According to many theists of contemporary religious circles, what is considered to be a ‘deity’, or ‘god’, is repeatedly characterised as being ‘supernatural’. This term alone should be sufficient in its definition; however, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in utilising nomenclature such as ‘supernatural’, we are implying the existence of a deity to be non-natural. That is, not of this world.

As such, with science being the study of the phenomena of the natural world around us, and its basis in philosophical inductive and deductive reasoning being found upon human observation of the natural world, how can something not of this natural world be analysed in the same way the natural world can? It would be like trying to understand the concept of an empire from the perspective of a nomadic hill tribe , or as I will discuss in my discourses on detramentalist morality, understanding omniscient morality from the perspective of a human society. If a God is beyond the realms of scientific observation (by which I do not mean physical observation, as in sight, but rather technical observation which may or may not be aided by scientific theories and/or technologies), how can he/she be scientifically observed, and thus, proven?

Fundamentally, the existence of a God poses that this God would exist externally to our known universe. Hence, with no way to scientifically prove anything existing outside our universe, the existence of any supernatural God can never be proven. But, on these grounds, is it true to assume believing in such a thing is irrational because of its lack or provability?

To answer this question, I would like to point out the following: what do you believe is the cause of the existence of the universe? Most atheists would say “the Big Bang”, which, upon being further asked, is said to have “sprung from nothingness”. Scientists themselves lay no claim to knowledge any further back in time than the original Planck time period, before which all laws of physics cease to work. Based on the non-provability of this event, does that mean that it is any less impossible? No, rather the universe being created from nothingness or being created by a God are equally improbable.

René Descartes, in his famous quote ‘cognito, ergo sum’ (literally, ‘I think, therefore, I am’) poetically sums up most contemporary theories about the provability of knowledge (epistemology). It states that we have no concept of what exists outside our own minds – we could be being controlled by some external ‘demon force’, manipulating what we perceive. If such a reality is even admitted a possibility (which it must be, as it cannot be proven otherwise), all scientific knowledge and the ‘proof’ it has generated must be brought into question. If the only thing we can truly know is our own, thinking minds, how can we truly know anything about the universe we perceive? How then can anything be proven or not proven? It is through the simple nature of human ignorance of perception that we can never come to know whether a God can truly exist or not.

As such, if proof does not exist for anything but our thought, can scientific proof really be a valid form of rationalising any belief? If we cannot truly prove anything, it is stupid to exist in a state where we do not believe in anything we see based on lack of proof. If that were the case, we would simply cease to believe in literally everything but ourselves. Hence, believing in a God is no more rational nor irrational than believing in any other cause for the universe.

Belief in a God can be justified on the basis alone that it is just one option of a plethora of causes for the cause of the universe which are equally as probable as one another. It is simply impossible for contemporary science to ever understand anything external to our universe, and as such, what caused its existence.

Summary:

A ‘god’ is supernatural, and hence, not of the physical, observable universe which we live in. Science, as a means of reasoning and understanding this physical universe, cannot be used to understand something external to it, as the laws external to the universe and inside it may be completely different. As such, the existence of a God can never be proven, nor disproven.

Modern epistemology poses that it is impossible to prove anything except the existence of our own, thinking minds. As such, nothing can really be proven, and anything which we choose to believe as a ‘proven’ phenomena of the universe is in fact just one of our beliefs of perception. The existence of a God is also one of these beliefs of a perception, and is no more likely nor unlikely than any other belief.

As such, belief in a God can be justified by the same means any other belief is justified. It is just one of several equally probable causes for the universe, which some believe to be true and others not despite the absence of evidence for or against his/her existence.