Is scientific proof of God even possible?

[MikeH]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

Even if God himself came down and shook hands with you, there would certainly be no way to repeat the event, or to test its authenticity. Video evidence? Easily altered with a number of video editing programs. So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

This is kinda like the "What kind of scientific discovery may challenge your faith?" thread, only in reverse.

[Goat]

Your example of video evidence can be turned around as well. Scientists could completely disprove God's existence and many, many believers would still hold to their faith. They would say it was a trick of Satan or something to that extent and "KNOW" that if they held out against the majority that they would be rewarded in heaven.

I don't think such proof is possible, but your point is equally true. So what, then, do people count as solid proof for anything? I have solid, scientific evidence presented to me that shows that evolution occurs, yet I have no idea as to how to personally test carbon dating or other things. On the other hand, I have literally hundreds and hundreds of reliable eyewitnesses accounts (sometimes in large groups), as well as personal observation, of supernatural events occurring. Do I chalk all of these up as group hallucinations and trust only what science can prove?

They have shown that eyewitness accounts are very unreliable. And, just because you don't have a personal explanation for what you think you observed doesn't mean your interpretation is correct. This can be demonstrated repeatedly.

For example, they did an experiment where they took a log and attached a chain to it.. and ran it through the water in Loch Ness near a tourist boat. They then interviewed people to ask what they saw.

Needless to say, the vast majority people saw something similar to what they expected Nessy to look like.

[graphicsguy]

Eh, I'm not really talking about these Benny Hinn type of events, which have more in common with hypnotism than Christianity.

True. Still, you have to admit that many, many Christians see such events as "proof" of God's existence and evidence that their religion is correct, right?

But let's say four people are just walking down the street, and they see an angel fly above them, eating a bucket of KFC.

I think I'd pay to see that...

Anyway, I think the only way to face the issue is with skepticism. However, I will admit that I don't know it all and that there are a lot of unexplained phenomena that take place all over the world.

Many people swear they've seen ghosts, aliens, angels, demons, life after death experiences etc. Christians will explain that most of these are demons performing acts in order to "confuse and distract" us away from Jesus. However, most people's claims seem to be not that much different from "encounters with God" and such.

I don't know, it seems like there's evidence and counter evidence and no end of psycho-babble to explain it all.

At least science will make the claim that if you can see, hear, touch, taste, and/or smell it it's probably real (I know, I know, that's very loose terminology).

[Alamanach]

If god came down to me and shook my hand, and I was of a resonable state of mind, I would believe in him.

I dunno....maybe god speaks to some of us but not to others. Maybe he speaks in different ways in different cultures, and sometimes in many different voices to account for the multiplicity of gods that some cultures have.

I noticed these two comments and thought they went well together. I've met open-minded atheists who've patiently learned about others' beliefs and reflected on the world about them, and still could see no god. And I've known cool-headed, down-to-earth believers who, due to miscellaneous experiences, were as sure of the existence of God as they were of the shoes on their feet.

I'm troubled by this observation, because these are people who ought to be able to agree. Yet, despite the best efforts on both sides, they don't. It is as though everyone is looking up, and some see the ceiling while others see the sky. I can't name another phenomenon in which there is such a fundamental disparity in interpretation.

[Cmass]

Alamanach wrote:

I've met open-minded atheists who've patiently learned about others' beliefs and reflected on the world about them, and still could see no god. And I've known cool-headed, down-to-earth believers who, due to miscellaneous experiences, were as sure of the existence of God as they were of the shoes on their feet.

But only one of them can be correct.
The atheist seeks evidence for God and finds none. No evidence of God = No God likely exists. The Christian does not seek OR does not evaluate evidence for his beliefs. No evidence of God = God.

Alamanach wrote:

I'm troubled by this observation, because these are people who ought to be able to agree.

Agree on what? Why are you troubled? They may agree on politics, favorite colors, cars, beer brands and all sorts of other things in life. But if one believes in a personal Bible God super being and the other finds no evidence for it, they will not agree on this topic.

Alamanach wrote:

Yet, despite the best efforts on both sides, they don't.

What efforts?

