Everybody has their own opinion to answer that question. Everybody has the right to believe or not to believe. Because some people claim there is no physical evidence of God’s existence, I asked myself whether or not there is any such evidence. Then I wondered whether or not I could find any evidence.
Consequently, I examined different sciences to seek evidence to answer that question. However, even before examining any science, I asked the simple question: Do we believe in science? “Is science truthful? Is it accurate?” were my questions. Aren’t those fair questions to ask before assuming that science is “the final answer,” as they say on those television shows? Haven’t we seen, heard, and read about science changing its conclusions over time? Isn’t it true that what was true yesterday is not true today? And what is true today invariably and frequently won’t be true tomorrow? Anyone familiar with science knows that science is an ongoing process of learning new truths. We realize that new evidence can overturn old evidence. Let’s be honest and admit that to start with.
So, is science accurate? In response to that question, I wrote in my book that science is accurate “to the limit of our knowledge.” We need to realize that science is accurate, relatively speaking. Nevertheless, certain scientific facts are consistently true. Maybe not always or forever true, but consistently true. For example, in botany, all plant life is divided into seven levels of organized categories. Also, in zoology, all animal life is similarly divided into seven levels of organized categories. Does that happen by accident, by random, or by design? It behooves us to explain why that’s true. Simply denying that God exists is not an adequate, reasonable, or scientific explanation to prove that God doesn’t exist. Neither is it scientifically true to merely claim that God does exist. Either way, science requires proof. Philosophically, it’s a different story. However, my book is not a philosophical or theological book. It is a scientific study.
What I did was to look at science, including botany and zoology, to find scientific facts that provided evidence of God’s existence. Theology, philosophy, and other subjects may offer their own explanations or “proof” of God’s existence, but those fields of knowledge were excluded in my examination. My focus was exclusively on objective evidence offered by science to answer the basic question. I was not focused on subjective evidence. While those other fields of knowledge may or may not be legitimate paths for examination, they were not the purpose of my study. I wanted concrete evidence. So, again, I say that my study was a scientific study.
I didn’t write the book because I am an expert or an acknowledged authority in the subject. I wrote the book because science itself is the recognized authority on science. My evidence is already-accepted scientific evidence. The credibility comes from science instead of me. My book is merely a report of what science says. No more, no less. To refute the evidence in the book, one must refute science. To refute science is certainly not impossible because it is done all the time. However, to refute basic scientific evidence, one must refute basic science such as the above-mentioned fact that botany and zoology classify all plant and animal life into seven levels of categories. That takes more of a major effort to prove. That’s why my thesis is science proves God’s existence.
If you have any comment or question, let me know at email@example.com. It would be nice to hear your views.