People often ask me the following question: Does God exist? My answer to this question is in the affirmative. Based on my study and my experience, I can say with full conviction that God exists. There is no doubt about it. When I say that God exists, I say this in the scientific sense and not in the popular sense.

Studies in anthropology, that is, the science of man, have established that the concept of God is ingrained in human nature. Belief in God runs in our blood. Every man and woman is a born believer. Everyone undergoes this experience at one point of time or the other. Especially in times of helplessness and in crisis, we discover that there is a Supreme Being. Every man and woman has experienced this natural fact at least once in his or her life.

Then why this question? If the concept of God is present in our flesh and blood, why does one question the existence of God? The reason is very simple. People want to know whether there is a rational basis to their inner belief, whether there is some scientific proof in favour of their inner feelings.

I must emphasize that there is certainly a scientific basis for belief in the existence of God. But people generally fail to discover it for the simple reason that they try to apply a criterion that they wrongly believe to be scientific. They want a proof in terms of observation, whereas this is neither the scientific method nor the criterion by which to judge. If you apply the right criterion, you will find that God is a proven fact.

Human knowledge has two different phases—the pre-Einstein period and the post-Einstein period. In the pre-Einstein period, knowledge was confined to the macro or material world, which was observable and measurable. So, it was generally held that everything, which has a real existence, should also be observable. Anything, which could not be observed, had no real existence. This meant that only the seen world was real and what was unseen was unreal, or some kind of fiction.

This concept created the theory that is generally called logical positivism. It means that the only valid logical argument is one that is demonstrable in material terms; otherwise it is simply a baseless claim, and not a valid argument.

But, in the post-Einstein period, in the early years of the 20th century, when the atom was split, the whole situation changed. After the splitting of the atom, matter as a solid substance, disappeared. It was replaced by the micro world, beyond the atomic world, where everything was reduced to unseen waves, neither measurable nor observable.

After this revolution in knowledge, logical or rational argument also changed drastically. This changing situation compelled the philosophers and the scientists to revise logical criteria. It has now become an accepted fact that inferential argument is as valid as direct argument.

In the post-Einstein era, it was discovered that even the so-called observable matter was unobservable. Now everything was waves, and waves were not observable.

Present-day science includes so many things, such as electrons, the law of gravity, x-rays, etc., all of which are non-material in nature. They cannot be observed, but every scientist believes in their existence, for the simple reason that, although we cannot see these things directly, we can see their effect. For example, a falling apple, in the case of gravity, and a photo film, in the case of x-rays. We believe in the existence of all these things, not by observation but by their result, in other words, by way of indirect knowledge.

This change in human knowledge also changed the theory of logic. Now it is well established in science that inferential argument is as valid as direct argument. (For details, see Human Knowledge, by Bertrand Russell)

In the pre-Einstein era, unbelievers held that the concept of God pertains to the unseen world. And since no direct argument was available to bear this out, belief in God was held to be illogical and all the relevant indirect arguments were considered scientifically invalid, since they were inferential in nature.

But now the whole situation has changed. Nothing is observable. So the existence of anything can be established only by means of inferential argument, rather than by direct argument.

If inferential argument is valid with regard to the unseen micro- world, it is also valid with regard to the existence of God.

Bertrand Russell, in his book, “Why I am not a Christian”, has admitted this fact. He says that the argument centering on design, propounded by theologians to prove the existence of God, is scientifically valid.

When we reflect deeply about our world, we find that all over the universe there are clear signs of planning, design and intelligent control. These signs lead us to believe that there is a Creator of creatures, there is a Designer of designs, and there is a Mover of all movements.

Therefore, I can say that God exists and this is a proven fact.