The scientific method is the foundation of all science and has established the laws of the physical and natural world we adhere to today. The scientific method proposes that a question should be formed, evidence gathered, and a hypothesis tested. Thus, let’s break down the existence of God in this way. The question posed here is stated: Does God exist? The evidence to be gathered, however, is not so easily discoverable.
Acceptable evidence for testing a hypothesis is either observable or tangible of God, in and of Himself, is neither (McGrath 2013). Therefore, when we form the hypothesis for either side of this question: If God exists or God does not exist, the latter is clearly the only choice as there is no acceptable scientific evidence for the His existence. The existence of God is proven through the very concept that claims to disprove Him: the natural sciences and the scientific method. The scientific method, which is the basis of all science and has established all of the natural laws we abide by today is not the only way to discover actuality, which is the very laws that govern our universe. The scientific method denies the existence of God because it presupposes that all discoverable truth, which are natural laws, are revealed through observation and experimentation. However, the scientific method utilizes that which is neither observable nor testable (Anderson).
Logic, for example, is a matter of philosophy and is not testable or visible, but is needed to establish the steps of the scientific method. For example, if I were to hypothesize that there are fish in the ocean, the logical means to test this would be to gain evidence: cast a net into the water. Logic is what tells me I need gain evidence in order to prove or disprove my hypothesis. Clearly, because the entire basis of the scientific method depends on another truth which it did not in fact discover, the scientific method cannot be and is not the only way to discover absolute truth about the world. Since we know that truth is discoverable without the scientific method, we are able to take the natural science of creation at face value. The accepted theory of how the universe was created is commonly known as the “Big Bang,” in which there was nothing, and then there was everything.
While scientist accredit this to the perfect combination of chemicals at the exact same time, it cannot and should not be ignored that this account of the beginning of time is in direct accordance with the bible; in a flash of light, something was created from nothing. First, if the oxygen level did not make up twenty-one percent of the atmosphere, it is scientifically established that life on Earth would be nonexistent. Second the gravitational interaction of the mood and the Earth is extremely precise and accurate, astronomy, and physics has proven that any more or any less would be fatal to the human life. Third, if gravity were even 10^-38 percent different, science, astronomy, physics, and mathematics prove that the Sun would not exist and neither would we (Geisler 96). These examples are only 3 of 122 principles that outline a fine tuned universe. The probabilist of a universe erupting with such precision is a——-. Mathematically speaking, that is a hero parent chance that a chemical reaction could produce our universe. Thus, the complexity of the universe is so vast that its creation could not have been the result of the perfect storm of chemicals, but must have been specifically designed and therefore had a specific designer.
It’s simple really: Every human is born with the need to do good. It’s why we volunteer at homeless shelters, hold the door for the people behind us, and lay down our lives for our county. Thus, I present to one the age-old question: Where does morality come from? Every law we follow had a lawgiver. For example, the legal age for alcohol consumption is 21. This law was instituted by our government. As a result, the US government is our lawgiver.
There is a moral law. I could no better prove this point then C.S. Lewis when he said: “There is no land were murder is virtue and gratitude vice.” Each of us are innately born with an internal law that we choose to either obey or disobey. However, where did this law come from? Well, if every law has a law giver and there is a moral law, there must then be a moral lawgiver (Geisler 171). Considering that moral law is in fact the very nature of who God is: infinite justice and infinite love, we can conclude that morality, which is undeniably installed in each of our hearts, require the existence of God to place it there.
The worship of God is discredited because of the sheer face that the religions that worship him are, in face, man-made. The bible and Koran, which are both books that outline the belief in God were written by men (Fish 2007). The bible, for example, contains 66 books wire were each written by men and the Koran contains 114 chapters, which were written by men as well. The fact that men wrote these law books makes them imperfect and flawed, as that is human nature. God must be perfect in order to fit the very essence of HIs name.
So the books by which he is represented cannot prove His existence because of their man-made nature. In addition, if God existed, human could never fully grasp the idea of his nature. Human knowledge can be quantified and can understand a certain amount of facts. However, to be able to comprehend an infinite God, we would require infinite knowledge base or we would need to be able to comprehend infinity. Logically, it is simple.
If God existed, he would contain all and not be able to be contained (Paris). If human minds cannot contain a God, they cannot believe in Him. The very existence of the omnipotent Judeo-Christian God is contradictory. Omnipotence, at is most basic definition means to have unlimited power. In order for God to encompass the very name of God, He must be omnipotent. This fact, however proposes a question which contradicts such a God: Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? (Dunn 2013). Giving some though, we can easily see that if God were to create such a rock, this would in fact limit His power, in that he is unable to life it and if he is unable to create such a rock, then this would certainly disqualify Him from having the unlimited power of creation.
Therefore, in either case, His power could be limited, so He cannot be omnipotent. In addition, because of the amount of suffering in the world, the Judeo-Christian God is an impossibility. People who believe in God hold firm to the idea that an infinite being possesses an unfailing, infinite love for them. However, once again, this can be refuted by the simplicity of merely looking around. Little research will awaken the facet that there are innumerable tragedies in the form of starving children, un-timely deaths, and catastrophic disasters.
How could an all-loving God allow such calamities to befall the very objects of his affection? Furthermore, if there is such a HE that rules all, better question might be: How could He implement such suffering on those he loves infinitely? By imposing any suffering at all on the world, the idea of an infinitely loving God cannot be.