Does Science After All Rule Out A Personal God? Essay

Since time in memorial, science and religion which contains the idea of a personal god and his existence as one of its key pillar aspects, have always depicted an outstanding collide. Many scientific scholars and theologists have been involved in this argument in a bid to defend their different stands. However as long as this heated debate has existed, no answer has evidencial conclusion has been arrived at. For instance, the views contained by Albert eisten and Paul Tillich depict the difference in opinion about this aspect of a personal God. as much as everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, these opinions and the justification they have do not seem to offer any direction to this long standing debate. Einstein states that there is no personal god. He gives a reason to justify his view stating that he and every other intellect is in a state that he similates to that of a little child getting into a huge study with books written in many different languages. He says this child knows that these books have their authors but he/she does not know and neither does she/he comprehend the books’ arrangement. He concludes that this is the perspective held towards god not only by him but by almost every other human having intelligence. After a comparison he did between the magnanimous relay and arrangement of the cosmos and failure to reconcile these features with the evil and suffering he got in the human’s being, eisteen concluded posing a question , how could an almighty god if at all he is there allow the existence of the suffering that is found on earth? In summing Einstein’s opinion he says that his idea is a childlike. However to him an embrace to the idea would be naive and anthropological . On the other hand theologist Paul Tillich holds a different opinion on the same. he asserts the existence of a personal god describing this being as the stronghold of being and even as the existence itself. Tilich, being a theologian is assertive and upholds the idea that a personal god actually exists despite the occurances that may question the existence of this being in terms of pain ,evil and suffering that exists among the human race. Tillich also states that God’s existence is not an aspect that can be proved or disapproved. In more bids to put more emphasis on his opinion which was commonly upheld by other theologists , Tillich even turned scientific tools into theological instruments. He was utterly committed to attempt put his view in the crystal clearest way that god is beyond essence and existence. Other scholars also involved in this argument like Hartshine say that there is really no sense in trying to find out whether a personal God exists. He however states that if there is existence of a personal God is a possibility then there is a necessity of doing so. In this bid it seems that there is a clear cut between those who agree with Tillich’s argument and those who differ with him. However these efforts are slowly being thwarted as the clock ticks. In a bid to conclude, it should therefore be noted that in spite the numerous argument the fact is, scientists have no evidence to prove that a personal god does not exist. Sources Espanol. Evidence for God from science. Retrieved 23rd October 2008 from : http://www. godandscience. org