From the age of renaissance and after the rebirth of science and classical thinking, the mainstream

religious authority of its time was consisted by the catholic  and Byzantine church which frequently used
its power and influence in order to fight against new ideas and views of the physical world. Bold
scientists and thinkers, contrary to the everyday perceptions dared to make the step ahead in order to
introduce new ways of analysing and perceiving the physical world around us. In one hand mainstream
Christianic religion lead by the catholic church based its cosmological model on the Judea-Christianic
writings of the old testament and never let anyone question the common spread analysis of them.

Through the book of genesis the 7 day process which the cosmos was created was literally perceived
and preached by the church as the  plausible explaination of how the universe came to be. On the other
hand Western scientific thinking which led back from Ionia and classical Greece was consisted by various
theories of how the world came to be. Through logic, logos (Λόγος – Pure Though) many thinkers
managed to introduced a new ways of how things came to be. Of course all this was done clearly
through observation and analysis of nature and the phenomenology of the physical world around them
they managed to lead to trustworthy conclusions.

During the renaissance a systematic effort to revive this way of thinking was made by mathematicians,
physicists, biologists and theoretics. Introduction and quantitative analysis of concepts such as gravity,
matter and energy are some examples of the leaps some minds in that era made using mathematical
and logical tools in order to come to trustworthy conclusions. A mechanistic model of the universe was
steadily introduced where no greater power (otherwise god) was needed in order to make thinks work.
That scientific concept was the main reason of the up to this time opposition of the church towards
fundamental scientific theories.Originally the fight against these new ideas were widespread throughout
Europe with the burning of books and handwritings.

Originally a coherence with the Christianic church was made when the big bang theory was introduced ,
which was compatible with the book of Genesis. So in the middle of the 20th century the pope came to
agree and approve this fundamental scientific discovery which explained to a great extent the formation
of our cosmos. That to the church maybe meant the proof of god event through scientific method,
though for scientists themselves it made no proof of anything more than the big bang theory itself.
Research continued independently of whether god was agreed to exist or not, because science itself is
not a philosophical research but rather a research using logical and analytical tools. 

It is extremely dramatic that there are mutual relations between the modern cosmology and Christian
theology. So, on March 5, 1616, the Catholic Church, with the consent of Pope Paul V, placed Nicolaus
Copernicus’ work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in the Index of the forbidden books as a work in
which the postulate of the church that the Earth is the center of the world is put under doubt. The
experts from the Pope’s Collegium believed that Copernicus’ theory tried to falsify Sacred Scriptures.
Such experiences of opposition with science should leave their trace on the body of the Church.
Therefore, in the 20th century, the church had already taken into consideration the new achievements
of science, as though they did not challenge a literal understanding of Bible. Evidence for this change is
the admission by the church that the Big Bang theory verifies the Bible’s description of Creation by God.
Such acknowledgement was connected with the concept of the hot universe which understood the early
Universe to consist of a " photon gas " - "the light" – which corresponds to the following verses from the
Bible:

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and
God divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1: 3-4).

Inflationary cosmology - positing the "empty" De Sitter scalar field - corresponds to interpretations of
the Genesis 1:2:

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

In opinion of church," the mathematical hypothesis " of Copernicus was a hypothesis denying basic
position of the Sacred Script , speaking that " the God has created Heavens above the Earth", instead of
“the Earth above Heavens ". Copernicus' work considered as the work, in which the postulate of the
church, "that the Earth is in the center of the world", is put under doubt. The experts from Pope's
Collegium have believed that Copernicus theory trays to falsify the Sacred Script. Later the work of
Galileo" Dialogue about two systems of the world ", written for the defence of the Copernicus' theory,
was brought into the Index also. Formally they remained under the interdiction during two coming
centuries, down to 1822.

