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.

[joer]

Hey QED! Good to see you again my friend.
You wrote:

I wonder how you manage to reconcile your faith in the existence of God with the ambiguity inherent in all connected matters.

Well it’s really not that hard. I mean we have a faith and confidence in science, which also is only based on a transient theoretical albeit functional reality and we have no problem with that. Well for the believer the faith and confidence in God is less transient and a more absolute reality than Science. So if you can fathom the confidence the believer has in this spiritual REALITY to them, it’s not hard imagine how their Faith can be so secure in the face of all the ambiguities inherent in the World or even in science.
You continue with:

I worry a little that the kind of faith you have is based (maybe subconsciously) on the fundamental instinct that existence demands a cause.

No need to worry my friend. Cognitively, Consciously and Experientially through the sense of Spirit, the effect of any instinctual tendency is well covered by these other areas of “being” in the experience of Faith. So even if this instinctual tendency amplifies the experience of Faith it certainly would only be a very small part of that experience.

You follow with:

I can see why a run of good luck might seem like God has picked up their case and started to put things right for them -- but I think we can all see the problem with this kind of interpretation.

Your right QED. Someone with that shallow of a faith would be in trouble. But those with a strong Faith including ALL the Saints developed that Faith from the opposite of everything going GOOD for them. The strength of their Faith was actually developed through trails and Tribulations. It’s when you find God in your hour of deepest need and finding the strength to overcome adversity that Faith reaches a profundity that is truly remarkable. It leaves one with a feeling that no matter what even unto physical death, Being with God there is nothing other than yourself that can really threaten your Spirituality or your Spiritual LIFE. (your REAL life). JOB in the Bible is an excellent example of this Faith in the Face of adversity.

You conclude with:

If you enjoy a challenge, pick up Paul Davies recent book The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? In it you'll get a really good summary of the perfect symmetry between the various interpretations I'm referring to here. I say symmetry because there is nothing we know of right now to determine if our existence is an intelligent design, self selection effect, self creating necessity etc. All possibilities are genuinely open in this very hard problem at the moment, and I would really like to know if there's a genuine shortcut to the resolution - as you claim to have found.

Thanks for the Tip QED. If I get a chance I will take a look at it, simply because it does seem to impress you. When you say, “I would really like to know if there's a genuine shortcut to the resolution”, it really does make me believe you are open and intent on finding a satisfying resolution anything (within reason) that will lead you to a better understanding of the basis and/if there is a reason for it. I like that. The problem is my shortcut is outside the realm of the SET of your possible answers, those contained within Logic reason and acceptable evidence. Faith in God is outside of that realm and long as you limit yourself to those parameters, you can’t get to the answer I have.

But your desire and intent to find an answer may allow you to loosen up even more and explore answers outside you current required set of parameters (logic, reason and evidence.)

Well QED it has really been a pleasure. I enjoy your presence and presentation.

Now that I answered your response in a manner I believe it deserves, I can be a little more playful sharing some thoughts that I had before while responding.

As I was talking about the Faith of the Believers. I thought of something you might be able to relate to in comparison to a True Faithful Believer…A Hooligan. A British Soccer Fan. I can’t think of a more fit personality to compare to a true believer. I can’t imagine a Hooligan being unfaithful to his team. A Hooligan wouldn’t ONLY support his team during the good times. He would be steadfast behind his team in the bad times too.

That’s how the True believers in God are. They won’t abandon their faith in God in the bad times. They are steadfastly true to their God. The closest type of Fan in the USA in comparison to a Hooligan is a Raiders Football Fan. I’m a Raiders Fan. They are one of the most steadfast Fans there is in the USA. In good times and in bad, They are faithful to their team. There’s something called the Raiders Mystique. It was formed by the fact that the Raiders had the winningest Team in professional sports in the US. They won games where they were hopelessly outmatched. They often played teams with more skills but so many times, WITH PURE HEART or SPIRIT and found a way to overcome adversity and win.

