6. Proof of the Existence of God (Inductive Evidence)

6.1. Proof by Inductive Argument

The second way to prove the existence of God is through inductive argument based on hypothesis setting. The inductive method is a method of inferring by collecting various information and evidence and discovering their common properties. As a standard methodology widely used to verify or confirm the truth of a fact, probabilistic inductive argument based on hypothesis setting is used.

6.2. Concept of Inductive Argument

To easily explain the concept of inductive argument based on hypothesis setting, let me give you an example.

Someone has been charged with murder. As the judge, you must deliver a verdict on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. However, the problem is that since you are not 'God', there is no way to know for sure whether the defendant actually committed the murder.

You cannot use 'supernatural powers' to go back to the past time when the defendant is suspected of committing the murder and observe the incident at that time. Therefore, the only way to determine the truth is to collect evidence and 'infer' indirectly, although imperfect. This is the best we can do.

However, there is one essential procedure before this evidence collection stage. That is hypothesis setting. In the first stage of the process of determining the truth of a subject in all scientific research methodologies, even though the truth of the hypothesis is unknown, an arbitrary hypothesis is set and verification begins.

Going back to the example of the murderer, as the judge, you must first set a hypothesis at the very first stage of the investigation, either 'this person is the murderer' or 'is not the murderer'. After that, the truth or falsity of this hypothesis is determined through objective investigation and evidence confirmation.

If the fingerprints and bloodstains found on the murder weapon match those of the defendant, and objective evidence such as the testimony of eyewitnesses and CCTV confirming that the victim and the defendant were at the same place at the same time, we can reasonably infer that the hypothesis 'the defendant is the murderer' is true.

Conversely, if the fingerprints and bloodstains belong to someone else, and it is confirmed that the defendant was at a different location at the same time, the hypothesis that 'the defendant is the murderer' can be rejected, and the defendant can be acquitted.

However, the most important factor in the process of testing a hypothesis is the 'reliability of the evidence or verification', which is expressed in terms of statistical or mathematical probability. In the previous example, let's say evidence was found that the fingerprints and bloodstains found in the fingerprint and bloodstain analysis match those of the defendant.

Then, can we conclude that 'since the fingerprints and bloodstains match those of the defendant, this person is 100% certainly the murderer'? Actually, that's not the case. The reason is that even this evidence contains uncertainty.

Fingerprint and bloodstain analysis is a highly accurate test, but there is a small possibility that the test may be erroneous or that there may be other errors that have not been considered. Assuming that the accuracy of fingerprint analysis and bloodstain analysis is 99%, strictly speaking, it means that the accuracy and reliability of the conclusion we reached that the person is the culprit is 99%. It means there is a 1% chance of being wrong.

The same goes for all other evidence. Whether it's an alibi, a witness statement, CCTV, or any evidence, there is a possibility of 'uncertainty' or 'error'. Alibis and witness statements can be fabricated by bribing witnesses with money, and even CCTV can provide false information if sophisticated manipulation is done.

'Direct', 'certain', and '100% perfect' evidence cannot exist in the real world. Even the 'evidence that I have directly and certainly experienced' turns into ambiguous 'indirect evidence' for others. People tend to unconsciously assume that the certainty of evidence is '100%' when determining the truth of a fact, but that is definitely not the case.

6.3. Errors of Sophists

People who cannot acknowledge this often make the following error:

Genetic testing, CCTV evidence, statements from multiple eyewitnesses, circumstantial evidence, and numerous other physical evidence strongly support the defendant's murder, and the overall accuracy of the evidence is over 99.9999999%. However, the 0.000000000001% possibility of error cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this evidence is not 100% perfect, so it cannot be trusted.

The criterion for reaching a conclusion through a rational verification procedure is not '100% perfect completeness'. Even in the natural sciences that they worship so much, the criterion for reaching a conclusion is not logical, empirical perfection, but 'a high level of probabilistic reliability'.

Another serious error they unconsciously make is treating the relative weight of certainty and uncertainty the same.

