Is There Proof of God by Science? | Unveiled XL Documentary

<h4>

Could We Prove God?</h4>

If you were a scientist working at the very cutting edge of human innovation, which breakthrough would you be most determined to make? There are a number of big hitters you might choose. Perhaps you’d want to develop a theory of everything; maybe you’d like to invent genuine time travel; or you’d ardently desire to be the first person ever to enter into a black hole. But, then again, and arguably beyond all of those ambitions, what you might want most of all is to solve the question that has bugged humanity since time immemorial; does God exist?

In this video, we’ll first take a closer look at a hypothetical situation in which God is proven; then we’ll delve deeper into the real world paradox known as the Problem of the Creator God; and finally we’ll take a closer look at the bizarre and potential relationship between our ideas on God… and on alien life. As always, while watching, be sure to air your views in the comments!

This is Unveiled, and today we’re answering the extraordinary question; could we prove God?

Depending on the culture or country, God assumes many shapes and embodies various ideologies. For centuries, humans have worshiped, researchers have studied, and atheists have dismissed the opinion of God... but, what if faith had nothing to do with it?

What If the Existence of God Was Scientific Fact?

Science and religion might initially seem incompatible, but both fields are founded on finding apparent ‘truths’ concerning reality. The main difference between them is the methodology employed to determine fundamental statements. Science demands objectivity and verifiable facts, while religion places its emphasis on faith arising from scripture or dogma. Historically, there have been arguments for and against both.

Science deals with hypotheses and theories, which makes it an ever-changing field. In a matter of years, a school textbook can become dramatically out of date simply due to modern discoveries invalidating once-popular ideas. So, if science is constantly evolving, what constitutes a scientific fact? Well, it is a contestable term, but some principles are backed by such an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence, that they’re generally seen as beyond reproach. 

The theories aim to explain an ‘unexplained’ element of the world; the facts are objective observations. 

While the sciences have steadily developed throughout history, people have always asked the ultimate question; “But, why?” It’s led philosophers to debate the existence of deities for thousands of years, to the point where classical theism argues that we, as humans, simply don’t have the required knowledge to define a transcendent God. 

If the two paths did converge, and we did have empirical proof of an omniscient being, then the world would be a very different place.

OK – God is real. And arguing against that is to consciously ignore observable facts. The first concern would still center on defining what exactly the now-confirmed God is. Countless religions exist with their own belief systems, though Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity are arguably amongst the most pervasive current institutions with a deity. Many Hindus consider Brahman to be the Supreme Being who assumes many forms. Muslims believe in Allah, a transcendent entity responsible for creating the universe. And, Christians see God as a being who sent Jesus to save humans from their sins. 

Significant variations exist between all three, but there are certain shared characteristics. For the sake of today’s question, God is supreme, monotheistic, omnipotent, and omnipresent. But, as centuries-old ideas are flung into disarray, people's primary (perhaps natural) concern would still be to determine whether the certified deity is, in fact, their God. 

The global confusion would be unlike anything else ever experienced, with two main, feasible consequences. The first; all current religions would dissolve, to birth a new belief system idolizing the scientifically proven God. Theoretically uniting cultures, such an outcome could usher-in a new era of peace. Though, such an idealistic resolution would be a ‘best case scenario’. 

The second – and perhaps more plausible – outcome involves religions weaving science's God into their pre-existing belief systems. The God becomes everyone's God, but disagreements between interpretations would still happen. Here, religions without a singular deity are likely to suffer worst. The meditative teachings of something like Buddhism could survive the change, but even they don’t leave much room for a factual God.

In such a universe, denying God means rejecting science, which puts atheism in quite a pickle, too. Would non-believers disappear overnight? Probably not, but they might now take the form of nonconformists rather than atheists. For a real-world comparison, despite the mountains of evidence showing the Earth to be round, not everyone accepts this as an undeniable truth. Facts aren’t always enough, and even a ‘proven God’ wouldn’t be accepted by everyone – especially if its existence isn’t regularly reaffirmed by science, as a reminder.

