more and more powerful and harder to fight off. This is not perfection. There is no scientific perspective for the belief in god. Scientists have been trying to find god for thousands of years, but they haven't uncovered a single trace. I think you're confusing theory with hypothesis in scientific terms.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      It's not proof: just suggestive. I never said this article was the holy grail for God's existence either: it just offers something to ponder.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      That was intended for JMcFarland. I didn't even see Josak's comment until after it was posted. Again, I made clear in my article that there's no need for God to explain how life came to be what it is today. You haven't read the article carefully enough. It's the "will" to reproduce and survive that suggests the existence of divinity. What does that lead to? By way of inevitable survival of the fittest, it leads to gradual perfection. That indicates God isn't just in our minds, but in our DNA as well.

    • lukemike92 profile image
      Author

      lukemike92 4 years ago

      Where in here have I suggested God was necessary to explain the origins of life, or denied the scientific process, other than to suggest that it's failed to explain "what" life is? The only thing herein I've referred to as theoretical is the belief in God from a scientific perspective: how is that not scientifically theoretical?

    • JMcFarland profile image

      Julie McFarland 4 years ago from The US of A, but I'm Open to Suggestions

      There is no need to hypothesis a god in order to explain the origins of life, sorry. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. There's an incredibly big difference - and to claim otherwise denies the entire scientific process. http://www.talkorigins.org/

    • Josak profile image

      Josak 4 years ago from variable

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

      There is no need for a god to explain life, the first single cell organisms simply reproduced by splitting, then the first step of evolution ocurred when by that same element of chance a being came to have a will to reproduce and survive and that organism obviously did not die out and hence we have all we have.