Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 100 by Neatras]

Your whole post is based on one big giant genetic fallacy.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 100 by Neatras]

Your whole post is based on one big giant genetic fallacy.

That would only be the case if Neatras had concluded that Christianity IS man made based on all the thousands of others that must be. Since he has only concluded that it COULD be and PROBABLY is, no genetic fallacy has been committed. It sure is fun to throw out a logical fallacy though when you have no actual rebuttal to the facts at hand.

We observe that there are or have been thousands of religions. Clearly they cannot all be correct. In fact, if there is a god(s), at most one of the religions is completely correct. In fact, it may still be true that NONE of them are correct. i.e. there is in fact a god/gods, but no human made religion has captured the correct picture.

It sure would be neat if we had some actual evidence to back up the claims of any of them so we could settle this wouldn't it? Until then, all we have are empty faith claims.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 100 by Neatras]

Your whole post is based on one big giant genetic fallacy.

"Religions can appear naturally."
"Christianity is a religion."
"Oh, cool, do you have evidence that Christianity is true or divinely inspired, making it a non-natural occurrence?"
"GENETIC FALLACY."

What a cute diversionary tactic you used~

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 98 by For_The_Kingdom]

"A blind and mindless process gave me eyes, a brain, and consciousness". <--I don't have enough faith to believe that.

But you don't need faith to believe this. It is simply the result of extensive scientific observation and analysis which shows, with a high degree of probability, that the slow process of evolution did indeed produce eyes (of many types), brains (of varying degrees of structure and complexity), and consciousness (which has never been shown to be anything more than an emergent property of a functioning brain).

If someone made the claim that eyes, brains and consciousness arrived via an evolutionary process, but had no evidence to support their claim, then faith would be required to believe this claim. But that is obviously not the case. The evidence in support of evolution producing eyes, brains and consciousness is so overwhelming that it really is astonishing that anyone living in the 21st century does not believe it.

It is faith in a religion whose foundations are threatened by evolutionary theory that causes many people to stick their head in the sand and refuse to accept scientific results in some subject areas, but not in others, even when both are equally well supported by evidence.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 104 by DrNoGods]

At the end of the day...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is all I see. Anything beyond that is voodoo.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 105 by For_The_Kingdom]

Did you ever participate in that one thread that asked what it would take to change your mind about this particular god existing? Without attacking science, what would it take for you to change your mind?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 104 by DrNoGods]

At the end of the day...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is all I see. Anything beyond that is voodoo.

You use that word, but I don't thinka it means what you thinka it means.

voo·doo
ˈvo͞oˌdo͞o/Submit
noun
1.
a black religious cult practiced in the Caribbean and the southern US, combining elements of Roman Catholic ritual with traditional African magical and religious rites, and characterized by sorcery and spirit possession.

On the other hand and to point out some irony, to believe that 2 spiders on Noah's boat turned in to all the species of spiders we now have on this planet in such a short amount of time would indeed take some magic/voodoo.

It would also seem prudent to address this part of his post since it seems to be what drives your conclusion:
"It is faith in a religion whose foundations are threatened by evolutionary theory that causes many people to stick their head in the sand and refuse to accept scientific results"

To the topic, if gods are not real, I don't see how science could show such a thing. Science has shown them to be unnecessary though.

[Divine Insight]

No, there is no amount of science, no amount of experimentation that you can EVER conduct which will lead you to the conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

We already know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Biblical God doesn't exist. No science is even required to know this. The Bible itself demonstrates the fallacy of its own claims about the God it describes.

The Old Testament description of Yahweh cannot be true as it is written. And therefore the God described within does not exist.

We know that the New Testament is false if only because it claims that Jesus believed that God feeds the birds. That alone is a dead give-away of the fallacy of those tales.

So no science is required to know that the God described in the Bible does not exist.

The only question that remains is whether some other possible God might exist. Like perhaps the God described by various versions of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't make claims about God that contradict themselves, therefore we can't rule out the God of Buddhism based on the claims of Buddhism alone, like we can with the Biblical God.

So then the question becomes whether or not we could demonstrate that no possible God could exist. I think that would be quite difficult.

In fact, we can't even say with certainty that the Greek God of Zeus cannot exist. There is no claim that Zeus is trustworthy or benevolent. Therefore Zeus any apparently contradictions associated with the tales of Zeus could actually be purposeful lies even created by Zeus himself to deceive us.

