How can religion fit into a scientific life?

Question

How can religion fit into a scientific life?

Answer 1

God reveals, man observes.



According to the bible, God existed before he created everything that you or I can observe. We observe the observable. We can not observe anything that can not observed.



Science (to know) is theories that explain facts where facts are observation made by men [note plural] independent of location.



How did we know God existed before? From revelation. Simply put, the God through his prophets told us.



Is there a scientific theory about God? No. There are no facts about God.



Is there a biblical proof that God exist in the bible. No. It is assumed by the believer.



By now, you can see there are two belief systems: Revelation and Science. And you can not mixed the two system. Proof in revelation is meaningless as God in science is also meaningless.



What you believe is yours. If you believe that God spoke to man through prophets (messengers) as documented in the Christian bible, then you are a Christian. But you must remember that the bible is a religious book for the believer, not a conversion manual or a scientific text.



Science (as discuss in the history of science) is about theories that explain facts. Theories over time become laws when they are unlikely to change. And when new facts come, the theory may be modified or abandon.



For example: Evolution and Creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the facts observed by Darwin. Creationism is not a science but a belief.



As a Christian, you are limited to what God has explicitly told you. For example, the age of the earth is . The actual text says God created the heavens and the earth. [Call it big bang if you like]. Then something happened, actually the Earth becomes chaos... There is nothing in Darwin facts that would interfere with this belief.



Creationism central theme is that there is some scientific method to yield to a creator. Really? Where are the creator (God the creator) scientific facts? There weren't there for God, and they are definitely not there for a creator. [Same argument as above.]



Bottom line: We live in a world where God reveals and man observes. The worlds are mutually exclusive, that is, you can not use methods from one belief system in the other. For example, with revelation you believe it or you won’t. In science, you have explained the facts or you haven’t. When God reveals there is no error, when science investigates, errors are part of the process.



Now back to your question: How does a scientist return to his roots and follow his childhood life style? Answer: He doesn’t. You are what you believe and what you have experienced. It takes great discipline to become a scientist, is this the time to revisit your roots. You know where the book is.

Answer 2

look at all the questions science answers. Since the dawn of time we have always had questions.... ie gravity. just because a individuals come up with answers doesnt make the question any less intriguing.

Quantum Physics offers an intresting look at spirituality & science. Especially the movie "What the Bleep do we know".

There is also a book called, the universe in one atom, the convergence of science and spirituality written by the Dali Lama that does a good job at uniting the two. Especially from his perspective (Tibet was isolated during the technological & scientific BOOM at its own request) so its rather intresting



Also science can only go so far, im facinated by Earth Sciences, plate techtonics and so on yet just as amazed by spirituality.



If you would like to have an intimate relationship with God then start, perhaps you never stopped

Answer 3

Okay, you refer to your scientific philosophies. The term itself, I think, is an oxymoron, at least from what seems to me to be your understanding of science. A philosophy is a way of thinking that cannot be empirically proven. Science is simply the sum of knowledge. Philosophy is speculation. Religion is either science or philosophy, depending on your point of view.

Whenever I am exposed to scientific facts, whether in a botanical garden, or in an observatory, etc... I am amazed at God's creation. Many of the world's great scientists are Christian. (I'm not saing that is an evidence for Christianity, by the way. I'm just saying it obviously doesn't cause them any contradiction).

One thing about Christianity that appeals to the scientific mind: God invites questioning, investigation, etc. The "Seek and you will find" principle. Jesus' first argument in John chapter 1 was: "Come and see". The same argument Philip used with Nathanael. That sounds fairly open and scientific to me.

Notice, I am speaking for Christianity. I am not saying other religions are either open to science or not.

So while you cannot prove Christianity with science either can you disprove it.

You can examine the Bible scientifically from the historic perspective, from the point of view of textual criticism, form the prophetic view...

You can experience Jesus Christ in your life. That wil lsatisfy you, but you will not, in turn, be able to hand proof on a polatter to someone else. All you will be able to do is say "Come and see" - which will be frustrating if people don't want to "come and see" , but every once in a while someone does check it out - and finds answers.

