I have heard the best arguments there are for the existence of God (Thomas Aquinas and a whole bunch of others) and I've heard the best arguments from the atheist viewpoint. I find that in both cases, the proponents start with their conclusion and then try to "reverse engineer" to prove their belief. That's bound to skew the "logic." The best "logical" arguments of all for the existence of God are Aquinas's, and even they have gaping holes in them. The most rigorously logical arguments I've encountered for the non-existence of God were put forth by Ayn Rand (yes, that Ayn Rand!). They, too, are full of holes.

IF there is a God, a Creator of the universe—first, consider how immense the universe is, and then consider the idea, put forth by recent cosmologists such as Michio Kaku, that this "universe" we inhabit is merely one of a huge number of "mulitverses," further complicated by multiple dimensions (eleven at latest count).   Then, consider that any Entity who could have created all this is so far beyond our comprehension that for someone to say that they "know the mind of God" or are "doing God's will" borders on the ludicrous. I also maintain that those Creationists who believe that the universe is only 6000 years old, that there was a literal Adam and Eve, and all that goes with it—well, they worship a very puny God indeed. Little better that a minor wizard.

But this is not to say that life does not have a spiritual dimension.

One area for consideration:    In that realm of multiverses, and multidimensions that modern cosmologists, quantum physicists, and string-theorists are contemplating lies a possible explanation for the occasional manifestation of what might be called "paranormal phenomena" sometimes experienced by perfectly sane and reliable people. "Leakage" between dimensions? A rift in the membrane between our universe and the one next door?

Or the matter of an Afterlife? Perhaps, when we die, our awareness ("soul," if you insist) merely slips into another universe or dimension, just as physical as the one we currently inhabit. Or not.

Perhaps the God that people worship as if He were a benevolent father is actually a lab technician and we are merely a culture in a cosmic Petri dish. I wonder what the nature of the experiment might be? And how, do you suppose, are we doing?

Do I believe any of this? Not with any strong conviction. But I don't know that it isn't the case, either. The true nature of reality is best summed up by geneticist and evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane, who said, "the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Being totally, rigidly, and absolutely imbedded in a body of belief that brooks no questioning or new information and refuses to adapt when new information is presented is to close the door on true knowledge and growth. If one holds that, one is as good as dead already.

I have no trouble reconciling science (dedicated to questioning, revising, and updating when new evidence is presented) and religion—provided it is the kind of religion that is open to Mystery and is not rigidly dogmatic and authoritarian.

There are things that we will never know

Don Firth