by Matt Slick
Answering the question of whether or not God can be proven scientifically isn’t possible without first looking at what it means for something to be “scientific.” The scientific method is the process of looking at the material world, devising a hypothesis on a particular phenomenon, developing experiments to test the hypothesis, modifying the hypothesis based on the results of the experiments, and then eventually forming a theory that is consistent with the results of experiments so the theory can explain why something happens. Therefore, by definition, the scientific method is restricted to examining the physical realm. This is why it isn’t scientifically possible to prove that God exists.
Think about this--God exists outside of the physical universe. He is not part of it. He created it, so He is different from the universe. The scientific method is restricted to that which is within the universe--but God is outside of it. So it would be like someone asking for material evidence of the non-material God.
Furthermore, the scientific method deals with repeatable experiments done in the physical realm. How would anybody develop a test to prove that God exists by looking at rocks, or heat exchange, or quantum physics, etc., that can be repeated in a laboratory? If scientists were to find something that was unexplainable, they might just say that they don’t understand it yet. But if they find some “proof” that is repeatable, all they are doing is discovering how the physical universe works. So, it is difficult to even begin to understand how any scientist can develop an experiment by which God can be demonstrated to exist.
Furthermore, there is the logical problem of what is called a category mistake, which is mixing categories. It would be like saying that a person will judge the value of a painting by how much it weighs. Aesthetic value is not the same category as physical weight. These are different categories, hence, a category mistake. So, it is a category mistake to look for the physical representation of the non-physical being. It is a category mistake to ask for non-transcendent evidence for a transcendent being.
See the article “Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence”.