Can future scientific advancement detect the existence of God?
Thank you very much.
So, will scientific advancement detect the existence of God? If not, what is the reason other than that he is non-material? There is a saying that believers need no reasons and non-believers accept no reasons. So, when it comes to inferences, as I said, God cannot be subjected to experimental tests. He is not a material being.
He is not controlled by us. Electromagnetic waves are still something in their production, their transmission, their reception, there is something which we can control. So, God we cannot control.
So, it is not just because he is non-material, but rather because he is higher than us, he is superior to us. So, therefore, we cannot subject him to controlled experiments. And from the scientific evidence, now inferences can be drawn.
Now, is that inference a persuasive, a decisive inference? That will depend on a person's preconceptions. That means, say for example, I talked about this, the correlation between human intelligence and the world around us. So, what is the explanation broadly for this? There are three explanations.
One is, it is by chance. Well, that is not satisfactory because the sheer number of correlations, sheer precision of correlations makes it questionable. Say when scientists have found out that the probability for all these correlations working out is so astronomically low that it will not work out.
Then the other explanation of course could be God. He is organizing a principle who has made the world in a way that is understandable to us. But, some skeptics, they come up with another explanation, it is parallel universes.
They say, whatever, if you say that the probability of a particular thing happening is 1 is 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, They say, there may be 10 trillion, trillion, And we just happen to be in the universe where this one probability came up. So, now the parallel universes are actually, they are not only unobservable in practice, they are unobservable in principle. Just parallel, there is no scientific way to prove them at all.
They are not just in practice unprovable, in principle they are unprovable. But, there are many atheists who tout that as an explanation. They try to explain away the impossibly low probability by postulating an impossibly high number of universes, parallel universes.
And they say, for example, if I toss a dice and if it falls 6, the probability is 1 out of 6. So, if I toss it 10 times, each time it falls 6, something is fishy over here. How can it be? Every time it is falling 6. So, the probability of that is 1 by 6 raised to the power of 10, whatever it is. This is mathematical.
They will say, no, just as you are tossing the dice over here, there are that many universes and somebody else is also tossing the dice. And there it is all falling different. You happen to be in a universe where it all falls right.
So, now, this, there are many scientists also who find this just as pseudo-scientific babble. Just babble. So, the idea of parallel universes, they may be a mathematical postulation, but as a way to explain away the design of the world, the precise correlation between our comprehensive capacity and the nature of the world, that is, it borders on irrationality.
But still the point which I am making is that in this world, if somebody does not want to believe in God, then there is no evidence that can force them to believe. So, in that sense, God will be a matter of inference. And whether from this evidence, this inference is reasonable or not, that is something who does not want to accept, will always debate it.
There was one of the most prominent atheists of the 20th century, Anthony Flew. But he was a, in 1950s, 1960s, he wrote several papers which very strongly promoted atheism. And he was considered one of the most prominent atheists.
And in around 2003 or 2004, you know, he became a theist. And he didn't accept any religion per se, he did not accept any spiritual practice. But it was simply based on scientific inference.
The same point about the correlation between the figures in the universe. So he wrote his autobiography at the end of his life, you know. It is like, if you look at the book, there is no God.
And no is crashed out and there is a. There is a God. So his life journey was from there is no God to there is a God. So there have been not just atheists, but world famous proponents of atheism who have been swayed by the evidence.
And they have, he accepted more of a deistic conception of God, not a theistic conception. Accepted God as the as the creator, not so much the controller. But still he did accept the idea of God.
So I would say that future scientific evidence can provide more patterns which can point more persuasively towards God as an inference. But whether that inference will be compelling enough for everyone, that is debatable. It's unlikely.
Those who those who want to explain it in some other way, will always find some way to explain. The Mahabharata, even when Duryodhana saw the Vishwaroop of Krishna, not only saw Krishna's angel, he saw Krishna's Vishwaroop also. He said, you know, Krishna is doing some magic and showing some forms.
I tell him, he sent a message, tell him I am not afraid of that, I can also show many forms. So for one who is determined to disbelieve, there is no evidence that will be enough.