Is there God? 4b) Science] Heliocentric?

The case of heliocentric versus geocentric

Heliocentric: The sun as the centre, the earth revolves around the Sun

Geocentric: The sun as the centre, the earth revolves around the Sun

The case of heliocentric versus the geocentric is one of the significant controversies over theology, astronomy, and philosophy that happened in the 1630s. In 1633 the controversies reached its climax when the church suspected Galileo and his theory as heresy. Galileo was imprisoned then commuted to house arrest.  Galileo was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" his thesis to escape death penalty.

Because of this, the issue of the heliocentric and geocentric is often viewed as a case of unreasonable dogmatic view of the church against the revolutionary scientific view of a reasonable man. This case is often perceived as the science’s first decisive blow against faith. This case is one of the firm-ground for atheists and non-believers to question the authority of the church. This case gives some sceptics the reason to doubt the message pronounced by the church. This case is also often used as the foundation for the argument that suggests religion to stay away from science. 

Nowadays, in the 21^st century, religion and faith in God is often pitted against science. For atheists and non-religious scientists, religion and faith are simply irrational belief that sits on the “gaps” of science. In the future, as science will explain more of the universe, religion, faith and even God are expected to disappear. 

I understand why many people question the authority of the church because of this case. I once doubted the Bible as well. However, what I see to be different between many people’s motivation and my motivation about this case is that, I didn’t simply want to get comfortable at the doubting level. If the church is wrong, then what is right? As a result, I did a lot of reading. Yes I hate history books, but I guess, if you really want to know something, you got to find out the truth by checking the matter yourself, won’t you?  As I learnt the more and more about the complexity of this particular case, I found that this case might have been twisted by church-hater to corner church and God. In the previous post, I mentioned that if the Bible is really the word of God, it will not bear any false testimony, so why in this case the Bible seems to be defeated by science? Now, there are details in this case that we need to understand, for us to be able to appreciate the complexity and perceive this case more objectively.

Thousands of years ago, the general population of the world thought that the earth was flat - something like a thick disc. It was only in the 4^th century BC when Aristotle, scientifically used exact observation and logical deduction to prove that the earth is spherical. Since the early concept of spherical earth, there had been many models proposed, however, the geocentric model was the most widely accepted. Geocentric was the logical choice based on the resources available at that time. Seen with the naked eye, the planetary objects seem to move around the earth. This model was the generally accepted model by the world, and was the accepted model of the church too. Note that the Christian church only appears later in around 35 AD and thus it held the geocentric model just like the rest of general world population.

Now, around this time, there was Jesus Christ in History. His life convinced a group of people about His divinity, as well as His death and resurrection. This group of people, who believe in Christ, is then called as Christians. Since then, regardless of the persecution and oppression received, Christianity kept on growing. Especially in Europe, Church power grew along with the spread of Christianity. Since the Bible scriptures are considered as the word of God, it is considered inerrant and holds the utmost authority. Unfortunately, during the 15 centuries of church growth, the church slowly shifted and abused this truth. The indestructible authority of the Bible was slowly transformed to become the ‘not-to-be-challenged’ authority of the church.

This abuse went unchallenged until 1517 when the reformation happened. The Reformation is the movement in history, which attempts to bring Christianity back to the authority of the Bible. A group of people stood for the absolute authority and the sufficiency of the Bible, and on justification by faith alone, grace alone and Christ alone. The effort of the self-described "reformers", who objected the doctrines, rituals, and ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.

Around the same time, a person named Nicolaus Copernicus, who was a mathematician, astronomer, jurist with a doctorate in law, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classics scholar, translator, artist, Catholic cleric, governor, diplomat and economist (… wow!), reignited the idea for heliocentric model of the planet’s movement. In 1514 he wrote down an important foundation for the heliocentric model. He started from a mere 40-page manuscript called "Commentaroius" and later he finished his manuscript of "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" that explains the heliocentric model in much more detail.

