Jan 242013
 

Why debates on the proof of God have never been productive? The short answer: Because believers couldn’t step out of their belief systems and atheists continually stick with applying wrong scientific methods to exploring the essence of God.

Actually, Is it possible to find the real proof of God?

Yes, if you really want to.  If Truth – the truth of existence of God– is not your goal, no one can ever convince you to even consider a point of view that opposes what you believe to be correct.

 

I like to browse through  “YouTube” looking for fresh ideas and insights. As religious and atheistic beliefs are related to my work, I sometimes enjoy watching videos of intellectual battles between atheists and believers.

I find my personal stance on these “debates” is that I am not on the side of believers, because often their position is backed up only by their belief in the sacredness of their religious scripts and authority of specific religious prophets.

But I don’t support the atheists either. They platform themselves on words “science” and “objectivity,” but if we look closer at how they approach the idea of God, we can see that they are quite irrational too, and not less than their opponents.

In my previous article I mentioned that the first common mistake atheists make is confusing “God” as an independent mysterious entity with religious interpretations of Him.

The second issue is that people naturally become irrational when they approach a problem without any intention to find the truth. If they have preconceived notions of their rightness, their arguments inevitably lose objectivity as in this case, when atheists do not accept even an idea of a possible proof of God.

Here is a typical example of a lame generalization used by atheists that I found in an atheistic video series:

“How can we prove or disprove God, if people say they cannot examine or test or have anything to do with God? How can we know what we are looking for?”

Let’s look closer at what is actually said and how “unbiased” the real  approach is of those who claim to represent scientific objectivity.

First of all, what kind of “people” say that we “cannot examine or have anything to do with God”?

Probably only those who have never had any experience of either examining God or “doing” something with God.

Who are those people?

Usually atheists.

I personally, have examined, tested and experienced God, as many others do, who come to God voluntarily and consciously at the age when we are able to make independent and responsible decisions of our own.

Yes, here we talk about personal experiences that cannot be objectively measured with scientific devices, but which nevertheless are absolutely true for a system of individual perception for an individual person. Multi-cultural, spiritual literature is a compilation and recording of hundreds of thousands of spiritual experiences that people have shared with the world. What is that but a huge amount of empirical data about “doing something” with God?

I agree that personal experiences are not objective “proof of God,” however, to be perfectly scientifically honest; we cannot ignore these phenomena that have been experienced and recorded by hundreds of thousands of people for thousands of years. We also cannot ignore the phenomena of miracles, which are also quite well documented, especially during the 20th century.

True scientists, like Einstein, who look for Truth, never slam the door before the face of a new higher mystery that is waiting to be explored. Rather than jump to the conclusion that ‘this is not possible,’ they see the mystery as the peak of a new unconquerable mountain, which is hiding in the sky above the clouds just waiting for those who dare climb it.

Does it make sense to approach an inexplicable phenomenon with a ready-made attitude of rejection of the possibility to reveal the mystery of it? I don’t think so as it is simply not productive.

True scientists and mountain-climbers have one thing in common: until they have courage and an open mind to believe that it’s possible to get to the peak where no one has ever been before, they don’t conquer the Everest or make mind-blowing scientific discoveries.

On another hand, the attitude of rejection makes sense, too: It is comfortable as it saves us from the possible embarrassment of admitting that at this moment we are incapable of explaining something.

This might be the reason why for many atheists the logic, functionality and precision of nature has never been enough proof of God as the ultimate Creator, as well as, tons of testimonies of those who have had their own personal spiritual experiences.

The third observation relates to how atheists use the word “science” when they attack religious irrationality.  

Before opposing science to God, let’s see what science actually is. According to Aristotle, “science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.” According to another definition, science is “any body of knowledge organized in a systematic manner.”

Nobody will argue that the modern science has a very broad spectrum of “organized and logically explained knowledge,” which includes: formal sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, behavioral sciences, political sciences, informational sciences, etc.

But here is the question: What kind of “science” do atheists use to justify their views?

As I noticed, the majority of atheists love to confront bible-proponents with their own “scientific trinity” of cosmology, microbiology and physics. Their argument is nearly always the same: there is no God as “science” could not discover its physical particle yet.

Come on, if all these debates are more than just entertainment, let’s have a bit more common sense: How would it be possible to come to any relevant proof of God if we narrow modern science and its methodology to physical and natural sciences like physics, cosmology or microbiology, and exclude the other knowledge that equally coexists with these disciplines, for instance, formal and information sciences?

Are they less important?

Probably not, as formal sciences are rooted in Logic and provide logic as the ultimate instrument of exploring the Truth in any kind of other scientific discipline.

How rational would it be to apply methodology of physics or microbiology to cognitive or politic sciences? Sure, it’s nonsense.

If there is no such thing as a particle of philosophy or linguistics, does it mean that they don’t exist?

It’s a well-known fact that we live in a dual world of tangible materialistic outer reality and intangible reality of thoughts, feelings, logic and information. So, let’s leave the study our brain’s cells, neurons and receptors to microbiology, but let’s not confuse the brain with the mind as they are different things; and methods of physical sciences with all microscopes and telescopes are useless when dealing with the mysteries of the mind, and it’s an easy extension to include the mysteries of the soul and God.

It’s like using knives to eat soup and spoons to cut steaks.

By the 21st century science has accumulated enough instruments to successfully deal with any kind of knowledge or problem. Why not apply methods of system and information sciences to the phenomenon of God? In the sense of understanding the essence of God and proof of God, system-informational approach is far more productive than anything else, as it offers the understanding of God as the ultimate and neutral informational system.

Any proof, including “proof of God” starts with unbiased observation and the collection of data. Then we organize this data using a system approach and mathematical logic. As any proof requires a system, we have to arrange all existing information into the totality of one hierarchical system before we can finally see what is what.

The system-informational approach leads us to an astonishing conclusion that in the world of information and systems in which we live, each system is formed by its own logic, which organizes the elements of the system in a perfect order with the purpose to serve the needs of the creator of that system.

As our Universe is a totality of magnificent hierarchy of endless systems, the God as the Creator of this divine system totality or System Matrix, must be not less than the Absolute Logic or the Absolute Law of Unity, which unites all possible elements of the universe in a perfect order.

Is it there any science-based framework other than system-informational approach that would allow us to conceptualize all existing information into one harmonious totality? No.

Is there any other neutral non-religious way to approach the ideas of God and Truth besides system and information sciences? Unlikely.

Maybe it’s time for those who really care for truth to re-consider scientific approaches to the idea of God and move from the physical sciences to a system-informational methods when dealing with non-materialistic reality.

Humankind has enough knowledge and information to finally realize that the proof of God existence is possible and quite simple.