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!)