Does God exist even scientifically

Answer 1

Science mainly deals with things that can be repeatedly tested, understood, and proven.

Proven can mean being able to tell beforehand what will happen under certain conditions.

Take gravity for instance.

One scientific theory suggested that the force of gravity (kinda-sorta like how much you weigh) is dependent on the size of the planet you're on.

Then people went to the moon, and felt lighter.

You must have seen the videos how people leap and jump.

This kind of things makes science happy. There was a theory, and a test. And the result of the test fitted with the theory.

And if it hadn't been so hideously expensive, anyone could go to the moon and repeat the experiment.

When it comes to god, or gods, no one has yet been able to create a test that would show if there is a god or not.

First off, proving what doesn't exist is generally trickier than proving what does.

Take Sasquatch as an example:

To prove that Sasquatch is real, all you have to do is find one and put it on display. That would pretty much end the discussion - if enough people are allowed to examine it, do some DNA testing, things like that.

"No Sasquatch" can never be as solidly proven. It's hard to tell the difference between what you simply haven't found, and what really isn't there.

Since a god is assumed to be sentient, proving god's existence becomes even worse. Maybe god has decided not to appear in any tests.

So science as a rule isn't particularly interested in god, since actually proving whether he exists or not is currently considered pretty much impossible.

Answer 2

Science cannot conclusively prove that God exists.Because He has granted us free will (Deuteronomy 30:15-20), God has made it possible to put forth arguments for His existence as well as against it.

In offering arguments for God's existence, the best approach that science can use is by bringing to light the infinite wisdom and complexity in Creation in general, and in living things.

• For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).
  
• "A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author). "The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).

• Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).
  
• "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
  

See also:

More evidence for Creation

Can you show that God exists?