Why is religion inscrutible, yet science must always prove itself to the world?

Friedrich Nietzsche hit the nail right on the head when he declared in his novel 'The Anti-Christ' that the concepts of "Will of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are 100% man-made. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support the concept that a Judeo-Christian deity created the earth and/or mankind. Beliefs in all deities such as Zeus, Allah, Apollo, Vishnu, God, Thor, Dionysius, etc. are also 100% man-made; this is all mythology. I can understand practicing Christianity if it brings happiness and peace to your life. What I cannot understand is accepting dogma without questioning scientifc validity. Either way, in America, each of us is granted the Constitutional right to freedom of religion through the First Amendment. However, my personal choice is to weigh logic and objectivity above emotion.

I think science is simply the search for truth. Science isn't out to dsicredit any evidence of a God, and I don't understand why you believe this. Here's some scientific evidence, that has some plausibility in the existence of God.

The proof that the universe had a beginning is evident by Einstein:

The universe expands, because Galaxies expand and move away from us roughly to the distance it is from the earth, the more distant the galaxy the faster the it is receding, so if its continually receding away from us, it must have been at one point smaller and denser. Consider this as a movie. If we're sitting watching this expansion then the star are becoming less dense as they separate and move further away from each other. But if we rewind this, the stars eventually meet into this one extreme density of stars. All matter an energy, physical space and time themselves came into being, this represents the origins of the universe from nothing.

I quote here :

"If all living organisms have descended for a primitive life form (a single cell), then the rock strata of the earth should be filled with fossilized remains that were once apart of a great evolutionary change. A change of small biological modifications, ultimately leading to a spectacular diversity of life. Yet, after two centuries of research and mass amounts of geological diggings, the multitude of transitional experiments or "missing links" should exist, which they do not. This geological error is known as the Cambrian Explosion." - This is the biggest blow to Darwin's theory. The claim that natural selection occurs with small gradual changes is just false. Because, every cell in the body DEPENDS on each other to survive. If you change one cell, THEN NOTHING WORKS we don't form. It would take a sudden increase of changes to work, and that's not how the theory of natural selection is evident.

Because that is simply what makes religion and science two different things.

Science is all about evidence.

Religion is all about faith.

The very basis of scientific theory is that it must be proven through evidence. Science is the quest for truth. It is not a belief system. Therefore science must prove itself to the world. A scientist does not say "I believe in black holes" without first recognising that there is a heap of evidence pointing towards their existence. A scientist can come up with a theory which they believe might be true, but if they claim their theory is the truth without proving it with evidence, then this is an opinion, not a fact. Science is an ever-growing collection of FACTS about our universe, open to discussion and review. If science did not have to prove itself to the world, it would not be science.

The very basis of religion is faith. One either accepts of rejects a religious doctrine (eg. the Bible). A religion is a fixed set of rules and beliefs that cannot be challenged by those who are part of the religion. Religion explains the things we have not yet made sense of through science - the things that there is no reliable evidence for. There is no real evidence for the existence or non existence of a deity. Religion is faith in what you might call a theory, regardless of evidence. It replaces the unknowns science leaves and gives the believer peace of mind. If religious beliefs could be proven with evidence, then they would not be religion, they would be science.

Good?

Your premise isn't quite accurate

If I had no proof whatsoever of Gods existence, I would not believe in Him

BUT, I have examined the evidence on the laws of his creation, I have studied the Bible and searched for flaws and found none - I have found Scientific accuracy instead as to the safe practise of treating leprosy and the accuracy of statements such as the earth hanging on nothing ( in a time when Atlas or a giant turtle was a popular concept)

I see the order and design in the human body - it is not a fluke of a serious of ransom mutations that enhance survival. It is a carefully designed biological machine capable of marvellous features

Search for God and he can be found - the evidence is there for all who care to see but many have blinded themselves to the facts and trusted in man made theories which by nature are transitory - there is always another theory that displaces a previous one

science is not for everyone my friend... it is far easier to say there is a supernatural force at work and we shouldn't even bother to attempt to understand it than to actually be able to explain how come the centripetal acceleration of an object going in circles is defined by speed divided by the square of the radius. The vast majority of people do not like physics because it is complex... so since they cant understand it, why accept it? Let's just go to mass and pray to whoever made such things that we do not know.

The fact that science always proves itself to the world is what makes it so credible and is why it is winning against religion. Im not trying to sound like an anti-theistic douche, but whenever a religious theory challenges a science theory.... lets be honest.

Media and music being dating love and drama obsessed, people over perceive their problems with this form of music, is somebody truly shifting on whilst their listening to music approximately their matters? interior the 80's and ninety's music became into approximately taking area in existence and residing the 2nd, now majority of it is the different and music has a huge impression on people and cultures.

science must prove itself simply because it can (in alot of instances)

if you ask someone to prove god they can't and that's the response you are always likely to get whereas with science if you ask for proof they can usually get something together (sometimes lacking in credibility) but proof none the less.

Man U tries to prove it is better than Liverpool yet the Pope is infallible. Like science there is no relationship. One is a matter of faith and the other is an attempt to understand how things work.

Religion is hardly inscrutable, but that's how religious people see it. There religion is not to be questioned and has to be defended on a penalty worse than death.