There is evidence for God

Thanks for the invite WaterTipper. I'll try to keep things informal.Let's begin by noting that something may indicate God's existence without entailing God's existence. For example, if I were able to demonstrate that a perfectly good being exists, this fact would indicate that God exists (in so far as he'd be perfectly good), but it wouldn't entail his existence, as it would not have yet been shown that this perfectly good being is omnipotent, omniscient and so forth.Bearing that in mind, allow me to identify a rather peculiar phenomenon and then explain why I believe it's indicative of God's existence.The DatumPhilosophers of mind have long discussed something they call intentionality. Intentionality is the property mental states—such as beliefs, thoughts or desires—typically have of being about something. When we believe, we believe something. When we think, we think about something. Our mental states are usually aimed at or directed toward objects of belief, thought or desire.But, our mental states aren't the only things that have this aim or direction: all causes are directed toward producing certain effects (or ranges thereof) rather than others prior to doing so. This is easiest seen in intentional agents (where 'agent' = 'causer'). E.g. The finished sandwhich is the effect that all my actions in the kitchen are aimed at producing. But, this is also true of agents in general, whether they're conscious, or were acting intentionally.As Thomas Aquinas explained: "Were an agent not to act for a definite effect, all effects would be indifferent to it. Now that which is indifferent to many effects does not produce one rather than another [lest it, in fact, be different to one]. Therefore, from that which is indifferent to either of two effects, no effect results, unless it be determined by something to one of them. Hence it would be impossible for it to act. Therefore, every agent tends toward some definite effect, which is called its end." [1]It's precisely because acorns are geard toward becoming oak trees that they tend to develop into oak trees, instead of apple trees or shitzus: it's not just some big coinkydink. The same thing goes for light photons, cells, galaxies and contintents: in so far as each causes a particular effect, it is geared toward that effect prior to producing it. Otherwise, it'd be completely inexplicable why a cause produces one effect instead of another (let alone on a regular basis!).Interestingly, the Substance-Powers-Liability theory is a major theory of what the laws of nature are. It states that a law of nature is just the powers which a substance is liable to exercise under certain circumstances. E.g. Water has the power to boil, and is liable to do so when heated to 212 F. [2]The Indication But, how can these non-intelligent agents (like atoms, rain drops or solar flares) be directed toward effects that don't yet exist, as when heated water is directed toward boiling before it's boiling? Intelligent agents can of course think about, believe in or even desire things that don't exist. In my earlier sandwhich example, the uncompleted sandwhich was just an idea, or image in my mind before I worked my magic. But, non-intelligent agents don't have ideas or mental images. So...what exactly are they directed towards? It has to be something, or, they're not in fact disposed toward any effect and we're back in Wonderland. These effects have to be in some sense, even though they're not in reailty yet.The problem is that there are really just two ways for something to exist: either in reality, or in a mind. Since the effects these non-intelligent agents are geared toward producing haven't been produced yet, they cannot exist in reality. That leaves only one option: they exist in someone's mind.But, when you take our ridiculously vast universe as a whole, replete with its innumerably many non-intelligent agents, it's not only clear that all these uninstantiated ends exist in a mind outside of the universe, but that this mind must be of frightening power.Does this prove that God exists? Definitely not. But, it does seem to indicate that he's out there.Footnotes:[1]: Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chap. 2.[2]: "The S-P-L [Substance-Powers-Liability] account of laws of nature and of the explanation of particular events seems to me more satisfactory than the other accounts." - Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. p. 34Notorious atheist philosopher Keith Parsons recently said: "Along with Harré, Madden, Bhaskar, and Cartwright, I “…take the Laws of Nature to be about the powers, dispositions, or tendencies of natural systems to bring about observable phenomena (Harré, ‘Laws of Nature,’ A Companion to the Philosophy of Science, ed. by W.H. Newton-Smith, p. 218).”" - http://www.patheos.com...