Is there rational evidence for the existence of God?

Many people in this modern day believe that God is not exist. God who is the ultimate being is created by human for satisfying their need of highest power thing. Some people believe that God need evidence for his existence, like we need a solid evidence for accusing someone who is terrorist. The way we think about God today has to be seriously affected by close attention to the findings of modern science. Two aphorisms have dominated popular discussion of science and religion. The one-Laplace's alleged quip to Napoleon that in his cosmology he had no need of that hypothesis-retains its appeal for those who see in scientific progress a rationale for the exclusion of God-talk. The other Einstein's formula that science without religion is lame, religion without science blind - has become iconic for those who prefer models of complementarity, even engagement, to those of exclusion.

Both parties are strongly represented among the science popularizers of today. For Richard Dawkins, religious beliefs are a kind of virus in a world where natural processes are devoid of purpose and meaning. For Paul Davies it is the study of those very physical processes that provides the best access to the world of religious meaning.

The development of the modern scientific worldview has set a new context for believing in God. God must be seen as the basis of a vast cosmic process of elegant mathematical beauty, emergent complexity and creative self-organisation. Humans are a small part of this process. Science has transformed our image of God. Yet there are important aspects of reality that lie beyond the self-imposed limits of science.

Science deals with the publicly observable, measurable and predictable. Beyond the reach of science lies the realm of value, purpose and personal experience. This realm must be incorporated into any adequate account of the nature of reality. It must be part of any ultimate explanation of things, which therefore must be more than scientific.

Modern science begins with the ejection of purpose, value and significance from the universe. This is one main reason why the ‘scientific worldview’ fails to deal with all aspects of reality. The ‘disenchantment of nature’, the stripping away of all personal properties from the mechanisms of nature, was important to the birth of modern science. Aristotelian science included final causality as one of the explanatory features of nature. All things have an ideal end at which they aim, even if the ideal of being a tiger is only to be a good member of the tiger species. But the search for final causes proved fruitless, and experimental science only flourished when it excluded such a search and instead sought laws of relationship without purpose between objects.

There is a bolder approach for those who want to be both theists and scientifically minded: to employ the points made here (and others) in working toward not only a harmony between the two sets of commitments but also mutual support between them. From this perspective, scientific discovery is viewed as a prima facie indication of God’ s structuring of the world; divine sovereignty is seen as an assurance that the search for truth will tend to lead to valuable results; the intimate connection between one’s physical and one’s mental life, and especially our autonomy in directing our conduct, are conceived as possibly reflecting agency in a sense that is applicable to divine sovereignty over the world. For people proceeding in this way, scientific results may lead to revisions in theology, as theology may lead to scientific hypotheses or changes in scientific direction. Different people with different theologies and philosophies of science will proceed in diverse ways; but so far as we can see, the compatibility between the two worldviews is clear, and possibilities for harmonious interactions between them are wide. (DD)