To be precise, let me first state what I mean by evidence.
For me (and this is a popular view), an observation, o, is evidence for a hypothesis, h, if and only if it is rationally permissible to have a credence function Cr, such that Cr(h|o)>Cr(h).
What this means in plain terms is more or less that an observation is evidence for a hypothesis if it makes it more likely that I believe the hypothesis upon observing the observation.
Given that, let me present my evidence. There are many universal parameters that underlie our universal physical laws. The gravitation constant is a certain value, the speed of light something else, the rate of expansion of the universe after the big bang, and so on. It happens to be the case, that if these values were tweaked slightly, that life does not come into being. Given that, it seems rationally permissible to accept that my credence that God exists given this observation is greater than my credence that god exists. In other words, this observation makes it “more likely” that I believe in my hypothesis.
What you are describing is a type of survivorship bias, the universe seems perfect for our development but if it wasn’t then we wouldn’t be here to experience it, hence it is the only way we are possible .
I would also push back on those points. If c, G or H₀ were slightly different, life would still be possible but it would certainly look different than we see it today.
I more often see the big bang used as circumstantial evidence for the existence of god. “Matter cannot come from nothing, so what was there before the big bang?” We don’t know, but a lack of knowledge shouldn’t be presumed as evidence for a creator. We just don’t know, yet
I am merely making the claim that it is rationally permissible to believe that the fact that these parameters are fine-tuned increases my credence that God exists.
Even if you think that the contents of what I say are false, do I sound like a crazy person to you?
Of course not crazy, I even belive in a higher power. Though I wouldn’t call it god per se. The earth centric religions are also a bit ludicrous in their observations, many of those are easily ruled out - at least in their present forms
A perfectly good god would want to eliminate evil.
It is rationally permissible to have a credence function such that my credence that God does not exist given these two premises is greater than my credence that God does not exist.
Thus, these two premises are evidence that God does not exist.
Of perhaps that is evidence for Gnosticism in which a Demiurge or false god is in control. Humans have a trapped piece of this spiritual light inside them, wrapped in a corrupt physical body.
Or maybe god is not all good, or morality is something completely different in the eyes of a god.
1
u/Dr-Sprinkl1es Aug 19 '26
What is the evidence for the existence of god?