Alamanach wrote:

It is as though everyone is looking up, and some see the ceiling while others see the sky.

Or, some people are looking up and seeing a Bible God super being and others see the sky....and wonder why it is blue and learn about astronomy and physics and all sorts of other topics that Bible God apparently knows nothing about.

Alamanach wrote:

I can't name another phenomenon in which there is such a fundamental disparity in interpretation.

Interpretation of what? Hard data? Personal experiences? Drug trips?
Here are some areas where there is fundamental disparity in interpretation of events and experiences:
UFOs
The existence of Ghosts. (holy or otherwise)
The existence of Vampires
The existence of Fairies, leprecons, Nessie and Sasquatch. http://www.mindspring.com/~mgrosz/vaco2 ... recons.htm
Interpretation of data concerning evolution, neuroscience, animal intelligence, clairvoyance and how old stars are.
There are plenty of things people don't agree upon and even more things that people do agree upon. They just don't talk about those things because agreements don't cause problems. Christians teaching Bible Creation in public schools causes problems. Christians influencing gay rights causes problems. Christians telling people the second coming is immanent so there is little need to deal with environmental issues causes problems. Christians blaming disease on the devil or claiming it is God's will causes problems. One particular Christian's claim that God told him to invade Iraq caused a catastrophe. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml
Shall I go on?

Don't worry, most Christian/atheist relationships work out fine. Two close friends of mine are very religious and know I am an atheist - it has never been an problem in our relationship. They even share with me issues that are going on in their church. But they have yet to provide me with any evidence of their Bible God creature or the events in their book of mythology. They can't even provide me with any evidence that this God does them favors when they talk to it via prayer. We don't agree on this subject but we have fun together nonetheless.

[seventil]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

Even if God himself came down and shook hands with you, there would certainly be no way to repeat the event, or to test its authenticity. Video evidence? Easily altered with a number of video editing programs. So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

This is kinda like the "What kind of scientific discovery may challenge your faith?" thread, only in reverse.

Hi MikeH. Good question. It's difficult where to start, this being a complex question.

I think we need to first define the term "evidence". It really needs to be broken down into:

1) Physical or empirical evidence

2) Historical evidence

3) Spiritual or testimonial evidence

It is my contention that Christianity, in fact, all major religions have a good deal of 2 and 3: that is, historical evidence and spiritual/testimonial evidence. Most historical evidence is merely the collaboration of 3, written down at the time of the experience (or shortly afterwards).

The problem with 2 and 3 is that it's very hard to make this evidence empirical or falsifiable. This opens a few more questions:

1) Would physical/empirical evidence for God (like an Avatar) negate faith?

2) Is it necessary or reasonable to want this evidence?

3) Do scientific standards of evidence and empiricalism belong in belief of the supernatural?

I'll answer my own questions shortly.

[Alamanach]

The Christian does not seek OR does not evaluate evidence for his beliefs. No evidence of God = God.

You're painting with a broad brush, there. Allow that there may be some believers who are as rational and reasonable as any atheist, and all the other points you raised in your post collapse. That's why originally I quoted Undertow;

If god came down to me and shook my hand, and I was of a resonable state of mind, I would believe in him.

Although for that matter your characterization of atheists was pretty lopsided too; some atheists are not cool-headed thinkers, they're just obstinate. I'm not trying to argue one side or the other, I'm trying to point out that there are reasonable people on both sides, and that their inability to agree is very odd. From your post it appears you're glued to the idea that all Christians irrationally cling to fairy tales. That's a stereotype, and holding to it is going to prevent you from understanding what I'm trying to say.

[QED]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

I think we forget that science could have run into "early" difficulties with it's investigations. By "early" I mean that rather than following the actual pattern that it has, whereby most natural phenomena have yielded to investigation in the way that we peel an onion, we could run into impenetrable layers right from the outset. An empty universe, all bar our solar system for example, would leave us literally "in the dark" about what "a universe was" and how our planet came to be -- we would have no inkling that there was an evolutionary process involved. Living things could have been found to be "black boxes" -- perhaps even homogeneous pink gloop that is supernaturally animated into life. Such things would leave us no choice but conclude the existence of supernatural intervention.

