For centuries, mankind has asked the same question: Does God exist?Last Wednesday, Daily Reveille columnist Daniel Morgan tried to present logical and scientific platforms against the concept of God.Yet in his haste to expound upon some obviously strongly held personal aversions toward religion, Morgan made several errors in form and logic.Morgan’s fundamental flaw stems from his adulteration of scientific fact and discovery, leading him to the irrational conclusion that “God is impossible.”The scientific method of controlled and verifiable experiment is useful for achieving a great deal of empirical and anthropological knowledge. But it cannot be used to disprove the possibility there might be higher kinds of knowledge outside the scope of scientific inquiry.Science degenerates into scientism when we make the mistake of assuming a naturalistic world view. While there are certainly methodological means employed in science, many anti-theists, like Morgan, make the mistake of distorting methodology into ontology.Scientific laws of nature describe, but they don’t prescribe. They teach us how nature operates, but they don’t tell us whether there are higher laws that surpass natural laws.The law of gravity tells us precisely what would happen if you jumped off the edge of the Grand Canyon.But if a hang glider jumped off the cliff, the superior law of aerodynamics would overcome existing gravitational law.In this illustration, we wouldn’t argue the law of gravity was violated. Instead we’d say it submits to the higher law of aerodynamics.Likewise, an omniscient God doesn’t violate natural law — he supersedes it.To say a higher power is verifiably impossible is, in fact, a perversion of scientific principle.Once we’ve realized the true nature of God, it’s easier to address the circular arguments presented in Morgan’s column.The first argument is God can’t be both omniscient and omnipotent because if God knows everything — including His future actions — He is unable to change them and thus not omnipotent.The definition of omnipotence is disputable, but for arguments sake we’ll assume its most basic definition — a god capable of doing absolutely anything.The problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the difference between ability and action. Omnipotence means the ability to do anything — not actually doing everything. God’s omniscience might determine what he will do, but it certainly doesn’t limit what he can do.Besides, if God is omniscient, there would be no need to change the future, because everything occurs within His overarching design.Morgan’s second argument is a variation of the classic philosophical conundrum of the omnipotence paradox.In Morgan’s specific example, couldn’t God create a lock that even he couldn’t pick?The flaw in this argument is that, for all of Morgan’s emphasis on logic, creating a lock that is unpickable by an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility.If Morgan wishes to disqualify religion on basis of logic, he has to stick to logic himself.In addition, omnipotence can variably be defined as a god who can do anything logically possible — a definition espoused by famed religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas. Or, as Christian apologist Caleb Colley explained, “While God is unlimited by time, space or force, His very character has determined that He will never do some things, because to do them would be inconsistent with His principles.”But even if you define “omnipotent” as being able to do absolutely anything, God is fully capable of creating an unpickable lock and then picking it.If God can do absolutely anything, he can even defy logic.Therefore, He’s not susceptible to the rhetorical bear traps used by Morgan.Our culmination to this debate reiterates the same conclusion even atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins humbly acknowledge — because the origin of life is unknowable, there are no scientific certainties pertaining to God.Stephen Jay Gould, the late scientist and evolutionist who was himself an atheist, re-iterated this: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism.”For years, most people have operated under the false presumption that science and theism cannot rationally coincide.Once we dispel the false dichotomy of science and supernatural belief, it should become evident the time has come to put an end to this debate. There are many people who wrongly demand scientific proof for God. Yet to definitively claim God is impossible is just as irrational as invoking science to prove He indeed exists.To rationally proceed, believers must remember the creator is separate from His creation.Likewise, atheist thinkers should avoid the philosophical and contradictory aversions they place on faith.When anti-theists morph scientific discovery into an all-encompassing theory explaining metaphysical attributes, they aren’t in the territory of science but philosophy.Faith and science are each rewarding and beneficial when relegated to their proper place. There’s no reason for the two to distort themselves to prove or disprove something that’s wholly reliant on some level of faith.Students may formulate their own views on whether or not they believe God exists by using the same methods taught in academic subjects like economics or political science.Although there are certainly well-established laws and principles that influence the way scholars view the world, there are many differing schools of thought on how economic and political systems function. These systems are far too complex to be definitively, empirically defined, so logic, reason and argument lead to individual conclusions.In the same way, something as abstract as God cannot be precisely pinned down by the scientific method alone.It requires a personal level of study and observation on the evidence to reach a sound verdict.The quest for truth is a never-ending journey that’s unique for each person. And it is always contingent on some degree of faith.Scott Burns and Matthew Albright are sophomores from Baton Rouge and graduates of Parkview Baptist High School.——Contact Scott Burns at [email protected] and Matthew Albright at [email protected]