Robert Kaita believes in God. Robert Kaita also is a scientist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. A contradiction? Some might believe so. But Kaita is not the first scientist to believe in an almighty creator. He should have let it go at that -- but no, he has to try convincing us that God exists. He's not the first to attempt to do so, and he won't be the last. Unfortunately, to believe in the logic of any of the "proofs" floating around out there requires as much faith as being a fundamental Christian.
Attempts to prove that God exists are not scarce. One basic argument is that the universe is too complex not to have been created by God. That is simply another way of saying that the universe is too complex for man to understand it, so someone smarter than man must be behind it. I recently witnessed a smaller scale version of this when I overheard a person looking at a video of an advanced robotic vehicle. Their comment; "Someone really smart must have created that."At best it's speculation.
Another "proof" argues that everything that exists has a cause. But there must have been, at some time, a cause prior to all other causes. The theologian's logic then says that it must have been God. Ontologists have a different argument. Ontologists study the concept of reality and the nature of being. They argue that God is the perfect being. I'm not sure how they know that he is perfect or that he is a being, but anyway, here is where it gets murky. They say that if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect. But since he is perfect, he must exist. This is the kind of logic that makes people choke on their food.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience where they experienced God directly, and, therefore, say that they have proof that God exists. There are also many people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and returned unharmed, so I guess that proves aliens have been here – or at least in some redneck trailer parks.
Then there is St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). He was a famous Christian philosopher and theologian, best known for his "ontological argument" for the existence of God. If it is possible to condense his tome of writing on the matter, he argues that just the simple thought of God, along with the belief that there is nothing greater than God, ultimately proves that he must exist. By that stupid argument, one can prove that anything exists if you believe there is nothing greater than it.
Back to Kaita; he says, "No creator means no judgment, but also no reception at the end, good or bad." He uses that argument to justify his logic for believing in God. It's not a proof – just a rational for believing, based on a fear of repercussions for not believing. It's not a new argument. Blaise Pascal presented it back in the 1600's. It is also is the basis of Freud's explanation for all religions.
There are people who devote their lifetimes to studying such nonsense. I wonder who pays them to do it. It seems to me that it is a God-awful waste of time.