In the previous example, if the accuracy of the evidence is 99% and the uncertainty is 1%, the accuracy is 99 times greater than the uncertainty. Nevertheless, they completely ignore this quantitative difference and reject evidence that is 99 times more reliable simply because of the mere 'existence of uncertainty'.

To be more precise, they also know that such claims are absurd, but they make forced arguments because they do not want to admit it.

The standard scientific research methodology for determining the truth or falsity of a fact is not '100% complete logical confirmation', but 'a certain level of probabilistic reliability'. Generally, even in the strict natural science methodology, if the probability of error is less than 5%, or less than 1% in a more stringent standard (this is called the statistical significance level, p-value), even though there is a possibility of error, the conclusion is reached as true.

This is because the probability of being true is overwhelmingly higher than the probability of making an error, at 95% or 99%, so the possibility of being wrong can be reasonably rejected.

Therefore, claiming to pursue rational and scientific thought while adhering to extremely low uncertainty and the possibility of error despite presenting numerous overwhelmingly reliable evidence is sophistry and forced argument.

They claim to be 'logical' perfectionists pursuing perfect truth, but they are actually sophists who have fallen into 'delusion' for this reason.

According to their logic, there is not a single fact that can be believed or verified in this world. This is because they deny 'is there even a 0.0000000000001% chance that it is false?' for any fact or truth they believe in.

6.4. Rational Method for Finding Truth

In summary, the rational and scientific method we use to determine the truth of any fact or phenomenon is as follows:

1. Set a hypothesis.
2. Test the hypothesis through various evidence, research, or experiments.
3. Collect the results of the verification, confirm the statistical and probabilistic reliability of the verification, and if this reliability is above a certain level and the probability of error is below a certain level, accept the verified hypothesis as 'true'.
4. The criterion for determining the truth is not '100% logically flawless certainty', but a certain level of empirical and probabilistic reliability.

6.5. How to Interpret Conflicting Evidence?

If you have understood this far, I think you have grasped the basic concept of how to confirm the truth from a rational and reasonable perspective. However, the problem does not end here. This is because in the process of verifying a fact, there are quite often cases where various pieces of evidence conflict with each other.

For example, witness A claims that the defendant is not the culprit, while witness B claims that he is the culprit. In such cases, how should a judgment be made? The defendant cannot be guilty and not guilty at the same time. This is a logical contradiction.

Then, when various pieces of evidence conflict or contradict each other, how can the truth be determined? In conclusion, the methodology I just explained can be extended a little further. When conflicting evidence coexists, evidence that is stronger, more certain, and greater in number outweighs evidence that is less reliable or fewer in number.

At this time, the degree of certainty of the truth is expressed as a 'mathematical or empirical probability', and it is verified in the same way as hypothesis testing. This is well known in statistics as 'Bayes' theorem'.

Bayes' theorem is a statistical approach that estimates the probability of prior events through posterior probability. Using Bayes' theorem, when there are several conflicting pieces of evidence supporting the truth of the same fact, it is easy to infer which one is closer to the truth.

According to Bayes' theorem, the higher the reliability of a particular piece of evidence, and the more overwhelming the number of evidence indicating true or false compared to the opposing evidence, the more it can be inferred as the truth.

Shall we take an example? Let's say someone has been charged with murder. Ten witnesses were summoned to the court. Nine witnesses claimed that the defendant was innocent, while one witness claimed that he was guilty. If you were the judge, how would you rule?

Let's say the nine witnesses who claimed innocence were people with a reputation for being very truthful, so the probability of them telling the truth was 90% and the probability of them lying was 10%. On the other hand, the remaining one person who claimed guilty was someone who habitually lies, so the probability of telling the truth and the probability of lying were both 50%.

In this situation where nine truthful people provided evidence of 'innocence' and the remaining one person testified to 'guilt', what is the probability that this defendant is actually guilty?

