The Speaking Tree | 25 Jan. 2012

The main reason why people fail to attach them selves to religion in the modern age is that they cannot see God, so they do not believe in Him. This argument was valid when science had reached only the macro world and when 'only what was observable was the reality'. Human knowledge has two different phases-the pre-Einstein period and the post-Einstein period. In the pre-Einstein period, the atom was considered to be the smallest unit of the observable material world. But in the post-Einstein era, when the atom was split, it was confirmed that it was nothing but a mad dance of energy waves or electrons, which could not be observed. A new logic then came into being. Not only was the direct or observable argument thought to be valid, but inferential arguments or the invisible sources of visible effects were also considered valid. An example of the latter is that X-rays are not visible to the naked eye, but their effect can be seen when we observe the X-ray film. Using the valid inferential argument, if you can believe in the unseen X-rays as you can see their effect, why can you not believe in an unseen God, whose meaningful creation - the Universe you see all around you?

In the pre-Einstein era, unbelievers held that the concept of God pertains to the unseen world. And since no direct argument was available to bear this out, belief in God was held to be illogical and all the relevant indirect arguments were considered scientifically invalid, since they were inferential in nature.

But now the whole situation has changed. Nothing is observable. So the existence of anything can be established only by means of inferential argument, rather than by direct argument.

If inferential argument is valid with regard to the unseen micro-world, it is also valid with regard to the existence of God.

Since ancient days, theologians have argued that when there is a design there must also be a designer. As we see that our world is well designed (universe all around us), it compels us to believe that there is a designer (the Creator of the Universe).

Even Bertrand Russell, who was an atheist, in his book, "Why I am not a Christian", has admitted this fact. He says that the argument centering on design, propounded by theologians to prove the existence of God, is scientifically valid.

I would like to say that in such a situation the choice we have is not between 'the universe with God', and 'the universe without God'. This is not an option. The real option is between 'the universe with God' or 'no universe at all'. As we cannot opt for the proposition "no universe at all", since the universe is too obvious a fact for us to deny its existence, therefore we have no option but to accept the proposition of "the Universe with God."