Proof of the Christian God

[RonE]

In a current topic there was the following post:

Merely saying something is true does not make it true….
We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them…

And yet theists continue to claim that a creator being exists and that it made everything, despite repeatedly failing to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim....

I’ve seen other posts in the past on this site where theist claim to have scientific evidence of God. I never seen this actually done, usually their evidence is never presented, if something is presented it is invariably misquoted, or doesn’t say what the presenter claims it does.
So, to help us not be “gullible people�. This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god.
First, some definitions and parameters for debate:
1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
2. The scientific hypothesis you will be trying to support with your evidence goes like this: “there is a god as defined in the Christian bible who is omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and creator of the universe�.
3. This is not a debate about evolution, disproving evolution is not a proof that your god exists. Nor is it about attempting to debunk other scientific hypothesis or theories, unless doing so is direct proof that your god exists, disproving the theory of gravity is not evidence of your god.
4. Please follow the forum rules. “the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.�

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.
If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 146 by Justin108]

Traditionally, rational demonstrations of God belonged to various branches of Philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics being the main players.

But if we consider the 'revealed religions', that is, religions that began in space and time due to a claimed revelation, then historical methods are also relevant.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 149 by rikuoamero]

If we have to resort to faith, how then do we separate the dross from the gold? Anyone can say anything at all, and say that is true and one just has to have faith...

Resort to faith? Reason and faith do not constitute a dichotomy; they ride in tandem.

"Reason is a matter of faith"--G.K. Chesterton.

Muhammed allegedly flew on a horse. Joseph Smith allegedly received tablets from an angel. Now, never mind the veracity of these claims; based on the evidence, is it equally plausible that the claims derive from eyewitness testimony?

No. the story of Muhammed is very late and there are not even implied eyewitnesses. while in the case of Joseph Smith we have his own testimony.

Thus, we have a first step in separating the dross from the gold. There are, of course, numerous further steps to be taken, but they are all based on reason, not blind faith.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 162 by liamconnor]

No. the story of Muhammed is very late and there are not even implied eyewitnesses. while in the case of Joseph Smith we have his own testimony.

Along with Joseph Smith, we have the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses

We have people who signed statements saying there are supernatural shenanigans going on with Joseph Smith and his golden plates.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 163 by rikuoamero]

I have not looked into the link because it will not effect my argument. You have agreed to my argument: we use reason to weed out the bad. Of course, I think ultimately J.S. has to be weeded out. But his case lasts longer than the Pegasus trip of Mohammed. That is how historical analysis works: it is, of course, hard work. We aren't allowed to just glibly dismiss things which our presuppositions reject. We have to find good historical grounds for rejecting them. And you may have just demonstrated why J.S.'s claim is superior to the claim about Muhammad.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 164 by liamconnor]

I am of course interested in seeing just why you (eventually) dismiss the claims of Joseph Smith, but not the claims surrounding Jesus Christ, even though historically speaking Joseph Smith has a far stronger case than Jesus Christ.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 164 by liamconnor]

I am of course interested in seeing just why you (eventually) dismiss the claims of Joseph Smith, but not the claims surrounding Jesus Christ, even though historically speaking Joseph Smith has a far stronger case than Jesus Christ.

I'm also very interested in this process.

On the one had we have a single claim from someone regarding 500 or so other people who saw a previously dead man walking around. We have no names or witness statements from any of the claimed 500.

On the other hand we have 11 claims from 11 named people corroborating the initial claims.

Seems like case closed to me which of these is 'historically stronger'. I'm all eyes/ears as to why one is eventually dismissed yet the other is not.

[RonE]

Thanks to all who posted here in the last two weeks. While I find the exchange interesting it was all way off topic, and did not contribute to the topic.

Hawkins, if you want to post something off topic, please create your own. I find your postings smack of J.W. fair, which only seems interested in sowing confusion into a discussion. Seems to happen most often when they really have nothing to offer on the topic.

From the OP:
"The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.
If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic."

Thanks again.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by RonE]

Please, ignore me if you find this wrong as it does not comply with the OP. I'll try not to waste your time!

If something is scientifically proven (by scientific evidence), it's no longer subject to religious belief! To the contrary, it becomes subject to knowledge (because it's scientifically proven)!

Compare:
"I know God exists!"
"I believe God exists!"

Religious people believe God exists!

I, therefore, think this should be moved to Random Ramblings! IMO.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 168 by Aetixintro]

I know God doesn't exist.
I believe God doesn't exist.
I know and believe God doesn't exist.

Try that one on for size.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 168 by Aetixintro]

Random ramblings would be for stuff that has no point or direction. This topic is quite the opposite which is why I occasionally try to steer it in the direction I planned.

Maybe you didn't recognize it but you came very close to the intent of this topic. The intent is to point out to christians that there is no scientific evidence of their god. Many of them think there is evidence, books have been written, and bought, that try to make that point. So, I've given them a topic to make their arguments & present the evidence. No big surprise to me that they can't.

Thanks.