Does God exist?

Does God Exist? A Firm Maybe

If you read the introduction to this site, then you already know the answer to that question. After several minutes of deep philosophical investigation and one latte, I can confirm: it’s a firm maybe.

Ok, fine. That’s a bit flippant, sorry. So, I suppose we’d better look a little deeper at this question and properly consider whether there is any chance of proving whether God exists. A sort of suck it and see, type of thing, you know, just to see how far we can get. It is sort of the point of the whole site, after all – and it’s probably why you’re reading this, unless you arrived here by mistake while looking for recipes. People have been asking about the existence of God, the meaning of faith, and the limits of evidence for a very long time, so it would seem a little rude not to join in, seeing as you’re here. You never know, we might learn something useful. Stranger things have happened, apparently.

Can God Be Proven Scientifically?

OK, first a spoiler alert. Read on at your own risk…ready?

Right then. Let’s be clear right from the start: no matter how confident anyone sounds, the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the other, sorry. The same goes for ghosts, angels, demons, etc, or claims that we can speak with the dead, which is inconvenient for both theologians and late-night television. You can believe or not believe, argue for or against, but you can’t prove it. Not scientifically. Not even if you point very firmly at the sky.

“Hang on…scientifically? What’s science got to do with anything?” I hear you ask.

Belief, Evidence, and Scientific Proof

An’d I’m glad you did because science has quite a lot to do with it, actually, if what we want is proof of anything. Proof means evidence strong enough to establish something as fact, and with a question like the existence of God what we would want is scientific proof—not merely a conclusion that feels convincing beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, we’ll still be arguing, won’t we? And the internet already has enough of that. Beliefs may be deeply meaningful to the people who hold them, but that does not make them proof for anyone else, no matter how adamant someone is. One person may look at the beauty and complexity of the natural world and see the unmistakable work of a divine creator; another may look at the same world and see the wonder of evolution, plus an alarming number of insects. The same evidence can lead different people to different conclusions. That is the trouble with belief: it can be sincere, powerful, and personally persuasive, but still fall well short of proof.

So, to settle an argument about whether God exists we would need something definitive: a fact so clear and unarguable that both believers and non-believers would have to accept it, ideally without anyone making a podcast about why they still disagree. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west; on that, we can all agree. The moon is made of cheese, no argument there. But we would need something equally unarguable about God if we were to accept a conclusion one way or another. But can there be a definitive scientific answer to whether God exists? Unfortunately, no, which is a shame. Because not having that annoying proof business is exactly why we have this problem, and this endless, ongoing, philosophical discussion. Philosophers. Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about arguments.  Worth a look if you’ve got five minutes. It’s ok, I’ll wait.

Monty Python - Argument Clinic

Why Science Struggles with the Supernatural

Anyway, back to it. “Why can’t we have a firm conclusion?”, you ask now you’ve stop chuckling. “If some people are so utterly convinced, why can’t science confirm their beliefs?” Excellent questions, it’s nice to have such an intelligent reader…

Well, the reason is sort of both simple and complex at the same time. Simple because the premise itself is straightforward, but complex because you have to get your head around existence itself as a concept. Sorry,

Anyway…the simple reason is that a god of any type, if such a being exists, would have to exist outside or beyond the natural world. It couldn’t be a part of that word, he, she or it would have to be supernatural to it. And not “underwear on the outside” superhero supernatural, but supernatural in the sense that it was above, outside, or distinct from nature. Why? Because a creator cannot be a part of the thing they created.

Let’s look an example. If I paint a picture or make a piece of pottery, let’s say a mug, the picture or mug exists separately from me, which is fortunate because I’m not very good at. The point is, this picture or mug are separate entities. They exist separately and distinctly from the rubbish artist who made them. You might argue I am connected to them creatively, emotionally, or even spiritually, but physically and scientifically they and I are distinct things. Do you see the point? In the same way, if a god created the universe, that god would have to be distinct and separate from the universe. Otherwise, the creator would somehow be creating itself as part of creating everything else, which is not a coherent idea, even before coffee. You cannot make yourself into existence, and you cannot make something external become a literal part of yourself. Even the most advanced artificial limb remains an artificial limb: connected, useful, and extraordinary perhaps, but still not the original body part itself.

Told you it was both simple and complex at the same time.

Now, this matters because of what science is able to do. Science studies the physical world through observation, measurement, testing, and theory-building. It is very good at this, and has given us antibiotics, satellites, and the ability to argue with strangers using tiny glowing rectangles. But it needs something to examine, observe or study, something that exists, and this is where it runs into difficulty with a supernatural being. If a god exists and created the natural world then, logically, it exists outside that natural world, and in that case, science has no way of studying it. There is nothing to observe, measure, or test. We can study the universe, but if the creator is not part of that universe, studying the universe cannot prove the creator’s existence in the way science normally proves anything. That is why the question “can science prove God exists?” is so difficult. It would be a bit like studying a ham sandwich in order to prove the existence of cows.

So, Does God Exist?

So, after all that, what have we learned? Have we discovered whether a god exists? No, sorry, unfortunately not. What we’ve discovered is something we probably already knew - that the existence of God remains what it has always been: a question of belief, which is the one reason the debate about science and religion, faith and reason, and arguments for and against God never quite reaches a final answer. Arguments for God and arguments against God can be made, but they remain arguments justified by belief, not scientifically provable fact. God can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically, so the question can never be settled unarguably, no matter how confidently someone folds their arms. That is worth remembering whenever someone insists they have settled the matter. No matter how certain they sound, the most their argument can do is persuade you—or fail to.

So, after everything, we still have doubt, and that is all right, to be honest. There is nothing wrong with doubt. Doubt is healthy. Doubt keeps us searching, questioning, and thinking about ourselves and our world until we arrive at an answer we can live with. So, until you are comfortable with your answer, keep searching and keep doubting. Preferably with snacks.

Now where did I leave that sandwich?