Image by Express Monorail via FlickrThere exists a brand of scientists that makes me grin. Luckily not all scientist are like this. But there are so-called scholars who believe they can prove that God does not exist, that God is only an invention of superstitious, naive followers of simplistic religions.
They can now explain almost everything of how the cosmos was created, they say. There is no room for God there anymore. So let's follow their arguments. They can explain even smallest details of processes that happened in and shortly after the Big Bang. Imagine, they can even explain what happened in the first seconds after the Big Bang. They can write entire books about how the cosmos was made, about 10 or 11 dimensions and about parallel universes and black holes and super novas and about still much more.
SO WHAT?
Can they explain what preceded the Big Bang? They make up a hypothesis of a singularity. There are others who make up a hypothesis of a duality. I am not stating here my favor for any of these. What i am stating is that this all doesn't say the least about God.
When God exists, we will never be able to explain God. We will never be able to explain how God was created.
The logic of such scientists is really faulty. If God exists, then God existed before or above or beyond the Big Bang. It really doesn't matter then how much you can explain after the Big Bang. It really makes no difference if you could write one page of scientific explanations about the universe or you could write a billion books about it. One page doesn't disprove God and a billion books also don't disprove God. Because God is God and God created the universe, then there is something beyond the creation of the universe that cannot be explained anymore.
When we really want to be logical, we should also account for the possibility that God doesn't exist. So suppose God doesn't exist? Then scientists really have a problem. Whatever they will be able to explain in the world of causal events, they still will not be able to prove that God doesn't exist. There could always still be something preceding the Big Bang and this something could be God. Can any scientist prove that God doesn't exist? I thought that the scientific method was based on the premise that what cannot be falsified must assumed to be true. So when scientists cannot prove that God doesn't exist, they must assume that God could exist.
When we are really logical we must assume that God could exist, because no scientist can prove the opposite. But it appears that many scientists get very unscientific as soon as their subject is God. Then they rattle that because they know so much about the universe, it is ridiculous that people believe in God.
But who is really acting from superstition here? Such scientists are, because they aborted their own scientific method. Can they prove that God did not create time, space and therefore also created the Big Bang? They can not and they will never be able to do that.
The whole argument is besides the point, really. When God would not exist, who cares anyway. When God exists, no scientist could prove or disprove God's existence.
God is beyond the simple logic of scientists. You know who created the scientists? God did. Can the scientist prove that they were not created by God? No, because their own logic was created by God and therefore logically must be smaller than God, and therefore their logic cannot ascend above God.
The real problem of such scientists is that they have a problem in their own heart. Each human being will find proof in the heart about God's existence. When your lover loves you and someone comes and wants to prove that you are not loved, what would you do? Would you go into a logical argument or would you feel to pinch the skeptic's nose? This is how it is when we know God because we feel God's love. This is not just a matter of the faith of a simple-minded person. It is the faith of a person rich in heart who knows the love of God.
Posts