Researchers would also be far from done. Scientific facts are commonly used as bedrocks to form additional theories and ‘laws’. In the real world, again, it’s a fact that letting go of your phone prompts it to plummet to the ground, but Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation enables the speed and force of impact to be calculated. Then there’s Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which tries to explain why the phone falls downwards rather than floating upwards or remaining suspended in midair. 7

And so, proving God proposes a whole new range of mysteries. Why does God exist? How does God impact other fundamental theories? Even if nothing appears to actually change, our entire understanding of the natural world would be challenged. As would our thoughts on the birth of the universe, and life itself. 

Scientists wouldn’t be satisfied with only confirming God’s existence, and would next seek to understand God’s will. Meanwhile, those who had previously had ‘faith’ in God would see that taken away from them, too. There’d be no need to ‘believe’ in something we know to be true. Both shifts could have a major impact.

For example; the afterlife. While exceptions do exist, most religions assume admission into "The Good Place" is in some way determined by a person's lifelong efforts.

 If this became scientific fact, it should create worldwide peace of mind. If the conditions to avoid “The Bad Place” were known, criminal behavior should theoretically decline since there’s no escaping judgment. However, accountability isn’t always a credible deterrent for crime, so a completely safe Utopia is still dubious. 

Human accountability is one thing, but the reverse also holds true; Godly responsibility. Things like earthquakes and tsunamis suddenly seem a lot more purposeful. Like the Old Testament's Great Flood, any catastrophic disasters would be seen as a clear message from God, rather than an act controlled by nature. By extension, areas subjected to fewer disasters could suddenly (and dangerously) claim a divine superiority over less fortunate places. 

Natural events have often been attributed (by some) to some sort of divine plan, in the past. But, there’d now be a switch between believing everything happens for a reason, and knowing that it does. And that reason would be God. But, more than that, we’d need to determine if (and where) free will and God’s will differ. If a flood happens, would it 100% be God’s fault? Or, does part of the blame still lay with whoever was in charge of maintaining flood defenses? 

God's presence would place every incident under a microscope, possibly undermining humanity's basic ideas of justice and fairness.

Karl Marx famously described religion as “the opium of the people”, a quote often presented as a criticism of theology. And, while religion’s place in society would clearly change, its hold on the people probably wouldn’t. In fact, a confirmed God could have even greater sway over its ‘followers’, discouraging the masses from revolting via a belief that the Kingdom of God rewards suffering. Our mortal lives could be more widely seen as only ‘stepping stones’, because in this alternate reality where God and the afterlife are a given, who’d be willing to risk eternal damnation for a non-conformist 60 or 70 years on Earth? 

Inevitably, though, feelings of fear, paranoia and contempt would brew. This would perhaps lead to the formation of a new form of atheism, populated by those who, for various reasons, would refuse to bow to any God, regardless of whether it had been proven. Over the course of history, various societies have worshiped physical beings as living deities – from the Egyptian pharaohs to pre-1945 Japanese Emperors. But, even then, not everyone fell in line. If God was fact, there’d still be those who defied it.

Nevertheless, the removal of God’s transcendence would still constitute massive change. The having of Faith is a vital part of most belief systems, but it has little place in science. By actualizing God, science would elevate humans to a similar level, potentially even superseding the “supreme being” before long. Knowledge is power, and there’d be no greater knowledge or power than this.

Finally, would people readily accept science's God as the endpoint of everything? The question of "Who created God?" (or “Who created the creator?”) has existed since the days of Aristotle. The argument says that a cause and effect chain can’t be infinite, so something must exist that causes but was not affected. If you accept the idea, then that ‘something’ is God. Modern science kicks against this train of thought, as there’s nothing to suggest a chain can’t be unlimited. But, if science suddenly found in favor of God, then the endpoint theory might also be confirmed. Whether or not it’d afford our lives with any more or less meaning, is another question entirely. 

Statistics show that around eighty percent of the global population follow (or at least associate with) some form of religion. In many of those, there’s either a pantheon of gods and deities to worship, or there’s one supreme being above all; the God, who’s usually responsible for creating everything in the universe. But then, and especially if that last part is true, then isn’t there a pretty big problem to work out? 