Answer 4

I am a Christan and I worship Krishna. Because the Bhagavad Gita and The Srimad Bhagavatam By Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada who is a saint and spiritual master. Go to krishnaculture. for details. They very scientifically prove the existence of God also known as Krishna, Vishnu etc. And say that Christ is the Son and messenger of God. Also for the original teachings of Christ go to gospelofthenazirenes. The Gospel of the Nazirenes is the original New Testament which was found where the original Christian Essenes kept it hiding. They had to go into hiding because the government and others where killing Essenes. (Because they accepted the pure teachings of Christ) and The New Testament was kept in a Buddhist monetary until it was found and translated into English. It is now available with historical documentation by Alan Wauters and Rick Van Wyhe. If you are a sincere Christian (which I think you are by your question) you will seek this out.

Answer 5

It sounds like you are struggling with the same things my husband and I have been discussing for the past few years.



I would like to recommend a book: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He is a scientist and discusses the relationship between science and god, common misconceptions and brings up exactly what you are talking about. My husband and I (we are both engineers) read it. He came away from the book feeling more comfortable being atheist.



For me, I got something else out of the book. For several years, I have resented the church making me feel bad for asking questions. The book points out some of the weak spots of religion and made me realize that I want to define my spirituality through critical thinking, study of new philosophies and focusing on making important contributions to my community. The book gave me more freedom to realize that those things exist outside of a church.



I am not trying to convince you to become an atheist (that is not where it lead me), so please don't misinterpret this post. I thought the scientist in you would appreciate his unique prospective and help you develop your own sense of religion and where you want to fit it into your life.

Answer 6

If you can't accept the explanation offered by the bible for what the scientific community might call unexplained, then you need to question your definition of 'Christian.' If you are willing to actively reject parts of God's word in favour of science or indifference where the bible offers an explanation, something's not right.



I'm a physics major, and a Christian. I reject parts of physics because I believe God. I do not reject parts of God because I believe physics. That's not how christianity works.



I can't remember where this verse comes from, but it pretty much sums up the answer: "Just as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts above your thoughts, and my ways above your ways."



Basically, us humans will never be able to completely comprehend everything that God is/does. That's why it's called a faith.

Answer 7

Here are some web sites that deal with the issue.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Supports the young earth theory.



http://www.answersincreation.org/

Supports the old earth theory.



As an engineer, I've found good science on both sides of the issue but nothing conclusive. It's still fun to study. As a christian, I don't care. God did it some how and that's all that matters.



Try reading some of Lee Stobel's books.

Answer 8

God is provable. The Bible records many instances of ppl interacting with Him, and even secular archaeologists have said it's very accurate. So, if it's accurate in earthly matters, we can probably rely on it in heavenly matters. Also, Jesus' resurrection has never been refuted. I've seen ppl try, but they all failed. This defies popular scientific reasoning, and gives credence to Jesus' claim as God. Therefore, God exists, and Christianity is true. Thus, by default, the Bible is trustworthy.



Remember, the Bible is God's Word, it is never wrong. Never take man's interpretation over God's. Man has been denying Him and looking for ways to explain His work away ever since sin. Why would you believe the words of fallen men over a perfect God?

Answer 9

I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion it can't. Without engaging in a very forced act of 'wishful thinking', I don't know how you can reconcile the two. Don't worry, you're not alone; I happen to know more than one scientist who claims they believe in the christian God. To me, it's a complete logical disconnect.



I wonder, why do you want to be a christian? Is it for a feeling of belonging? If you wish to be a part of the christian community then just be a part of it. You can participate in events and functions and still not delude yourself that there is a magical sky daddy controlling everything. You know better. You can take aspects of scripture and apply them to your relations with other people if you wish, without ascribing any supernatural significance to any of it. Personally, I don't think the bible is a very good document from which to derive morals, but there is at the very least some wisdom in the NT.



My most serious plea though; Do not engage in the mental gymnastics of defending the bible in its capacity as a historical document. Also do not try and contort what you know to be scientifically true into scripture. It can't be done. You know it can't be done if you're educated as you say. If you try to eviscerate the body of scientific knowledge, to prove to yourself and others that the bible supercedes science in areas of geology, evolutionary biology, and history you're being intellectually dishonest, and doing a disservice to your education and yourself.

