Do we have proof 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 make a few remarks, both on substance and on methodology. A line of reasoning may be logically correct yet lead to a false conclusion if its premises are poorly chosen or mistaken. Formal soundness is not enough to guarantee truth. The attitude of those who put themselves “in God’s place” in order to reason sometimes reveals a certain intellectual presumption: they confuse the internal coherence of their logic with the absoluteness of reality, forgetting that the mystery of God surpasses all human projection (see Olivier Bonnassies’ comment on this point).

For example, it is reductive to interpret the Old Testament as though every word came directly and literally from God, without human mediation. In Catholic understanding, Scripture is indeed inspired, but it passes through human authors—with their culture, limitations, and sensibilities. God guides His people, but He does so within history, through stages, through slowness, even through violence at times—not because He wills such violence, but because He accompanies humanity as it is, raising it gradually.

Christ Himself wrote nothing with His own hand, except a few words traced in the dust 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 actions, His death and resurrection that fully reveal God. Even the Gospels are not dictated from heaven: they are testimonies offered by human beings, enlightened by the Spirit, but not erased in their humanity (the writing is received within a tradition—this should be made explicit). Therefore, reading the Bible in the light of Christ requires discernment, an understanding of the development of Revelation, and a refusal to confine God within words written by men who themselves were on a journey.

A scientific theory includes several levels of abstraction: a mathematical formulation, an operational aspect (what works in practice), and an implicit or explicit worldview. One may verify that a theory “works,” but that does not mean that the worldview it suggests is true. A physical theory is more or less verified; 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 am commenting based on what I gathered from this video. The authors seem to use probabilities to show that the very precise fine-tuning of the constants of the universe makes the existence of a Creator God reasonable, even necessary. This is interesting and certainly an important point to consider. But one can also approach the reasoning from another angle: perhaps it is not only finely tuned initial conditions that explain everything, but the present action of a final cause that orients becoming. In other words, finality would not be merely something projected from the past, but something active in the present, through a motor principle acting immanently (to be clarified).

I believe that my philosophical approach is complementary, and I speak about it in more detail on my YouTube channel (links available in the description). I have worked on this theme in philosophy since the 1990s, and I am very interested in the scientific background of the authors as well as in the potential complementarity of our approaches.

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

I do not know the subject well enough, nor the full structure of their argument, to judge its value. (...). I used artificial intelligence to dig deeper into the issue, by progressively refining the questions, and this is what emerged:

The role of probabilities in science can be very different depending on the context.

In some situations—such as Bell’s inequalities—probabilities are used to test precise hypotheses. Two theories are put into competition (for example, local hidden variables vs. quantum mechanics), and the experimental results allow one to decide. Here, probabilities lead to a logical necessity: some 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 (for example, the fine-tuning of physical constants). The idea is that this improbability makes the hypothesis of a Creator God more credible than pure chance. But this is not a scientific test between two falsifiable theories—it is an inductive argument, 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 the physical constants are contingent—they could have been different. Their precise fine-tuning is a remarkable fact that one may seek to interpret, especially on philosophical or metaphysical grounds. But then, what are the possible interpretations? Are there clear and coherent alternatives that could be compared side by side? It is likely at this level that the debate can truly move forward.

“Proofs” of the existence of God:

In Thomas Aquinas, the reasoning proceeds from an observation of the sensible world toward the search for its first cause. His proof of God’s existence is metaphysical; it rests on the principle of causality, affirming that a chain of movements, causes, or contingencies cannot extend infinitely. Therefore, to account for the existence of beings, one must recognize a Necessary Being, the unmoved mover, first cause, and ultimate foundation of everything that exists. God is not reached through direct perception, but through a rigorous analysis of the dependencies woven through the world and of the impossibility for things to be their own origin.
In my own research, I do not proceed exactly as Aquinas does to establish the proof by motion; yet I remain within a similar trajectory, taking up his intuition while correcting what I consider to be certain limits of his approach in light of current knowle.

Comparative Table: “The Book’s Authors” vs “My Approach”

(created by ChatGPT without my intervention)

Terms used:
The Book’s Authors = Michel-Yves Bolloré & Olivier Bonnassies
My Approach = Philippe de Bellescize / Principle Motor of the Universe

Philippe de Bellescize