That probability is calculated as follows:

• Probability that the defendant is actually guilty = Probability of testifying as above if actually guilty / (Probability of testifying as above if actually innocent + Probability of testifying as above if actually guilty)

Let's calculate each probability separately:

• Probability of testifying as above if actually innocent
  = Probability that all 9 people told the truth and 1 person lied
  = 0.9^9 X (1-0.5)^1 = 0.193
• Probability that all 10 people testified as above if actually guilty
  = Probability that all 9 people lied and the one person thought to be a liar told the truth
  = (1-0.9)^9 X 0.5^1 = 0.0000000005
• Probability that the defendant is actually guilty
  = 0.0000000005 / (0.193000000 + 0.0000000005)
  = 0.0000000005

That is, in the above situation, the probability that the defendant is guilty is calculated as 0.00000005%, and the probability that he is innocent is 99.99999995%.

Therefore, when nine truthful people testify that the defendant is innocent and only one untrustworthy person testifies that it is false, even though one person testified that it is false, the overwhelming majority of credible evidence strongly suggests that the person is guilty.

Therefore, the probability that the defendant is guilty is 0.0000000005 / 0.1930000005 = close to 0. Therefore, since nine people said innocence and one person said innocence, the probability that the defendant is innocent is not 90%, but close to almost 100%, which is much higher.

What about the opposite case? Now, let's assume that the nine witnesses often lie, so the probability of them telling the truth is only 50%, but one person has a 99.999999999% probability of telling the truth. In this case, let's consider a situation where all nine witnesses claim guilty and one truthful witness claims innocent.

Even though as many as nine people claim guilty and only one claims innocent, since the statements of the nine people are mostly unreliable, it may be thought that it is difficult to believe it as guilty.
Let's actually calculate and check.

• Probability that the defendant is actually guilty = Probability of testifying as above if actually guilty / (Probability of testifying as above if actually innocent + Probability of testifying as above if actually guilty)

Let's calculate each probability separately:

• Probability of testifying as above if actually innocent
  = Probability that all 9 people lied and 1 person told the truth
  = (1-0.5)^9 X 0.999999999^1 = 0.0019
• Probability that all 10 people testified as above if actually guilty
  = Probability that all 9 people told the truth and the 1 person thought to be truthful lied
  = 0.5^9 X (1-0.999999999)^1 = 0.000000000000001
• Probability that the defendant is actually guilty
  = 0.000000000000001 / (0.0019 + 0.000000000000001)
  = 0.0000000000005

The probability that the defendant is guilty is calculated as 0.00000000005%. No matter how much the nine liars give false testimony, if one person's truthful testimony has overwhelmingly high reliability, it can outweigh numerous false evidence.

This principle is called 'Bayes' theorem'. If we approach Bayes' theorem as a concept of statistical reliability for determining the truth of an event, the conclusions we can draw are as follows. In fact, it is very obvious content even if you think about it intuitively.

1. The more evidence there is to support a fact, the more likely it is to be true. (Having 10 or 100 pieces of evidence is more likely to be true than having only 1 piece of evidence.)
2. Highly reliable evidence can outweigh low reliability evidence. (Even if 100 liars claim it is true, one believable truthful testimony can reject the evidence of 100 liars.)
3. When conflicting evidence exists, the truth is determined by the relative number and reliability of the supporting evidence. By combining the two factors and calculating the mathematical probability value, it can be determined as truth or false. The mere existence of evidence supporting the opposite of the other party's claim cannot act as any basis.

6.6. Endless Forced Arguments

The reason I show you this obvious conclusion along with the mathematical concept of 'Bayes' theorem' and even complex calculation formulas is because too many people make the following forced arguments without knowing this logic:

You presented 10 pieces of evidence that the Bible is true and God exists, and I agree with that as well. However, some atheists I know presented 10 pieces of evidence supporting that the Bible is false and God does not exist. If your claim is really true, shouldn't there be no evidence that the Bible is false and God does not exist?

Truth and falsehood cannot coexist, but since there is evidence that the Bible is false as claimed by atheists, it is contradictory. Therefore, the claim that the Bible and God are true is a logical error.

This is clearly a forced argument. If this is the logic, it can be refuted in the same way.

Atheists presented 10 pieces of evidence that the Bible and God are false, but I know 10 pieces of evidence that the Bible and God are true. Falsehood and truth cannot coexist, so if the Bible and God are really false, shouldn't there be no evidence at all that they are true?

