Conclusive Arguments For The Existence Of God
With our current knowledge in science, the theory of evolution is by far not science fiction. However, just like anything else in science, it is a working model that has changed drastically over time since Darwin and continues to evolve as we discover new things. Currently, there are many challenges to the theory as well as empirical data provided by scientists themselves that contradicts certain predictions of the theory, however, it should not be considered a false theory. Evolution, however, does not provide any way to understand the origin of life. The most popular theory in that regard is called Abiogenesis. This theory, at this time, is largely a hypothesis without any significant observational data. Fine-tuning is a cosmological argument and does not have anything to do with the theory of evolution. As you pointed out, it entails several finely tuned universal constants that can’t be explained in a reductionist or a naturalistic framework. With that said, there are two things to consider: 1. There will never be any data that can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. Such evidence would go against God’s scheme of trial in this universe. 2. The evidence we present to establish the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt is first and foremost on the basis of observation and logical inferences thereof which are accessible to scientists and non-scientists alike (see Discussion 1630 ). There are several other supporting arguments that have been presented by philosophers, theologians, as well as scientists throughout history, the fine-tuning argument being one of them. Regardless of what Dawkins or anyone else says, the fine-tuning argument within itself is not and can never be considered a holistic argument for God. The reason for this is because fine-tuning can conceivably be explained away by some future discoveries. At present time, since we have enough evidence to establish the existence of God and nothing to conclusively deny it, therefore the rational choice for anyone with a sound mind is to believe in God. If our data changes in the future, of course our conclusions can follow. This is exactly how progress takes place in the field of science as well. To deny God first and then hope for supporting data to appear in the future is neither a scientific way to approach things nor a rational one.