It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In some sense, although I agree we can use science to rationalize and understand the faith, I believe you cannot prove God exist through science, just as you cannot prove Love exist through science for 'God is love'.
My opinion of true evidence of God's existence can be found in understanding Love. However, how vague and how to approach this is quite beyond me.
I definitely understand where you're coming from, I believe/hope there will be one thing, one word you will hear, that will re-ignite your faith. I sure hope and pray that you get the answer you seek.
Ill say it again you are trying to put God under a microscope. He will not fit.
If you have stopped praying then you will never discover him. He makes himself known to those who seek him with perseverance.
But God is not supposed to be some abstract concept. He is supposed to be real, in the sense that you and I and the trees in my yard and my house is real (probably even realer than that, since all existence is supposed to come from Him). I know the Bible says that "God is love", but by reducing Him to strictly that definition, you are reducing Him to the level of an abstraction, which is not what what I have been taught He is.
You seem to be choosing to accept your perception of the universe in one way, but without any evidence it is the right way, especially if you are not at peace and 'working properly' as some perceiving being. It would make more sense to consider how the universe could be perceived in some other way that did seem to work better.
Look at the Gettier case I used. If someone said, "That's a barn" and I say, "why do you believe it's a barn?" You can't say "because it's not a barn facade". There is no justification to say it's not a barn, there is no justification to say it is a barn facade, and there is no justification to say it is not a barn facade. You're back to lack of justified true belief. Lack of justified true belief is equal to lack of knowledge which is equal to ignorance.
Or put another way, a negative justification cannot prove truth.
It can disprove a preposition or truth, but it cannot prove a truth.
This is how science works. When a negative result is found in a scientific experiment (assuming it's a reliable experiment), the negative result only disproves the hypothesis but never proves an alternative hypothesis.
In addition, that negative result has to be proven that it is not a matter of luck or chance even before the original hypothesis is rejected.
The rejection of a claim is a claim to knowledge if it a justifiable claim. Non-belief is a claim to lack of knowledge and ignorance. These two are different. A claim that rejects the existence of God that has justification becomes knowledge. A claim that rejects the existence of God with no justification becomes invalid. The lack of any claim becomes ignorance.
Atheism is invalid firstly because it fails to identify a cause and effect void of chance.
Secondly, it is invalid because it does not validate or contribute any knowledge.
And thirdly, it is invalid because atheism brings ignorance.
The reason atheists put forth this idea, is because it relieves them from a burden of proof. The moment they say, "I don't believe in God," they expect a response back with the reasons, but like Remnkemi said above, that is not justifiable. For example, if I was eating a burger (which I am) and I said, "This is a burger" and you said it is not, the onus is on both of us to explain our perspectives. I may begin to say "this is a bun and burgers have buns." You may respond "Haven't you ever seen a ham sandwich in a burger bun." You have not given me reason to believe that it is not a burger. After that, it is only a matter of what you would or would not be convinced with. You "believe it is not a burger." You do not "not believe it is a burger." Like I said, in any case, it is irrelevant in practice.
1)That they do not need to prove anything because they are not asserting anything. 2)I am an agnostic (like Richard Dawkins said on his 1-7 scale.)#1 is bogus. The moment you disbelieve the truth of something you assert that lack of its existence. Relating to the burger, if you say it is not a burger, you do not "not assert that it is a burger" but you "assert that it is not a burger." Atheism is not the negative acceptance of a claim, it is the positive denial of that claim.
#2 is just silly. The agnostic is an atheist who doesn't like the word.
Secondly, personal experiences may be justification for a belief, but it is not usually enough. Look at the barn example. One can argue the person who was driving down the street, who personally experience seeing barns in the past, was not justified to pick a random barn and say "That's a barn." because of personal experience. In other words, personal experience may not satisfy the reliable requirement. Put another way. If I say "the sky is green" and you say "the sky is blue", with both of us using personal experience only, how is that any different from a he said/she said argument? You need additional justification to prove or disprove opposite prepositions.
I was raised in the Coptic church for the vast majority of my life. It was all I ever knew and all I ever needed. There was nothing this world could offer me that could even try to compare to Christ.