If we look at the history, we will find that, the church did not limit the growth of science. In fact, university as we know now, matured during the medieval era of Catholic in Europe. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, comes to us directly from the medieval world. This makes sense, since it was "the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

True science cannot flourish in the community of any worldview. Science cannot flourish when people see the world as no more than illusion. Science cannot flourish when people see the world as a torture to escape from. Science cannot flourish when people consider that things just happen by chance. On the other hand, Science will flourish only if people can be sure of the consistent orderly behaviour of things. And Christian, as well as other Abrahamic religions, held this worldview. People, who think that Christians cannot become good scientists because they believe in the miracle written of the Bible, need to understand that it is the contrary. Please understand that a miracle can only be considered as miracle because it does not happen often. In fact because it is against the normal behaviour of things, it was called a miracle.

Now back to Copernicus story. Copernicus decided not to publish his work publicly fearing the potential scorn for the novelty and incomprehensibility of this thesis. His research was only later published on the same day as when Copernicus died. Despite being delayed in terms of publication, the heliocentric model hypothesis of Copernicus had been delivered in a series of lectures and speeded further through words of mouth and rumours. Pope Clement VII and some cardinals who have heard the lectures were interested in this new heliocentric theory. A letter from Nikolaus Von Schonberg, the archbishop of Capua really expressed his interests of Copernicus work: "with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject." And so, not only limited to the catholic community, Copernicus theory also reached scholars and educated people across Europe.

If we look around now, it seems that everyone believe heliocentric model with no problem, however, when it started, this model was really slow to be accepted. Even after Copernicus writings, there were only around 15 astronomers/scientists that succeed Copernicus work. Many of these astronomers were Christians. Three of the famous ones were Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton.

Kepler was a committed Christian. He was famous for his work around astronomy especially from his work "law of planetary motion." Even though initially Kepler intended to become a Lutheran minister after finishing his study in theology, he ended up teaching mathematics and labour in astronomy field. Kepler believed that his move to science field was led by God. Kepler strongly believed that ‘The world of nature, the world of man, the world of God—all three fit together’. Kepler reason for his work is motivated by his religion conviction. Because the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, it should function according to some logical pattern. To him, the idea of a chaotic universe was inconsistent with God’s wisdom. That’s why when other scientists had given up on searching for logical pattern, Kepler strived on.

Kepler defended Nicolaus Copernicus' theory that the earth orbits the sun (heliocentrism) and sought to reconcile it with Scripture. He revolutionized scientific thought by applying physics to astronomy. Kepler’s research concluded in the famous Kepler’s law of planetary motion. First, the orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci. Secondly, a line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time. Thirdly, the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Second one, Galileo is recognized as the father of observational astronomy, father of modern physics, and father of modern science. Like Kepler, Galileo was a pious Christian. Galileo, one who believe in heliocentric model, was someone that took Augustine position on Scripture, which is not to take every passage of the scripture literally, especially when reading the book of poetry and songs.  He expounded on the God given gifts of intellect and reason. Initially his main field of study was physics not astronomy. Only later when he built his first telescope, he starts observing the planetary movement. He discovered the Jupiter’s moon, which later is referred to Galilean moon. And with his telescope he found supporting arguments for a model with sun in the centre of the system.

In 1616, Galileo went to Rome, attempting to persuade the Catholic Church not to ban Copernican ideas. Unfortunately, Galileo heliocentric model, unfortunately, had neither solid nor comprehensive proofs of a sun-centered system. Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. In the end Galileo's primary argument is against the purposefully deceitful application of Biblical passages, inappropriately used out of context. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. What made the matter worse is that during his defend for heliocentric he might have consciously or unconsciously insulted his friend, the Pope Urban VII as “Simplicio” – meaning: simpleton. The Pope did not take this insult lightly. Perhaps one of the reasons was because it was a public insult. And perhaps the other strong reason was because the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was recently questioned during reformation. This resulted in Galileo being trialled, forced to withdraw his opinion and imprisoned.