Obviously we can't apply this excuse to the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible is supposed to be trustworthy, truthful, and benevolent. This is why we can know that Jesus most certainly wasn't the God of the Bible because Jesus wasn't truthful. He claimed that God feeds the birds, which is untrue. So there you go. Christianity proves itself to be false. No science require.

[For_The_Kingdom]

We already know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Biblical God doesn't exist. No science is even required to know this. The Bible itself demonstrates the fallacy of its own claims about the God it describes.

The Old Testament description of Yahweh cannot be true as it is written. And therefore the God described within does not exist.

I need specifics.

We know that the New Testament is false if only because it claims that Jesus believed that God feeds the birds. That alone is a dead give-away of the fallacy of those tales.

"God feeds the birds, therefore, Christianity/New Testament is false". Those non sequiturs are real around this camp.

So no science is required to know that the God described in the Bible does not exist.

Right, it may not get you to Christian theism...but it sure does get you to theism. And by getting to theism, you are sticking your foot on atheism's little neck.

The only question that remains is whether some other possible God might exist. Like perhaps the God described by various versions of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't make claims about God that contradict themselves, therefore we can't rule out the God of Buddhism based on the claims of Buddhism alone, like we can with the Biblical God.

LOL.

So then the question becomes whether or not we could demonstrate that no possible God could exist. I think that would be quite difficult.

In fact, we can't even say with certainty that the Greek God of Zeus cannot exist. There is no claim that Zeus is trustworthy or benevolent. Therefore Zeus any apparently contradictions associated with the tales of Zeus could actually be purposeful lies even created by Zeus himself to deceive us.

Obviously we can't apply this excuse to the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible is supposed to be trustworthy, truthful, and benevolent. This is why we can know that Jesus most certainly wasn't the God of the Bible because Jesus wasn't truthful. He claimed that God feeds the birds, which is untrue. So there you go. Christianity proves itself to be false. No science require.

Trying to figure out where in this post is evidence presented that would make one draw the conclusion that the Christian God doesn't exist.

I don't see it. What I do see, however, is a lot of empty assertions. I see a lot of those in there...but the former, nope. Nothing.

[Divine Insight]

I need specifics.

Just read the Old Testament.

"God feeds the birds, therefore, Christianity/New Testament is false". Those non sequiturs are real around this camp.

What else can you do with this obvious information?

Either Jesus clearly didn't know what he was talking about revealing that he could not possible have any divine knowledge of the world. Or the New Testament rumors about what Jesus had supposedly said got it all wrong.

Either way the religion is in dire trouble right?

So no science is required to know that the God described in the Bible does not exist.

Right, it may not get you to Christian theism...but it sure does get you to theism. And by getting to theism, you are sticking your foot on atheism's little neck.

I don't see where this thread is about sticking feet in the necks of atheists.

That sounds like some kind of sick "Holy War" to me.

The only question that remains is whether some other possible God might exist. Like perhaps the God described by various versions of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't make claims about God that contradict themselves, therefore we can't rule out the God of Buddhism based on the claims of Buddhism alone, like we can with the Biblical God.

LOL.

Typical response when you can't think of anything meaningful to say.

So then the question becomes whether or not we could demonstrate that no possible God could exist. I think that would be quite difficult.

In fact, we can't even say with certainty that the Greek God of Zeus cannot exist. There is no claim that Zeus is trustworthy or benevolent. Therefore Zeus any apparently contradictions associated with the tales of Zeus could actually be purposeful lies even created by Zeus himself to deceive us.

Obviously we can't apply this excuse to the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible is supposed to be trustworthy, truthful, and benevolent. This is why we can know that Jesus most certainly wasn't the God of the Bible because Jesus wasn't truthful. He claimed that God feeds the birds, which is untrue. So there you go. Christianity proves itself to be false. No science require.

Trying to figure out where in this post is evidence presented that would make one draw the conclusion that the Christian God doesn't exist.

I don't see it. What I do see, however, is a lot of empty assertions. I see a lot of those in there...but the former, nope. Nothing.

Any all the while you have refused to address the obvious fact that the Gospels have Jesus proclaiming that God feeds the birds when we know for a fact that the birds aren't any different from any other animals species on earth including humans when it comes to getting any free ride in terms of obtaining food.

Before you bother responding to anything else I say please explain to me why Jesus didn't know this simple fact about the real world?

Until then Christianity remains proven false by its own obviously false claims. No science required to demonstrate its fallacy.