The Argument from Induction

Belief in God is not only rational, but scientific. My argument is based on the following reasoning. I call it the Argument from Induction:

P1: Scientific experiments produce data models.
P2: Hypothesis formed from a data model using logical induction are deemed scientifically justified.
P3: The existence of God can be hypothesized from the data model.
Thus, belief in God is scientifically justified

A. Support for P1:Scientific experiments produce data models
The two approaches to forming scientific theories and producing a data model are:

1. Propose a hypothesis and attempt to refute it using experimentation
2. Collect data through experimentation and form the hypothesis

The two approaches are often used interchangeably, but there's a distinct difference between them. Forming an initial hypothesis, before experimentation, can lead to an unconscious bias that seeks to verify the hypothesis and reject the evidence that falsifies it. For example, before Galileo, scientists might have reasoned thusly:

Hypothesis: The Earth is the center of the Universe.
P1: The sun consistently rises in the east, travels across the sky and disappears in the west.
P2: The moon also travels in the same manner as the sun.
P3: The stars and constellations in the universe change their position as they move around the earth.
Therefore, since all heavenly bodies are observed to move across the earth's sky, the earth is the center of the universe.

Galileo falsified the geocentric (earth centered) hypothesis with the Copernican heliocentric (sun centered) hypothesis using data obtained from his astronomical observations. He used the second scientific approach where [a] an initial question is asked, such as, "Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?", [b] experiments are performed to produce a data model from which [c] the hypothesis is formed. I believe this methodology to be more accurate because the hypothesis can change as the data model changes.

In other words, as more knowledge is discovered, the hypothesis becomes more refined.

B. Support for P2:Hypothesis formed from a data model using logical induction are deemed scientifically justified.
Galileo's reliance on experimental data to refute the hypothesis of the earth's centrality lead Frances Bacon to argue in favor of an inductive approach where a hypotheses is formed after a data model has been constructed from repeated and verifiable experiments.

Moreover, the inductive approach predicts the same result will be repeated under similar circumstances, forming the basis for the modern mainstream belief that nature operates uniformly across the Universe.

For example, regarding the weak nuclear force modern scientists might reason thusly:

Datum 1: All matter is composed of atoms.
Datum 2: An Atom contains protons and electrons that form the atom's electrical charge.
Datum 3: Occasionally, protons change into neutrons and neutrons change into protons.
Datum 4: When the change occurs, a particle is emitted that maintains the atoms electric charge.
Datum 5: The change occurs too slowly for the Strong Force and the other known forces to account for it.
Induction: A very weak force must be responsible for the change.
Induction: Since it occurs within atoms, the weak force is fundamental to the laws of nature and is present in all atoms in the Universe.

For the most part, the science of Quantum Physics has been and continues to be inferred using the inductive approach.

However, there are problems with the inductive approach, the chief of which is the one introduced by philosopher David Hume who argued that, "...no man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after a like impulse. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning."

Hume can be tough to digest for modern readers, but essentially, Hume argues logical induction is circular and can't be proven reliable. In more practical terms it means that one can't predict all sheep are white because only white sheep have been observed.

Thus, while the existence of the weak force may be a valid inference, to claim it exists uniformly and consistently throughout the universe is not.

Nevertheless, based on work by Mathematician Henri Poincaré, while experimental evidence may not guarantee certainty and uniformity, it increases the probability for them. Hence, Poincaré introduced the modern bias that experimentation, over time, produces a data model that strengthens or weakens the hypothesis. Thus, hypothesis that are formed from the data model using logical induction are deemed scientifically justified

Scientific fact, in reality, is not objective fact - it is an interpretation of the data model that its promoters believe has been strengthened by experimentation.

C. Support for P3:The existence of God can be hypothesized from the data model.
The fine tuning of the Universe, for example, is said to have occurred by random chance. There is an alternative interpretation that is just as rational. I argue the existence of God is not only rational, but also scientific since the same empirical data model is used to infer his existence.

For instance, consider the aforementioned weak force. If it were slightly stronger, lighter elements with smaller atomic numbers would fuse into heavier elements (with larger atomic numbers) more quickly because their neutrons would be transformed into protons (Datum 4 above). This would prevent simple, life sustaining molecules, like water, from forming because all the hydrogen would be turned into helium.

If the weak force were slightly weaker, there would be an abundance of lighter elements in the Universe (hydrogen and helium), but, little, if any, of the life forming heavier elements - like oxygen, nitrogen and carbon.

Therefore, the weak force must be tuned just right so life as we know it can form. The fact that the weak force is finely tuned is not controversial What is controversial is the reasons for its tuning. Is it from chance or from an intelligence?

Furthermore when one considers the extremely fine tuning of the other fundamental constants, it seems to me far more rational to infer the existence of an intelligent Mind who established these parameters than inferring random chance.

The God Induction
To factually claim the Universe resulted from chance is not justifiable from the scientific data alone. One must impose one's beliefs to suggest that induction. Given alternative inductions are possible from the data, as I've demonstrated, it is logical to suggest the Universe resulted from an intelligent source.

Thus, belief in God is scientifically justified.

Additional Reference
In addition to links embedded in the text, the following paper provides an excellent examination of the origins of the hypothesis, the philosophical reasoning and inductive logic that undergirds it and the implications for experimental design.
A Brief History of the Hypothesis