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.

[Greatest I Am]

This is a fair assessment to make, but I think no matter how life was formed, whether it was abiogenesis or something we haven't even thought of yet, there will always be a natural explanation to how it happened. Wouldn't there have to be, in a physical world?

Well, technically there could be a natural explanation, but there would need to be evidence of a process to account for it. Just because they can think of it doesn't mean it's correct. I think my example of extreme "complexity" appearing at the start of the fossil record , which started not too long ago, would leave us with a rational reason to believe a supernatural origin may be behind it. However, if defeating evidence can show that this is not the case, then so be it.

There can be no rational reason for believing in the supernatural except for the belief in someone that says it is so. No physical evidence can lead to this belief unless the viewer see the Perfection of the systems put in place by God.

Regards
DL

[Goat]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

Einstein was shown to be wrong about the ether. He was wrong about a few things.. and he was right about a few things he thought he got wrong.

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

Einstein was shown to be wrong about the ether. He was wrong about a few things.. and he was right about a few things he thought he got wrong.

The debate on the ether is still ongoing I believe.

Regards
DL

[Chad]

This is a fair assessment to make, but I think no matter how life was formed, whether it was abiogenesis or something we haven't even thought of yet, there will always be a natural explanation to how it happened. Wouldn't there have to be, in a physical world?

Well, technically there could be a natural explanation, but there would need to be evidence of a process to account for it. Just because they can think of it doesn't mean it's correct. I think my example of extreme "complexity" appearing at the start of the fossil record , which started not too long ago, would leave us with a rational reason to believe a supernatural origin may be behind it. However, if defeating evidence can show that this is not the case, then so be it.

There can be no rational reason for believing in the supernatural except for the belief in someone that says it is so. No physical evidence can lead to this belief unless the viewer see the Perfection of the systems put in place by God.

Regards
DL

I think that is false. There are lots of natural facts about the world where if they were very different would constitute rational reason for us to believe in God (And thus supernatural, assuming God is supernatural?). I don't believe we have observed anything where this is presently the case, but I don't see it as impossible and see no reason to outright deny it.

[AB]

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.

There is scientific proof of God. While science is correcting itself realizing the earth is not flat, saturn has more than one ring, pluto is not a planet.. The deficiencies of science proves God.

[Undertow]

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.

There is scientific proof of God. While science is correcting itself realizing the earth is not flat, saturn has more than one ring, pluto is not a planet.. The deficiencies of science proves God.

The deficiencies of science prove there are deficiencies in science. If you then suggest god because of our gaps in knowledge, you're arguing on faith and through ignorance.

It's like people suggesting because I lack belief in god, that I somehow believe that there is no god. If there is a deficiency of something, this does not mean there is automatically an abundance of something else.

[AB]

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.

There is scientific proof of God. While science is correcting itself realizing the earth is not flat, saturn has more than one ring, pluto is not a planet.. The deficiencies of science proves God.

The deficiencies of science prove there are deficiencies in science. If you then suggest god because of our gaps in knowledge, you're arguing on faith and through ignorance.

It's like people suggesting because I lack belief in god, that I somehow believe that there is no god. If there is a deficiency of something, this does not mean there is automatically an abundance of something else.

"If there is a deficiency of something, this does not mean there is automatically an abundance of something else." Great statement. And I agree. But, I think the science you are using is to disprove something that is there. So, in effect, that great statement is irrelevant to God's creation.

[Greatest I Am]

This is a fair assessment to make, but I think no matter how life was formed, whether it was abiogenesis or something we haven't even thought of yet, there will always be a natural explanation to how it happened. Wouldn't there have to be, in a physical world?

Well, technically there could be a natural explanation, but there would need to be evidence of a process to account for it. Just because they can think of it doesn't mean it's correct. I think my example of extreme "complexity" appearing at the start of the fossil record , which started not too long ago, would leave us with a rational reason to believe a supernatural origin may be behind it. However, if defeating evidence can show that this is not the case, then so be it.

There can be no rational reason for believing in the supernatural except for the belief in someone that says it is so. No physical evidence can lead to this belief unless the viewer see the Perfection of the systems put in place by God.

Regards
DL

I think that is false. There are lots of natural facts about the world where if they were very different would constitute rational reason for us to believe in God (And thus supernatural, assuming God is supernatural?). I don't believe we have observed anything where this is presently the case, but I don't see it as impossible and see no reason to outright deny it.

Agreed. There is nothing wrong in saying I don't know.

The search is at times better than the finding. Not on the issue of God but perhaps other issues.

An open mind is a gift from God. It adds vibrancy to life.
Look for the Perfection of the systems around you. If you see them then you see God.

Regards
DL

[MikeH]

There is scientific proof of God. While science is correcting itself realizing the earth is not flat, saturn has more than one ring, pluto is not a planet.. The deficiencies of science proves God.

I don't think that's really scientific proof of God. Lack of proof of one thing does not mean proof of another.

[MikeH]

I think that is false. There are lots of natural facts about the world where if they were very different would constitute rational reason for us to believe in God (And thus supernatural, assuming God is supernatural?). I don't believe we have observed anything where this is presently the case, but I don't see it as impossible and see no reason to outright deny it.

I tend to agree, but I would also add that I think we will not have tangible proof of God until we can (if this is ever possible) view the universe from greater than the 3 dimensional world that our minds can currently comprehend.

Let me explain what I mean: The current scientific theory is that our universe is made up of at least 11 dimensions. We know of the three dimensions that we physically occupy, and have some knowledge of a fourth dimension that we call time, which we seem to sliding across without control. If God is in fact eternal, then He must be at least a 4 (or 5, or 11) dimensional being. If this is true, it would explain why it is so hard to find proof of God. The things that we cannot duplicate and test scientifically is time, or things that rely on a certain out of reach span of time.

There is no proof obviously of any of this, but it is fun to think about. Anybody else have thoughts on this type of thinking?