Truth and falsehood cannot coexist, but since there is evidence that God is true as claimed by theists, it is contradictory. Therefore, the claim that the Bible and God are false is wrong.

It's the same logic, but it's the same sophistry. What is the error in this logic? Truth and falsehood about the same object are completely mutually exclusive, so they cannot coexist. In other words, the existence of God cannot be true and false at the same time. Just as a defendant cannot be guilty and innocent at the same time. If God exists, He exists, and if He does not exist, He does not exist. If the defendant is guilty, he is guilty, and if he is innocent, he is innocent.

Therefore, in the example presented earlier, if there are 10 pieces of evidence supporting the existence of God and 10 pieces of evidence denying it, either all 10 pieces of evidence supporting it are false, or all 10 pieces of evidence denying it are false. It has to be one of the two.

In a situation where there are 10 pieces of evidence supporting it, the mere existence of evidence contradicting it cannot logically serve as a basis for denying the 10 pieces of supporting evidence. To logically argue that God does not exist, evidence must be provided that the 10 pieces of evidence claimed to support it are 'actually false'.

Shall we take another approach based on Bayes' theorem? If there are 10 pieces of evidence proving that the Bible is true and 10 pieces of evidence supporting that the Bible is false, how should the truth be determined?

The reliability of the evidence supporting the truth of the Bible and the reliability of the evidence supporting the falsehood of the Bible must be compared to each other to calculate which one is more likely to be true. Let's take an example.

One of the several pieces of evidence supporting the truth of the Bible is the evidence of 'the existence and resurrection of Jesus'. If Jesus was a 'fictional' character, the Bible would also become fiction.

Next, one of the grounds that people who claim the Bible is false rely on is the similarity between the story of Noah's Flood and the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. They claim that the Bible is a fake story plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh based on the similarity between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Flood and the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh was recorded earlier than the Bible.

To what extent can the evidence of Jesus' existence and the similarity with the Epic of Gilgamesh be estimated to prove the factuality or fictitiousness of the Bible with what degree of reliability? Unfortunately, since this part about historical facts is not an area that can be verified by 'mathematical' or 'scientific' experiments, we have to apply an assumed 'empirical probability'.

As will be covered in detail in the topic of the historicity of the Bible in this blog, the existence of Jesus is not only mentioned in the Bible but also in various ancient documents. Furthermore, there is a record of countless Christian martyrdoms under Roman persecution. The fact that BC and AD, which divide human history, are also based on the birth of Jesus is common sense among common sense.

Let's verify it based on obvious evidence without going into too much detail. If Jesus was not a real person, would it be possible for records of Jesus to exist in the Bible and numerous ancient documents? Even if we assume that numerous historians conspired collectively to create a fictional character named Jesus...

Would it be possible for people to collectively martyr themselves under Roman persecution by following a fictional character to the point of giving their lives, and to make the birth of a non-existent person the basis for the year that divides human history? Anyone who claims this is possible would be a lunatic.

Therefore, the historical basis of Jesus' existence can be said to be 'one piece of evidence' that supports the 'truth of the Bible' with very high reliability. Of course, please note that I am not concluding that all the contents of the Bible are true based on the single piece of evidence of Jesus' existence.

What about the case of the Epic of Gilgamesh? One of the grounds that people who claim the Bible is false rely on is the similarity in content between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah's Flood, and the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh was recorded earlier than the Bible. Based on these, they argue that the story of Noah's Flood is a fake story plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh, so it is fictional.

However, the problem is that the exact opposite interpretation is also quite possible. The fact that it was recorded earlier does not provide confirmation of plagiarism, and the similarity in content between the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh can also be interpreted as evidence that a global flood event actually occurred in ancient times from a different perspective.

This can be sufficiently explained from the perspective that they are different records of the same event that occurred in ancient times in geographically distant regions and temporally different generations.

From this perspective, while the evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh can be interpreted from the perspective of supporting the fictitiousness of the Bible, conversely, it can also be equally interpreted as evidence supporting the truth of the Bible. It can be said that it is a matter that depends on the perspective and viewpoint of the person making the claim.

