In fact, science and religion appear to be in conflict. Scientists believe in an evolutionary process--that the universe came to its present form by a series of random events. Theologians believe in creation--that a supreme being created the universe in a purposeful way.
Question: Is it possible to reconcile scientific and religious beliefs? Can it be scientifically proven that God or some sort of higher power exists?
Yes.
First, let's start with what we know: We know that we exist. We are irrefutable evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe. So, is it really a stretch to proffer that there might be intelligent life capable of creating a universe with form, structure and physical laws that always seem to remain constant? The fact that we live in a universe with reliable physical laws is a bit ironic, don't you think? Considering that many scientists believe the universe evolved by random processes.
The process of proving the existence of god(s) is difficult due to the apparent lack of direct evidence. God Almighty, for example, has never walked up to me and shook my hand, "Hey, how ya doin'. I'm God." However, when scientists first discovered atoms, there was no direct evidence of them--they could not be directly observed at the time; yet their existence could be proven indirectly. They left signs --footprints in the sand, so to speak, of their existence.
Surely, though, God is bigger than an atom; so why can't God be directly observed? Well, if our universe is really an atom that exists on the head of a pin created by a giant who lives in a much larger universe, we would not be able to directly observe him. Our most powerful telescopes would only show us stars and galaxies--bits and pieces of the giant, but not the big picture.
Therefore, we are forced to prove the giant's existence by means of indirect evidence.
To prove the existence of a higher power, let's begin by assuming there is no higher power. What kind of universe would we have? A random one, of course. Everything would happen without a purpose. Nothing could be predicted; nothing could be relied on. Mathematics and science would have no value because nothing could be reliably measured or have regularity.
Why should the speed of light or the speed of anything remain constant? Why should gravity always keep us pinned to the earth's surface? In a random universe, nothing has to work the way it's supposed to. The universe would be nothing but a craps game.
Scientists would argue that on the subatomic level, the universe is indeed a craps game--at that level things do appear to happen purely by chance. Yet, oddly enough, our universe has reliable predictable laws. Does that make sense?
Only if the odds are stacked so that certain outcomes happen more often than others--thus giving the universe the appearance of having form and structure that can be measured and predicted.
Question: Who or what is stacking the odds? If not some kind of intelligent force or being, then what?
If you have ever played the game of craps, then you know that "seven" does not come up every time you roll the dice. If the dice came up "seven" every time, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to conclude that someone or something loaded those dice.
Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for us to conclude that someone or something is stacking the odds of the universe so that "what goes up must come down' and so that light will always travel at a constant speed, etc. The lack of this intelligent, purposeful force would give us an "Alice In Wonderland," unpredictable universe where the laws of science and math would have no value.
We would not exist. How could we? We are not random. We have intelligence and a sense of purpose. We are the indirect evidence we are looking for. Our intelligence mirrors and reflects the intelligence of the higher power.
WP
Published by GMJ
Top selling author at amazon.com. View profile
- In Reference to Soren Kierkegaard - A Look at a Man Torn Between Christianity and...Arguably one of the most influential men in Existentialism's beginnings, Soren Kierkegaard mastered the art of combining two very unorthodox beliefs. Christianity, and a philosophy that is considered one of the most d...
The World's Largest Particle Accelerator Opening at CERN in 2008--and th..."God's Particle" may be more akin to "Devil's Particle" after warnings that creating the conditions to witness it could result in not only localized strange phenomena occurring-...- Annotated Bibliography: The Impact of Nonverbal Communication on Bilingual EducationWhile the majority of schools, including CA, opt for an English immersion program, more schools across the country are realizing the value of bilingualism with programs designed to promote the acquisition of English...
- Opinion Piece About the Place of Race in Modern MedicineRace is dead--so why do some say "long live race"? Is a race based medicine likely to save more (especially minority) lives? At what social costs? I address these and other questions in a end of term paper written...
- Why the Theory of Evolution is as Much a Philosophical Theory as a Scientific OneThe Theory of Evolution begins much earlier than Charles Darwin. It actually all started with a Roman philosopher named Lucretius 50 years before the birth of Jesus. Most of the philosophers of the Enlightenment had a...
- More Proof of the Existence of a Higher Power
- God: Prove it or Disprove it Man Still Proves Nothing
- Is the Sun Finally Rising on Solar Power?
- Nuclear Power in America
- A Review of Japan's Higher Education System: Looking at McVeigh's Book Japanese Hi...
- The Criticisms of Western Society and Culture Found in Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk
- A Timeless Document: America's Declaration of Independence




25 Comments
Post a CommentPretty sharp there, Milton. It is hard for a sandcastle to exist without a sandcastle maker. I see evidence of a supreme maker all around me.
Sorry about that Willam. I used all my space I'll submit this in article form soon.Be on the lookout
Excellent article William. May I share what I believe and can prove. You cannot create order without a plan, and you can have a plan without a planner. It is impossible to have a law-driven universe with a lawgiver. Because Uranium is radioactive matter that ultimately breaks down to lead, we can theorize that matter is not eternal. For however long eternity might be, all uranium would have long since become lead. The first law of biogenesis declares that life cannot develop spontaneousy from dead matter. So the presence of life proves, however indirectly, the existence of a Pre-existent life. In all development, I don't think anyone, anything, or any process can develop something greater than itself. Therefore, unless we conclude that evolution is greater than the human mind that gave birth to the theory, then there's no way the human mind could have evolved. Given the laws of probability, there's no way that humans writing hundreds even thousands of years in advance could write proph
Hmmm? What happened to dime? I feel a cold draft.
I comment too, but Uh oh.. I could be... a ghost, or maybe youre just imagining this comment.... could be... hello.. anybody out there? Can you see my comment. ;)
Thanks David. Hehehehe!
Theologists, schmeologists. I am of an even higher power. I am a "commentologist." I comment on your very brilliant reviews. "I comment, therefore I exist."
A peanut shell? Surely I'm more than a peanut shell and Fabreezio needs more than a peanut shell to cover his twig. Barbara, that Doc is a crack up the maintenance man when he stoops, for sure. Hehehe!
Actually, William, for Fabricio a peanut shell would suffice!!
That Doc, she always makes me laugh...interesting article..thanks