Yet the world is not so irreducible at these higher levels indicating natural reasons for its workings. We have to dig a lot, lot, deeper before we are confronted with seemingly impenetrable barriers and these too, historically speaking, have always peeled away in time. The deeper we have to dig, the less likely our specific beliefs about God becomes. If and when we reach a core, it will most likely be the natural barrier imposed on our observational capacity due to the finite nature of light-speed for example.

When I first read your question I was reminded of a scene in the movie "Blade Runner" where the Oriental "pet" specialist was reading-off a serial number on a snake-scale with something like an electron microscope. I think the closest we have ever come to seeing a "serial number" stamped on our universe is in two places: first the specific values of the dimensionless physical constants that prescribe a universe fit for life such as ours, and secondly, the specific DNA coding that prescribes that life. The latter is most probably self-written as we can see the mechanism that writes it -- however there will most likely always be an ambiguity over the initial way the first few letters were selected -- did they require a supernatural author or were they an entirely probabilistic outcome. The former is also ambiguous as a technically savvy creator-God who fine-tunes physics to arrive at us could also be (less comfortingly, but equally as awesome IMHO) a vast probabilistic meta-state for our universe existing beyond our space-time horizon. We sometimes call what we can see "the universe" and then mistakenly define it as being "all that exists" -- but this is plainly wrong as it ignores the ignorance imposed upon us by the very properties of our universe.

[Jose]

<quotes from Undertow and Jose>

I noticed these two comments and thought they went well together. I've met open-minded atheists who've patiently learned about others' beliefs and reflected on the world about them, and still could see no god. And I've known cool-headed, down-to-earth believers who, due to miscellaneous experiences, were as sure of the existence of God as they were of the shoes on their feet.

I'm troubled by this observation, because these are people who ought to be able to agree. Yet, despite the best efforts on both sides, they don't. It is as though everyone is looking up, and some see the ceiling while others see the sky. I can't name another phenomenon in which there is such a fundamental disparity in interpretation.

I think it depends on a couple of things. One is the things you learned in your earliest years as "the way the world works." Some of this comes from parents, some from other adults, and some from your own experiences. If you grow up steeped in religious fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or other, you have a very hard time seeing other points of view. You see your particular ceiling every time you look up. If you grow up in a deeply religious, intellectually curious environment, in which cultural diversity is acceptable, then you're likely to accept others with different views than your own. You're likely to explore their beliefs and understanding, yet remain secure in your own belief. The same logic applies to atheism; if you grow up steeped in unwavering atheism, you may honestly believe that all theists are delusional nutcakes (and they'll think the same of you, of course). Again, you see your particular ceiling. But if you grow up in a non-theistic environment that is accepting and intellectually curious, then you'll be there in the Coffeehouse late at night exploring beliefs with your deeply religious friends.

Just like the need for religion itself, this instinct for learning from our Elders--and then having it stick--has to be evolutionarily selected. The Elders know what's safe to eat, what animals to avoid, and how to live harmoniously within the tribe. If you don't learn these things, you die. As it turns out, the Elders typically weave these rules in with the tribal mythology, in part because it's easier to remember and obey if it's Religion than if it's just what the old geezers tell you to do.

There's no need for me to convince you that atheism is the "right" way. I would hope there would be no need for theists of any stripe to convince others that they are "right." But other people have a more militant attitude, and insist that their way IS the right way, and they want everyone to follow their way, either by law or by force. I don't understand that view myself...but I can see how it, too, comes out of our evolutionary history. The militant guys who won the wars are the ones whose genes and instinctive behaviors were passed on to us.

[Cathar1950]

I think we need to first define the term "evidence". It really needs to be broken down into:

1) Physical or empirical evidence

2) Historical evidence

3) Spiritual or testimonial evidence

It is my contention that Christianity, in fact, all major religions have a good deal of 2 and 3: that is, historical evidence and spiritual/testimonial evidence. Most historical evidence is merely the collaboration of 3, written down at the time of the experience (or shortly afterwards).

The problem with 2 and 3 is that it's very hard to make this evidence empirical or falsifiable. This opens a few more questions:

1) Would physical/empirical evidence for God (like an Avatar) negate faith?

