THE EXISTENCE AND DISCOVERY OF GOD

is based on observation. However, there are two stages to this observational argument. So long as the study of science was confined to the macroworld, there was only one method of scientific argument, but when the study of science entered the microworld, a change took place. If at first, the observational argument was considered valid, now inferential argument became equally valid and regarded as true. In other words, the argument from observation to a conclusion was established in the scientific method of the past, the microworld necessitated accepting the principle of argument from inference to conclusion as a valid argument. Both methods can be described in technical terms as follows: 1. Observation, hypothesis, verification 2. Hypothesis, observation, verification A simple example illustrates this point. For example, if you want to count apples, you say two apples plus two apples equal four apples. This is an example of observational reasoning. An example of the second argument is that of Newton (1643-1727) when he saw an apple falling from a tree. It was an observation. He began to wonder why the apple fell to the ground instead of going upward. This thought brought him to an inference, that earth has a force of gravity. He then examined the relevant data to confirm that his inference was valid. I have read many books to understand scientific methodology. Human Knowledge is one of the books written by British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). In this book, the author states that there are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. Observational reasoning is useful in discovering things, but the existence of God is a matter of truth. Therefore, in this case, the only valid argument is the one that is called an inferential argument. In 1965, I met a professor of philosophy. We discussed the existence of God. During the conversation, he asked me a question. He said, “What criterion do you have to prove the existence of God?” I replied, “The very same criterion that you have to prove anything else.” Then I explained to him the inferential method of reasoning. I said that the matter of God’s existence is related to the subject of truth. I presented to him the idea that to prove the existence of God, he should use the same criterion used to prove the existence of other truths. With this approach, one would arrive at the conclusion that the existence of God is proved by the same standard of knowledge by which truths of similar nature are proven.