If science explains it all, won't God end up unnecessary?

🔥A child asks: “Didn't people long ago invent God because they knew no science?”

🛡️The answer: However much of nature science explains, that fact alone yields no conclusion that “therefore there is no God.” Science studies the causes and processes by which observable, measurable nature runs. God is not a cause within nature standing in for the blanks about lightning or life, but the answer to a philosophical and religious question: why nature and its laws exist at all.

A further note — telling different questions apart

The more precisely science explains nature's processes, the better we understand creation. But we must not say, “this process hasn't been explained yet, so it is God.” Even when a scientific explanation is complete, the philosophical question of why nature and its laws exist at all remains on its own. This distinction does not itself prove that God exists, but it does show that the progress of science alone does not automatically rule God out.

🥊The pushback: “So anything science doesn't know, you call God?”

💡Answering again: Put that way, it really would be a stretch. We must not say, “we can't explain it yet, so it is God.” Belief in God should not be judged from unsolved phenomena but by weighing together the reasons that remain even after science's blanks are filled: that a universe exists at all, that the laws of nature are intelligible, that human beings have reason and conscience, and that there is historical testimony about Jesus.

✨Briefly: “What science explains is the processes of nature. God isn't a name we stick on the processes we don't understand but the answer to why nature as a whole exists, so God doesn't automatically vanish as science advances.”