Who created God?

How many people believe in God? It’s a simple question but with a complex answer. Because God means different things depending on who you ask and how you ask, as well. According to a 2022 poll by the US analytics company, Gallup, eighty-one percent of Americans answer “yes” when asked directly “Do you believe in God?”. However, past polls have shown that whenever there are more options available, that seemingly steadfast belief drops. For example, a 2017 poll gave five options, enabling takers to choose whether they were; convinced that God exists; whether they thought God probably exists, but with a little doubt; God probably exists, but with a lot of doubt; God probably doesn’t exist but they’re not sure; or whether they were convinced that God does not exist. Under those conditions, the percentage choosing the first option - convinced that God exists - came in lower, at sixty-four percent. And, again, that was in 2017. Almost all studies show that belief in God in general has continuously fallen in recent years, so those numbers would likely drop further today. 

And, of course, if the same questions were asked in different countries, or on a global scale, then the results would almost certainly be significantly different again. In America, the majority religion is Christianity, a monotheistic system with the one God at the top of it. But, in China, the most populous nation in the world, the majority of people subscribe to traditional Chinese folk religion, or are atheist. In India, the second most populous nation on Earth, the majority religion is Hinduism, a polytheistic system with multiple gods to follow. Clearly, the question “do you believe in God?” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.

However, and with a monotheistic figure especially, there are some seemingly fundamental debates as to whether or not God exists. For one, is God really good? The other big sticking point is; Who created God? In most monotheistic traditions, God created the universe. At first there was nothing and then there was something, all thanks to God. But if God was around to make all of this possible, then who (or what) made God possible?

This seeming paradox is known as The Problem of the Creator God. And, for those who use it to question or deny God, it then immediately leads us into another problem known as an infinite regress. This is a situation in which a series of circumstances are directly linked and governed by whatever comes before and after, continuing on and on forever. So, if God created the universe, then what created God? If “X” created God, then what created “X”? If “Y” created “X”, then what created “Y”? There are other examples of an infinite regress in practice, such as Aristotle's Paradox of Place, which says that if everything has a place… then all those places have a place, too… which then also have a place, and so on, and so on. It’s how you may have imagined your address as a child; you might’ve said you lived in the universe, then the galaxy, then the solar system, then Earth, then your country, your city, neighborhood, road, your bedroom, et cetera. It’s also something like seeing yourself reflected in two mirrors positioned opposite one another; the image of your face goes on and on, and on.

But, taking it back to the problem of God, and while many atheists and philosophers don’t buy it, those who believe in God also say that the counterargument is quite simple; God is what’s known as the first cause. This again links back to the Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who mused that eventually there must be what he termed an unmoved mover. This is something that affects something else, but is not affected by anything itself. For believers, with regard to the universe and everything that’s in it, this is God. God is the unmoved mover, the first (or primary) cause, responsible for everything but the result of nothing. For those arguing against the existence of God, this is often received as something of a cop out. God as the first cause doubles up as saying; God just is. But why and how could that be, they ask. 

Aristotle seemingly delivered an answer, to some degree, further suggesting that an unmoved mover (in this case, God) would have to exist in some kind of void, outside of time, space and place. From there, it’s a relatively easy jump to the ethereal, all-permeating presence that many view God to be. In general, many theists argue that to try to impose universal laws onto God - i.e., to suggest that God must be created because everything else is - is redundant from the outset. God made the laws of the universe but is not, and never has been, limited by those laws. Perhaps this can be viewed in the same way as a videogame developer is never held to the rules that they create inside a game. They exist on a higher plane, as does God in relation to the universe. And, on that higher plane, even the concept of creation perhaps just isn’t needed.

Then again, some religions just sidestep the problem entirely. In Buddhism, for example, there is no creator God. Most Buddhist figures are not quite so far removed from humankind; they’re more like higher, exalted versions of us. Examples to follow, but examples that are still guided by the same (or similar) physical realities. That said, there are aspects of (and versions of) Buddhism that do rely heavily on there being transcendence to higher planes. But, for those who break out of the circle of life and death to reach nirvana, it’s something that should come to be known. This is never really the case in most monotheistic religions. While some believe that you might enter Heaven in the afterlife, and perhaps even exist alongside God, there is always an unshakeable hierarchy that God is at the top of. Part of Faith is accepting that.

