**What can we know that science does and cannot tell us ?**

The Enlightenment was as much a Europe-wide political revolution as an academic revolution. The legacy of secularism is still going on today in academia, but a new momentum has emerged which is shaking the foundations of “Rationalists”, “Humanists”, “Secularists”, “Freethinkers”, " Atheists" " Naturalists" – which have without success tried to eradicate the legacy and traces of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Between the sordid sheets of the Enlightenment, Empiricism was born, giving birth to the foundation of modern secularized Science. The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 18th century, propagated by the Scottish philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union of academia to materialistic ideology. The union endures until today. But the dam is breaking apart, and this crooked perverse union, sealed centuries ago, is slowly losing steam. The claim: What science cannot prove to us, mankind cannot know - is a strawman at its best.

Why should we not ask the questions, which science has no answer for? And why can they not provide us with intellectually satisfying answers to the deepest questions of our existence? There are points where the sets of science, reason, theology and philosophy and faith converge to an intellectually satisfying understanding. If logic and philosophical reasoning besides empirical verificationism has no value to make meaningful sentences and inferences in regards of origins, as pop-scientism propagandist Krauss has claimed, then why does he even use his own logic and philosophical claims, if there cannot be worthy understanding by using it? His claim that the universe is non-logical and cannot be understood is self-defeating and irrational. The claim that God is anti-scientific, and shall have no place in academia since his existence cannot be tested, is a philosophical claim of inexcusable ignorance, fueled by the wish of secular scientists to be the masters of the universe, to which the intellectual proletariat has to look up to and devour with eager and healthy appetite all that comes from their wisdom, and dismiss all other sources of wisdom and intellectual knowledge.

What modern scientists might re-consider is the fact that the last indispensable outcome of the scientific endeavor must be: "Ye must have faith". That is, we make part of a finite universe, and there is a black impenetrable curtain on the boundaries of the universe, which we cannot penetrate and look beyond. The mystery of the last reality will not be lifted during our existence here on earth. Goedel's Theorem applies.

Perry Marshall: The scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.) Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove

The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and finite time

The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)

The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.

If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s

**theorem**, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.

Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

**Gödel's incompleteness theorem**

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1298-godel-s-incompleteness-theorem