What does science not know?

[Peter_Plato]

If God is highly capable of eluding human detection as you say then He is a trickster, a great deceiver.

That’s an, how shall I put it, unconventional belief.

No it would mean he does not make himself detectable to deceivers.

He would be elusive to anyone insincere or deceptive in their quest. His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are capacities that provide infallible information to this “trickster” regarding the truth seeking qualities of anyone making a quest to find him.

Perhaps that is why faith is a requirement, since total trust in him would be a genuinely sincere attitude in seeking. Any other attitude would presume a superiority on the part of a seeker and that desire to control, no matter how faint, would “give away” the seeker, just as wearing bright colors or being loud in pursuit would be detectable even by animals with limited capacities.

 

[inocente]

No it would mean he does not make himself detectable to deceivers.

He would be elusive to anyone insincere or deceptive in their quest. His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are capacities that provide infallible information to this “trickster” regarding the truth seeking qualities of anyone making a quest to find him.

Perhaps that is why faith is a requirement, since total trust in him would be a genuinely sincere attitude in seeking. Any other attitude would presume a superiority on the part of a seeker and that desire to control, no matter how faint, would “give away” the seeker, just as wearing bright colors or being loud in pursuit would be detectable even by animals with limited capacities.

That’s still an, how shall I put it, unconventional belief.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s still an, how shall I put it, unconventional belief.

Not so much:

Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)

And again:

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve.” (Jer 17:9-10)

 

[Cathrien]

Every think which is out of wisdom in human beings is something which science does not know. As their are a lot of things and events that happen in nature and science still unable to find the reasons and facts behind the phenomena.

 

[Jim_Baur]

The ability of humans to reason has to be fully used.

Metaphysics is a tool of that human ability to reason.

Reason has many other tools, too–logic, math, the arts, physical sciences and all of philosophy.

Math has being, but it cannot be measured or sensed in a physical manner.

Math is immaterial and meta-physical, that is, beyond the physical.

Math is the best method we have for describing the physical laws.

However, the physical laws noumenon, in my judgment.

Just as math is meta-physical, so too, the noumenon of the physical laws are metaphysical.

This is just one person’s thoughts–just an idea.

There have been too many philosopher, Eastern and Western, that have recognized that there is more to existence than the physical. I think that there is a level of being that is metaphysical. I hold that math is beyond the physical and that what it describes is beyond the physical, that is, the noumenon of the physical sciences.

 

[aragonjohn1]

the more science knows the less the knowledge in science is because there is more known.

Merry Christmas
God bless

 

[TheAtheist]

It does not know anything outside what is observable, testable and repeatable.

For the purposes of the OP’s line of questioning, this is probably the most concise and accurate answer on this thread.

In addition science is tentative so what it thinks it knows today may be overturned tomorrow.

Echoing inocente’s concerns (although not necessarily his comments), it would be more appropriate for all of us to recognize that there are gradations in terms of what science, or more specifically what the natural sciences have collectively demonstrated.

I don’t think anyone here will contest the existence of certain processes - Chemical Equilibrium, for instance. Nor do i believe anyone here (at least i’m hoping) would deny the existence of a cell body, or that properties/identities of matter are dependent upon atomic number, mass, weight, etc.

I would argue that these often-tested/utilized processes and subjects do not fall under the tentative category.

Its when you start thinking about either incredibly simple states or configurations of matter, or highly complex systems like an organism that the trouble begins.

But these special issues embedded into the sub-fields of particle physics or medical genetics (to name examples of 2), are not characteristic of the whole body of knowledge we dub as Science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Many great scientists to this day believe in God without relying on science for proof. They know full well that science can no more prove God than it can disprove God.

To the atheist scientist God is only an elusive being because the atheist is trying not to find Him.