Examining the Probability of God: Support for the Ultimate Truth

By the Ohio News Group, USA
(originally in English)

Dr. Unwin began his study with a premise similar to that used in determining the outcome of a coin toss, giving the Almighty a 50/50 chance of existing. Next, he used a formula to further determine a possible outcome by weighing the following positive and negative factors considered to be “for” or “against” his premise:

Each of these factors was assigned a numerical value and applied to the original fifty percent. Calculations weighing the evidence from both sides produced the probability of whether or not God exists.

While such evidence is reassuring because it provides the mind with a sense of certainty, Dr. Unwin also wanted to take uncertainty into account. The effect of uncertainty in our lives is known to become greater when we feel we cannot obtain sufficient evidence, or when we cannot assign meaning to a situation through the use of reason alone. Times of uncertainty motivate us to find a different way to believe. Thus Dr. Unwin says that uncertainty can “open the gap for what we call faith.”

This “gap” into which faith fits is part of a more complete equation for calculating the probability of God’s existence:

However, the study suggests that belief in God is not merely the sum of reason plus faith. If this were true, then the more we knew, the less faith we would have. This would put reason at odds with faith, and vice versa. The formula used by Dr. Unwin extends beyond mere algebraic calculations in saying that belief in God results from a combination of logic and a more abstract form of trust. So, while the evidence from his research allowed him to arrive at a 67% probability of God’s existence, the researcher says that his own belief is “far closer to a hundred percent.” He explains that the difference between the numbers is based on his personal faith in God.

This study has some very enlightened aspects. First, by using a scientific formula and framing the research question as “whether God” rather than “whose God” exists, a discussion about God’s being can take place without concern about differing religious beliefs. This broad position echoes some of Master’s remarks that one does not have to give up one’s religion to practice the Quan Yin Method.

Another unifying element of Dr. Unwin’s investigation is its use of secular language to discuss spiritual topics. This was actually one of the study’s objectives — to help bridge what was viewed as a division between science and religion, reflected in the concept of “separation of church and state,” which allows no overlap between spiritual activities such as prayer and public activities such as education. Research like Dr. Unwin’s, which discusses God in “state” rather than “church” terminology, could open doors for new areas of dialog in academia, organized religion and the public sector.

Last and perhaps most importantly, the open-ended quality of this examination, which is practical but at the same time does not force a conclusion, could be a liberating way for people to contemplate their personal relationship with God. For those who do not know a living Master and may feel skeptical or even fearful when facing the question of God’s existence, this research encourages a wider outlook and expresses a fitting message for the beginning of the Golden Age.

For a copy of the above-mentioned article from The Guardian, please refer to:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1164892,00.html

*Dr. Stephen Unwin, who received his doctorate in theoretical physics from the University of Manchester in Great Britain, made significant contributions to the field of quantum gravity research before being appointed technical attaché to the United States Department of Energy. Now a risk analyst consultant, he evaluates and helps advise organizations on how to avoid disasters such as chemical spills and nuclear power plant failures.