Answer 10

Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Einstein even read our revered scripture "Bhagavad Gita". Faith and Science are like two sides of the same coin. Science can only measure the material world of our 5 senses. I have a book called "10th World Saiva Conference" that portrays numerous scientific aspects of our particular religion. I have also read about numerous incredible and fantastic Hindu miracles which cannot be adequately explained by modern science and truly prove the existance of a God.

Answer 11

Religion is a faith-based philosophy with added rituals. Philosophies may or may not be speculative, but humans cannot live without one kind of philosophy or another. A philosophy is a set of principles by which human beings decide to live. Most ordinary people are unaware that they do have and are living by the precepts of a philosophy they have accepted. One can think that he may get through life without a philosophy, but that is simply impossible. As long as a person has to make a decision, he must follow some principles that guide him/her in that process. Philosophy has that purpose.



I see a clock and ask myself, "Either the clock assembled itself by virtue of a tornado that put all its parts together, or someone made it." My first logical response is that someone made it. From this I jump to the conclusion that everything in the universe is just like the clock, so there must be a creator. The principle I have come to accept with this reasoning is that everything has been created by some intelligent creator with a purpose in mind. Based on that principle, I make decisions in my life that tend not to contradict what I have accepted, and I try to live without violating that principle.



Another philosophical principle may be derived from this line of thinking: I see a clock and know that it was the result of human thinking. Before someone was able to create the clock I see in front of me, there have been thousands of attempts at measuring the passage of time. At first people simply drove a stick in the ground and watched its shadow move in a circular fashion as the sun moved across the sky. Writing, numbers, degrees had to be discovered for measuring the amplitude of an angle, later, much later, the action of a spring and its possible applications had to be observed and discovered, the movement of a pendulum and the effects of many other scientific experiments had to be recorded and the knowledge had to be passed on from generation to generation until the final step in a long chain of human discoveries and inventions led to the man who could assemble the clock I now have in front of me. So, that clock did not come just out of the head of one person, it took thousands of lives and brains that cooperated over time to make the final product possible. That is called evolution, even for a clock! This kind of thinking brings one to follow the philosophical principle that states that nothing that is the product of intelligence assembles itself in an instant, or by revelation. All man-made things have been developed over time. On the other hand, things that man did not make, are part of inanimate matter that has the observable property of changing, but it never self-destruct. Matter does not have to have a beginning, or an end, because matter is indestructible. We know, for example, that what was once hot magma today is a continent, a desert, a mountain, and that in magma, as it cooled and changed chemical composition, all the elements necessary for life were already in it. Once primitive life was chemically formed, more changes took place and the chain of events, over time, brought us to exist as we are today. A person who follows this type of philosophy will reach different conclusions and make different decisions about one’s life and how to live it.



One could put together poetry and science and view mystical approaches merely as poetical ways of looking at life. In this way, it is possible to combine the factual scientific approach with the religious (read poetical or mysterious). This is because the poetical serves the enjoyment of the sentiments, while the scientific responds to the need for knowledge. Only in this sense Einstein conceived that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Answer 12

Science and religion are complementary opposites, really. You just have to distinguish that religion answers "why", and science, "how".



Science is based on proof and evidence, but religion by nature is based on faith and faith alone. When you stop trying to scientifically prove religion, then they'll both start making sense.



Am I making sense? Really, for me, religion is what makes me go "Wow!" when I learn about a new amazing scientific discovery or see the beautiful natural world around me. Science reinforces my religious beliefs.



Think of it this way: they're both two seperate lenses for looking at the same thing. Use them together, and you can see clearly.

Answer 13

As a scientist you must remember one thing. Just because you cannot PROVE it one way or another does automatically make it true OR false. As a scientist I would think you MUST believe in a higher power because of the complexity this world it built around.

It would be hard to believe that life itself started as a result of an accident. (which is what you must believe if you do not believe in a higher power) I would think it as amazing to be able to understand the power of God who made these things so complex yet was able to separate MAN from all other creatures.