But, what’s your verdict? Clearly this is a question that could be answered in a number of ways. At its core is the belief (or doubt) that if God created everything, then doesn’t something need to have existed beforehand to create the creator? And then something before that to create the creator creator? The resulting infinite regress is the ultimate cosmic rabbit hole, and it’s easy to get lost in. However, the counterargument says that, actually, trying to imagine God in this way is pointless. God made the rules that we’re trying to get them to fit in with… but God really exists beyond those rules. If the universe is a melting pot, then God is simply the one that’s stirring it.

Clearly, in just these opening discussions, we can see that the issue of God is far from straight forward. Science says one thing; religion says another. The global population increasingly turns to science; but billions of people still associate with Faith, as well.

Next, then, we’ll consider God against another as yet unknown entity in the modern world - alien life. Because, actually, are the two much more closely related than they may at first appear? 

We’re part way through the twenty-first century, and it’s still not clear what alien life (if we find it) will actually look like. ETs could be “the greys” with big black eyes, as per science fiction… scaly and reptilian, in line with conspiracy theory… or else like nothing we can even imagine. But when humanity does finally make contact with alien life, how surprised would we be to find out that they look exactly like us? The chances that another life form would evolve similarly to us seem miniscule. But that is, unless it was they who created us in their own image. 

UFOs, or UAP, are fast becoming standard news in the modern world. With so many sightings and video evidence of strange crafts performing seemingly impossible maneuvers and reaching incredible speeds, more people than ever before are today aware that there are legitimate UFOs out there. What some might not know, however, is that certain groups worship these mysterious objects. Whole religions have formed behind the general idea of aliens coming to save us, destroy us, teach us, or to do any number of other things to (or with) us. Scientology is perhaps the most famous example of a religion that focuses on extraterrestrials, as at its heart there’s an entire story about an intergalactic being called Xenu… coming to Earth to detonate hydrogen bombs around volcanoes in order to destroy his people. UFO religions defend their alien beliefs by arguing that the more traditional religions aren’t really all that different; they too believe in an all powerful supernatural being, usually in the sky. So, could that wider, more universal idea of god actually be super-advanced alien life? 

When we use the word god, it can mean various things. Some religions are polytheistic and have multiple gods, while others are monotheistic and only have one all-powerful being. The actual definition of a god can range, then, from the creator of the universe… to a being who’s worshiped for having supernatural powers… to a vaguer but still extremely powerful ruler. Across all definitions, it’s easy to imagine (with our limited, human understanding) an alien creature that’s capable of god-like feats. As the author Arthur C. Clarke famously said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. While magic powers and god-like powers might well be considered one and the same thing. And so, imagine for a moment that an ancient human were to somehow cross paths with a modern day human. We, of course, know that we’re not gods… but an ancient human might well view us as gods, anyway. We can create fire, communicate instantly across the world, and kill from a distance with the twitch of a finger. Incomprehensible technology to humans of the past, that could then appear to be magical or even divine. 

The idea of a (or the) god being nothing more than an alien, then, may sound far-fetched, but advocates say that there is reason to believe. Even if we take an extremely high definition of god -  as a supreme omnipotent being who created the laws of nature, life, and the universe as we know it - there are models to suggest that all of that might one day be possible just for our own species. The Kardashev scale most famously ranks the theoretical levels of advancement that a civilization might achieve, based on how much energy they could harness. And a type five on the Kardashev Scale has discovered almost everything there is to know. Type five beings can harness all the energy in their universe and beyond, to the multiverse. They’re so advanced that they can travel to other dimensions, create an afterlife, and birth totally new universes by themselves. With this in mind, if there are alien beings in existence, if type five is possible, and if there are any aliens that are that advanced (or close to that advanced), then there’s a good chance that we were created by them. That they created us. All it would take to rethink reality like this is 1) to accept that the higher levels of the Kardashev Scale are possible, and 2) to accept that humans likely aren’t the most powerful civilization ever seen; that we would pale into insignificance alongside another.