Later, the evolutionary Theory of the Universe receives " physical explanation " in George Gamov's work
(1948)in which it develops the model of " the hot Universe ". According to Gamov's model, the arisen
Universe has been filled during an initial epoch by the hot ultrarelativistic gas, consisting mainly from
photons and other light particles. The subsequent cooling of the Universe has led to the annihilation of
the particles and antiparticles, and later to falling density of energy of photon gas, and together with it -
its temperatures. In 1964-1965th years Pensias and Wilson for the first time observed this "relict",
cooled down up to temperature 2,70 K, " photon gas ". Gamov's model after the received verification
becomes a well known theory. And Catholic Church has already got "a scientific argument" in favour of
that the Bible’s words from the first chapter of the book

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

are quite proved. Really, the similarity was very great: anyhow is it possible to interpret Bible’s lines,
how not in the terms of modern cosmology? Bible's "light" also is " photon gas ". In fact, "photon" has
been entered by Einstein in 1905 as a quantum of light! The Universe created by the God has been filled
by this primary gas (light). Passes four years and in 1952 Pope Pius XII acts with an official recognition -
the Theory of the Big Bang confirms the Sacred Scripts.
CONCLUSION

A final question is whether the laws of physics that we are devising or discovering reflect the mind of
God The answer is obtained once we answer the question whether scientific theories express facts and
realities, or whether they are expressions of our mind and imagination? The history of modern science
tells us that scientific theories change over time, and although a correspondence is established
sometimes between the results of calculations based on new theories and the old ones, it is found that
the concepts are liable to change. We now have two famous and well-studied examples: quantum
theory versus classical radiation physics, and relativity theory versus Newtonian mechanics and
gravitation theory. We have seen how the classical particle concept has changed and how the wave-
particle duality concept replaced the old one and constitutes the substratum of quantum theory.
Moreover, the determinism of classical physics was replaced by the indeterminism of quantum
measurement. These new concepts completely changed the philosophy of the natural law. Determinism
may not need God if the laws in nature operate independently, but indeterminism would surely need an
external God to decide the result and coordinate the actions of different, sometimes conflicting laws. A
deterministic law can enforce a kind of self ruling; if the laws are deterministic such that the entire
universe can be run in a self-contained manner, then there is no need for an external agent to run it.

To the contrary, if indeterminism underlays the structure of the laws of nature, then surely a need for an
external ruler will be inevitable. That is why Einstein could not accept the notion that the Old One (God)
plays dice. Here reason conflicts with .nature, which does not necessarily follow the laws that our mind
has devised, but follows the laws that were devised by the Creator.

The physical laws of nature that we are said to discover are actually devised by our mind, the mind of
Paul Davies for example, but not by the “Mind of God”. So, in one way or another, we are discovering
our mind and the way our mind, not the Mind of God, works. This fact may be easily recognized once we
remember that people thought, for more that 200 years, that Newton’s law of gravity is the law of God
controlling the solar system. Then it turned out that neither the mathematical formulation of Newton’s
law nor his concept of gravity were right, despite the fact that astronomers successfully used it to
calculate the orbits of the planets in the sky precisely, and even to predict the existence of other planets
which were duly discovered later. That is why no one can catch God at work, not even the great Einstein
himself.

Different conflicting and stand-alone laws cannot act by themselves to produce the qualities of
organization and delicacy of nature. These laws need some coordinating mechanism which would be, in
essence, yet another law of nature.

Otherwise we have to resort to an external agent that does not abide by the characteristics of nature
itself. There is no way we can find a natural law unifying all the laws in nature, simply because such a law
would contain the mechanism and control necessary for the coordination of all the other laws in nature,
and that is a self-defeating goal; because such a goal, in replicating itself ad infinitum, must ever elude
us.. Therefore the role of an external agent that does not follow nature is deemed necessary to resolve
such a dilemma, an agent that acts outside of space and time and does not necessarily abide by our logic
and comprehension.

Physicists and other scientists need to revise the way they think about God in order to be able to
seriously comprehend the possibility of having an external power, will or wisdom or whatever that
initiates, controls and sustains the universe. God needs to be thought of as an abstract entity that exists,
acts and is beyond physical space and time. Otherwise, if we think of God as an entity within and part of
our physical world and characterize him according to our scientific standards, then surely we will be
“led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should
be rejected by scientific standards” as Sean Carroll puts it (Carroll 2003). God is not physical; should it be
so he would be contained within the universe. He would then be subject to the laws of the universe and
would need a supernatural power to coordinate his acts and sustain his will and power.