WOW !!

Answer 14

The real situation is that science fits into religion. Science is actually the study of what God has created, whether it is living things, stones, or whatever. We need to know what God had in mind in His act of creation, and how it all fits in. Without knowing that all of everything comes from God, it all is just dandelion fluff, and causes a lot of weedy thinking.

Answer 15

Tricky, using "evolved." The answer is yes. This began long before what we now term as science. For instance, the ancients noticed patterns in the sky and nature and came up with explanations for these. These explanations weren't 'scientific', according to the modern definition of the term, but it was the best they could do. All religions "evolve" and all religions are syncretistic. To answer the question in your 3rd paragraph; I think this applies to all the mainstream denominations, Though I would appreciate phraseology that is a little less slanted.

Answer 16

The catholic church approves the big bang theory, evolution and so forth and y cant god fit with science? God like evolution is a theory. it cant be proven or disproven because you cant controll circumstances and watch it work. If i see a clock on the table it is possible that all the pieces just fell together at the same time but pretty unlikly. It is fairly safe to assume that some one put it together. I think of science as figuring out how the clock works and if someone where to put it together how the pieces would fit. this is why most catholics don't mind evolution and science. It makes sence. Pope John Paul II said agreed with the Big Bang Theory because it makes sence.

Answer 17

Look at The bible research institute

And a book called Total Truth

A Christian world view.



Don't quit!

Answer 18

It's simple. Draw a Venn diagram. Make two circles that overlap somewhat. Label one RELIGION, one SCIENCE and the other lap can be labeled "THAT PART OF THE NATURAL WORLD THAT CAN BE OBSERVED AND MEASURED AND TESTED AND THAT WAS CREATED BY GOD".



Believe in religion all you want. And when you go to work use your science to explain god's creation.



It's a simple matter and shouldn't cause wrinkle lines.



Good luck

Answer 19

I was exactly where you are a few years ago. A good place to start is with Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.



Kreeft also has a website where you can read excerpts from his books. http://www.peterkreeft.com/

Answer 20

i dont think religion fits in science at some point scientist are going to figure out that at some point an all powerful being atleast started everything into action

Answer 21

Never seemed to bother Einstein.



Over Heisnberg's theories he said:



God doesn't play dice.



Obviously Einstein could use God to explain things.

Answer 22

In a world of deceit , and in the final analysis one must rely upon

their own judgement . I chose atheism and there is no place for religion only morals and truth. No fit!

Answer 23

its goig to be tough for you, as you said, you cant just say god did everythung that is unexplanaible. go and search for those unexplanable answers, im an atheist and i hope you find the SCIENTIFIC answer..

Answer 24

I ask the same thing about biologists.



Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.



Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.



According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.



Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.



Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?



The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.



“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.



The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.



What view does the fossil record support?



Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?



Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?



Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.



What does the fossil record actually show?



The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.



A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.



Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.



Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.



Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Answer 25

Seriously, Christianity is a huge waste of time and energy. Focus on your studies and research. It is far more rewarding.

Answer 26

it doesn't fit and it never will. religion is based on suoerstition rather than any logic

Answer 27

All the deniers deny God, on account of the reason that God is not encircled by their intellect. And ___ all the believers believe in God, on account of the same reason that God is not encircled by their intellect. Therefore, the believers and the deniers, the both, do agree that God is not encircle-able by human intellect.



The believers do believe that God is Ever Sufficient for them and for their needs. And___ God not only, suffices them and their needs, rather, God guides them in every matter in every walk of life. By and by, a co-existing fact is notice-worthy that God remains Ever Sufficient for the deniers as well.



If God had been for the believers alone and God had not been for the deniers___ then everyone would have believed in God’s existence equally so as to meet their needs of life equally.

Rational thinking has collected a series of scientific about the universe whose result is highly thought-provoking____ which has been summarized in the following words:



“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”.



This result is based on such an authentic calculation that we can not find any room to criticize it in rational terms. Through irrational terms, of course, one can criticize it as much as he desires.



Strange is the fact that this calculation brings forth, detailed answers of all the questions, which arise, in human mind, about existence of God.





