There are three methods of teaching:
1. A father might tell his child, “the pot is hot, don’t touch it!” (a command).
2. A father might add, “see the vapors coming out, this happens only when the pot is hot. So don’t touch it” (an explanation is offered).
3. A father might encourage the child to touch the pot, and when he has burnt his finger, say “you should not have touched it”. (experience)
Life teaches by experience and people say that life is a good teacher. But is it?
Considering the point of God, his existence or lack of it will for a scientific person be based on verifiable facts. But since the entity has never been seen, heard etc., our inferences are based on conclusions of day to day events (or our experiences). To this end any scientific approach based on interviewing different people is biased, since a large percentage of people would have made up their minds and are not flexible in thought. Just like the common-sense of a student coming in the way of understanding relativity and quantum mechanics, his understanding and taking for granted the Newtonian world he lives in, makes it difficult to accept it as incomplete. Very early in life people are given the idea that God exists, it is so deeply embedded in their thought processes, that no questioning is thought required. It is from this brain that experimental inferences are being asked to be made.
So, this really narrows down the sampling population whom you can ask. In fact, no one would be present (every one have made up their mind on this). Newton bought up in a Catholic surrounding framed his scientific theory to accommodate God. Hawking based on his serious illness and handicap refutes God’s presence. Both have based their decisions based on their experiences. Which one is true? You would have your experiences, you will decide. Hence, I have my own theory which also to an extent explains why God might be needed.
The experiences one collects are always not going to be good. Some times justices would be done, while some times apparently it would look as if ‘bad’ has been rewarded. So a person living on the path of right, finds it hard to justify why he has taken the hard path which is not rewarding. He is likely to stray to the path of bad, if he is not inherently good. He needs a shepherd to flock him, to justify his continuous journey on right. All men are not and can not be strong. Those who are not strong need help, a walking stick to prod on. If the notion of existence helps, let it be, since more people on the right path is always welcome.
But then this leads to another question. Does it make sense fighting over a walking stick?