Therefore, the evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh does not become strong evidence proving the fictitiousness of the Bible. This is because there is a possibility of interpreting it in a different way. In conclusion, it can be thought that the reliability of this evidence is about 50%.

There is clearly a possibility that the historical basis of Jesus' existence is false, and there is clearly a possibility that the Epic of Gilgamesh supports the fictitiousness of the Bible. However, while the possibility of the historical basis of Jesus' existence being false is extremely slim, the evidence of the fictitiousness of the Bible through the Epic of Gilgamesh is never strong enough to outweigh it.

From this perspective, when comparing evidence with 99.99999% reliability and 50% reliability, we can reject the evidence of the Epic of Gilgamesh from a rational, scientific, logical, and reasonable perspective.

Countless controversies about whether God really exists or not, and whether the Bible and God are true or false, are endlessly occurring due to numerous pieces of evidence. However, people are only engrossed in debating the truth of individual pieces of evidence, but have little interest in this kind of thinking that is the basis for the final determination of truth.

So, when the other party presents 100 pieces of evidence, they 'cover their ears and wait', and when one piece of evidence that can refute the other party's claim appears, they make the logical error of being able to refute the other party's 100 solid pieces of evidence at once with that one piece of evidence.

I also know well that there are countless pieces of evidence supporting the existence of God, the Bible and Christianity, but there are also countless pieces of evidence refuting them. Some of them have such high validity that they make me question whether God, the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity are really true.

Nevertheless, the reason I confidently prove to you that God really exists and all the contents of the Bible are true is as follows:

Among the logical, scientific, historical, empirical, and experiential evidence for the existence of God, the truth, historicity, and resurrection of Jesus in the Bible, there are numerous ones with 'overwhelmingly' high reliability. Furthermore, the overall reliability of all the evidence combined is overwhelmingly greater than the reliability of the logical, scientific, historical, empirical, and experiential evidence that most strongly denies the existence of God, the truth, historicity, and resurrection of Jesus in the Bible. Therefore, we can reject this.

Suppose you were in charge of the verdict on a murder case, and numerous false witnesses unrelated to the case and unrelated to the defendant's murder case were bribed to give false testimony to confuse the case.

However, if the defendant's murder scene is vividly captured on CCTV footage that cannot be manipulated, and specimens and fingerprints matching the defendant's DNA are confirmed at the scene, the confusing false evidence is completely outweighed by such overwhelmingly strong evidence.

Even if it is not known what error was in the false testimony during the verification process, this does not become a significant obstacle to reaching the correct conclusion. What matters to us is not to confirm the truth of each individual piece of evidence, but what conclusion is reached by combining all the evidence.

The evidence I claim to be so overwhelmingly strong for the 'existence of God' and 'truth of the Bible' is covered in detail in the following posts. So, I would like to ask you the following. I will do my best to explain why God really exists and why the Bible and Christianity are true to the best of my knowledge.

However, there may be claims or grounds that make you feel as if God and the Bible are fictional, even if I fail to convince you or even on some topics. Nevertheless, I ask that you never make the logical error of denying the overwhelmingly strong evidence simply because you cannot explain such grounds.

This is not because it is unfavorable to me, but because such argumentation itself carries logical errors and is sophistry. Humans cannot know the exact truth about all facts. The truth of all evidence cannot be ascertained either. There is also a possibility of error. However, the rational truth that Bayes' theorem, a mathematical truth, tells us is as follows:

Do not obscure the truth with ambiguous evidence that has the possibility of error and is subject to interpretation, but combine more clear, certain, and strong evidence and take the conclusion it ultimately reaches. That is the rational attitude and methodology for pursuing truth.

Confusing false evidence is only outweighed by strong true evidence. Such trivial doubts are not 'logical contradictions', but 'actually false, but only temporarily mistaken as true because we do not yet know why they are false'.

6.7. Inductive Evidence for the Existence of God

Now, moving on to the main topic, let's look at the inductive evidence that suggests the 'existence of God'. The inductive evidence suggesting the existence of God includes the 'fine-tuning of the universe' and 'human morality'.