Finally Sir Isaac Newton came to the picture. Sir Isaac Newton was a physicist, mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, alchemist and a theologian. He is considered by many as the greatest and most influential scientist that have ever lived. He is famous for his three newton’s law. And like the previous two scientists mentioned, Newton also believed in God. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. 

During his career, Newton derived the law of gravitation between two masses, which become the modern basis for heliocentric model. Since the Sun was the most massive object in the planetary system, all of the planets would naturally be attracted to it and revolve around it, in the same manner as the Moon revolves around the Earth. In 1687, Newton eventually wrote about gravitation and the heliocentric theory in his famous monograph: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The church was initially still in opposition towards this concept. But within less than a century later, in 1758, the church decided dropped the prohibition of books advocating heliocentric.

I don’t know about you, but when I know these events in the history, I think that it is not fair that people frame this case as simply church against science. There was a lot more to this case than simply “the church punish Galileo because his scientific theory is different from what the church believe”. The church had reasonable scientific ground to doubt heliocentric theory. At least until Isaac Newton’s theory, heliocentric model was not yet a full thesis. I think it will be more proper if we see this case as Roman Catholic Church abusing the authority of the Bible. Since the bible did neither really say much about whether the earth revolve around the Sun nor the other way around, whichever one is true, brought no contradiction against the Bible. Both theories did not state things that are contrary to be Bible scripture but instead it is within the room of Bible interpretation. When the bible says “…the sun rises and the sun sets …“, that truth still stands for both geocentric believer and heliocentric believer.

Moreover, since it was a case between Christian parties that cares about the truth and evidence, I also learn that we cannot diminish the existence of God simply based on the mistakes of believers and/or religious institutions, especially when the mistakes are not the logical consequences for the teachings. For example, if the Holy Scripture says “you shall not lie” and the believers end up still lying, we cannot blame God for that. If the Scripture says “you shall love your neighbour” and some of the believers are still killing each other, contrary to the scripture’s teaching, it is not a reason for us to hate God. And so when the scripture did not mentioned about particular subjects of what revolves around what, but instead describes man as corrupted and sinful, it was an abuse if the church claims to be infallible in their arguments around geocentric model.

I would like to contrast these logical consequences of the existence of God, with the logical consequences of the non-existence of God. When people believe that there is no God, and that we are a mere product of harsh reality of the survival of the fittest, isn’t it logical for people to prey weaker others especially? Just like what is suggested in Dostoevsky novel: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Actually, for both theist and atheist, I would like to ask whether you have done things according to the logical consequences of your believe. If you have not act according to the logical consequences of your believe, then why? I shall leave this thought for now. We will discuss further when we reach to morality discussion which I’m pretty sure will be very interesting.

Now, as we have clarified the issue about heliocentric versus geocentric, and that neither of them contradict with the hypothesis of God’s existence, I would like to continue with the case of evolution. Evolution is a different case from the heliocentric. While the Bible does not say much about revolution of the earth, the Bible does speak about the creation. 

In the first book of the Bible, the Genesis, it is said that God created the universe. God created “seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds”. God also created “the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind” God also created “living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind”. Then God also created man in His own image. Now isn’t this contradicting with the theory of evolution? How can we say that the Bible does not bear false witness and does not contradict with any truth?

Wait for part 4c when we’ll discuss further about Evolution...

Is there God? 4a) Science] God wisdom is ahead of science

Science proving God's truth

In terms of science, if God the creator exists, He must be the one who understand his creation the most. Especially, when talking about Christian God, God is described as all eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27), self-existent creator (genesis 1:1), sovereign (psalm 50:10-12, Isaiah 46:9-11), all knowing (psalm 139, Isaiah 40:13-14), and is true and even the truth itself (psalm 31:5, John 17:6, Titus 1:1-2). On one side, these claims speak strongly about God’s authority. But, on the other side, these claims, require that there should be no single thing that is mentioned in the Bible that should contradict with the truth including the scientific truth. 

