Failure of science to find God; itself a proof that one true God does exist

[micrurus]

Science is not designed for that; hence it cannot find the one true creator God.
Quran mention it clearly:

[6:102] The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
[6:103] Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.

that doesn't mean that not finding god is proof of god.

 

[paarsurrey]

that doesn't mean that not finding god is proof of god.

You may differ with me; but a lot many people will agree with me.

 

[micrurus]

You may differ with me; but a lot many people will agree with me.

the amount of people agreeing with an idea is irrelevant to weather or not that idea is true.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

God was never claimed by religion to be discoverable by science; if religion would have claimed that then the failure of science in this connection would have been meaningful.

It is always reason supported by revelation that could reach to the one true God.

Gumdrop fairies were never claimed to be discoverable by science. Therefore they exist as well!

And unicorns! And dryads! What a magical world we live in.

 

[paarsurrey]

Gumdrop fairies were never claimed to be discoverable by science. Therefore they exist as well!

And unicorns! And dryads! What a magical world we live in.

I did not mention fairies or unicorns. Did I?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I did not mention fairies or unicorns. Did I?

No, but your argument easily applies to many other things. Why leave it just your god? Other gods fit perfectly into your argument. So do many fantasy creatures.

Either adjust your argument to limit it to your chosen deity, or accept unicorns, fairies, mermaids, leprechauns, jackalopes, etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, but your argument easily applies to many other things. Why leave it just your god? Other gods fit perfectly into your argument. So do many fantasy creatures.

Either adjust your argument to limit it to your chosen deity, or accept unicorns, fairies, mermaids, leprechauns, jackalopes, etc.

I will defend that what I believe in; others may opt and defends others.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I will defend that what I believe in; others may opt and defends others.

Just as long as you realize defending your position defends much more than your position.

 

[paarsurrey]

Just as long as you realize defending your position defends much more than your position.

I don't get you. Please elaborate

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

I don't get you. Please elaborate

He's saying that by saying

"God exists because science hasn't found God."

you are inherently defending the position of anyone who says

"X exists because science hasn't found X."

People can say that unicorns, fairies, Bigfoot, etc. exist, using the exact same argument you have. Even if you aren't trying to defend them yourself, by proposing this logic you are saying that they are just as correct as you.

 

[paarsurrey]

He's saying that by saying

"God exists because science hasn't found God."

you are inherently defending the position of anyone who says

"X exists because science hasn't found X."

People can say that unicorns, fairies, Bigfoot, etc. exist, using the exact same argument you have. Even if you aren't trying to defend them yourself, by proposing this logic you are saying that they are just as correct as you.

They did not claim; but I have quoted from Quran that human cannot reach Him with their tools; unless they follow the way He has chosen; then seeing their struggle, good deeds and prayers He could reveal himself on them.

 

[averageJOE]

I tried filing a police report today. I told the cops my Porsche was stolen. Then they asked me for proof that I owned a Porsche. I told them that failure to find my Porsche was my proof for owning one.

Then they slapped me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments in the lab; so if science has failed and is always bound to fail miserably in this respect, that is a sufficient proof that the one true God does exist.

Science does not claim that it will find the One-True-God; it is none of its business to do it, it is the wrong interpretation of science by some pseudo-scientists or some persons engaged in science who would have spoken off-the-cuff that might have claimed it; science never authorized any human being to speak on its behalf.

Those who differ with me should quote from Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses and or Jesus etc.; they never indulged in secular matters; they were moderate persons; not extremists.

Enough said.....

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Such an argument from ignorance…saying science can’t disprove something, therefore it is true, is horrendous logic. In fact it is such a poor argument, I am having trouble taking you seriously.

 

[cablescavenger]

What is wrong with that? It is a part of human history.

I see.

Cro-magnon man was also part of human history and also existed before modern science.

Do you want me to refer to Cro-Magnon cave art and see if their view on science also agrees with yours?

Or do you think it might be beter if you tried to understand modern science?

 

[idea]

No founder of any revealed religion ever told that science finds or will be able to find God through its tools or experiments ...

there actually are experiments you can do to find God:

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:26 - 38)

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

the experiment is personal in nature... if you want to understand what sugar tastes like, you have to actually put it in your mouth and taste it - no words/preachers/scientists will convey the taste of sugar, you have to taste it for yourself... same as the religious experience, words are insufficient, you have to go and do the experiment for yourself, if you are sincere, patient, humble - you will feel the Spirit, and come to the same knowledge as others who have done the same experiment.

 

[cablescavenger]

I think I used the word "science" instead of the word "scientists".

Please rephrase your comments, if you may so like.

ok there are many who speak on behalf of scientific fields. Either way.

I won't rephrase my statement as I think the confusion is all yours, I am sure everyone else got it.

:slap:

 

[paarsurrey]

ok there are many who speak on behalf of scientific fields. Either way.

I won't rephrase my statement as I think the confusion is all yours, I am sure everyone else got it.

:slap:

I used the word "science" and I repeat again; science never appointed anybody its spokesperson or its representative.

If somebody claims to be one; it is on him to prove that.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

I used the word "science" and I repeat again; science never appointed anybody its spokesperson or its representative.

If somebody claims to be one; it is on him to prove that.

With all the different religions that exist, god obviously didnt appoint anyone as a spokesperson. Since you claim god exists its on you to prove it.

 

[gnostic]

Science is not designed for that; hence it cannot find the one true creator God.
Quran mention it clearly:

[6:102] The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
[6:103] Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.

The Qur'an doesn't mention "science" anywhere, whatsoever. It doesn't mention physics or mathematics.

So the Qur'an is a poor scripture, and has no meanings (with regards to science or natural science). It is just a book full of superstitions, myths and fables, supposedly contained some wisdom and revelation of supposed divine being, just like all other Abrahamic scriptures before it.

Comparing any scripture to science is like comparing apple to a chicken. They are not the same. Science is not knowledge of religion and religious scriptures are not science books. Anyone who think the Qur'an - or any other scriptures of faith - having scientific merits, are simply delusional.