They would do things that had never been done before in the sport. And as they did them the League would generate a new set of rules each year disallowing the things the Raiders had done. They became famous for that and the fact they were often the most penalized team in Professional Football. The officials became accustomed to calling fouls on the Raiders while their opponents would commit the same of more flagrant fouls and not get called on them.

The younger players on the Raiders these days begin without understanding This Mystique BUT the Fans are always ready to remind them until they begin to experience it themselves.

That’s the closest thing I can compare True Believers in GOD to. The tenacity and belief in their Faith has an indomitable spirit. Just like Hooligans and Raiders’ Fans.

Cheers my friend. Would you by chance enjoy the Manchester United Team?

[Nameless]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible.

Science does not 'prove'. science disproves! There is an observation. The validity/meaning of the observation is critically examined. Critically from a logical, evidential, experimental and experiential and other perspectives, many other perspectives. If a critique shows the data to be in error, it is experiment and experiment alone that gives relevent data. But, data and all observation is a very subjective thing and there are many different interpretational 'camps' within any particular field of science. There come times where the experimental tool of experiment is no longer functional. Etc...
That is why science claims no 'Truth', but it demolishes 'lies' all the time!

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?

Not evidence, 'infection' when the victim's resistance is lowest is best! *__-
As far as interpreting so called 'evidence', see above.

So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

Capture? Capture? What? Capture a handful of 'god' and whip 'It' out of your fanny pack thrusting it into the dumb faces of the heathen?? Amen! Another (dead, or..) 'saved' heathen!

[twobitsmedia]

Science does not 'prove'. science disproves!

Hmmm, maybe this is why science has a hard time proving evolution: it can't do it.
But I agree it does a good job at disproving it by claiming it is an observed fact....

[Goat]

Science does not 'prove'. science disproves!

Hmmm, maybe this is why science has a hard time proving evolution: it can't do it.
But I agree it does a good job at disproving it by claiming it is an observed fact....

There you go with the logical fallacy of equivocation again. This, I have seen explained to you before. I can only assume willfull ignorance at this point.

There is a difference between the FACT of evolution, in that new species arise,
and other species disappear over time. It is a FACT that species change over time.

The Theory of evolution looks at the facts (The data), and try to come up with a model that explains WHY it happens. It has to be a model that explains the facts.

Just like the Theory of Gravity. Gravity happens. Step out a window on a sky scrapper without any support, and see what happens. The various theories of Gravity try to explain WHY it happens.

[twobitsmedia]

Science does not 'prove'. science disproves!

Hmmm, maybe this is why science has a hard time proving evolution: it can't do it.
But I agree it does a good job at disproving it by claiming it is an observed fact....

There you go with the logical fallacy of equivocation again. This, I have seen explained to you before. I can only assume willfull ignorance at this point.

Willful IGNORance of irrational (incomplete) logic, yes. "Logical fallacy" assertion, as a rule, for atheists, is another phrase for "I can't think any further than this."

There is a difference between the FACT of evolution, in that new species arise,
and other species disappear over time. It is a FACT that species change over time.

Except it leave no evidence behind....no transitions, etc etc etc

The Theory of evolution looks at the facts (The data), and try to come up with a model that explains WHY it happens. It has to be a model that explains the facts.

Just like the Theory of Gravity. Gravity happens. Step out a window on a sky scrapper without any support, and see what happens. The various theories of Gravity try to explain WHY it happens.

Evolution and gravity are totally different. Evolution tries to describe an event that leaves physical evidence behind. Gravity explains a phenomenon, but it is not a tangible substance, nor does it leave behind any evidence.

[OnceConvinced]

OnceConvinced wrote:

If there is a God and he is all knowing, all power and created us and knew everything about every single one of us, then he would know exactly what to do to convince us he exists. Are you suggesting that God hasn't got the ability to convince us hardened sceptics he is who he claims to be?

He does know exactly what to do. And he has done it.

