In this modern day of science, many people are quick to disregard the existence of God. They think the idea is too gullible when science can explain how this universe works. But science doesn't explain why this universe works or how it began to work. Science and the existence of God can co-exist. Science shows us how the universe and its natural laws function, while the existence of God gives us the reason and means for why that universe functions. Science explains natural phenomena, and God can explain supernatural phenomena, the categories cannot disprove each other, but they can complement each other when looking at the universe as a whole.
Many skeptics like to say that the burden of proof relies on whoever is trying to suggest the existence of God, which is a fair declaration, but if we use that court of law term then we should be aware of how evidence works in a court of law.
Direct and indirect evidence:
There are two types of evidence in a court of law, direct evidence and indirect evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact if the evidence is legitimate. This often comes in the form of eyewitness testimony. For example, let's say that we are in the courtroom and a person walks inside. They say, “It was raining outside as I walked in ''. If the witness is honest and the statement is truthful, then it proves that it was indeed raining outside. The only problem is that eyewitness testimony is not always trustworthy, which is where indirect evidence comes into play.
Indirect evidence is also referred to as circumstantial evidence because it can bring more validity to a statement or conclusion based on the circumstances, but it doesn't directly prove the crime on its own. For example, let's say that there was someone in the courtroom who had an umbrella at their side. Does this piece of evidence alone prove that it was raining outside? No, they simply could have just retrieved the umbrella after leaving it in the courthouse at some time in the past. But when looking more closely you can see that the umbrella is freshly wet. Could there just have been a water bottle spill on the retrieved umbrella? It's possible, but if you combine this observation with the eyewitness statement about it raining outside, then there's more reason to suggest that it rained outside given that the presence of the wet umbrella supports the eyewitness's statement about it raining.
Circumstantial evidence is more convincing when it becomes accumulative, meaning multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence point to the same outcome while also eliminating reasonable doubt from counterexplanations. For this continuing example, let's say that a couple of other people in the courtroom also have wet umbrellas at their sides. You also spot a few other people with wet rain jackets at their sides. Then you hear a consistent rattling sound that's coming from on top of the tin roof, almost like rain. Is it possible that multiple people retrieved left-behind umbrellas and coats, spilled water on them, and some prankster dropped pounds of marbles on top of the roof for the rattling sound, all on the same day? It's possible, but not very reasonable, which is the standard for conviction. When combining all of this circumstantial evidence you can reasonably assume that it was just raining outside.
The Plausibility of God’s Existence:
***I am not trying to use science to definitively prove the existence of God. In this section, I simply show how it is reasonable to still believe in both God and proven science. If you want proof for God that is based on an observable occurrence (the resurrection sightings of Jesus) then check out the Resurrection section on my website to see how Jesus rose from the dead beyond a reasonable doubt.***
Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict a suspect in a court of law and I believe that the universe has left behind enough circumstantial evidence to build a reasonable case for the existence of God. Instead of writing a long and in-depth argument on this topic, I’m just going to summarize the pieces of circumstantial evidence (highlighted in bold) and then provide you with the sources that explain the evidence in depth if you wish to research. The outline I use for these pieces of circumstantial evidence is borrowed from the format used in Cold Case Christianity and God's Crime Scene by J Warner Wallace.
Causal Evidence (cosmological argument)
“Anything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe must have a cause
This cause must be eternal and uncaused
God is a reasonable explanation for such an uncaused first cause”
The Big Bang theory evidence shows how time, space, and matter all came into existence at one point, which is what's described in the first line of the bible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The beginning is time, the heavens are space and matter, and the earth is more matter. The Big Bang theory evidence points to an uncaused first cause that is all-powerful, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Those descriptions fit the character of God. However, is there anything to suggest that this uncaused first cause is also an intelligent being? For that, we move on to the evidence of fine-tuning and intelligent design.
Sources:
Fine-tuning evidence (anthropic principle):
“The physical constants and laws of the universe appear to be uniquely and specifically related to one another (fine-tuned), making life possible on Earth.
The fine-tuned relationships of these laws and constants appear to be designed (as their existence by natural, unguided means seems improbable and unlikely).
A design requires an intelligent designer; an incredibly vast and complex design requires an incredibly intelligent and powerful designer.
God is the most reasonable explanation for such a vast, universal designer (and fine tuner).”
There are so many different constants, laws, principals, and placements in this universe that not only allow for the universe to sustain itself but to also sustain the formation of life. If just one of these many factors or steps were slightly altered, then we would cease to exist. That's a lot of pressure for “random chance” to not mess up. It seems that all of these fine-tuned factors serve as guidance towards the sustaining of carbon-based life. Random and mindless processes don't organize such fine-tuned elements towards an oriented goal, only an intelligent designer can intentionally place everything to be “just right” in order for something as complex as life to exist. A watch is not created by throwing all the necessary pieces into a bag and then shaking it up in hopes of “random chance” assembling the watch. The watch is clearly designed with the purpose of telling time, with each piece meticulously placed in the right spot to keep it functioning. The naturalistic view of random and mindless processes fine-tuning this universe for life is not reasonable, only an intelligent designer like God can explain such fine-tuning.
