I thought about this question often and I read quite some interesting stuff about it. I want to share with you some exciting perspectives. Let's analyze this question from different angles!

Let's think about this question:

• From the perspective of a physicist
• From the perspective of a biologist
• From the perspective of a philosopher
• From the perspective of a technician

By the way, we are NOT talking about churches or religions and I kindly ask you not to write anything about specific religions in your comments!

== The perspective of a physicist ==

Physicists essentially try to do one thing: They describe in a qualitative and quantitative way what can be observed in nature. Sometimes, they can even "predict" stuff by extending their theories and trying stuff out in experiments.

Now the question is: What CAN a physicist describe? We live in a house, in a city, on a planet, in our universe. The universe is actually the biggest thing ever seen in which our laws of physics can be applied successfully. Physicists aim to describe everything that happens in the universe.

Now, based on the Big Bang theory, everything (meaning: the universe itself) was condensed in a small dot (called the Singularity) before the universe expanded to the state we find it in today. What's even more obscure is that even TIME only started to "flow" after the Big Bang itself. Everything we can ever observe, everything we can ever find laws of must be:

1. Geometrically within the universe
2. Within the universe's lifespan (because time didn't exist before the Big Bang)

So that leaves us to two things we can never observe and thus we won't be able to ever describe:

1. What goes on "outside" the universe
2. What happened before the Big Bang

That leaves a big space for ...... God?

== The perspective of a biologist ==

Biologists study living organisms and life in general. They analyze the "big stuff" (like the attributes and history of a whole species) and the small stuff (like the genetic properties of a bacteria cell). One can easily imagine that especially when talking about the "small stuff" like microbiology or molecular biology, biologists have to tightly work together with chemists and physicists.

Biology provides a very strong theory of how life works on a molecular basis, how life and species develop to generate such a diversity. Did you ever ask yourself how millions of different species like plants, animals, bacteria, etc. were able to develop? Maybe out of one single common ancestor? Well, biology provides profound answers to a lot of these questions.

However, we again have to ask ourselves: What questions CAN biology possibly answer? If life was initially given in any form, biology can describe how this life could have developed into the diversity that we experience now. Where is place for God in this point of view?

1. Biology describes the rules of life. But who made these rules? Ultimately, they are defined by chemical (and thus by physical) laws. We can describe what we see, but we cannot find reason WHY these rules exist at all. Who created the rules?
2. One could argue that the first organism, that first living cell, could have been "created". Now there are some interesting and strong theories on how this first organism could have "evolved" naturally (meaning: by chemistry and physics). Scientists call this Abiogenesis or "chemical evolution". Based on simple molecules, through various mechanisms, complex molecules that are necessary for all forms of life we know can be created. There is profound research that shows that it's possible that all those complex molecules could have developed over time and by a huge amount of "trial and error", the first living cell formed on basis of a lot of semi-living precursors (like viruses .. viruses are no living cells btw.). So for me, the question how the first living cell originated does not really leave a lot of space for a potential God. It's again the question: HOW were the rules set up (and by whom?) that led to all of this?

If you want to find out more on Abiogenesis, check out this splendid article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

== The perspective of a philosopher ==

There are dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of essays of philosophers and theologists that discuss the (possible) existence of God. Also let's not forget that philosophers also used to be natural scientists. In fact, a lot of the most famous scientists also conducted philosophical research (as science and philosophy used to be one entity for a long time).

I cannot possibly provide you with an exhaustive list of essays. From what I have found, most philosophers argue with the existence of God for things we cannot answer otherwise. I want to give you some examples.

St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century):

"In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, therefore, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God."

This directly corresponds to what I wrote in the previous chapters. We can observe and explain things up to a point. We can not observe nor explain what was the initial cause of everything (eg. who or what caused the Big Bang? How was the initial energy/matter created?)

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109):

I like this theorem pretty much, because it perfectly illustrates how "meta" the concept of God can be thought of:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

There is also a lot of criticism. I see these "proofs" as nice thought experiments, but I am not sure how much weight can be given to them.

I find it interesting that these "proofs" don't claim anything from a morale point of view (what you should do and what you shouldn't do). They just cover the conceptual nature of God. What is your opinion?

== The perspective of a technician ==

or: Why I stopped thinking about this question ...

Being a technician myself, I especially take into account that by definition, there are things that science can never explain. But as humans, we have it "in our genes" that we always ask why and how. For all the stuff that could not have been explained 1000 years ago, God has been given as the answer. A lot of things changed since then. With scientific and technological progress, we are able to answer more and more questions. But we will never be able to explain EVERYTHING.

From a technician's point of view , I want to present to you my simplified version of an argument by French physicist and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662):

1. If I believe and there is a God, I'm fine
2. If I believe and there is no God, I'm fine
3. If I don't believe and there is no God, I'm fine
4. If I don't believe and there is God, ...... well ......

Thank you for your patience :)
DigitalDarwin