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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

What is really going on is that anti-theists use what science has discovered to claim that science has disproved the existence of GOD.

Or, an anti-theist could simply be an atheist who does not believe that gods exist because of the lack of evidence for them, but who does not claim that science has disproved the existence of any particular god. That is my view. I would not claim that science has disproved the existence of gods, but that the lack of any evidence for their existence, combined with what science has shown us to date, suggests that it is more probable that they don't exist, than that they do.

[William]

[Replying to post 29 by Danmark]

No, the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible or the existence of God.

I agree.

The business of science is to discover the truth.

Such as for example, the truth that the earth was not at any time throughout human existence, ever totally covered in water.

The business of religion is to support its beliefs no matter the evidence.

Some organised religions. Religion itself covers a large spectrum of ideas and practices, not all of which reject scientific truth just to support their religions dogmas. This also applies to some who identify as being Christians.

You haven't answered the basic question of the OP, which is "Is there ANY evidence that would convince you the God of the Bible does not exist; that the Bible does not represent the truth?"

Am I to assume that by 'evidence' you are speaking about something other than scientific evidence?

I think I have answered the OP question sufficiently. One cannot simply throw out the notion of the biblical GOD based upon those ridiculous ideas attached to that GOD. Not all the ideas re that GOD can be placed into the 'ridiculous' basket, any more all of the ideas of the bible can be delegated as such.

In this it should be clear to the reader that I do not hold to the idea that the bible is 'the word of GOD' and that appears to be the crux of the problem re the OPQ.

The bible does have truth in it, but that of its own does not mean that it represents truth.

I tend to see the same in relation to Jesus. The bible has Jesus in it but that doe not mean to say that the bible represents Jesus.

OTOH, as a rational person who accepts science, I would be willing to accept the God of the Bible if science, history, and rationality supported that view.

Do you reject all things related to that idea of the GOD of the bible? If so, wherein is the rationality in doing so?

As I explained re this, in my last post;

Actually in the context of my post, what I suggested was more along the lines that some ideas attached to the biblical idea of GOD were ridiculous and outmoded notions. One can - with studious intent - discover the wheat from the chaff in that regard.
Some call this 'cherry-picking' (in the negative sense) as in recognizing this about biblical ideas of GOD - that not everything works well together and some things have to be dropped from the menu - one cannot so easily argue in the 'paint everything with the same broad brush' manner. This annoys those who prefer that method of argument.
I myself prefer not to throw babies out with the bathwater.

Perhaps for you it was a necessary part of your pathway - having embraced the whole biblical Christian religion evangelically - to empty the baby out with the bathwater and adopt the opposing path?

This, of course, does not mean everyone has to follow suit or else be regarded as irrational.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by DrNoGods]

What is really going on is that anti-theists use what science has discovered to claim that science has disproved the existence of GOD.

Or, an anti-theist could simply be an atheist who does not believe that gods exist because of the lack of evidence for them, but who does not claim that science has disproved the existence of any particular god.

To me that describes the agnostic. The anti-theist is not agnostic in relation to the idea of GODs existing.

That is my view. I would not claim that science has disproved the existence of gods, but that the lack of any evidence for their existence, combined with what science has shown us to date, suggests that it is more probable that they don't exist, than that they do.

Whereas an agnostic would simply not know one way or the other and would be inclined to be interested in seeing the evidence the anti-theist thinks clearly shows that GOD does not exist.

In that of course, and as usual, one would have to clearly define what one means by 'GOD' - in order that others may get the gist. As far as I am aware, I have not encountered anti-theists who have defined GOD in a manner that would align with what is evident. They tend to simply take the definitions of GOD from organised religions, and argue from that position.

Perhaps anti-theists are simply unable to define GOD?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 29 by Danmark]

No, the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible or the existence of God.

I agree.

The business of science is to discover the truth.

Such as for example, the truth that the earth was not at any time throughout human existence, ever totally covered in water.

The business of religion is to support its beliefs no matter the evidence.

Some organised religions. Religion itself covers a large spectrum of ideas and practices, not all of which reject scientific truth just to support their religions dogmas. This also applies to some who identify as being Christians.