Sources:
Physicists Look at the Conditions Necessary for Carbon-Based Life in the Universe (scitechdaily.com)
Requirements for Life - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
The Anthropic Principle - Understanding Evolution (berkeley.edu)
Does the Multiverse Explain Away Divine Design? - Reasons to Believe
Design Evidence (teleological argument):
“Structures and systems that (a) cannot be explained by some natural law requiring their appearance, (b) exist in spite of the high improbability they could result from chance, and (c) conform to an independently existing and recognizable pattern are most reasonably explained as coming from the design efforts of an intelligent agent.
Biological systems possess characteristics (e.g, the information contained in the DNA code) that (a) cannot be explained by some natural law requiring their appearance, (b) exist in spite of the high improbability they could result from chance, and (c) conform to an independently existing and recognizable pattern of specified complexity.
Biological systems are, therefore, most reasonably explained as coming from the design efforts of an intelligent agent
God is the most reasonable explanation for such an incredibly wise, all-powerful, intelligent agent.”
Science has yet to observe a natural law that causes the formation of life from non-life. Even with all the resources and technology available today, the theory of abiogenesis has not been proven. The genetic code information found in DNA is far too complex to have been caused by the improbable chance of abiogenesis and then sustained by random mutations. Richard Dawkins admits ‘"the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having been constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard'" (1). Is it reasonable to believe that a natural and mindless process like a hurricane could randomly assemble a Jumbo Jet by chance? No, the only explanation for such a design is that there is an intelligent agent that designed the jumbo jet, and the formation of life is much more complex than a jumbo jet.
Information that conforms to a complex code and recognizable pattern points toward an intelligent designer. Natural, random, and mindless processes did not create computers (designs that contain complex code with recognizable patterns). An intelligent mind is the only reasonable explanation for such codelike design that we observe in life’s DNA.
So far the circumstantial evidence points to the uncaused first cause as being an all-powerful, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and intellectual designer. These are the characteristics that match God. But we're missing one more characteristic, that God is just and the moral lawgiver, for that we move onto moral evidence.
Sources:
Digital and Analog Information Housed in DNA - Reasons to Believe
Evolution as Mythology, Part 3 (of 5): The Myth of Abiogenesis - Reasons to Believe
Three (More) Reasons Why Junk DNA Is No Longer Evidence for Evolution - Reasons to Believe
Evolution as Mythology, Part 4 (of 5): The Myth of Macroevolution - Reasons to Believe
Moral Evidence (Axiological argument):
“There is an objective, transcendent moral law
Every moral law has a moral lawgiver
Therefore, there is an objective, transcendent moral lawgiver
God is the most reasonable explanation for such a transcendent moral lawgiver”
Is it wrong to torture babies for fun? Everyone instinctively knows that it's wrong to harm innocent humans, but why? There has to be an objective moral standard for which we measure that action as being wrong since it transcends societal subjectivity. For example, why were we (the Allies) obligated to convict the Nazis of mass murder after the war? If morality was completely subjective then the Nazis could have just claimed that the murdering of innocent beings was considered to be good in their society, which means we would have no right to intrude on their unique morality and convict them. Well, the Nazis knew that what they were doing was instinctively wrong (killing innocent humans). Their defense against the conviction (the objective moral standard that we instinctively share) wasn't “killing Jews was right”, their defense was “we were just following orders”. The Nazis tried to appeal to a different objective “rightness” (following orders) rather than trying to justify a moral (“killing innocent humans is right”) which they knew to be objectively wrong. Intuitively we know that it's wrong to harm innocent human beings, this is an objective transcendent moral law, so what could have created the objective standard for this moral law?
Moral laws are created by personal lawgivers. Morals exist in a state of consciousness, which is a personal attribute. Mindless processes like physics or chemistry can’t produce a personal attribute as they operate on impersonal quantities (energy, matter, etc), not personal consciousness. Therefore, impersonal mindless processes such as chemistry and physics can’t be the source of objective moral truth. If our objective morality is found in a personal conscious state, then the source of that morality also has to produce personal attributes, such as a conscious mind/entity.
The lawgivers of a country's laws are personal and conscious beings that create the country's moral standard. Now, if there are objective moral truths that transcend societal morals, then there must be an objective lawgiver that transcends society's lawgivers, meaning a personal and conscious mind/entity that transcends(surpasses) the minds of human lawgivers. The most reasonable explanation for a conscious, personal, and transcendent moral lawgiver is the description of God. The Bible says that God has written his law on our hearts, which explains the objective morality we instinctively share.
Sources:
What Best Accounts for Our Sense of Morality? - Reasons to Believe
Does Human Morality Arise from Brain Chemistry? - Reasons to Believe
If Objective Morality Exists, Why Don’t All Societies Agree?
There is more circumstantial evidence for the existence of God, but these are the major four. These pieces of evidence all point to an uncaused first cause that is an all-powerful, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, conscious, intelligent designer and moral lawgiver; God.
Evidence Disclaimer: Many of the linked sources on this website include blogs, articles, and videos that simplify the evidence and arguments I use; they are not the sole source of the evidence used in my arguments. The root source of the evidence I use is based on the work of academic scholars in the related fields, which I've researched through the reading of scholarly books and articles. You don't have to be an academic scholar to present a logically sound argument, but your evidence should still be drawn from trustworthy professionals in academia. If you wish to validate the evidence that I use, then you can look into the academic books and articles that I have hyperlinked throughout each page, or you can find the scholarly sources cited within the links of my non-academic sources. Whenever you read an argumentive piece it is wise to cross-examine the evidence with your own research of trustworthy sources.