Most everything that we attribute to the concept of “god” - the performing of miracles, the having of absolute knowledge, and the manipulating of the universe - is theoretically possible with highly advanced technology. Take the Greek god Zeus or the Norse god Thor. They were worshiped by ancient people for (amongst other things) their abilities to harness thunder and lightning, which were at the time terrifyingly powerful and unpredictable forces. But fast forward to today, and we’ve now mastered this element of Earthly life. Lightning is a form of electricity, which we’ve tamed to the point where we can carry it in our pockets. To the ancient Greeks or the Norse, then, we have the power of gods. But, were a hypothetical alien to have learnt how to move planets around, for example, as per the Kardashev Scale… then we are suddenly the ancient, less advanced group, watching on in wonder at what another technologically supreme being can do.

For some, there’s physical evidence of something like this already on Earth. Although the “ancient aliens” belief that ETs in the distant past may have helped to build some of our most impressive landmarks is contentious and problematic. The Egyptian pyramids are a popular target, as they stand as such monumental feats of engineering that it’s hard (for some) to believe a civilization thousands of years less advanced than our own would have been able to build them. The answer, they say, is that aliens were somehow involved. Critics highlight, however, that such beliefs are often thinly hiding prejudice, with it usually the case that western theorists jump to “aliens” particularly to explain non-western structures and achievements. But, if we take a step even further back, to beyond (and before) the records of human history, then might the same kind of approach be used to question the most very fundamental aspects of our existence? Rather than debating the presence of buildings, or inventions, or human impact, what happens if we debate the abiogenesis of life; the emergence of something from nothing; and the seeming unchangeables of our universe, like gravity, time, and thermodynamics? As to the creation of all of that… we don’t know for sure how any of it happened, and so the idea of “god” fills that void. But, really, might a type five alien fit just as well?

Today, we have mounting video evidence of strange flying objects with impossible capabilities. There’s currently no evidence that UFOs definitely are associated with aliens, of course. They could also be secret technology from different countries or states with still-human populations. But there remains some argument that UFOs could simply be the simplest example of technology, knowledge and power that’s beyond us. Brought to us by proposed god-like groups of extraterrestrial beings who operate on a higher level than us, as if by nature. Indeed, they could be so high that they don’t even realize that we’re here, trying to contemplate them. Building a planet, in a star system, in a universe, and forming life there, are clearly much more substantial engineering feats compared to a small UFO caught zooming over the Pacific… but such is the Kardashev Scale (and other scales like it) that there’s no real reason to think those feats are impossible, if there’s enough energy available. 

Finally, many religions do face a difficult problem when it comes to the potential proof that alien life exists. The field of exotheology, popularized by the theologian Ted Peters, refers to the significance that the discovery of extraterrestrial life will have on various belief systems. The implications of some religions are that humanity is uniquely special to god, created in his or her image and endowed with his or her traits - leading many to understand, then, that aliens don’t (or can’t) exist. But now science argues that that is very likely untrue; that aliens do exist, and we just need to find them. If, then, what we think of as god actually were an alien (or a civilization of aliens) then we’re not uniquely special, and probably not even uniquely special to them. But, also, we still might not ever see them. Carl Sagan provided an illustration of this on his 1980s show “Cosmos”, where he imagined a world of two dimensional shapes called Flatland. If a three dimensional cube were to enter that realm, it would only appear as a 2D square to those within it… and if it were to talk, its voice would reverberate through the heavens as if the Flatlanders were hearing the voice of god. And, essentially, that’s what humans could face, were any indication of a higher, alien power to leak through to our own level and dimension.

For all we know, and to turn Clarke’s law around, anything in the world is possible with sufficiently advanced technology. And if ETs were to have enough technology, and knowledge, then all of this may well have been their doing.

In life, science and everything, there are the big questions… and then the really big questions. In that second group are things like; What’s real? What happens before you’re born or after you die? And, is it possible to travel in time? In today’s video, though, we’re pitching two of the greatest and most fundamental questions against one another. Do aliens exist, and does God exist? 

