The concept of God is naturally embedded in the minds of people. It is however covered with veils of confusion. One of the major obstacles faced by many a men in accepting the concept of a Universal God is that they cannot see Him and therefore do not have a rational argument to prove the existence of God. They believe in the direct or observable argument or primary rationalism and not the unseen or inferential argument or secondary rationalism. This is contrary to the fact today.

In its issue no. 134 (1992), the journal, Faith and Reason, published from Manchester College, Oxford (England), brought out an article titled, 'The Relationship between Faith and Reason', by Dr Paul Badham. Dr. Paul Badham is a Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at St. David's College, Lampeter, in the University of Wales. His paper in this issue had been presented at a Conference of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in November 1991.

Professor Badham's paper can indeed be called thought- provoking, and as such, is worth reading, but he has made certain points with which Maulana Wahiduddin Khan did not agree. He states that philosophical certainty should not be confused with religious certitude. He writes: 'As a philosopher of religion I feel compelled to acknowledge that faith could never be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific knowledge' (p. 6).

On the contrary, I believe that that faith and belief can be placed on the same level of certainty as scientific theory. At least, in the twentieth century there is no real difference between the two.

According to me, this argument was valid when science had reached only the macro world and when 'only what was observable was the reality'. The atom was once considered to be the smallest unit of the observable material world. But 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. Scientists however continued to believe in the concept of the atom, albeit unobservable. 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?

Using this as the base, I have provided scientific proof that this division of primary and secondary rationalism is in itself wrong and now that the inferential argument is valid, it proves the existence of God scientifically. In my books, God Arises, In Search of God and Religion and Science, I have given credence to the belief in a non-observable God, with the maxim that: "Where there is a design, there is a Designer."

Therefore the option one has to take is not between:

'Universe without God' and the 'Universe with God'. The option is actually between the 'Universe with God' or 'No Universe at all'. Since we cannot, for obvious reasons, opt for the latter proposition, we are in fact left with no other option except the former- the 'Universe with God'.