God & Science: Why, I think, God must exist

 MY VIEW

God, You should be, I assure, the matter which is the most debated and the one most people have no clear understanding on: whether scientific or not, whether events are deterministic or uncertain, whether God is a common feature of different forces or just different manifestations of a single entity and so on..Many believe in God. Many do believe in but they are not more worshiping. Some are unclear on what they feel inside themselves while some people are simply inconsiderate, they just do not think of all this. And few (very few) would be (probably) hating, may be due to circumstances they could have encountered and they have stopped having belief in from some point of time. The rest of the people deny the existence of God. But I don't find any logic in denying the existence of a superior force above us for it can be claimed so if and only if it can be proved that everything is within the reach of human mind. So with these words, I am opposing the greats Stephen Hawking and Swami Vivekananda. Man isn't born to Win Nature but to Understand so as to better fit himself into it, though both are almost same, the latter would be more modest.

The better thing to be noticed among all the gods created(!) by varied cultures have one point in common--fear. Homo sapiens have always gone through revolutionary phases of transition in mindset time to time. While developing as social animals they must have felt the need for a leader to lead themselves  from the front. That leader having been democratic for a period of time or generations, would slowly get the urge to establish himself there. And more slowly with time, the concept of leadership itself had lost and people had then to live up to the benefits of the leader. At this stage, there came the need of another force above the leader to control the leader himself. Humans had already been worshiping the Sun, the Moon and the Rain and the planets and planetary radiations etc., by building shrines for them for thousands of years, apparently in realization of their impact on us.But now the need is different: it has to spur fear over wrong deeds, as all the previous worshiping idols were not of divine nature but an arousal purely out of realization and for satisfaction. So by inserting divinity to nature and giving it an actual form can be a controlling factor. This was not, of course, a thing that is decided in a meeting between a few but is an evolution that had grown side-by-side along with the growth of society. The customs of giving fearful respect to one's mother and father and teacher all are direct outcome of this practice to put a control.

Any practice that has no single founder and not planned, must have evolved with scientific basis whether or not we can justify or confirm that basis now. You will ask, 'So where did the science go after that?' Well, the answer is, "God is not much scientific. God is the science itself." Why would one try to prove that Science doesn't exist by Science itself? A meaningful quest will be about the needs for such a superiority and possibly, its impacts. Everything we are accustomed to following and being told as traditions were completely based upon science. But the reasons were not known to any sector of society other than the religious heads and advisers of the king and not essentially the king himself. Discussing too much of it on How and Why it didn't reach them is out of the scope of this article and maybe it can separately be attempted into an article by someone as it has quite large matter to cover. So, before getting deep into, all I wish to say is there can be nothing wrong in worshiping the natural forces. Humans are just another product of nature who can think a bit more than the contemporary creatures with which we co-exist. There can be no reason for us to outsmart God and even if we can, it will be no more than a goat escaping off the herd of its master into another herd among a million such.

THE UNIVERSE AND UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

So far many models of universe has been suggested and each of them has suffered a backlash in one way or other. But one of the most acceptable and the one seeming most logical is this: the total energy and total mass of universe is exactly equal to zero. This may seem absurd to you unless you get clear about 'anti-particles'. Every particle in the cosmos has an exactly equivalent counter-particle which when had to meet it, would annihilate each other and completely gets transformed into energy in the form of radiation. Quantum mechanics allows creation of energy from matter and vice-versa but the question of where the initial energy or mass has come from still remains elusive. The disappearance of matter upon annihilation is not in violation of laws of thermodynamics which claims Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, provided we leave out the initial energy which has got to be somehow "created". There is a saying, "You cannot get anything from nothing." But with the seeming fact that once there was nothing and now we have our universe, it appears that one can (but eventually it'd return to older state). Annihilation does happen and the experiments of CERN at large Hadron collider just shows that. But, for now we are here alive made out of particles and not annihilated, there is something that keeps the ratio between particles and antiparticles for now greater than or lesser than one and not ONE, i.e. there's more number of one particle. This is just a mere guess and anything before or after that is fully out of our thinking capacity. If one were to expect that Big Bang produced equal amount of matter and antimatter, then universe would have nothing but radiation. So there is some process that favors production of matter than its counterpart. This is also called CP violation.

