(IS GOD EXIST OR NOT) - Just an opinion

Is God Exist or Not?

            In philosophy, the debate about the existence of God becomes a question that raises debates responses. In studying the philosophy of science, we must have a theory and knowledge, but we have to do the right selection to find something that suitable. It's called research. Research itself has two think of framework, namely deductive and inductive.

In explaining the existence (or absence of God), it is clear that there are battles between the empirist and idealist. According Empirism, they believe in the importance of the reality of objects and materials that can be used to explain the existence of something. So they do not believe in the existence of God. Because they do not see obvious evidence of God in the material. While on the other hand, the idealists believe in God. Because of idealism itself supports the existence of something because someone has thought or thinking activity.

The way to prove the existence of God is:
1. Observing and observed traces of God through the universe.
2. Observing and observed traces of God through revelation.

Basically, the revelation itself is suitable something to know about the universe, surely there will always be the term 'exist and no'. And for the atheist, it will always be a way to reject the existence of God and the universe exist by itself.

Then we called the material and immaterial aspects of theism is an Ontology or substance under discussion. Then we call the Thought Research Divine Revelation process as epistemology, or anything that explains how we get it (results ; material and immaterial) and how a science (understanding) was constructed. While the results of all these processes is the knowledge that we refer to as axiology, that is what its usefulness and where the dimensions of the invention can be applied.

Thus we can distinguish between Theism and Atheism. Both in terms Ontologikal, Epistemologikal, and Axiology, we can see the difference between the two. That could explain the dimensions of the debate about the existence of God, which occurred between Atheism and Theism.

Also another idea that supports the existence of God is thinking about how the universe and everything inside can run without tracks. This has led to the belief of a God who set it all. But then again raises the question of how to prove the existence of God.
For example, there are people who say that he could create a tree ( ‘plant’ surely different from creates), surely no one believes. Why? Because we know that in time and at any time, there is no evidence suggesting that the tree can be made by humans. Conversely, if there is someone who say that he made a house. Then surely we will believe it. Because we know that there is evidence that humans can indeed make a home. From the facts above, we can understand also that Revelation is something that is always connected with God. So, how do we prove it? Which is something that can be man-made, of course other people can make it. But if God made it (for example a tree), surely no man can make. Revelation was probably written in book form. Still, it can be assured that the revelation was from God.

Someone explain that if we have love then we also have a God, although not all love can be proven. Meanwhile, we should also know that a theory can be obtained from research or revelations. Many of the science that comes from revelation, especially the social sciences. Although there are differences of opinion between Theism and Atheism, explaining that everything must be proven by the reality of the material or object (empirism), while, others think that all there because of the idea or ​​thinking (Idealism). In fact is, there can be no mind without material and is also not possible existence of material without mind.

In the end, it is necessary knowledge to become a meeting point of two sides (idealism and materialism). Because in real science, that science is able to adjust the scope. For simple things, such knowledge can be neutral, for example : neither the theist or atheist, they will have the same assessment about the 'men and women'. As for the case in a broad scope, the science is value bounded (influenced by whether a person is godless or not). Moreover, in the context of concrete research and clear (also a clear terminology), then the research must be the same / value free. But if it is made an abstraction, then the result would be different. In addition, research results that have penetrated into ideology and free value will be questioned and its potential to be biased value. Because that's the privilege of science particularly relevant to science as basis for a debate. Because science is also what makes us to learn to love the truth.