This is of course a much debated question through recent history, But i just want to look at it from a different(maybe not so different) angle.

Note: if you see this on Quora, i provided that answer, this is not plagiarism


So I’m going to try to paint a simple picture here, because it seems everyone is basically repeating the same things we have all heard and are still hearing from various science religion debates.

so let’s say i write a book, with ink of course, and sheets of paper, i create letters, and periods, annotations and everything, then i proceed to enclose this book with a hard back cover. so let’s imagine the Letters in this book are self aware and they know that they exist, they can see the periods and dots and numbers all around them, understanding that those exist too but are not so quite as advanced as themselves, the letters. so these letters live sheets and sheets of papers, in a book, it makes sense for these letters to wonder who made these sheets of papers, compiled them in a book and made the conditions possible as to ensure their own existence.

Not too far away these letters note the existence of other books, they wonder whether some letters exist in those books too, or periods or commas, or in the least just ink or something to show there is Ink life in those books.

Now these letters start getting advanced in writing(this is their science) and they keep trying to prove or disprove, find and search for a maker, a creator, or some sort of higher form to explain how they got in those sheets of papers, how is that some white fluorescent light keeps coming on and going off at specific times. and they do all these by consulting writing(science) in a bid to find God(which is me).

But the problem is that, i’m not ink, neither am i a sheet of paper, nor am i confined in writing, thus their science is insufficient in proving my existence. the consequences of this become enormous, each giving birth to various other consequences, You see because these letters could not prove my existence in writing, majority of them conclude that i don’t exist and therefore come up with various theories to tell the story of their origin, through the science of writing of course. some of them create stories of a super Ink that must have created them, or maybe advanced letters from other books.

These stories if you have followed THIS story up to this point are not true, Why because i am not made of ink, nor am i letter, or period or comma, or maybe even a sheet of paper, nor can the science of writing explain me because it is simply inadequate to do so.

So to answer your question sir, in my opinion. if There is a God out there, which i believe there is, and he is intelligent enough to create everything as we know it, then trying to prove his existence, or disprove it, through science that he created to create you and I and everything else, is simply not practical and is illogical.

.

ddonolu:
.

History is full of evidence that Science can not prove or dis-prove God.

Science is simply an extension of our limited mental capacity.

God is spirit !

Trash