I was reading this book 'Hyper Space' by Michio Kaku and was wondering how god could get into science?  How the vagueness of mythology could be put in rigors of logic.  Famous St. Thomas Aquinas in thirteen century produced the logical proof on explaining GOD and science and he said

 Things are in motion; hence there is a first mover

Things are caused; hence there is a first cause

Things exist, hence there is a creator

Perfect goodness exists, hence it has a source

Things are designed, hence they server a purpose.

 (The first three lines are variations of what is called the cosmological proof; the fourth argues on moral grounds; and the fifth is called the teleological proof.  The moral proof is by far the weakest, because morality can be viewed in terms of evolving social customs).

 Now let's look at what philosophical scientist could say (excerpts from the book 'Hyper Space' by Michio Kaku)

 "To have life in the universe, you need a rare conjunction of many coincidences.  Life, which depends on a variety of complex biochemical constants reaction, can easily be rendered impossible if we change some of the constants of chemistry and physics by a small amount.  For example, if the constants that govern nuclear physics were changed even slightly, then nucleo-synthesis and the creation of the heavy elements in the starts and supernovae might become impossible.  Then atoms might become unstable or impossible to create in supernovae.  Life depends on the heavy elements (elements beyond iron) for the creation of DNA and makes the heavy elements of the universe impossible to manufacture in the starts.  We are of children of the stars; however, if the laws of nuclear physics change in the slightest, then our "parents" are incapable of having "children" (us).  As another example, it is safe to say that the creation of life in the early oceans probably took 1 to 2 billion years.  However, if we could somehow shrink the lifetime of the proton to several million years, then life would be impossible.  There would not be enough time to create life out of random collisions of molecules.

 In other words, the very fact that we exist in the universe to ask these questions about it means that a complex sequence of events must necessarily have happened.  It means that the physical constants of the nature must have certain range of values, so that the stars lived long enough to create the heavy elements in our bodies, so that protons don'ts decay too rapidly before life has a chance to germinate, and so on.  In other words, the existence of humans who can ask questions about the universe places a huge number of rigid constraints on the physics of the universe - for example, its age, its chemical composition, its temperature, its size, and its physical processes.

 Remarking on these cosmic incidences, physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, "As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we are coming.  This takes us to the strong version of the anthropic principle, which states that all the physical constants of the universe have been precisely chosen (by God or some Supreme Being) so that life is possible in our universe.  The strong version, because it raises questions about a deity, is much more controversial among scientists.

 Conceivably, it might have been blind luck if only a few constants of nature were required to assume certain values to make life possible.  However, it appears that a large set of physical constants must assume a narrow band of values in order for life to form in our universe.  Since accidents of this type are highly improbable, perhaps a divine intelligence (God) precisely chose those values in order to create life."

 If you come this far reading, don’t you feel funny, amazed and wondering as I am?  The anthropic argument is a more sophisticated version of the old argument that God located the earth at just the right distance from the sun.  If God had placed the earth too close , then it would be too hot to support life.  If God had placed the earth too far, then it would been too cold.  The fallacy of this argument is that millions of planets in the galaxy probably are sitting at the incorrect distance from their sun, and therefore life on them is impossible.  However, some planets will, by pure accident, be at right distance from their sun.  Our planet is one of them, and hence we are here to discuss the question.

 AT THIS HIGHEST LEVEL OF THOUGHT PROCESS, I FELT THAT ALL FORM OF KNOWLEDGE EVER KNOWN TO HUMAN KIND UNITE AT SOME POINT.  IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS I CAN SEE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY HAVE BECOME ONE.  FASCINATING ISN'T IT?