First, let's look at the evidence of the 'fine-tuning of the universe'. The fine-tuning of the universe is the concept that the universe is maintained and exists by 'finely tuned precise regularity'. From the moment time began and the universe began, all matter in the universe has been governed by precisely tuned laws and values.

For example, if there were no gravity that pulls matter together, there would be no planets, stars, or any form of complex organism. Also, if there were no strong nuclear force, the force to hold protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus would disappear, so atoms themselves could not be formed, and chemical substances could not exist either.

If the electromagnetic force disappears, the link between chemical substances disappears and light disappears. In this way, if only one of the basic laws for the existence of living organisms in the universe is removed, living organisms cannot exist in the universe. As such, the existence of living organisms depends on numerous physical constants.

Strong evidence that it is 'finely tuned' in this way is gravity, which is distributed throughout the entire universe spanning 14 billion light-years, but if the setting of this gravity is moved by only 1 inch, the impact on living organisms is close to a disaster.

However, the problem is that even this element of gravity is only one of the 30 or so requirements that independently exist for the birth and maintenance of life. Furthermore, the cosmic constant, which is the rate at which the universe expands, is also strong evidence of fine-tuning.

If space expands too quickly, the volume of the universe increases too rapidly for life to form, and stars, planets, galaxies, etc. cannot exist. Physicists conclude that the cosmic constant is tuned to an accuracy of 1/10^53.

To put this accuracy into a metaphor, it is the level of accurately hitting a target with a diameter of 1/10^24 cm (0.000000000000000000000001 cm) when throwing a dart at the Earth after traveling hundreds of miles in the universe. That width is narrower than the area of a single atom.

The probability that just 2 out of the 30 or so requirements, gravity and the cosmic constant, are both appropriately tuned by random chance is only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Atheists set a hypothesis that, under the assumption that 'God does not exist', the regularities of the universe would have been formed by a random process, not by a supernatural, elaborate, intelligent being. They started the argument with the premise that the cause is unknown, but that cause is not 'God'. There is no problem with hypotheses.

However, when this hypothesis was applied to the actual universe situation, it was revealed that the possibility of the current universe and living organisms existing by 'random probability' is close to 0. In the inductive argumentation method I explained earlier, even in the strict natural science methodology, if the probability of error is less than 1%, it is accepted as a scientific fact, and if the probability of error exceeds even 1%, it is rejected.

However, the probability of error in the assumption that the universe is governed by a random process turned out to be more than 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. It is not the possibility of being true. The possibility of error is more than 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, not just 5% or 10%.

Atheists and naturalists hoped that the existence of life and the countless regularities and elaborate interactions that exist in the universe would act independently of each other, so that each law would not need to be elaborately tuned and interact. However, their hopes were completely negated by the 'scientific truth' that they worship like a religion.

However, they did not succumb to this and came up with a way to rationalize it, which is the multiverse theory. The universe we live in is just one of many universes, and each universe has different physical laws and invariants.

If there are infinite universes, there is a sufficient possibility that the universe we live in exists. However, there are two fatal flaws in the multiverse theory. The first flaw is that there is not a single piece of independent evidence that 'infinite universes exist'.

They just presented a 'hypothesis' in a patchwork manner, but the critical problem is that there is no empirical evidence for it. A hypothesis that cannot be verified and has no evidence is, after all, just a 'hypothesis'. The mere fact that it was 'presented' does not make it recognized as a 'fact'.

The second flaw is that even if the universe exists in such a way, there is one more problem left. What is the identity of the 'universe generator' that creates infinite forms and infinite combinations of regularities in that way? Who made it?

In the end, even if the multiverse theory is presented, it does not solve the fundamental problem of the origin of the universe at all. From this perspective, people who advocate atheistic views or the multiverse theory are not believing what they see, but only trying to see what they want to believe.

Some people also argue as follows: 'What you are arguing now is an argument based on 'necessity'.' For example, it is this kind of content.

