God Arises
The Method of Argument
~ 77 ~
single thing which was observable in the universe
had been observed by them, and that neither God,
angels, heaven, nor hell had been discovered.
Obviously, they are not in a position to do so. Then
what method, or procedure, has provided them
with the basis for an argument against religion?
Whatever it is, it is not based on the direct
observation of religion, but on an explanation of
certain observations. For instance, the discovery of
gravitation led them to believe that there was no
God sustaining the universe, since the law of
gravitation was there to explain this phenomenon.
It is clear that the observation on which this theory
is based is
not
of the non-existence of God. That is,
no telescope has quite finally given us the news that
this universe is free from any signs of God. His non-
existence had rather been inferred from the
observation of quite other events.
I maintain that the method of argument, which is
based on inference and has been considered in
modern times sufficiently valid to reject religion,
can—it would appear paradoxically—provide the
soundest proofs of the veracity of religion. The fault
does not lie in the principle of the argument used,