“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”



means that there is a Creator of all the things of universe.



1. Who is this Creator?

2. How like is this Creator?

3. Where is this Creator?



These are the questions to be answered in detail.



Each creature is identifiable within its particular creaturely limits and the creatures of the universe are countless. And___ they are all alike on the one side and different from each other on the other side. So, we come to the following three important attributes of their Creator, automatically:-



1. The Creator owns infinite knowledge & all-encompassing creativity.

2. Harmony, Balance, Style and System of Creation reveal that the Creator is the All-Alone Owner of the Nature & the Almightiness.

3. The Creator is Unseen Omnipotent and nothing is alike the Creator. And, the Creator can never be considered as a limited, conceivable and physically approachable thing.





Nothing is alike the Creator means that everything of this universe is a creaturely thing. And____ the word of “thing” itself determines the boundaries of a creature & encircles its material or immaterial existence. While the Creator of this infinite & inapprehensible universe___ is free from all sorts of creaturely limits. So, non of the reckoning, is there, which may declare the Creator as a thing. And____ to declare the Creator as a thing is totally an irrational declaration, equal to the denial of Creator.



Besides that, the Creator can be believed as Creator of everything, only in that case, when nothing should, predominantly, be alike the Creator. No other rational way is there, to believe the Creator as the Creator. We can not consider the Creator as a person or a thing or a creature and, at the same time, as a Creator of everything every person and every creature. Such an approach will be, altogether, an irrational approach, rather, an absurd approach.



A thing or a person, or a concept or a consideration, all in all; are in fact the limited pictures of our understanding. While every understandable thing is a limited and encircled thing. Which can never be considered as a creator of anything.



Appropriate way of belief in God is that, God should not be considered in terms of things as nothing of the whole series of things___ is alike God. That is why that God is termed as Super-natural and Super-physical. And, such a terminology is completely correct, as we can not determine that how-like is God. Nor we can say that such and such thing is alike God.



To pronounce God’s glory in proper terms, we should not say, “God is not a thing”. Instead, we should say, “Nothing is alike God”. Delicate difference of the both sentences is a particularly notice-worthy. If we say that:





“God is not a thing”

then, the intellect (which is accustomed to perceive things) will say that God is nothing and God is not existing. Whereas God is existing here and there everywhere. So, when we say that:



“Nothing is alike God”

“Nothing is alike God”



then, it is automatically declared that God is the beyond of everything and God is not a thing. God is very much existing but God is not perceivable by human intellect.



To believe in God in rational terms, we should positively know that what is a thing. Such knowledge will enable us to know the Creator, with reference to God’s created things, conveniently.



Everything, according to the most modern knowledge, is perceived on account of its reality based organic order and composition. And____ the organic order and composition of a thing, are determined under some particular rules and regulations. That is why that a thing remains different from the other thing and it remains specific representative of it’s own kind. An apple remains apple___ a mango remains mango___ a flower remains flower___ and a thorn remains a thorn. And___ they are never exchanged with each other, at any stage of their development inspite of their atmospheric and biological similarity.



Here___ the intellect is highly amazed that how-like are these working rules and regulations, which do not let the things go beyond their organic limits. Wherefrom have these rules & regulations come including their regulative force, which remains always intact and is never decayed by the passage of time. Are these rules and regulations alive? Of course, they are alive, as it is evident from their creative working. But who has given them such a strange & marvelous life? These are the questions, entailing in certain other questions, for which, human intellect has no answer at all.



The only and the alone answer in this regard is that, some Ordainer of these rules & regulations is definitely alive and existing. Who is the All-Alone Creator of everything including it’s order and composition or its characteristics. But rest assured that even the commonplace creature, is not encompass-able by human intellect in real terms. So, how the Creator can be encompassed by the human intellect.



Presence of countless creatures with their living characteristics, however, makes us understand that the Creature is very much existing and present, everywhere, quiet close to the creatures. But the Creator is not checked by any border or limit or by some organism, as every organism, itself, is a sort of limitation. So, the Creator is the Absolute & the Infinite and nothing is alike the Creator. And nothing can be ever alike the Creator as everything is limited by certain organism. Whereas the Creator is the Ordainer of every organism. The Creator is not an organism at all.