I need to remind you that the Bible is neither a science book nor a history book. The Bible is written with the focus of God message to us explaining His work with Jesus Christ at the centre. And so, the Bible will neither cover all science nor will it use scientific terminology. However, since the Bible is the Word of God, it should be true and not bear neither lies or false information. 

As I write the previous statement, some readers might ask in their mind “What about the issue of heliocentric versus geocentric? What about evolution? shouldn't we mix science with religion?” I will surely cover these in the discussion as well.  

Before going there though, as a proof that the Bible, being the revelation of God is not contradicting with science, I will point out a couple of things that the scriptures have mentioned hundreds and thousands years ago about this world. These things that I am about to mention are the things that transcended human understanding of the time and I would have difficulty to explain it in any other way except that it is revealed by the true and creator God. 

For example, prophet Isaiah (8th Century BC) already mentioned that the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22). Please note that this was not the common believe at that time. In the past, many believe that believed the earth was flat and surrounded by water. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras was credited to recognize that the earth is spherical in the 6th century BC. In terms of evidence, it was later in around 330 BC that Aristotle maintained the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical. Where does Isaiah get this knowledge if not from God, the creator? 

Another example of Biblical scientific truth is that Prophet Job (around 22nd Century BC?) already mentioned that the earth is hung in vacuum / emptiness (space). In this statement Job had to believe that the earth is not flat, he also had to believe the vastness of the universe and that the earth is placed in space. It almost sounds like Job had seen the earth from outer space more than 4000 years ago. 

The Ecclesiastes book, which is most likely written by King Solomon (10th century BC), already mentioned about the Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Interestingly, the current theory of Atmospheric circulation that we have on our text book, are the products of some discoveries that happened between 18th Century and 20th Century. You may want to check the work of George Hadley in 18th century, William Ferrel in 19th century, Carl-Gustav Rossby 20th century and Sir Gilbert Walker 20th century. 

And these are only some examples of knowledge that is revealed in the bible ahead of modern science. Now, I don’t think that these are coincidence or lucky guesses because these people are writing with all seriousness and authority. You won’t imagine that Julius Caesar in one of his authoritative speech will insert a guessing statement like “man will soon go to the moon” will you? He won’t do that because in 44 BC, people will not believe that. Yet, these prophets in the Bible dare to speak these non-commonly accepted views of the world with authority. Where did the confidence come from? I would really like to think of another reason. However, I rationally have to concede that there is high probably of truth that the only reason is because this knowledge did not come from themselves but from a trustworthy source, which is God, the creator of this world.

When I was young, I had once doubt the authority of the Bible and recently I have been considering all the new updates surrounding science. During both times, the doubt triggers me to do some research here and there. What I still find very astonishing is that the Bible never contradicts with scientific truth. And for me, this is quite amazing, given that the Scriptures in the Bible were written thousands of years ago. Not only that the Bible have told the truth about the universe, there are even a couple of things mentioned in the Bible that transcend the science knowledge of the time. In fact, scientific findings that have been properly proven by solid evidence have only confirmed what the Bible had previously said. 

to be continued to part 4b

Is there God? - Interlude

Which Methods, Which God?

I have decided to go for the scientific arguments first.  The reason is mainly because it will take quite a lot of explanation on how we understand history, how we can believe the things in the past, how to differentiate the true past from the false one, and so on and so on. On the other hand, scientific arguments appear to be more straight-forward. Perhaps, this is because of my education background in science. In addition, I also find the scientific approach to be more interesting. Especially, since nowadays there seems to be this common view that put the “believe in God” as the barrier and enemy of the development of science.

As we now begin to the detail discussion in finding out the existence of God, I come to realize that by this stage I need to admit that when I explain about God, I may have actually refer to the Christian God. There is some commonality in the various believes in God in different religions. At a high level, most or all of these religions have the similar view, for example, they believe in God who is the eternal creator, a God that is not simply “great human” and that He is almighty and eternal. However, there will be variations in term of other attributes and characters of God taught by these different religions. Although, I am trying to simply cover the general idea of God’s existence without talking deeply in particular religion at this stage. I must admit that my view of God at the moment is strongly influenced by the Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

As I write this blogs, I realise that I am putting my Faith on the line. If I manage to confirm the existence of God, I still plan to drill down further in my future blogs on whether Christianity is the true religion. Otherwise, if by all various dimension and approaches, God appears to be no more than a blind self-made believe, I will need to rethink totally about the worldview that I have held for so long. I would like to invite all of you, reader, to have the open mindedness and invite you all to take the courage to put your believe to the test as well. Please put your comments and questions on each article, and we will look at them in the Q&A Page. 