You haven't answered the basic question of the OP, which is "Is there ANY evidence that would convince you the God of the Bible does not exist; that the Bible does not represent the truth?"

Am I to assume that by 'evidence' you are speaking about something other than scientific evidence?

No. Science is the way of knowing that has proved most reliable. Evidence that is for example, acceptable to a court of law or any other evidence that has proved reliable. Religious belief relies on tradition, superstition, and alleged personal revelation, none of which have been found reliable.

Essentially, by you responses, it is clear that to you there is no scientific evidence you can imagine that would disprove your religious beliefs. If I am wrong you can spell out the scientific discovery that would convince you the god of the Bible is merely man's invention.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 5 by Danmark]
What is really going on is that anti-theists use what science has discovered to claim that science has disproved the existence of GOD.

Let me distance myself from that position too: I have never made that claim. That isn't something I believe.

I did meet a man in Texas, decades ago, who claimed that. One guy.

[wiploc]

...who does not claim that science has disproved the existence of any particular god.

I think of logic as a part of science, and logic disproves what I call "the standard Christian god."

- He is omnipotent, but he can't defeat iron chariots.

- He is loving, but he tortures people forever.

- He is omnipresent, but he needs a pillar of fire to get around.

- He is omniscient, but he can't find the kids in the garden.

- He is possible to see but not possible to see.

- He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but he coexists with evil.

And so on.

That god is logically impossible, so that god doesn't exist.

Plantinga's god can't exist either:

• He exists in all possible worlds if he exists in any possible world.
  Some possible worlds don't have gods.
  Therefore, Plantinga's god doesn't exist in all possible worlds.
  Therefore he doesn't exist in any possible world.
  Therefore he doesn't exist in this, the actual world.
  Therefore he doesn't exist.

[Bust Nak]

To me that describes the agnostic. The anti-theist is not agnostic in relation to the idea of GODs existing.

I am an anti-theist who is not agnostic in relation to the idea of GODs (as least as typically described) existing. Yet I have never claim or implied that science has disproved the existence of any particular god, at best science has rendered the existence of any particular god unnecessarily.

As far as I am aware, I have not encountered anti-theists who have defined GOD in a manner that would align with what is evident...

Well that wouldn't be very useful as the religious would just dismiss anything I say with respect to God as I defined it, for the reason that they define it differently.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 5 by Danmark]
What is really going on is that anti-theists use what science has discovered to claim that science has disproved the existence of GOD.

Let me distance myself from that position too: I have never made that claim. That isn't something I believe.

I did meet a man in Texas, decades ago, who claimed that. One guy.

I'm in your boat as well (besides the Texas example).
I'm sure it bolsters his beliefs if he is able to imagine that there are those who are on the anti side of whatever he decides to believe.

Cults tend to have this Us vs Them mentality. Helps a cults survival if they have a Them to unite against, even if imagined.

It seems clear to me that some people need a religion to supply them with answers. Therefore, to be anti-theist would be ignoring a specific need some people have. Either way, such a group seems to exist in the imaginations of this said poster, so it is probably moot.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Bust Nak]

I am an anti-theist who is not agnostic in relation to the idea of GODs (as least as typically described) existing. Yet I have never claim or implied that science has disproved the existence of any particular god, at best science has rendered the existence of any particular god unnecessarily.

That is the point I am making, whichever way it is worded.

But if you care to show where this is the case that science has rendered the existence of any particular god unnecessary, I am keen to see the evidence.
So far such evidence has not actually been forthcoming and certainly in the case of debunking my own theology, this is very apparent.


Perhaps all you mean is that for an anti theist what science has shown so far is good enough for you to conclude that science has enabled you in maintaining your position on the question of GOD, 'typically described' or otherwise?

All simply the manner in which what is shown is thus interpreted.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 39 by William]


How can your own "theology" be debunked when you merely equate "god" with consciousness, and apply a proximate cause to it's First Source-ness?


Consciousness is undeniable, and the latter is unfalsifiable.

I wouldn't be too worried about being debunked, since there's little enough to even make sense of rationally.