It might be argued that the human quest to truly understand the universe has led us down two distinct paths: the spiritual journey in search of evidence for God and the scientific exploration of the potential for extraterrestrial life. In both cases, what we’re really doing is trying to find something more than just life as we know it, on planet Earth. These parallel pursuits not only shape our understanding of physical existence, then, but also of how we think about ourselves and our place in the world, and reality.

So, let’s start with God. And, importantly, we’re not imagining any one particular god. Here, “god” is a catch-all term for any believed-to-be higher being that might be watching, guiding, creating or judging us. The search for evidence of God has pretty much been a constant throughout most of human history. Although the beliefs themselves have differed, and the stories about God are often at odds with each other, every major civilization we know of has, at some point, sought answers. Through scripture, philosophical debates, through prayer, worship, by focussing on certain seemingly sacred locations, and via the celebration of any number of mystical experiences. However, while religious belief (or Faith) often transcends the need for empirical proof of anything, there are some historical examples that provide glimpses into humanity’s attempts to definitively validate the existence of a higher power.

In medieval times, the teleological argument, often associated with Saint Thomas Aquinas, posited that the complexity and orderliness of the natural world were evidence enough of a divine creator. The rich mechanisms of life, from the varied beauty of biological organisms to the endless precision of celestial movements, were seen as manifestations of God's design. Although that explanation is still a little wooly to most modern minds, it did mark the beginnings of a move away from the even vaguer ideas on God being unknowable, or on God working in mysterious ways. It also bred the often-cited “watchmaker analogy”, first put forward by the British clergyman William Paley in 1802, wherein God is pitched as the watchmaker of the universe. Clearly, though, just calling something “God’s design” or just rebranding God as some kind of master technician does little to actually prove that God exists.

It was during the enlightenment and the scientific revolution that things started to change. Particularly as many who were leading the scientific charge were also dedicated believers in God. Figures like Sir Isaac Newton, a devout Christian, famously made major contributions to physics. Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation - which essentially explained why and how everything moves as it does - were seen by some as revealing the underlying order imposed by a divine architect. I.e., by God. On the other hand, however, and despite any religious views he may have held, Newton’s work was such a milestone because it encouraged others to probe deeper and deeper into the universe around them. Which, in turn, led many to doubt the religious systems that had until then been unquestioned. 

Arguably the most famous episode of apparent conflict between both modes of thought came a couple hundred years later with Charles Darwin, who’s said to have struggled between his religious beliefs and his realization regarding the Theory of Evolution. Meanwhile, in the contemporary era, we’ve seen prominent theistic evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, the former director of the National Institutes of Health in the US, and a leading geneticist. During his career, he has consistently been seen as a high-ranking example of someone who reconciles science with religion - once describing himself as a “serious Christian”. On the one hand, Collins is a key figure in the history of the Human Genome Project. On the other, he founded the BioLogos Foundation, a group dedicated to the belief in evolutionary creation - which, among other things, argues that God is directly involved with (or responsible for) evolution. 

Over the years, we’ve seen similar apparent crossovers across almost all fields of science. The German astronomer Johannes Kepler believed that he was only ever contemplating the universe after God had created it, as a way to share in his thoughts. The British mathematician and father of the computer, Charles Babbage, mentioned in his writing a belief in Divine energy, as well as in miracles and, in general, the creator God. The astrophysicist Carl Sagan famously discussed the cosmos from the perspective of Hinduism, suggesting that perhaps it - above all other religions - got it most right, once describing Hindu teachings as a “premonition of modern astronomical ideas”.

But still, it remains that almost all of the above amounts to interpretation only. Some viewpoints cater for God and science, others don’t. Many influential figures have either had religious beliefs or spoken about a religious view, but no one (so far) has been able to offer up absolute proof that God is real. Of course, Faith is a deeply personal and subjective experience. It just doesn't adhere to the rigor of the scientific method. And perhaps, if a god were proved, then religions would fall because of it. Or that god would no longer especially qualify as a god; more just another part of the physical world.

