Well, since you asked, I'll use your own words...
you're too dumb, as your last two posts clearly demonstrate.
It was a trick question. You fell for it....
Anyway, no matter what the "scientists" come up with, as far as having the critical "answers" they will only provide us black-and-white outlines, no color, no moving pictures, no sound. Science is limited, therefore,and must be utilized in that capacity.
Perhaps an oversimplication, but take for instance, ART. Art is something "science" can never appreciate. Take a painting: The Mona Lisa. You can send it off to the lab and they can probably tell us how many hues were used to make the painting, what the temperature of the canvas is, where the canvas came from, where the various paints came from, even the chemical components of the painting. But can it appreciate the artwork? No. It's a sharp too for detail but that's it.
In the meantime we as humans are aware of the "beyond", the conceptual things, the artistic things, emotions, morality, etc. Are those not real because science cannot perceive them?
This profound limitation of science is empirically what STAR TREK is often about. Spock, the scientist, the unfeeling logistician. Is limited. He's like a machine that only knows numbers and logic. In the first Star Trek movie an earth-launched satelitte (Voyager) had fallen into a black hole and somehow, after falling into a planet of superintelligence gained "intelligence" itself, yet was still limited since it had no human feelings. The ideal thing was to combine that machine with a human to give it the ability to (as Kirk said:...) "Leap beyond logic." To access the abstract.
Coming back down to earth, therefore, it is not in the design of the atoms and natural laws that govern planetary movement or photosenthesis that we necessarily perceive "God", but in his ART. The combination of all things into a cohesive and beautiful WHOLE. Thus it is that perception given to us that we perceive there's a God, not through the microscope, though some aspect of him is there as well.
The problem is, some are so impressed with "science" that they think it's the complete end-all and final picture, when it is not.
I suppose we can learn something about God by analyzing the various gases imitting radioactively from the surface of the sun...but probably not as much as observing its light and affect on life here and basking in its warmth.
So if you're looking for God, look at the complete picture. Science can't see god because it might be looking too closely through too small of a lens, thus the adage could aptly apply: "Can't see the forest for the trees"?
If you asked science what a human was, it would print out a list of our various chemical components: mostly water, iron and some other elements. But, is that what we are? Would that list of chemicals help us to fully appreciate what the Creator is? Can the sum of your chemical parts reveal your personality? your passions? WHO you really are?
I can perceive there is a god and what he must be like to some extent just by observing nature around me. The fact that science needs to ignore the obivous is not my fault. It's not just a matter of counting the dots; you have to connect them and then fill in the spaces with bountiful colors....