Existence of the universe and it’s marvelous chain of complexed systems___ working in highly delicate fractions and frequencies___ are the ever-sounding witnesses of the existence of their Creator. Who is existing everywhere but is not an object of existence like a thing. As nothing of the existing or non-existing things can be alike the Creator. So, men, of intellect should positively pay heed, to the revealed information___ coming from the beyond of this universe.



The latest scientific result that:

“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”

is very much harmonized with the revealed truth that



“Nothing is alike the Creator (God)”

The former is not only harmonized with the latter, rather, it is rationally leading every modern information and scientific calculation of the day, to its actual and the ultimate destination. The truth springs out automatically when we join these two sentences together.



So, whenever we say that:

“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”,

then, it will be automatically decided that there is some Creator of everything. Likewise whenever we say that:



“Nothing is alike the Creator”,



then, it will be also automatically decided, that the Creator is free from every sort of organism and the Creator is Absolute and Infinite, in absolute & infinite terms as the Creator is Holy.



In presence of this vast and inapprehensible universe, we can not deny the presence of it’s Creator. Who is not encompass-able by human intellect, as the Creator is the Super-natural and the Super-physical. So we can not declare the created things as God.



If everything had been God and God had been everything, then, the revealed verdict would have not been like that:

“Nothing is alike the Creator (God)”.



Therefore, none of the things of universe, material or immaterial, solid or liquid, bright or dark, open or hidden, physical or metaphysical, partial or the whole, including the life and death, and the beginning and the end and so on____ can be declared as God or image of God___ as the creature can never be alike God.



In the other words, we cannot make any image or imagination of God. So those___ who worship any image or imagination of God____ they do not worship God___ instead they worship an idol___ made by their own intellect.



To make some image or imagination of God, is not possible and permissible on account of the fact and the verdict that “nothing is alike god”. No soil, no stone, no wood and no metal can ever be or become alike God. None of these things can give us any idea or information, about God. We can not take the idols and images___ even as some signs or signals____ pointing to God. Such an act will be the misuse of intellect and a tremendous injustice. Intellect is ordained to believe the Unseen God in the light of the testimony of heart and that is the faith in reality.

No painter can paint any image of God and no philosopher can develop any imagination of God. That is why that to deal with the most important matter of the belief in God____ Prophets were sent by God. If they had not come then we would have been lead astray____ definitely____ on account of our material thinking.



Brain can not encompass the Creator, even, after consumption of its whole potential.



Albert Einstein has declared the universe as inapprehensible on account of its infinity. As such, he has pointed out the limits of the brain.



We can utter the word of God, Eishwar, Jehovah or Allah, as a name of the Creator. But we can not treat it, as the name, which can encompass the real existence of Creator.



Space____ is the name of a thing, which declares the space as a thing. It is the name of such a thing, which encircles the material objects but itself is like an immaterial state. In the same way God is a name but it does not declare God as a thing. And____ it is a specific name for the Creator of everything. The Creator is not a thing and nothing is alike the Creator.

An important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.



All the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.



This very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:



“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”



The physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.



George Erl Devis writes further:



“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___ our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:





Is there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?



And___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.



We can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.



We are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__ is almost possible.”



As we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logical grounds. And such a result, duly derived from the stock of scientific information, is this:





“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”



and___ that is such a reasonable result, which is free from all sorts of logical objections. And___ through this very result we come to know about the Creator Who is Creator of all the material and immaterial things, and who is the Omnipotent.



If we presume that the universe is created accidentally or automatically. Then we will have to presume too, that the universe, itself has the power of creation. Such a presumption is, however, not maintainable on account of the scientific informations, collected so far, about the universe. So___ accidental or automatic creation of universe___ is the result___ which is totally irrational.



And where, God is being believed as the Alone Creator of universe, scientific informations are now becoming a foundation there. And science___ which is the fountain-head of the pure observational, analytical and experimental knowledge___ has reached at such a stage. That the next step whereof is not else___ but to believe in God and God’s Almighty Omnipotence. And___ that is on account of this very consensus of the universal scientific informations that:



“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”.