2) Is it necessary or reasonable to want this evidence?

3) Do scientific standards of evidence and empiricalism belong in belief of the supernatural?

I'll answer my own questions shortly.

I might agree except for Point 2. There is no indication that the "experience" or claims were written down at the time of the experience (or shortly afterwards)" as they were written later for communities already in existence and represent their already formed and forming beliefs.
The gospels were written later and not even mention until the second century and
as the Church grew Mark's gospel was no longer adequate to meet the proto-orthodox needs while it took another 200-300 years to pick what worked best.
As far as the Hebrew scriptures go they is evidence that they were writing 100's of years later and fit the experiences of the needs then as well as the times not the 100's of years some times 1000 or more earlier.
In the last 40 years much has been learned about the writings and their times to realize they are not as historical as they are propaganda, imagination and what they wished it to be.

[seventil]

I might agree except for Point 2. There is no indication that the "experience" or claims were written down at the time of the experience (or shortly afterwards)" as they were written later for communities already in existence and represent their already formed and forming beliefs.

Hi Cathar! Hmm....

The gospels were written later and not even mention until the second century and
as the Church grew Mark's gospel was no longer adequate to meet the proto-orthodox needs while it took another 200-300 years to pick what worked best.

Would you mind referencing this? I can't say I've heard that one before!

This viewpoint is in complete disagreement with the whole of theological scholars.

From wikis:

Matthew: 70-100 AD

There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100. The writings of Ignatius possibly reference, but do not quote, the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting the gospel was completed at the latest c. 110. Scholars cite multiple reasons to support this range, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context. Some significant conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, generally considering the gospel to be written by the apostle Matthew.[10] In December 1994, Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment in Greek of the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds. Most scholars date this fragment to the 3rd century, so Thiede's article provoked much debate.

A minority of Christian scholars argue for an even earlier date, as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, favor the years 40–45..."[11] In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew.

Mark: 60-70 AD

There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70s.[13] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.[14] There is no definite way to determine how early it was written, as most scholars reject the assertion of Callaghan and Thiede that a fragment of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as lacking sufficient evidence.

Mark 13:1-2, known as the "little apocalypse", remains a controversial passage regarding the dating of the text. Exegesis is often employed to show correspondences between the passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70. The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus.[15]

If Jesus' prophetic remarks do indeed concern the destruction of the Temple, then three options appear concerning the text's date. Either Jesus correctly predicted the event, which would allow for a date of composition prior to 70, or the events were put into the mouth of Jesus after the fact by the Gospel's author, entailing a post-70 dating of the text. Or this part was added later. Because the text does not observe the fulfilment of this prophetic passage, some scholars[citation needed] argue that the text must date before 70.

Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (Mark 6:52–53); thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the letters to be correct, only Mark matches these twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts.[16] Most papyrologists, however, consider this identification of the fragmentary text, and its supposition that early Christians lived at Qumran, to be dubious. It is written on a scroll, and all known early papyrus Gospel manuscripts come from codices.[17] It is true that no other known Greek work matches its wording, but no extant copy of Mark matches it exactly either, as it misses the phrase "to land" found in 6:52–53. It also could come from an unknown Greek work or a Christian could have left a copy of Mark there around the time the Qumran community was destroyed.[18]

Tradition associated the text's composition with the persecution of Nero, which would allow for a date circa 65.[19] Additionally, tradition held that Mark was written after the deaths of Paul and Peter.[20] Some point to internal evidence in the Gospel, contrasting 13:1–2 with more specific passages in Luke and Matthew, hesitating to assign a date later than 70–73, the latter year being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked.

That's alot of reading. I can do the other two if you want.

As far as the Hebrew scriptures go they is evidence that they were writing 100's of years later and fit the experiences of the needs then as well as the times not the 100's of years some times 1000 or more earlier.
In the last 40 years much has been learned about the writings and their times to realize they are not as historical as they are propaganda, imagination and what they wished it to be.

Interesting proposition. Would you consider this conclusion more probable and scientifically plausible than the widely accepted theory?

I'd like to see evidence of this claim, as I've provided mine.