Dawkins believed that Science adds to our appreciation of the world rather than subtracting from it. Dawkins goes on to argue that if God set the universe in motion, then there should be some evidence of God’s involvment in the functioning of the universe, he also constructed the comparison between God’s existence and the existence of fairies, he went on to say that because there is no evidence you cannot prove that they do not exist and the belief goes on.
Coinciding with Dawkins, Davis believed that the Cosmological, argument cannot stand alone as a proof for the existence of God, therefore Scientific theories alone cannot be used to prove the existence of God through cosmology.
The next theory put forward which is the more accepted theory at current time is the Big Bang theory. According to the Big Bang, the emerged from an extremely dense and hot state.Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. People can understand this theory from two points. Some would go on to say that it was a deliberate action by God and therefore the Big Bang is divine, thus strengthening the argument for the existence of God. However some would take another route such as athiests and go on to say that it was not divine and does not verify the existence of God, as it all occurred by chance. Thus, weakening the argument for the existence of God.
Polkinghorne went along the lines of believing that the Big Bang was created by God and was not a random event as even a minute change could may even result in an explosion. He went on to say that, ‘we should look to God’s existence as an aid for understanding why things have developed in the physical world by the manner that they have.’ Polkinghorne claimed that religion and science were intellectual cousins, religion asks why? And science asks hows? Therefore both religion and Science are working to discover the origins of the universe, but from two difference perspectives.
The so-called Kalam argument highlights the sequence of cases that resulted in our world cannot be infinite, since infinity in face cannot be known or concieved. The resulting conclusion is that universe is ulimately dependent on the agency of a personal will which is God.
However, some may argue that it is to misunderstand the world ‘infinity’ to treat is as though it were a number. Rather it is a concept. Hence it is actually meaningles to speak of adding more moments of time or travesing infinte years.
Another theory which I also believe would strengthen the case for the existence is the Quantam theory. At the heart of the Quantam theory lie the linked concepts of uncertainity and wave-particle duality. Quentim Smith used quantam mechanis, and went on to say that the universe may have had a beigining but there is no reason to think that it is God, it may just have been a random event.
Like the Big Bang theory the Quantum theory can go along two routes, one weakening the existence of God and the other route strengthening the existence of God. It could have been put foward, just as Smith said that the the beginning of a universe was just a random event, it also raises the question. Some may believe the origin of the universe a spontaneous quantum event, whilst others may believe it proves that there was a divine being who planned the development of the universe?’
By this you could conclude that even though the beginning of the universe was a random event it still must have a direct cause and that direct cause is God.
However, Richard Swinburn would provide the example of the toys in the toy cupboard. We can never prove the toys do not come out the cupboard and move around when we are not watching them, but yet we still understand the idea of the toys moving. This could be example could then be used for the existence of God, even though we cannot prove that he does exist, we can understand the existence of God and thus conclude that he created the universe.
In conclusion, I feel that Science does strengthen the case for the existence of God in some respect through cosmology. Although, the Cosmological argument does need more than Scientific theories in order for it to be successful. The design argument as Davis suggests could be some evidence along with the Cosmological argument to prove the existence of God.
Stephen Hawking went onto say ‘an expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job.’ From this I feel Science leaves the door quite open and does not go further due to limitations within it as God is ineffable, Human beings and Science can only explain so much as we do not have ability to explain everything. Thus, scientific theories could be used to strengthen the existence of God through Cosmology but only so far. In order for the Cosmological argument to succeed several arguments also need to be considered. For example the Design argument.