It is a Verse-like ray of Holy light and a great information. Proper apprehension whereof leads us, directly, to the realm of Faith.



“Universe was created accidentally or automatically” is a notion, which is not confirmed by the scientific information. So, to think like that is an irrational & illogical gesture. Which leads nowhere but to the ignorance.





Which God we should believe?



It is an important question and it is more important for the person who is desirous to know his God.



Can we consider this accidentally or automatically created universe as God? Does it create and remove everything by itself? But the scientific consensus that:





“No material thing is capable to create it by itself”



clarifies that universe was not created accidentally or automatically. Nor it is capable to create anything by itself. Nor it is given any knowledge of creation. And___ if the universe does not own any knowledge of creation___ then the knowledge of creation is definitely related to Mr. Albert Einstein’s that very Infinite & Supreme Power or Cause. Whose creative manifestations are being seen everywhere in this inapprehensible universe.



The act of knowledge, which is the process of creation in this universe___ is a magnificent sign ___ which is leading us, directly, to the Creator.



Power of knowledge and act of knowledge in terms of the process of creation___ bespeak of such a Creator who is Unique___ Who is free from the creaturely traits__ Who is far above the Nature and our state of knowledge___ Who is Supreme, Supernatural and Omnipotent. About whom we can speak in the following rational terms.



“The Creator of things is not a thing or like the created things. And as the intellect itself is a thing, so it is not considerable more than a thing of superior kind. Therefore its capability of making some image or imagination of the Creator will result to such a step, which may diminish the supreme sublimity of the Creator”.



In this way a man of intellect may believe in God on logical basis. Whereafter he will always consider his God as the Sole Creator and the Sole Guardian of universe. He will never consider his God as a part of universe or a thing in universe or the universe.



It means that God is Super-natural and Super-physical. Who is not perceivable through our senses at all.



The commonplace concept that God is a kind of matter as well as God is the Creator of matter or___ God is the universe as well as God is Super-natural & Super-physical___ is a self-contradictory and an irrational concept.



We must refrain from such concepts and resort to reality that existence of creatures is separate from the Creator and the creatures are not like the Creator at all. Because creatures live and die and they are under God’s control. It is recorded in the Scripture in the words of the Creator:





“I__ and I alone___ am God

No other god is real”

(Duet 32:39)



Worship no god but Me!

Do not make for yourselves images of anything

In heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth

Do not bow down to any idol or worship it

For I am the Lord your God and

I tolerate no rivals.

(Duet 5:7 to 9)



Hence, we must believe our God as the Supernatural and Super-physical. God is not perceivable by our senses. Nor___ God is point-able like point-able things. Nor___ the names of God’s created things should be used for God. Nor ___ we should consider God in terms of things and worship God as a thing. Of course___ we should believe God, the same way, as God has commanded us to believe. And___ God’s Commandments 9Duet 32:39 and Duet 5:7 to 9) are very much reasonable and quiet corresponding to our intellect.



Yes there is a God , The One Alone AlMighty All Capable Lord who is making your heart beat in your chest.

“Whenever a person thinks about the motion____ a thought of the motion-setter comes in his mind automatically”

(Andrew Connde)



God is really existing! Quest of a hundred percent convincing argument in support of this claim, is a matter of specific nature. Which is totally dependent upon one’s own research and experience.



If you will try to understand the Faith, in accordance with it’s prescribed conditions and sources. Then sooner or later, you will come to the enlightening nature and truthfulness of the claim, definitely.



And___ when you will become aware of particular nature of the link between God-n-man including its prescribed conditions to maintain it. And___ when you will become wholeheartedly busy in positive accomplishment of the prescribed conditions. Then, as a result of your sincerity___ such a link between God-n-man will develop___ that no room will remain vacant for any type of doubt or suspicion. And___ faith in God will elevate you up to such an extent that you will feel and realize the Lord____ quiet near and familiar to you. And___ such a soothing satisfaction will prevail all-around you which is meant for the chosen-ones alone.