Maybe we are all in the expansion phase of universe in which conditions are just suiting for intelligent life forms like us to evolve and ask questions like these, or ours may be one lucky regular environment of the infinite number of universes that aren't, or on conceiving even more, we may be in one of phases in an eternal and everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction of singularity. But just when we think we have found out a substantive prediction, questions start cramming more than ever. Is there any law in our physics that can cipher why and how matter in a highly-dense state (singularity) should expand and contract? However we have evidence from spectrum analysis of light from galaxies in all directions that indicates the universe is expanding. If the universe goes on expanding, unless there is creation of new matter (as stated in steady state theory) things would go too far away from each other at one point after which there'd be no material interaction. And if the universe is static, it would eventually contract under influence of gravity which is the only case we can neglect with proper evidence. These can be easily deduced from Newton's laws itself in 17th century but the belief on static universe was so strong that even Einstein in 20th century when found out that universe could not be static from his own theory's implications, tried to manipulate the result by inserting cosmological constant and saying that the static property is pre-built into the very fabric of the cosmos. However, this was admitted later by Einstein as one of his biggest mistakes. Both Newton and Einstein believed in a supreme force that would keep things going on forever. Ironically and sadly, that wasn't the case. They didn't have to do that. We'll get to that later on.

Heisenberg's UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE states that it is impossible to measure both position and momentum (or time and energy) of a particle at the same time accurately and the result would be always equal to or greater than the actual result by a factor h/2Π. This is apparently because energy has to be spent upon the particle (generally radiation) which would alter the body's velocity and hence its momentum. To predict future velocity and position of something, we have to measure its present velocity and position. When we try to calculate the position of an object more accurately, light with shorter wavelength is to be used i.e.light of more frequency (energy), lower will be the accuracy of velocity proportionally. This, thus, means events cannot be ascertained by us, if this statement is correct ( of course it is, it has been proved by a lot of experiments). So with these, Laplace's dream of completely deterministic universe in which everything can be predicted by a single unified theory, i.e. the grand unified theory of humans also got shattered. Here I  have room for my argument from the words of same Stephen Hawking who wanted to 'make it clear that there is no god and that everything is within the human reach': "We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determine events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it (without radiating on it)."

There cannot be a grand unified theory with which we can predict or reason all the events in universe. The same uncertainty principle has this implication among many of its profound implications--there is no natural need for things to keep going on for forever. Everything is subjected to changes all the time. We are mortal beings living in a star system in which the sun itself would run out of its fuel one day and hence ending, at least the current life forms on planets orbiting it. And so on will all the stars of galaxies run out of fuel (yes, but not for the time humans can count--its way too late in future) and those above Chandrasekhar limit will become black holes, implying that all the light sources will be turned off and things will start contracting towards each other. Would that mean the end of time going forward, coz, we don't have a single evidence still for creation of matter or stars? Or will it only be a phase of an unceasing cycle? Will these questions have answers that seem to us one day as obvious as earth revolving around the sun or perhaps as ridiculous as Aristotle viewing planets as flat disks? Dictionary reads science as "researching into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses." Does universe have a beginning or not? Having a beginning definitely connotes that it will have an ending too. If it is, what happened before the dawn? Is that the dawn of time too? If you say some things in nature are not meant to be known, why has God left the present state alone to our understanding?

CONCLUSIONS

God isn't here for limiting us from knowing about his universe beyond a limit. God is, actually, a lover. He loves to keep things going, not for forever, but in an unimaginable manner so that it would interest life forms to curiosity. We are all part of God along with this unimaginably vast universe. Universe's vastness is just amazingly huge that the awful number of stars are lightly scattered and the probability you'd be landing in a matter if you were randomly inserted into the cosmos is less than one in a billion trillion trillion.

We should try on finding answers as same as forever. Just keep in mind that god loves us all so much and do nice things as far as possible....