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?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 89 by Walterbl]

Walterbl: "Then you may as well claim everything we know about ancient history is unreliable, since writing down what people witnessed was one of the primary method of sharing knowledge."

Well, in the case of ancient history, we don't have to rely only on alleged eye-witnesses. For instance, archaeology has shown that there was no Exodus as recorded in the Bible. Independent sources have shown that there was no universal census proclaimed by Augustus.

Distance, whether in time, space, and change of scale, or change of state, always introduces uncertainty.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

Looking for ways to get and KEEP God out of the equation, eh? Anything but the "G" word, right?

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.

Obviously, it is apparent that that is what you are seeking, but you will NEVER find it...and for good reason; God exists, has always existed, and will continue to exist.

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God

We use science to our advantage...because after all, isn't that what naturalists do?

however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax.

Well, when you actually have scientific evidence to support the idea that this "God Story" is a hoax, we will deal with it then.

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?

Again, the answer is no. Science can't even prove those alleged naturalistic theories (abiogenesis), much less supernatural theories. How about using science to focus on unproven naturalistic theories before you graduate to the supernatural ones.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 92 by For_The_Kingdom]

Well, when you actually have scientific evidence to support the idea that this "God Story" is a hoax, we will deal with it then.

Let's turn that around. Can you produce any scientific evidence to support the idea that this "God Story" has any merit? Of course not ... it is entirely faith based and cannot be supported by evidence of any kind. Not believing in something that has no evidence for its existence seems a more rational position than believing in that same something based purely on faith.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

We certainly have evidence that religions can be false: The fact that non-Christian religions exist. Even FTK has to admit that false religions can be made, and therefore there's a natural explanation for them.

Secular thinkers just point out that Christianity isn't exempt from scrutiny.

Since there's already an adequate explanation for the obvious myths of Christianity, FTK's rambling is just special pleading.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 92 by For_The_Kingdom]

king for ways to get and KEEP God out of the equation, eh? Anything but the "G" word, right?

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.

Ha!

That has been the painfully weak default for it seems forever.
But it has it's problems.

1. The standard you are defying is an ACADEMIC standard. People prove negatives all the time.
Ah, the hypocrisy of using an academic standard as a defence for proving a non-existent creature.
I think now that I put it that way, even you must laugh.

2. If anyone had the will, they can, and indeed have, identified those characteristics of what anyone claims to be God, and show that they are impossible or create paradox, or a mundane explanation better fits.
For example, how do you disprove Santa? If you are a Judeo-Christian, by knowing you are the one providing the gifts, and if you are not, by knowing that, even though Santa is more POSSIBLE than God, dead men do not ride in magic sleighs delivering presents to children.

Prove me wrong!
Cordially,

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

We certainly have evidence that religions can be false: The fact that non-Christian religions exist. Even FTK has to admit that false religions can be made, and therefore there's a natural explanation for them.

Secular thinkers just point out that Christianity isn't exempt from scrutiny.

Since there's already an adequate explanation for the obvious myths of Christianity, FTK's rambling is just special pleading.

I like this line of reasoning.

At the very very minimum, every single religion except for one is wrong. Given that there is no way at all to determine which is the true religion if it does exist at all, it makes the most logical sense to just round up.

If you went to a carnival with ten thousand games, and you knew upon entering that at the very least 9,999 of the games were going to cheat you out of your money, and also possibly that last one would as well, would you still play?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 96 by DeMotts]

DeMotts: "If you went to a carnival with ten thousand games, and you knew upon entering that at the very least 9,999 of the games were going to cheat you out of your money, and also possibly that last one would as well, would you still play?"

Well, I wouldn't, but if 10000 religiously inclined people attended the carnival, it is a safe bet that every game would be played at least once. They are always looking for the easy payoff.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let's turn that around. Can you produce any scientific evidence to support the idea that this "God Story" has any merit?

What I can do is use science to support key premises of my theistic argument (kalam).

Of course not ... it is entirely faith based and cannot be supported by evidence of any kind. Not believing in something that has no evidence for its existence seems a more rational position than believing in that same something based purely on faith.

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

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

We certainly have evidence that religions can be false: The fact that non-Christian religions exist. Even FTK has to admit that false religions can be made, and therefore there's a natural explanation for them.

Um, me acknowledging that some religions (in general) can be false has NOTHING to do with whether or not Christianity (specifically) is false.

Secular thinkers just point out that Christianity isn't exempt from scrutiny.

And no one is arguing that Christianity is exempt from scrutiny.

Since there's already an adequate explanation for the obvious myths of Christianity, FTK's rambling is just special pleading.

If there is a adequate case against Christianity, I haven't seen it yet.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

We certainly have evidence that religions can be false: The fact that non-Christian religions exist. Even FTK has to admit that false religions can be made, and therefore there's a natural explanation for them.

Um, me acknowledging that some religions (in general) can be false has NOTHING to do with whether or not Christianity (specifically) is false.

It'd be nice if you addressed my actual argument, not the strawman version you've concocted.

If a religion is false, that means it is not inspired by your god. Easy enough premise.

If a religion is not inspired by your god, there must be an alternative explanation for that religion's origin.

If a religion can be formed by an alternative process other than divine revelation, then it stands to reason there is a natural way for a religion to form.

If a religion can form naturally, then that means there is an alternative explanation. Claims about Christianity's truthfulness because it came from god are no longer beyond scrutiny.

If I can formulate a realistic model under which a religion can be created, I can do the same for Christianity, because Christianity is a religion. If I can make a naturalistic explanation for the origins of religion, then that qualifies as evidence that religions (in general) are formed naturally. We have more evidence that religions form naturally than we do evidence that religions come from divine sources.

Secular thinkers just point out that Christianity isn't exempt from scrutiny.

And no one is arguing that Christianity is exempt from scrutiny.

Great. Christianity is a religion, and religions can form due to natural processes. Ergo, Christianity could have formed from a natural process, and not via divine revelation. This means that evidence of religion-making in human history is cumulatively showing how even Christianity could be just another by-product of a natural tendency to project religious tendencies onto our surroundings (believing gods or spirits exist/inhabit nature).

Evidence against the claim that Christianity is divinely inspired comes in the form of the mundane realization that fake religions crop up all the time, and it's a special burden on a Christian's part to show evidence that their extraordinary claim is based on an extraordinary source.

I will state this again: We have more evidence for the falseness of religions (in general, because you believe most religions that are not Christian-based are false) than we do have evidence of divine revelation. The default should therefore be skepticism that Christians somehow got it right without providing any evidence on their part. The burden of proof falls back on you, FTK. Demonstrate your god and that will demonstrate that your religion is not associated with other fake religions. But we're under no obligation to see your religion as anything other than what it truly is: A natural byproduct of ignorance. Same as other religions.

Since there's already an adequate explanation for the obvious myths of Christianity, FTK's rambling is just special pleading.

If there is a adequate case against Christianity, I haven't seen it yet.

More like you haven't bothered to look. Christianity's mundane origins follow from the Hebrew myths and its pantheon of gods during the era in which polytheism dominated the Middle East. The transition to the monotheistic "omni-max" god is just a colorful turn of events where influential people projected characteristics onto your god, compounded it in a book, and declared it "scripture."