Hmm, this is a good question. I guess my biggest reason for believing would have to be creation. I haven't read all the posts on the subject, but from my POV, there is no stronger evidence than this. I have never been shown evidence to the contrary as far as creation, and I definitely don't believe we started as tiny cells, or that we came from apes. Everything in the universe, from the distance of the sun being just right, to the distance of the moon being just right, to trees giving off oxygen and taking in carbon dioxide, and us taking in oxygen and us giving off carbon dioxide, it all just fits to neatly for it to have been an accident.
I respect your honest answer, and in the past I would have agreed strongly with you, as nature and the cosmos are a source of great wonder and awe to me. In fact itâ€™s that which initially lead me to wonder if God did exist. I am still inspired by it the same way today, and in fact Iâ€™ve found that without the confusion about some deity that got layered on top of that response of mystery following my conversion into a religious/theological context, I once again find myself as inspired by the mystery as I was prior to that.
A few thoughts Iâ€™d like to share with you from my perspective today, what Iâ€™ve found is that itâ€™s not really correct to call this â€œevidenceâ€, as it really doesnâ€™t qualify as evidence in any sort of empirical way. What you can say however is that it gives you the â€œimpression
â€ of a Creator, or at best some overall â€œsenseâ€ of a possible â€˜bigger pictureâ€™, which some could put the name or face of â€œGodâ€ on.
I see no need to repeat what Hans posted above to show that itâ€™s not so perfect a creation if a perfect God created it. His points are all valid ones, and are good responses to the line of reasoning that sees this as a perfect system = proof of God. Itâ€™s not â€œperfect.â€ However, Iâ€™m going to share my thoughts from the â€˜impressionâ€™ perspective.
Even allowing for a shift in theological thought about a God who created this â€˜balancedâ€™ system out of these not so perfect variables (or the mythological stories that it was perfect and became corrupted or fallen at some point), it really is a matter a perspective in how we wish to look at it. Let me explain. Realistically, if we are to consider the very fact that itâ€™s working as evidence itself, then we need to look at all the trillions of places that itâ€™s not working as well. In fact, not just spatially as in our planet in this solar system, but in time as well.
The likelihood of life in the universe elsewhere is high, as the seeds of life are being found to be strewn throughout our solar system, and likely as well outside it since we live in a physical universe following itâ€™s laws (what we see here, we see elsewhere as well). Our existence here is the result of things being, not â€œjust rightâ€, but more â€œright enoughâ€ for it to evolve into what it is today (I will accept the science behind this as its veracity has been proven in the world of science across the board beyond any reasonable doubt by the vast majority of scientists in nearly every single discipline). At a different time, it wasnâ€™t right and we didnâ€™t exist, nor did any life at an early point in the history of this planet. There are incalculable places in the universe where life didnâ€™t evolve, as well as places where it did, or is likely to have.
To put this another way, you are looking at the end result through your eyes and concluding through nothing more than an impression or sense regarding the fact of your own existence, and concluding it was â€˜meant to beâ€™. There is nothing to support this as hard evidence. Itâ€™s like me throwing four dice and it comes up with a sequence of 1, 3, 4, 1. I could easily say â€œWow what are the odds of that!â€ The answer is itâ€™s exactly the same odds of it coming up 2, 2, 2, 2. But you would look at all 2â€™s as significant, whereas you would not the previous example. In reality, our life form is more a series of odd combinations that when you stand back far enough from it, we, as the object we are looking at, appear to our perspective or â€œimpressionâ€ to be something significant. Where as the reality of it is, looking at odds â€“ after the fact - is really pointless. Itâ€™s a game we play on ourselves to artificially put â€˜significanceâ€™ on something. Itâ€™s like Bob in Illinois thanking God for winning a lottery draw, saying â€œthe odds were too greatâ€. God had nothing to do with that, and frankly what we see in the universe in the form of life we are, doesnâ€™t necessitate this â€˜supernaturalâ€™ explanation either.
I could go on and on explaining this further, but letâ€™s get back to the real heart behind this. â€œImpressionâ€. Iâ€™ve come to see â€˜Godâ€™ in this context of mystery and awe as a face we put on this look up into the heavens we do, where we see ourselves a part of this grand, expansive, awe-inspiring mystery. Is there something there? Something grander than us? It depends on you, really. It depends how you want to see it. I do see something there, but it goes beyond anything some book of ancient people try to put a face on, of some watchful sky god. The face of God is our own, looking back at us as we look up at â€œhimâ€, but itâ€™s more than just a reflection, it brings with it the deeper more expanse nature of our being with it in that reflection, it brings back the universe that exists beyond us looking out from behind the confines of this little skin-sack we live inside of, worried about itâ€™s concerns about money, shelter, and the mundane focus of survival.
I personally see the image of God, to be a face we put on what is in us in order to begin to relate to this â€œpresenceâ€, or sense of something greater than ourselves, if you will. I see all religious efforts as attempts or means to bring this experience of the world, of "God", if you like to call it that, into our lives for the benefit it brings to our being. "Take no thought to yourselves, but consider the lilies of the field..." These are all means of focus to bring us to this place of perspective. It can be in the form of religious icons, myths, poetry, art, dance, song, community, etc... all moving us beyond the inward focus to recognize life beyond it. There is something greater than us, and we are part of it and it of us. "The kingdom of God is within you," etc, etc. It's not the system, not the language used, not how you get there, but the end. "By their fruits you shall know them." It's all languages of this.
As I said, itâ€™s all perspective, and itâ€™s going to depend on your personality (whether analytical/poetic/both), the context of your culture in what it considers important, the framework of language to talk about this aspect of our being in the mythological system of your society, etc. But the bottom line is, what youâ€™re talking about isnâ€™t really evidence of God, but rather an expression of something inside of you. Does it invalidate the experience? Not to me it doesnâ€™t.
Your thoughts to this?