Is it correct to say "any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove God is in vain"? Am I right in saying that we can never use science to find the physical existence of God, neither could we disprove that?

I am in academic, I am surrounded by so many "science-is-the-ultimate-answer" friends.

I'd like to hear and learn from you how you guys are sharing the Gospel with non-believer friends who are so believing in modern scientific achievement. My way is usually this, but I am not sure, if this is a good one.


Science is correct as long as it is telling the truth;
Science have never and will never disprove the possibility of God;
You will always have an ever-enlarging unknown zones if you are trusting science;
It is fully logical and possible (50%) and make sense if a supreme God is in control;
So you are disbelieving, is not because science shows God is not there, but because you choose to interpret scientific results with a no-God conclusion, you are shutting down the other 50~100% percent of possibilities.
To know God, actually one has other ways (then I will go special revelations, like Bible, sin, testimony, even though most of them are not supernatural)
Ask him/her to think about her personal life, the problems, the families, the relationships. Which means I will go in this part ask him/her to think many un-scientific data.


PS: Any goog books that are very updated and also sound in teaching that I can read? Thanks
You may look into Dr. William Lane Craig, who is a preeminent Christian philosopher/apologist, especially his book On Guard covers a lot of material related to your question. You might also look into Alvin Plantinga's book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.

The answer is that you can make philosophical statements for the existence or non-existence of God, and you can use scientific evidence to support any premises made in that argument. For instance the cosmological argument goes like this:


Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;

Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence. 


You can use science to back up points 1 and 2 (for instance the scientific evidence for the existence of the big bang in the second point) or you could use science to disprove those points as well (some people have claimed quantum physics can disprove the 1st point), but the conclusion is philosophical one.

The problem with science is that it has an epistemological boundary of only being able to make statements of truth about empirically observable phenomena. When you are talking about God you are talking about something that transcends the universe, and is by definition then is not something that is empirically observable (and if he was then he wouldn't be transcendent).

Now science can proof or disprove specific claims, like I could claim that God made my severed arm grow back and science could present evidence for or against that having actually occurred. Likewise archaeology could potentially prove or disprove events in the Bible. But if you start going down the path that nothing does exists aside from what is empirically observable by science then you have fallen into the pitfall of scienstism.