Are you one of those people tormented by the "evidences" science put forth to establish that there is no entity called god and that it is all nonsense promoted by religion to exert control over human beings? Or those who believe in God very much but plagued by the doubt: why does God let these people carry on so? Well, here's why.
Remember, it was Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution that science put up as their primary and central argument against the existence of God. But what they do not realise is that Darwin's theory only refutes the story of creation and not the Creator (this is not to suggest that the story of creation is false; I only meant that Darwin says so). According to this theory man was not created by God but rather, evolved from apes. That raises the question, so who created apes? Well, they evolved from something else which evolved from something else and so on, till we arrive at the unicellular organism with which science claims that life began on earth. Supposing this was true, only supposing, then who created this unicellular organism? Oh, it wasn't created at all, it was formed as a result of some biochemical reactions of water. But then who created water? Water is a combination of two elements and was formed from some reaction or other that took place on the surface of the Earth or in the atmosphere or inside the Earth, blah blah blah. Even if this was true (obviously, it isn't), who created the Earth? Well, that's a good question because there is a ready-made answer for it: The Earth and in fact the entire universe was formed due to an explosion or more correctly, an expansion, termed the Big Bang. The universe was once a hot, dense substance which underwent rapid expansion and then cooling down, formed galaxies and stars and planets and satellites. Thank you, that serves my purpose. Who created this hot, dense mass? There has to be someone who created it, if you use logic. And so, what makes it so difficult to accept that someone as God?
But you are forgetting the most recent developments that confirmed an early theory and detected what may be the Higgs boson or Higgs particle or what is commonly known as the "god" particle (the very name! but I'll come to that in a moment). A prominent scientist suggested it, another wrote a book on it and two teams at CERN separately confirmed the discovery of a hitherto unknown particle that very well could be the Higgs particle (they are not yet sure), and the whole world and its atheists celebrated it. Alright, but did this particle take form suddenly, on its own? Or did it require the hard work of the most brilliant scientists alive, with a number of technical settings and conditions at the Large Hadron Collider, such conditions that had any one of them been messed with, the particle would not have been discovered? Yes, it did. The discovery was the result of an experiment that was overseen at every point of time by some scientist or the other, probably a team of scientists. Now let me ask you something: if it took a number of scientists (who may possibly be the most intelligent men alive) to conduct experiments that resulted in the discovery of the "god" particle (discovery, not creation), if it took so much men to discover it, wouldn't it take a far greater force to create the universe which is far greater and more mysterious than the "god" particle? If it took a man (or many men) to provide the circumstances essential for this particle's discovery, wouldn't it take a God to make the necessary arrangements for the creation of the universe? There you are. So thank you scientists and thank you atheists, thank you very much for your valuable discussions on it. Thank you for proving your opponents' point.
You know what, I think the name "god" particle is apt after all, for it is the best scientific explanation (such is the world we live in, we require scientific explanations for everything) for the existence of God.
There is an even simpler explanation for those who will take it. We know that water comprises of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Yet has man created a drop of water using this formula? No, because such an experiment, if successful, will also release a lot of energy that is highly destructive. But water found in nature is hardly formed with explosions. Isn't this a lesson that it takes not just substances to create life but a Creator?
Remember, it was Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution that science put up as their primary and central argument against the existence of God. But what they do not realise is that Darwin's theory only refutes the story of creation and not the Creator (this is not to suggest that the story of creation is false; I only meant that Darwin says so). According to this theory man was not created by God but rather, evolved from apes. That raises the question, so who created apes? Well, they evolved from something else which evolved from something else and so on, till we arrive at the unicellular organism with which science claims that life began on earth. Supposing this was true, only supposing, then who created this unicellular organism? Oh, it wasn't created at all, it was formed as a result of some biochemical reactions of water. But then who created water? Water is a combination of two elements and was formed from some reaction or other that took place on the surface of the Earth or in the atmosphere or inside the Earth, blah blah blah. Even if this was true (obviously, it isn't), who created the Earth? Well, that's a good question because there is a ready-made answer for it: The Earth and in fact the entire universe was formed due to an explosion or more correctly, an expansion, termed the Big Bang. The universe was once a hot, dense substance which underwent rapid expansion and then cooling down, formed galaxies and stars and planets and satellites. Thank you, that serves my purpose. Who created this hot, dense mass? There has to be someone who created it, if you use logic. And so, what makes it so difficult to accept that someone as God?
But you are forgetting the most recent developments that confirmed an early theory and detected what may be the Higgs boson or Higgs particle or what is commonly known as the "god" particle (the very name! but I'll come to that in a moment). A prominent scientist suggested it, another wrote a book on it and two teams at CERN separately confirmed the discovery of a hitherto unknown particle that very well could be the Higgs particle (they are not yet sure), and the whole world and its atheists celebrated it. Alright, but did this particle take form suddenly, on its own? Or did it require the hard work of the most brilliant scientists alive, with a number of technical settings and conditions at the Large Hadron Collider, such conditions that had any one of them been messed with, the particle would not have been discovered? Yes, it did. The discovery was the result of an experiment that was overseen at every point of time by some scientist or the other, probably a team of scientists. Now let me ask you something: if it took a number of scientists (who may possibly be the most intelligent men alive) to conduct experiments that resulted in the discovery of the "god" particle (discovery, not creation), if it took so much men to discover it, wouldn't it take a far greater force to create the universe which is far greater and more mysterious than the "god" particle? If it took a man (or many men) to provide the circumstances essential for this particle's discovery, wouldn't it take a God to make the necessary arrangements for the creation of the universe? There you are. So thank you scientists and thank you atheists, thank you very much for your valuable discussions on it. Thank you for proving your opponents' point.
You know what, I think the name "god" particle is apt after all, for it is the best scientific explanation (such is the world we live in, we require scientific explanations for everything) for the existence of God.
There is an even simpler explanation for those who will take it. We know that water comprises of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. Yet has man created a drop of water using this formula? No, because such an experiment, if successful, will also release a lot of energy that is highly destructive. But water found in nature is hardly formed with explosions. Isn't this a lesson that it takes not just substances to create life but a Creator?
No comments:
Post a Comment