If we all agree God Himself cant be proven with science....?

Question

Then does it not stand to reason that we must approach God differntly than we approach things that are proven with science?God has given us faith,prayer&patience so that we can understand Him;but why do people complain about God not being able to be proven scientifically if we understand that we're not gonna recieve God's presence with scientific means?Why dont people want to come to God the way God says we need to approach Him

Answer 1

Well this is because many people are limited in their worldview to think only that which can be proven or observed is reality.

Answer 2

No offense but how do you know what God says? What makes you or anybody else and authority on what God says to do? Everything that God is perceived to be was written by man. I know that there are those that argue that God had a hand in writing the Bible, but how would we know for sure if we cannot prove that God exists. The problem is that there has to be a universally accepted standard for verifying something's existence. Otherwise, it makes it completely arbitrary. This universal standard is science. When we discuss the existence of a God, we cannot assume existence and then try to disprove it. That kind of reasoning is completely backwards. I find it funny how people benefit from science in so many ways, but when it is applied to religion it is discredited. What is it about religion that makes gives it a different standard when applied to science?

Answer 3

*blink* This is refreshing. I generally get all kinds of thumbs-down when I say basically the same thing.


Religion (mythos) isn't *supposed* to be subject to the tests of scientific rationalism.

And the modernist drive to re-cast religion in the light of "reason" (logos) has caused a lot of problems.

For example - bible literalism is a fairly recent thing - it's a modernist attempt to change religious thought within Christianity *as a reaction to* the abandonment of the mystical and mythical.

It's a bad idea.

It would be far healthier, IMO, to reclaim the separation of mythic/mystic and scientific thought. Religious scriptures were not intended to be science textbooks. And the measuring devices of the scientific method are not applicable to religious insights.

Religious truths are not like the proofs of scientific rationalism, but more like the intuitive insights of poetry or music or art. Conflating the two only results in bad science and bad religion.

Answer 4

obviously technology won't be able to educate that. assume someone I claimed the God created the chocolate bar on my table. No clinical theory ought to disprove it. No clinical theory can disprove the God created the international. certainly, when it comes to the international, we may be able to assert extremely more advantageous. we will be slow to have self assurance that God created the chocolate bar, because we've seen chocolate bars take position by technique of alternative skill - like being made by technique of human beings - and those motives are so a lot more advantageous conveniently observable. the reason you probable ought to have self assurance God became resonsible if it began to rain a bath of pink polka-dancing hamsters is that there is not any different risk. And what technology has very effectively finished, if no longer with the international then with existence itself, is ruled out different probabilities of starting place, except creation by technique of God.

Answer 5

I agree totally. Well almost totally - it's just the last sentence I have a problem with. Oh and the bit about what God has given us. But apart from that...

Answer 6

So what your saying God wants us to deny science. That also means giving up all medications, surgery, cures and all technological advances. Basically not use the deductive reasoning He gave us. Man, that sounds stupid doesn't it?

Answer 7

No. We ask of everything else in our lives to have evidence and proof - why should god be any different?