Is there God? - 3) Unchecked worldview

Inquiry Begins...

After all the long explanation about hypothetical approach, some of you may think that the chain of thoughts will lead to: God can only be proven if you believe the religious scriptures. This is not entirely wrong. Since we hypothetically believe that there is God, we have to believe in the authority of God, and His revelation.  And since the revelation says that there is a God, we have to believe that there is a God. If God exists, since he is the omnipotent creator, He should be the judge of everything. We have to put his revelation as the highest authority of truth. Only the Creator have the ultimate rights to explain to humanity of how the universe was created, what is the purpose of man, what is right, what is just, what sort of God is He, and how humanity should live their lives.

But many of you would argue that believing religious scriptures would be like believing the existence of fairies by reading fairy tales. Many would argue that such scriptures are nothing more than a self-serving claim, like a person saying “I always tell the truth”. However, there is a huge different between believing a fairy tale and believing something true.  Not only that fairy tales are not aligned with our historical reality, fairy tales, myths and legends are usually passed down as stories for the purpose of its moral values. True events however are aligned with our history and it is being passed to another people because of it is significant truth.

How do we differentiate a claim saying “Medusa was real” and the claim saying “Hitler was real”? Yep, you may think it’s funny, but nowadays some people even question whether Cleopatra was imaginary. So how do we differentiate them? We have never seen both them personally. We are only told about these stories about them.  Can we judge them simply based on which stories are making sense to us?

Do you believe your history book? Do you believe that the past wars listed in the history really did happen? Do you believe that Socrates was real? Do you believe that Gautama Buddha was real? Do you believe the story of Napoleon as real historical fact? How do you know if Hercules, the demi God, was real? How do you know that in the past organism “evolved” from one sort of animal to another? Do you believe that the story of Abraham was real historical fact? Was the French revolution a fact instead of simply as an exciting fiction that teaches us something about morality? How do you prove these things as genuine?

In determining this history, often, we are not being fair. We tend to have the bias towards history based on our “worldview”. For example, Richard Dawkins during one of his interview (with Al Jazeera) laughs at the idea that hundreds of years ago, Mohammed rode a flying donkey.  For someone who believes in evolution, dinosaurs and also that mankind come from worms, why is it so hard for Richard Dawkins to believe in the existence of flying donkey? The reason is most likely, none other than his bias towards flying donkey or religion, which results in the unfair dismissal of probable information. Otherwise, without the bias, he could have assumed that the flying donkey was a result of evolution. We too might unconsciously filters information and accept only certain truth that we feel comfortable with.

Now, I initially want to approach this scientifically, but seems like we arrive at a cross road. Should I examine further the existence of God through historical approach or scientific approach? Both approaches need thorough observation. And as a Christian, I need to try as much as I can to be objective about this….

Continue to Part 4

Btw this is interesting... sorry just have to link this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Xn60Zw03A

Is there God? - 2) Hypothesis, knowing and believing

Half-hearted hypothesis

How do we determine the existence of God, when we feel like there is not much evidence of God? Scientifically, people will start off with a hypothesis. When you type "define: hypothesis" in Google, the first definition given is: 

hy·poth·e·sis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Hypothesis is not only used to help science research, but also for truth finding to solve crime, or news gathering. For example, when a detective found a dead end when solving a murder case, she could then make a hypothesis that perhaps the murderer has an accomplice. When she makes this hypothesis, there is no evidence that can prove the existence of an accomplice "yet". The detective then try to fit her hypothesis to the case and suddenly everything about the case makes sense. She will then find more proof about the case to confirm her hypothesis regarding the existence of an accomplice.

