Do we have proof of the existence of God ?

Debate: Thomas Guénolé vs Olivier Bonnassies – Do We Have Proof of the Existence of God ?

(Click)

I found the debate interesting, but I would like to offer a few remarks, both on substance and on methodology. A line of reasoning can be logically correct yet reach a false conclusion if its premises are poorly chosen or simply wrong. Formal correctness is not enough to guarantee truth. The attitude of those who attempt to “take God’s place” in order to reason sometimes reveals a kind of intellectual presumption: they confuse the internal coherence of their logic with the absoluteness of reality, forgetting that the mystery of God exceeds any human projection (see Olivier Bonnassies’ remark on this point).

For example, it is reductive to interpret the Old Testament as if every word came directly and literally from God, without human mediation. In Catholic understanding, Scripture is indeed inspired, but it is expressed through human authors, with their culture, limits, and sensitivities. God guides His people, but He does so within history, through stages, delays, and sometimes violence — not because He wills these things, but because He accompanies humanity as it is, raising it step by step.

↑ Back to Summary

Interpreting Scripture and Revelation

Christ Himself wrote nothing with His own hand, except a few words traced in the sand before the woman caught in adultery. This silence of Christ the writer is meaningful: the Word of God is not first a text but a living person. The Word became flesh, not a book. It is His life, His gestures, His death, and His resurrection that fully reveal God. Even the Gospels were not dictated from heaven: they are the fruit of a testimony borne by human beings, enlightened by the Spirit, but not erased in their humanity (the writing is received within a tradition — to be made explicit). Reading the Bible in the light of Christ therefore requires discernment, an understanding of the development of Revelation, and the refusal to imprison God within the words of men who themselves were on a journey.

↑ Back to Summary

Levels of Scientific Theory & Worldview Distinctions

A scientific theory involves several levels of abstraction: a mathematical formulation, an operational aspect (what works in practice), and a more or less explicit worldview. One can verify that a theory “works,” but this does not mean that the worldview it suggests is true. A physical theory is more or less verified, while a worldview is more or less true. Confusing the two is to mistake a tool for an ontological truth.

I have not yet read the book God, Science, and the Evidence, but I base myself on what I understood from this video. The authors seem to use probability to show that the extremely precise fine-tuning of the constants of the universe renders the existence of a Creator God reasonable, even necessary. It is interesting, and certainly an important angle, but one can also take the reasoning in another direction: the explanation may not lie only in finely adjusted initial conditions, but perhaps in the present action of a final cause that orients becoming. In other words, finality would not merely be projected from the past but at work in the present through a driving principle acting immanently (to be specified).

My own philosophical approach is complementary, and I discuss it elsewhere. I have been working on this topic since the 1990s, and I am very interested in the scientific background of the authors and in the possible complementarity of our approaches.

↑ Back to Summary

Fine-Tuning and Probabilistic Arguments

To someone who criticized Olivier Bonnassies’ demonstration and then compared physical constants to the number π, I replied:

I do not know the subject or their argument well enough to judge its value. I used artificial intelligence to explore the question more deeply, by gradually refining the inquiry; here is what emerges: the role of probability in science can vary greatly depending on the context.

In some cases, such as Bell’s inequalities, probabilities are used to test precise hypotheses. Two theories are placed in competition (e.g., local hidden variables vs quantum mechanics), and experimental results allow us to decide. Here, probabilities lead to logical necessity: certain hypotheses are excluded because they do not match observations.

In other cases, such as in God, Science, and the Evidence, probabilities serve mainly to highlight the improbability of a phenomenon (e.g., fine-tuning). The idea is that this improbability makes the hypothesis of a Creator more credible than pure chance. But this is not a scientific test between two falsifiable theories. It is inductive reasoning oriented toward plausibility rather than demonstration. In one case, probabilities eliminate a theory. In the other, they suggest an explanation.

Comparing physical constants to the number π is not relevant: π follows necessarily from the laws of geometry, whereas physical constants are contingent — they could have been otherwise. Their precise tuning is a surprising fact that can be interpreted, particularly on philosophical or metaphysical grounds. But then, what are the alternative interpretations? Are there clear and coherent alternatives? It is likely at this level that the debate can progress.

↑ Back to Summary

Response to the π Comparison

Comparing physical constants to the number π is not relevant: π follows necessarily from the laws of geometry, whereas physical constants are contingent — they could have been otherwise. Their precise tuning is a surprising fact that can be interpreted, particularly on philosophical or metaphysical grounds. But then, what are the alternative interpretations? Are there clear and coherent alternatives? It is likely at this level that the debate can progress.

↑ Back to Summary

Proofs of the Existence of God (Aquinas)

In Thomas Aquinas, reasoning proceeds from observation of the sensible world toward the search for its first cause. His proof of the existence of God is metaphysical; it rests on the principle of causality, affirming that a chain of motions, causes, or contingencies cannot regress infinitely. To account for the existence of beings, one must therefore recognize a necessary Being, unmoved mover, first cause, and ultimate foundation of all that exists.

In my own research, I do not proceed exactly like Aquinas to establish the proof from motion; however, I remain within a trajectory that takes up his intuition, while correcting what I consider to be certain limits of his approach in light of current knowledge.

↑ Back to Summary

Comparative Table: “The Authors of the Book” vs “My Approach”

(Prepared by ChatGPT without my intervention)

↑ Back to Summary

Kind regards,
Philippe de Bellescize