Why does anyone try to use science to prove god exists?

Question

If you are faithful, you obviously don't need scientific proof. Shouldn't that be enough? Why, when pressed for proof of god's existence, can't those who believe simply say "I believe god exists and that is enough for me." The argument from a scientific standpoint usually ends up the same way:
Person A: "Prove scientifically god exists."
Person B: "Well, you say we evolved. We had to evolve from something. You can't have nothing and then get something. God created that something and the rest happened."
Person A: "Then something had to create god."
Person B: "God has no beginning or end and exists outside the laws of nature, therefore he needs no explanation as the rules do not apply to him."

Granted the conversation usually goes deeper and moe intelligently than that, but it always seems to end up that way. At one point science must cease in order to scientifically prove god's existence, so why bother trying to scientifically argue the point? If you believe, then believe.

I am making no effort to prove or disprove god's existence, contrary to what some of you read into the question. I want ot know why any Christian (or any one else for that matter) would try to use science to prove the existence of god. I am not saying you can't find god by studying science, or that you will turn to atheism if you attempt to prove god's existence with science. I want to know why, based on conversations I've had/seen/heard, anyone would want to try to prove god exists by pointing to science.
For the record, it is pointless to try to prove god doesn't exist with science. Science does not deal with proving negatives. That conversation is outside of my question. Feel free to post your own questions and debate god's existence, but please stick with the subject at hand when answering mine. If that's too much to ask, you've got problems.

Boethuis...you seem to know the future. Amazing. How do you know that we will not be able to rationally understand that which we currently do not? That's really beside the point of the question, though.

James, I think you have your mathematical probabilities reversed, but that does not answer my relatively simple question.

I agree, Aldy. But that's exactly my point. If faith is enough for some people, why can they not simply say that and leave it alone. If faith is your reason for belief, be satisfied with that and move on. If I am not satisfied with faith, let me deal with that. Don't try to play to my intellect with unintellectual thoughts.

"Serving Lord Jesus", thanks for your input, though you did nothing to answer the question. Please read it again and save your nonsense for a different question.

Answer 1

The problem is that in order to truly believe you need faith. In order to accept faith you must sacrifice something of the way we obtain knowledge. We obtain knowledge through scientific investigation and rational inquiry. With faith we must simply accept and be done with it.

Now the question is, why doesn't God simply grant us information about himself that can be deduced through careful human reasoning? Why must we have faith to begin with? What's so special about it?

Sorry, didn't mean to bring up so many questions but my point is, as i hope I made somewhat clear at least, is that many people do not believe that faith is enough. Like me.

Answer 2

I don't think at this moment any mainstream scientist is trying to use science to prove the existance of god. Science and religion are quite different. While science deals with facts that can be proven, religion is a belief, everyone is entitled to their belief which explains why there are so many religions around. The standards of science is universal, so they can co-exist.

If I subscribe to your theory, I will at the same time believe in the existance of other gods. Each religion claims the same thing, believe in them and you will be saved, some even go as far as disblievers will rot in hell, and all religions claims miracles have happen to their believers, seems like many gods exists, who should we trust?

In ancient times people believe winter occurs because the daughter of a goddess is kidnap and she is too sad to bless the land. Up until few hundreds years ago, the church still persecute those who suggest planets revolved around the sun. Today we all know what's the truth. There are still questions that can't be answer by science, however if we find a convenient answer (god's creation) each time we hit a road block, due to our inadequate knowledge in science and technology, then we may never improve.

If you want to prove your point, you've got to provide strong evidence to convince people. We're all thinking individuals, capable of reasoning and logical thinking, simply saying "If you believe, then believe" is not convincing, and while its good to have faith, its equivalent to trusting blindly, not for everyone. At this point I failed to see the possibility of the existance of god.

However I keep and open mind, as new evidence emerge I will re-assess based on the overall situation. But until then, I remain skeptical and refuse to be threatened with repercussion that I don't see the possibility of ever happening.

Answer 3

To show that theism is reasonable and logical.

There are scientific and philosophical "evidences' of God but should they be called" proofs" since they are disputable?

Theism,for example, is much more mathematicallyprobable than atheism or non theism when considering the existence and relative order of the Cosmos.

In the end ,making an investment of faith in theism or atheism is a matter of faith-choise.

Answer 4

Those that attempt to use science to prove god exists are well on their way to atheism. (Though there comes a point where they must decide whether they want to continue into real science or not. Basically, they must decide if they REALLY want to know the truth, or if they just want to stick to pseudoscience to reinforce their beliefs)

Answer 5

God always ends up getting special pleading.

Apparently, to theists, it make sense to suspend all reason in order to posit a curiously anthropocentric universe, despite the fact that humans have only been around on one small speck in the corner of a backwater galaxy for a tiny portion of our universe's long history.

Answer 6

There are no true scientists trying to prove or disprove the existence of a god. They know it is a waste of time and they would rather focus their energy and money on science instead of fantasy. It is amusing that you would attempt to fabricate an intelligent answer from a stupid question

Answer 7

No one with a brain would attempt to use science to prove God. Such an act would only prove the contra because science supports fact not insanity.

Answer 8

I don't need scientific proof. I believe, I have faith (trust) in the living God. I have seen Him do too much in my life...to not believe.

If someone needs proof, then they don't have "faith." However, we have faith in other things. Exchange the word faith for trust...

We trust that our car or public transportation will be there when we need to use them and will get us to our destination without problems.

We trust that the chair we sit in will not fall apart when we sit (or we wouldn't sit on it.)

We trust that our alarm clock will wake us in the morning.

We even trust that when the light changes and we proceed to walk across the street we will get to the other side, safely.

People have faith even when they don't realize they have faith. They just choose what to have faith in...

Peace and blessings...

Answer 9

Because fact is everything. You may want to live your life believing that fairies are going to steal your children in the night and replace them with changelings but the rest of us prefer fact over fairy tales.

Answer 10

If there are no bashers around, religion and science match up perfectly. God had a Father, just like everyone else.