The thing that needs to be noted when using hypothetical analysis is that we need to be consistent with our initial hypothesis. For example, if a detective makes a hypothetical statement that there were 8 robbers, in his explanation of his theory; he could not later say that these robbers get into the bank riding a mini scooter. It is inconsistent because a mini scooter wouldn't be able to carry 8 people. 

Now, there are 3 positions that people usually take:

-      I know there is God

o   “There is a God and there are many proofs of it”

-      I am not convinced that there is God

o   “I don’t think anyone can be too sure that God exist / not exist”

o   “Even if God exist, I wouldn’t want to believe Him”

-      I know there is no God

o   “There is no God and there are many proofs of it”

I would initially really like to balance finding the truth by hypothesising on both sides thoroughly, but it seems I can only hypothesis on the existence of God only. Because when I look deeper on the argument of “There is no God”, it is a bit pointless to proof that “there is no God”. If someone comes to me to say “Hey, do you believe that I can jump over that fence?”, there is not much we can do to prove that he/she cannot jump over the fence. It is more reasonable to try to find prove that he can jump over the fence.

In fact, not only that the great thinkers admit that the position of “a-theist” is a position of disbelief instead of a position of belief, in many forums attempting to prove the non-existence of God, they (atheist and non-believer) end up concluding that they cannot prove the non-existence of god. Other remaining arguments that people provide are often non-related arguments. For example “if God exist, why do people with religion do horrible things?” or “if God exist, why does He let so many believers die?” These sorts of arguments are half-hearted hypothesis that neither approve nor disapprove the existence of God. There is no relationship between “many believers dying” and the “non-existence of God”. The existence of God does not necessarily mean less believers dying. Similarly the non existence of God does not results in more believers dying. Good things that non religious people do does not prove the non-existence of God and the good things believers do cannot prove the existence of God.

Earlier, I mentioned the need to make a hypothesis to find out the unknown, and I also mentioned that we need to be consistent with the hypothesis. Unfortunately many people when trying to figure out the existence of God, don’t really believe their hypothesis. For example, many people when trying to determine whether God exist, also at the same time assume that God is like any other creature. As a result, some would naively say something like “if I cannot see God, God cannot possibly exist” or “if I cannot put God into a science lab, then God cannot possibly exist”. The thing is, if you can put a “god” under the microscope, it’s probably not the true God.

When our mission is to seek God, and we hypothesize about the existence of God, there are at least four things that we need to set right. First we need to have the right understanding of God. Second we need to have the right methods of proving. Thirdly, we have to have the right attitude consistent to the hypothesis. And finally, we cannot make a hypothesis not according to the historical facts. In fact, we need all of these criteria when we need to determine the existence of other things through hypothesis.

First, we need to have the right understanding of what we are looking for. If you are like me, living in a cold climate country and wanted to proof that there is such thing as “llama”. I need to know that it lives in a hot-warm climate, it stands on four legs, have a fur, looks like a camel without the hump and so on and so on. Otherwise I may be looking for it in Antarctica, or under the microscope, or up in the sky using a telescope only to say naively that “there is no such thing as a llama”.

Secondly, we need to proof God with the right methods of proving. You cannot prove gravity under the microscope. You cannot prove the formula speed = distance / time with music. You cannot prove history using pure maths. You cannot prove the existence of llama using philosophy alone.

Thirdly, we need to have the right attitude. We have to be humble. We have to have the right attitude and treat God as God in our quest. Imagine that you are sick, and someone tells you that there is an almighty king that can heal you. You come there arrogantly and instruct the king to heal you saying “If you are capable of healing me, heal me! Or else you are not as capable as what they say”. If the king softly says “oh sorry, you must have been mistaken. I can’t heal you”. Don’t assume that he really is incapable of healing you. Remember, if God is God, He is not obligated to serve man. On the contrary, if God is the true God, the obligation is probably on mankind to serve God.