We on the other hand have to choose to accept his proof. You demand proof in a manner and form in which it doesn't exist. You'll NEVER find it like that. You have to accept it the way it has been provided to you by God. And without Faith that is impossible.

Sorry Buddy. I already mentioned to you on another post, you try to prove it using "logic, reason and evidence". It ain't going to happen brother.

But keep banging away at it Pal. Your intent may lead you to possiblities you haven't thought of yet.

Nope Joer. What he has done isn't enough. If it was, we'd all believe. It has to be convincing if everybody is to accept it, but unfortunately it's not. (And it also hasn't been proven to have happened - if we had all been there, then maybe it would be convincing, but unfortunately only follows of Jesus at the time go to see that proof).

Proof is something that is obvious that you can believe without faith. If you have to have faith first, then it's not proof.

You are coming from a point of view that everyone is the same and what should be good enough for one is good enough for everyone. This however is absolutely not true and God would know it, if he really was all-knowing.

It's not about logic, reason and evidence. It's about facts and no one can possibly argue that some people require more convincing than others.

[bernee51]

Science does not 'prove'. science disproves!

Hmmm, maybe this is why science has a hard time proving evolution: it can't do it.
But I agree it does a good job at disproving it by claiming it is an observed fact....

There you go with the logical fallacy of equivocation again. This, I have seen explained to you before. I can only assume willfull ignorance at this point.

To which 2Bits replied: "Logical fallacy" assertion, as a rule, for atheists, is another phrase for "I can't think any further than this."

I have tried to explain to him what an equivocation is when he spoke of 'faith'. He failed to understand then.

He seems to be of the opinion that his opinion, and his opinion only, needs to be expressed..not supported by any display of knowledge or understanding. This much is evident in his reply. The master of the Blatant Assertion.

In answer to the OP. God cannot be proven, scientifically or otherwise, as god belief is an article of faith. Science relies on facts, faith on feelings. Science moves to turn facts into knowledge. Faith self-deceives feelings into knowledge (or, if not knowledge, 100% sure)

[The Duke of Vandals]

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?

What a disingenuous question? The bible is full of allegations of happenings which would (had they been real) clearly evidence a god. The OT is full of them. The problem isn't a willingness to believe on the part of atheists. The problem is the utter lack of evidence on the part of theists.

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.

Kierkegaard(sp?) had some interesting things to say about such a scenario, but that's a topic for another discussion.

"Repeatable" is a buzzword theists like to fixate on... as though something that isn't "repeatable" is suddenly beyond the realm of science.

Understand that anything with a definite yes or no answer is a scientific question. Period. We may be limited by technology, but a limit of technology is not a limit of science.

An example of a scientific question we didn't used to have the technology for was the question of the sun's chemical make-up. What's in the sun? It's not like we can go there and dip a test tube in it. For centuries, mankind accepted the question would never be answered... until we developed the technology to tell what chemicals are in a star based on the light it emits. Now, the mystery is solved.

Point being, it would have been ridiculous for scientists to have said, "We can never know what's in a star so it's not a scientific question." The answer is out there. We just didn't know it.

Questions like, "Was that a good ballgame?" aren't scientific questions because the criteria for answer is constantly in a state of flux.

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?

A better question is why are you faithful to begin with? What evidence convinced you? Did it convince you after an unbiased period of examination or were you indoctrinated into it? Why do you find your evidence convincing? Why do you think we don't share that opinion?

[twobitsmedia]

The problem is the utter lack of evidence on the part of theists.

The problem is the non-theist can't reason without evidence. Evidence is like a picture.....the non-thiest cannot understand anything unless a "picture is drawn."

[The Duke of Vandals]

The problem is the utter lack of evidence on the part of theists.

The problem is the non-theist can't reason without evidence. Evidence is like a picture.....the non-thiest cannot understand anything unless a "picture is drawn."

Are you CAPABLE of rational discourse? Are you CAPABLE of contributing more than an ad hominem knee-jerk "nuh-uh" reply?