Dark matter is merely a placeholder, the same as X or Y in algebra, for something we don't understand. Just because we don't understand it does not mean we never will, and it does not mean that "the universe is trying to show an existence of a god." Such thinking was common a long time ago used by religions to show the existence of a god. We didn't understand quantum mechanics or know about quarks 100 years ago, does this mean in 100 years if we do fully understand dark matter can we say it doesn't prove god again? The ancient Greeks did not understand the sun rising or setting, and attributed it to Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. With that being said, we still know a lot about dark mater, such as it is about 23% of the universe (note that we can get a pretty good measure of dark matter by measuring the effects of gravity on things we can see) and that it is web-like, interwoven with regular, visible matter. We don't understand many things, this does not mean there is proof of a god, and we still understand some things surrounding dark matter. Now for a more personal side, as opposed to scientific, your "theory" is backed up only by faith that there is an all powerful creator, not by fact or logic. Also, if the universe/ god wanted to show the existence of god, wouldn't you think there would be an easier approach than that?
While I do understand where you're coming from, I've always thought that belief in something that yes, sounds ridiculous, is essential for a healthy psyche. Having faith in something you know barely anything about is very humbling and I believe that leads to a happier life.
And that's where we differ, because I'd say to not acknowledge the existence of God is to lie to oneself. Haha, well there you have it! That's all I was really going for.
For me, if I am uncertain of something, I assume the null hypothesis, unless indicated otherwise. If you had a button in front of you, and knew that there was a possibility that if you pressed the button, a car would fall onto you, would you press it? Why is God any different?
I don't think those two scenarios can be compared to one another. When done correctly, believing in God yields no negative consequences.
Well, okay, so I'm not saying believing in God has a negative consequence, but I am saying that...a better metaphor is Russell's teapot. Essentially, if you claim that God exists, then by the same logic you have no problem believing me if I tell you that a teapot is floating between Mars and Earth.
Haha, that's a very funny metaphor. But to be honest, I don't have a problem admitting that that's possible. However, I do feel as if my belief in God is based in evidence. That evidence being the impact on people's life when you can tell they're a godly person, or even all the nature around us. I accredit that to God's doing, and so that's my proof. Whether you believe it's credible proof is up to you. For me however, it's convincing.