So, let’s now switch to aliens. And, to some degree, the search for extraterrestrial life might currently be pitched as science’s religion, to begin with. Scientists are constantly looking for proof of something that they so far haven’t found. As the Fermi Paradox famously encapsulates, there’s an apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations existing and the lack of tangible evidence for, or contact with, those civilizations. Believers in God may well argue in a similar vein although, here, with the hunt for aliens, we are wholly rooted in the principles of observation, data analysis, and the scientific method. 

The ET search involves a combination of disciplines, including astrobiology, astronomy, and planetary science. There’s also the Drake Equation to measure by. Formulated by the astrophysicist Frank Drake, it attempts to estimate the number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy by considering factors such as the rate of star formation, the fraction of stars with planets, and the likelihood of life emerging on suitable planets. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (or SETI) then involves scanning the cosmos for signals that may indicate the presence of intelligent beings. The use of radio telescopes and other advanced technologies allows scientists to sift through vast amounts of data in the hope of detecting artificial signals amid the cosmic background noise.

Recent advancements in astrobiology provide additional food for thought. The discovery of extremophiles on Earth, organisms that thrive in extreme environments, has expanded our understanding of potential habitable zones beyond Earth. The identification of exoplanets in the habitable zone around their star, where conditions might allow for liquid water and, potentially, life, adds fuel to the belief that the universe could be teeming with diverse life forms. And, of course, with alien life as opposed to God, we do at least have one seemingly comparable example to go by; us. While it’s true that alien life, if and when we find it, may be nothing quite so humanoid as ourselves… it’s also true that we do at least know that things can be alive, seeing as we have a whole planet, Earth, to demonstrate just that.

Nevertheless, and despite our best efforts, the so-called Great Silence persists. Aliens, as with God, are yet to reveal themselves to us. The discovery of potentially habitable exoplanets, like Kepler-452b, may have fueled optimism about the prevalence of life beyond our solar system… but the leap from potential habitability to the actual presence of life is still huge. Similarly, the detection in recent times of methane and organic salts on Mars certainly has sparked excitement about the possibility of past or even current microbial life there. The confirmation of liquid water beneath the icy surface of moons like Europa and Enceladus has had us further picturing new life comparatively close by. But, again, while it may feel as though we’re forever on the brink of a major discovery… we still have to actually make that discovery before it can be said that we have proof.

So, what’s your verdict? In comparing the proof of God and aliens, one thing that is clear is that these goals are found on different planes. Religious belief relies on faith, as well as personal experience, scripture, and philosophical reasoning. In contrast, the search for extraterrestrial life is outwardly scientific from the start, always demanding proof as standard. It may be common to ask “do you believe in aliens?” but, for the scientists who are fronting the search, belief actually has nothing to do with it. They’re simply testing hypotheses to deliver results. Science doesn’t have faith that aliens are there, it just increasingly strongly suspects that they are.

So, on the face of it, it might be said that aliens have more proof because we now have plenty in terms of potential planets they could live on, potential vehicles they could pilot, and potential means by which they might survive. But still, in terms of undeniable evidence, we’re ultimately at the same stage with aliens as we are with God. There’s nothing. Perhaps what the debate serves to highlight most of all is the multifaceted nature of the human quest for meaning - whether that’s within the depths of our souls or far out among the stars.

God versus aliens versus humanity. Together, we form three corners of a cosmic triangle that will possibly always ignite debate. But, the fact is that when it comes to God… there isn’t any scientific proof. We’re completely lacking with regard to empirical evidence. And we’re totally dependent on Faith. 

Ultimately, is it similar with extraterrestrials? And with advanced civilizations like Kardashev type fives? Possibly… although we do at least have statistical estimates to fall back on, when it comes to the potential for aliens.

Could we prove God? As the human story rolls on and on, it can often feel as though nothing is impossible. So, if there is a God, it seems likely that one day we will irrefutably discover them. But, that said, would proof of God even be enough? Because mightn’t that proof only serve to inspire those who have it to seek evidence of another, even higher entity, somewhere beyond?