We don't need to be surprised that we live in a finely tuned world. If a specific universe like the present one had not been created, we ourselves would not have existed at this point. In other words, the very fact that we exist at this point is not a matter of speaking about probabilistic uncertainty. Because we are already experiencing such a phenomenon despite such rarity

Isn't it like saying that even if the probability of winning the lottery is extremely low, if I have already won the lottery now, winning the extremely rare lottery can be realistically possible?

However, there is a clear problem with this logic. Shall we take an example? Let's say you were caught for a drug crime and were put in a position to be executed in front of 100 shooters. Let's say 100 shooters shot, but the bullets all missed and you survived without dying.

In this situation, would you think, 'It is quite possible for the target to be missed even if 100 shooters aim and shoot. The very fact that I am alive without being hit by a single bullet proves that such a thing can happen.'? Is this a rational thought?

Isn't it more rational to think that for some reason, all 100 shooters intentionally missed you? This kind of logical error lies in arbitrarily dismissing the possibility of an improbable event retroactively by the occurrence of the event itself when an improbable event occurs. This kind of approach makes the error of completely ignoring the basic principle of hypothesis testing that I explained earlier.

In summary:

1. If we assume that God does not exist, the fine-tuning of the universe would have been done by physical necessity or chance, and if we assume that God exists, the universe was designed by God's elaborate design.
2. Mathematical and physical evidence of the precise constants of the universe proves that the possibility of being created by chance is extremely low. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe suggests that the universe was not created by physical necessity or chance, but was done by elaborate design.
3. Therefore, God exists.

6.8. The Existence of God Evidenced by Morality

Another inductive evidence that suggests the existence of God is 'morality'. No one can deny that there is a universal morality in human society regardless of country and era.

Although there are slight differences in specific values, it can be seen as common in that universal great values, such as love, compassion, forgiveness, dedication, honesty, are considered 'good', and values such as murder, violence, jealousy, envy, etc. are considered 'evil'.

From an atheistic and materialistic perspective, the attributes of an intelligent or good or evil God are not recognized, and it is claimed that the values of this world are random. Therefore, the concept of absolute good or evil cannot exist, and the concept of both good and evil must be explained as a product of individual choice, taste, or environment. They define morality as 'the educational product of human society'.

These people sometimes argue that such universal morality or concepts of good and evil are entirely derived from social customs or education, but this is generally not accepted. This is because everyone actually experiences 'guilt'.

Even if murder is taught as a virtue, the undeniable existence of guilt and conscience felt when actually committing murder proves that 'universal good and evil' or 'morality' is not entirely a product of materialistic evolution or education.

Objective values truly exist, and if we deeply reflect on ourselves, we know well that it is not simply a product of evolution or education, but exists independently. Therefore, we can make the following argument:

1. If we assume that God does not exist, objective moral values cannot exist.
2. Objective moral values actually exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

6.9. Summary and Conclusion

So far, we have looked at the inductive methodology for confirming evidence of God and the two most basic examples (fine-tuning of the universe, morality). Considering the deductive evidence for confirming evidence of God covered in the previous post, we can reasonably infer the possibility of God's existence not only in the logical and philosophical realm but also through modern physical evidence and ethical evidence.

If you have confirmed this far, you will have realized that supporting the possibility of the existence of a being called 'God' is by no means a forced argument of uneducated, ignorant, unscientific, fanatical religious people.

Rather, on the contrary, if you think that atheism and materialism are intellectual, rational, scientific, and logical while vaguely thinking that you are smart, scientific, rational, and intellectual, you will have realized how ridiculous sophistry this is.

I think that through this post, even if you cannot be completely convinced of the existence of God, you will have realized how forced and absurd 'vague atheism' or 'materialism' is. If there has been a change in your thinking to the extent that you think 'maybe God might actually exist', more concrete and empirical evidence will be needed in the next step.

• Philosophically, scientifically, and logically, I thought that God might exist.
• Is that being called God something that can only be verified by vaguely grasping at clouds, mathematics, physics, and ethical thought?
• Isn't there more concrete experiential evidence that reveals its existence directly in our human life and that we can experience and feel?

You will think. Is there really no such evidence? Let's find out right away.