Lastly, all hypotheses have to be according to the historical fact. A hypothesis like “if madam curry had not discovered radium, I would have discovered it” is not a valid hypothesis because the history said that she did discover radium.

With these methods in mind, let's move on with the journey. Remember, if God exists, then all theories, philosophies and science that assumes the non-existence of God, are foolish and delusional and thus cannot be taken seriously. If God does not exists, then all the theories, philosophies, science and religion that assumes the existence of God, are foolish and delusional and cannot be taken seriously.

To be continued… (Part 3 Coming up!)

Is there God? - 1) The big question

Is there God?

While atheist only counts for less than 5% of world population in 2005, by 2012 these numbers increases to about 18% of world population. There recent growth in population, raise a serious question: “Does God exist?”. Not only because the statistic becomes more significant, but also because I think this is a significant question that we need to answer in the search of the truth of reality. The answer to this question is the presupposition of other many theories and teachings in most fields of study including philosophy, science, morality, etc (which we will discuss later in the future :D ). 

Furthermore, the implications of the existence of God or non-existence of God have a great impact on how we see our lives and the reality we live in. If God exists then we can continue on the next question, what sort of God is He? Are any of the existing religions true? If God does not exist then where do we come from? Who am I? How we should live our life depends a lot on the answer to this question. If God exist and you convince yourself that God does not exist, you are delusional. Similarly, if God does not exist and you convince yourself that God exist, you are also delusional. And delusional people tend to meet dire consequences. If you convince yourself that you can walk over the air (while you can’t really) you’ll end up falling over the cliff.

It’s quite interesting that only few people seem to bother asking areas that are inconvenient to them especially when there are other like-minded people that they can already feel belong to. The religious people afraid to asks “What if God does not really exist?” and the Atheist and the non-religious people also similarly never think it through “What if God does exist?”. I would like to encourage you, to think it over with me...

Now, having said that determining the existence of God is important, finding the answer is not that easy and many arguments and debates have become too much to bear for some people. The arguments surrounding the existence of God range from the logical, emotional, hypothetical, and even irrational. Seems like, as a result, many people become fed up and decides to be ignorant about it. I think, however, this issue is too important to be ignored.

Before we can move on, however, we need to clarify one thing. When we talk about God in the sense of “the existence of God”, we have to limit this to the “true God” category.  We do not care about the man-made God, because a created God is not God at all. Stone, nature, mountain, crafted idol, myth or mighty and wise man are not what we mean when ask “does god exist?” These things are just things that are made God by man. So when we ask “does God exist”, it is quite important that we should actually refer to the true God. “Does the ultimate, non-created, true God exist?”

More importantly, for the sake of usefulness, the question could be phrased further into “Does a true God, of which affect my existence exist?” There is no point arguing about the existence of a god that is just there, sitting at the corner, not affecting our life. How can you tell the difference between a god that does nothing, and nothing? in fact, It will not matter whether that sort of God exist. However, if there is a God that created us, that interact with us, that may punish us, or rewards us, that we are accounted to in this life or after life, then it’s a different story.  

Therefore when we ask the question "does God exist?" not all that mention god or gods (and the variation) actually answer in affirmative manner. See the table below:

The question of “Does God exist?” cannot be satisfied by an answer along the line of “Yes, we are God”, because it would actually mean “No, there is no God, We are the judge of all things”. Thus we also should not consider the answer of the middle group as an affirmative answer because the teachings of the religions in this middle group do not actually propose God that is truly a God. For example, if our ancestors are God, then it is basically a person that has been worshipped “as” god. And we should not worry about it since we will become God too eventually. If nature is God, then we also should not worry about it since it does not really have a personal will – it’s only the law of nature. If it is said that men are gods that is at the moment trapped in an illusion or circle of rebirth then it simply means “No, there is no God, except us”. None of the Gods concept in the middle group is truly God, the gods are more like evolved or superior version of man at most – but not God.  

So does God Exist?

To be continued... (part 2 coming up!)