Page Nav


Classic Header




The place for God

The gap between the people, those who are accepting, and those who are denying God's existence newer was bigger. This gap even growi...

The gap between the people, those who are accepting, and those who are denying God's existence newer was bigger. This gap even growing. Those who believe in God reject many results of the science, even the results which achievements they are using every day. Many scientists think a similar way: deny God's existence, because of more and more attainment of the science. They believe that there is less and less space for God to exist. They may think: ultimately, we will reach the level of the knowledge when no one believes, or simply irrational to believe that God exists.

The situation is clear: the science proved and denied many things what the human thought about God before. This process continuing today and will carry on in the future. Still religion alive and flourish. Many atheists think religion exists just because ignorance and the growing knowledge is the best proof to rule out God as an existing being. Contrary, religious people ridicule science, which knowledge newer can give ultimate answers, and their personal experience is the conviction for God's existence.

As the knowledge of the science grows, no question, the places where God's direct influence could exist are shrinking. Even the most biased believer must accept that. Will believes in God die or is there a place for God what science cannot and will not denies, not even in the future? Will God stays with us forever, or belief in God is a temporary situation? Not based on opinion or beliefs, but based on objectivity, is there a place for God?

Of course, if God exists, he could show himself to us anytime, if he wants. He could prove himself without any doubt, what not even science could deny. However, he did not relieve himself in this way, so doubt did not and may never cease. The actual question is: is there a place or places for God, where the science will not be able to deny God's existence ever? If this place exists, it still would not be a proof of God's existence. It would be just a statement, there is a place where science cannot provide a scientific answer, and in this way, the doubts and the beliefs remain with us forever.

Science leaves us less and less place, but there are even two places, that the science on any level could not prove objectively, without any doubt that God does not exist. The two places correspond to each other. One place is the origin, and the other is the level of knowledge.

What is its origin? Science gives statements. Declare starting conditions, provide laws of the system, and conclude new conditions of the system. The origin is about the starting conditions of the system. Every state of a system is a consequence of a prior state. We may do not need God's existence to conclude one state from another. However, this line of the previous states can be long, even infinitely long. According to religions, God created the universe. Can science deny that? What does today's cosmology say about this? We are talking about the multiverse - which is hard to prove - just to explain why our universe favors life. However, even if the multiverse is real, would it explain the origin? Would the science reach the end of the line of the previous states?

What if randomness acts instead of a definite cause just to rule out God's intelligent design? Today's science on origin uses the method of random fluctuations to explain consequences. Is the randomness method could rule out God from the origin? No, because the state before the randomness still requires causes. What about if science finds a circular structure of the states, so the line of the states create itself. It still requires origin.

We simply cannot escape from the problem of the origin. It gives a never-ending task for the science, and however it will not prove God's existence, it always leaves room for God.

The origin problem is dealing with the ultimate God, who created the universe. The level of knowledge is dealing with a different kind of God, dealing with a relative God; however, it is still related to the origin problem.

The level of our knowledge is a never-ending story. As we may never reach the state of the origin, still our understanding is continuously growing. Moreover, who is ahead of this level of knowledge, could actually act as a God. We surely could act as a God to our ancestors. Should not even go back too far for that. As stated: adequate knowledge can act as a God to those who are having less knowledge. If we are not alone in the universe, those who are ahead of knowledge can act as a God for us. They can show godly properties even if they are not the ultimate God. Because, as we saw, the level of the knowledge practically inexhaustible, it can give room for this type of God. Can the science deny the existence of this type of God? No. Science even assures this type of God because the level of knowledge is inexhaustible. An argument could say: this type of God is not a real God! Yes, it is true. However, it does not matter until it can act like a God to those who have less knowledge.

Are science and religion antagonistic views of the world? No. Science is not against God. It cannot be. It should understand that by scientists and by religious people as well. Actually, science is for God, to find - if possible - his place in the universe. Those who are religious should not be against science. Science is a helping tool to reach God - if he exists.

Yes, sometimes science modifies how religion should see God. Is it a contradiction because God already revealed himself in different religions? Even if he revealed himself, religions mostly - if not all - made by humans. Should we afraid to adjust our religious views to new knowledge? No. Science helps us to find the real God.

Why religion and science still against each other? Because both want to be the ultimate answer. However, the final answer probably not exists. Or it is at the end of a very or infinitely long journey.

No comments