"There is no God" in not a scientific statement, and is as absurd and ignorant as the religions who say "the Big Bang Theory did't happen" or that "evolution is wrong, God created the entire universe in 6 days) All of these are based on ignorance and preconceived beliefs.
A proper scientific statement would be "Science can neither prove, nor disprove the existance of God, and if he does exist it is outside our field of expertise to determine"
Science and religion should not oppose each other, neither fields of thought exludes the other except where ignorance is concerned. In religion's case, the question of How God created the universe comes up, a God of order and law, who created the physical, scientific laws of the universe would naturally use those laws to create it. Thus How did god inject mater into the universe? Answer, Big bang Theory, How did God create the world, plants animals and Man, answer: answer, Thesis of Evolution
Inteligent disign does not negate scientific fact, nor does any science negate religion.
What about seeing? If you can't see it, there is no evidence, it can't exist is a strong arguement against god, yet most scientific theory is just that theory, much of which is unprovable and unobservable, and much without any evidence, but we believe it because it is rational.
The Big Bang Theory and the thesis of evolution are accepted, despite being unprovable and unobservable, because they are rational, The universe came from somewhere, we came from somewhere, therefore these theories must rationally be accepted. Because they fit.
And they fit regardless of if we belive in God or not.
And religion should accept rational thought as well. The bible for example condemns outright in strong terms, blind faith. It redicules ignorance and blind faith, instead, suprisingly, encouraging the beliefs be reached through rational, educated thought by free thinking individuals.
A good example of this is when psalms ridicules those worshiping idols they made with their own hands, with eyes that can't see, hands that can't touch, etc and saying that those who worship them become like them, ie blind, ignorant and powerless. A suprisingly rational statement for a religion that worships a God to make.
The question is, can we rationalize the existance of a God?
Well for starters, as above I argued that believing in God does not mean ignorance nor does it contradict or deny any science or rational thought.
For example, Evolution can be seen as the means by which God created life. Incidentally the bible does not say that God literally created life in 7 literal days, but rather refers to periods, much like we do (back in the day, in my father's day...) and the second chapter even makes this clear when it refers to all 7 days as just one day "in that day god created the heavens and the earth" These creative periods could have been millions of years long.
My point is that the science of Evolution does not effect the belief of Inteligent Design. So when someone makes an unscientific statement such as "Life evolved, therefore there is no God" they are supporting ignorance rather then enlightenment, because they are no different then the religious answer of "Evolutionary science is blasphemy, life was created in 7 literal days with God's magic wand" Neither are rational statements.
My Rational arguement for the existance of God, using scientific evidence, is Chaos theory. This idea is that random events, while in of themselves are unpredicable when repeated form a patern. As this patern grows more and more complex it becomes predictable, and eventually inteligent. We see this with computers, as we develop AI and faster, more complex computers we will eventually improve AI to the point where it is no longer artificial but actual inteligence and even possibly electronic life.
Is this rational? Well we have proof in our own existance. The Big Bang was a chaotic event, so too was the origins of life, as chemical mixtures became more complex in ancient oceans, they formed a patern, amino acids, they because more complex and eventually formed strands of DNA, then single celled organizms, mutliple celled organisms, plants, vertibre, animals, dinosaurs, inteligent life, Man!
Following this thought, it is rational to consider if the quantum mechanical forces in the universe before the big bang became complex enough, that it is possible for it to form a patern and thereby gain inteligent. A spontaneous creation of sentient, inteligent life
in the form of pure quantum energy.
But is this rational?
Well I submit that those same complex quantum energies Did in fact cause the Big bang, from which cosmic forces shaped the known universe, including a small planet from which the spontaneous creation of sentient, inteligent life
, that is Humans, did in fact come about.
So I argue that it is rational that complex quantum forces of energy can spontaneously create life, since there is strong evidence that this has occured already.
So as a fact, proven by our own existance, inteligent, sentient life can and does occur when a patern becomes complex enough. We have accepted that this can occur biologically, and electroically in the future (in computers) so it is rational to supose that this could occur in other forms as well.
My overall point?
That God can be rationally accepted and religion followed, without ignorance and without ignoring or conflicting with rational scientific thoughtEdited: