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.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 42 by KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 35 by RonE]

Hello RonE,

You are correct, I did not make a claim as outlined in your original post.
I claim that the God found within the bible is real, supernatural and can be proven using scientific reasoning. Scientific reasoning is the evidence I will utilize as shown in my original post labeled Post 33 in this same discussion. I claim that this God is the intelligent creator of the universe.

You say

These claims are of a supernatural entity, they are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence/proof

I then ask, is scientific evidence what you seek or extraordinary evidence? If scientific evidence is sufficient, outline the parameters for what is sufficient. Scientific evidence relies on principles of inference until empirical proof is generated to contradict the original inference.

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence (1).

.....
I'll assume what you really mean by "scientific reasoning" is deductive reasoning. That is logical reasoning based on observations, in this case of evidence. What the OP asks for is the evidence you would base your deductive reasoning upon so that we might understand your reasoning.
As I explained in another topic recently if I make a claim that "I love my wife." that would not be an extraordinary claim because after 27 years of marriage most people would probably expect that. In fact you might even accept my claim without any further proof. Extraordinary claims however, especially in this forum, will generally draw a request for evidence.
Please remember not all evidence is found in a chemistry lab, but must all be gathered with solid scientific methods to be valid, credible scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence does not rely on "principles of inference " deductive reasoning" might.
The hypothesis you mention would be yours, so what does your hypothesis look like in seeking evidence of your god? How was your hypothesis setup that it is verified by the evidence you will tell us about? If you are having trouble forming your hypothesis then obviously you've never thought beyond the theistic glitter.

My browser seems to be having a problem displaying this page as I would format it, hope it is readable to everyone else.

[polonius]

Of course, tears are not a “chrism" (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankincense tears) Human tears don’t contain these substances.

Okay – so the fact that they weep chrism and not human tears means . . . what exactly?

Perhaps you would tell us where and when you witnessed this and the names of some of the men went to Mt. Athos and a copy of their report?

I witnessed it at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, PA – the year was 2006 I believe.

RESPONSE:

http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/stanna.html


On May 9, 2004 – Mother’s Day in the U.S. – an Icon of St. Anna, the Mother of the Holy Virgin Mary, located in the Russian Orthodox Church of Our Lady of Joy of All Who Sorrow in Philadelphia began to stream myrrh. On that Sunday one of the parishioners mentioned to the parish rector, Archimandrite Athanasy that the Icon of St. Anna seemed to be “perspiring�. Upon further investigation, Fr. Athanasy notice visible liquid streams and droplets. Accumulations of the liquid were seen on the cuff on St. Anna’s left hand and on her left shoulder veil. Droplets were also found elsewhere on the Icon. This fragrant, slightly oily liquid is commonly referred to as “myrrh�. Initially the myrrh looked like tear drops, as if St. Anna was crying. More recently small, slow-moving streams of myrrh have appeared in other parts of the Icon.

Is this the icon you are describing?

Is the icon hollow?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by PghPanther]

Atheists sit back with your popcorn and watch Christianity destroy itself..........enjoy the show....

I feel the same way about Donald Trump. I enjoy the "show". BUT we have to remember that a lot of people WILL vote for him. A lot of people don't MIND horribly bad arguments and weird beliefs and bizarre claims without justification.

Some people LIKE that kind of thing.

Self destruct maybe.. but they might wreck havoc before they go.
It's really quite frightening.

Vote for Blasctat !!
( this was a non-paid non-political message from no political party, but lets party )

[RonE]

[Replying to post 46 by liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by RonE]
Science as popularly used involves experiment in a laboratory manner; what can be tested again and again under controlled conditions.

But there are many things that cannot be so produced in the laboratory manner.

The Pelopponsian war cannot be reproduced in a laboratory; does that mean all beliefs in the event are ridiculous?

The Pelopponsian war is not a scientific claim, but a historical one. The Pelopponisan war is cross referenced in multiple documents. For more info on this historical event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

The philosophical maxim that "nothing can produce something" cannot be tested in the laboratory manner. Its truth is founded on something else.

From the OP: This is not a debate about evolution, disproving evolution is not a proof that your god exists.

Please stick to the topic being discussed.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 50 by polonius.advice]

RonE posted:

Proof of the Christian God
Do you have scientific proof of God?

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your 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

To reply, we need a clarification of terms.

Scientific method:
“The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

God:
“a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions�

Thus it appears that the principles of "scientific evidence" (which is limited to matter and energy) cannot be applied unless we presume that God is matter and energy also.

Actually no. Any study can be done with scientific methods, those which go to controlling environments under which the study is done. Let's say I form a hypothesis: "Belief in the christian god results in those people being significantly more moral than those that don't". To prove this hypothesis we mount a study to show that a disproportionate proportion of prison populations are atheists. We validate our results via multiple sources, double & triple check our data and publish the results.

This study has been done by the way. Guess what the results showed. Right, the hypothesis failed to be proven.

So, let's return to the topic of the OP. Do you have any credible scientific evidence of your god?

[polonius]

http://www.telegram.com/article/20120119/NEWS/120119452
SOUTHBRIDGE

The Holy Myrrh Streaming Icon of St. Anna — a statue of Jesus Christ's grandmother that many believe weeps, and, which has been associated with some miracles — will visit St. Michael's Orthodox Christian Church this weekend.
The icon was made at Mount of Olives Convent in Jerusalem, where Rev. Mastalsky served for a time during the early 1980s, and was blessed at the Sepulchre of Our Lord in the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.

Rev. Mastalsky brought the icon to the Russian Orthodox Church of Our Lady of Joy of All Who Sorrow in Philadelphia, where he ministered as rector.
On May 9, 2004, a Mother's Day, a parishioner reported that the icon seemed to be “perspiring.�
Liquid accumulations were noticed on the cuff of the icon's left hand and on her left shoulder veil, among other places.
Church officials believe the icon emits myrrh, a red resin that is fragrant and slightly oily.
Rev. Preble said the icon, which is now in a case, continues to “stream� the substance from time to time.
It was moved to St. Tikhon Orthodox Monastery in South Canaan, Pa., where Rev. Mastalsky now

RESPONSE:

We don't want to get off topic here, so let's finish up with this. If there is real interest, I can start a separate thread.

Notes: This is not a statue of Mary.
It doesn't exactly weep. It "perspires"

[JLB32168]

Is this the icon you are describing? Is the icon hollow?

If it’s an icon painted after the normal fashion, it’s painted on a piece of wood.

Is it your contention that the icon has been hollowed out and fit w/a bladder that someone pushes to periodically make it weep? When I’ve seen that then I’ll believe it. As it stands, I’ve seen no evidence to this and have looked at it closely myself. Now – when you’ve established that your hypothesis if fact then I’ll reconsider the nature of the evidence. Right now, your mocking of it is pretty much all it is –mocking and I don’t find mocking to be too compelling.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Hello Blastcat,

As I've stated above, to provide scientific proof, I have to have a method of determining what evidence is acceptable. I have to have a hypothesis, and a set of parameters in which to test that hypothesis.

I presented my hypothesis: God found in the bible is real, omnipotent and the intelligent designer behind all of creation.

I then outlined my parameters for which I will attempt to prove my hypothesis. The evidence is the proof that the parameters verify or refute my original hypothesis. I then offered you the opportunity to reject my parameters and provide your own list of acceptable evidence. Failure to do so, means there is no logical or scientific reasoning to reject my hypothesis.

Example: The US make a claim/hypothesis that it has the best athletes in the world.

To test this claim and provide evidence the US proposes:
A) Looking at the Olympics and the overall medal count.
B) Looking at the 5 most difficult physical events and the victor of each event
C) Comparing the overall leader board of each event and compare the average result of each nation

It then offers any country willing to refute its claim/hypothesis the chance to accept its testing mechanism, or provide their own. If another country refuses to accept these methods and also refuses to provide there own mechanism, then we are left with two conflicting beliefs and no way of providing sufficient evidence. No matter what evidence the US may provide, the other country can just reject it as not sufficient.

So again, I ask if you reject my 3 tests for truth, what type of scientific evidence would suffice?

What variables am I allowed to test?
What parameters am I limited to?

Failure to answer this question proves the quest is not to really find evidence, but to reject what ever evidence can be given and remain entrenched in your position.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 58 by KingandPriest]

As I've stated above, to provide scientific proof, I have to have a method of determining what evidence is acceptable. I have to have a hypothesis, and a set of parameters in which to test that hypothesis.

Right I totally agree.

I'm not a scientist, so I wouldn't demand SCIENTIFIC proof.... I'm not talking about quantum physics here or molecular science.. but if that's where the evidence will actually COME from... I would certainly want to take a good look at it...

But I don't KNOW any mechanism by which to prove the God Hypothesis... do you?
If you can't prove it exists... bit of a problem getting me to believe it.

Can I ask you why you would believe something that you have no idea how to prove is real?

I presented my hypothesis: God found in the bible is real, omnipotent and the intelligent designer behind all of creation.

That's your belief... your hypothesis.
Right.

I then outlined my parameters for which I will attempt to prove my hypothesis. The evidence is the proof that the parameters verify or refute my original hypothesis. I then offered you the opportunity to reject my parameters and provide your own list of acceptable evidence. Failure to do so, means there is no logical or scientific reasoning to reject my hypothesis.

I had to reject your "parameters", and I explained why, or asked you to clarify. I'm waiting for your reply about those. You are complaining that I have rejected your 3 methods, but you haven't yet said anything specific about my reasoning, or you haven't yet answered my questions about them.

Are you saying that if we cannot have a logical way to reject your hypothesis that we should just ACCEPT it as true?

Example: The US make a claim/hypothesis that it has the best athletes in the world.
If another country refuses to accept these methods and also refuses to provide there own mechanism, then we are left with two conflicting beliefs and no way of providing sufficient evidence. No matter what evidence the US may provide, the other country can just reject it as not sufficient.

I don't understand.. the Olympic athletes are pretty rigorously measured. When someone gets a gold medal... it pretty much means he or she is the best. Every country that enters the Olympic games, for example, accepts the measuring methods.

But when it comes to god beliefs... I am not accepting the "measures" you have so far provided. Did you notice my objections from post 44?

So again, I ask if you reject my 3 tests for truth, what type of scientific evidence would suffice?

What variables am I allowed to test?
What parameters am I limited to?

I don't have a clue. It's just that the ones you mentioned could not possibly do the trick. If you could answer the questions and the objections in my post 44, it would be very helpful. I would know why you seem to think your methods would work.

Failure to answer this question proves the quest is not to really find evidence, but to reject what ever evidence can be given and remain entrenched in your position.

If you really think so...

But you don't say why the reasons I gave for rejecting your 3 kinds of evidence aren't valid.

Maybe I'm very wrong, but if you don't reply to my questions ... I'll never know why you would suspect that I am closed minded. I gave you my reasons... do you have anything to say about them?

Do you have any answers to my questions?

Asking questions isn't displaying a closed mind, you know.. it's displaying a quest for answers and understanding. Your choice though... engage atheists or not... up to you.

[benchwarmer]

KingandPriest, I guess you thought my first response was silly and thus decided not to respond. Fair enough, but I think I made a valid point. However, I will try to be more thorough and see if it makes any sense to you.

[Replying to RonE]

Hello RonE,
In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of scientific evidence would suffice.

I think this is a fair question as I've asked the same of others on these forums. I was presenting evidence, but it was dismissed because it was not palatable i.e. they didn't want to read anything. So I asked what type they would like and got no response.

So, for me, the type of evidence that would be acceptable would be any of the following:

1) Scientific, peer reviewed articles. The articles themselves can reference whatever data they deem to be 'scientific'.

2) An experiment that I can do myself and get useful data that points to your hypothesis.

3) Physical evidence that can either be directly examined or it is well enough documented that links to information about where it is can be trusted. i.e. if you wanted to reference something in a museum, archive, etc.

Furthermore, there is also the question of how much evidence is acceptable.

The more the better, but any of the above would be a start.

Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

Fair enough, if you can provide solid mathematical equations or mathematically proved theorems that support your hypothesis that would be something.

For example, the Einstein–Rosen bridge or wormhole has never been observed and thus cannot be tested or proven with empirical evidence, yet most physicists would agree that the theory has enough mathematical models to explain how it could exist. The mathematical possibility is enough to validate or prove that it exists.

I think you are forgetting that these mathematical models are based on other existing observed evidence. Scientists don't generally go around writing random equations and then see if they can find something that lines up with it. They start with observed phenomena and then build models and theories to try and explain the data. Once the math and theories seem to 'hold water' they can then try to use the predictive power of the equations and see if anything interesting that hasn't been observed, but fits the model is possible. If they find such a thing, then it's back to the experiments to try and find what was predicted.

I will now use the same logic applied to theoretical physics to lay a foundation for the scientific proof of God as explained in the bible.

I'm honestly fascinated about how you intend to do that. I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I am an engineer so I'm not scared of a little math and can look up whatever goes sailing over my head.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language. Abstraction is a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific real examples, signifiers, first principles or other methods.

I'm with you so far...

With this definition (easily confirmed with any textbook or web search), we can now move forward. So to prove the existence of God, I need only to combine any mathematical model (no matter how simple) with an abstraction.

Wait, what? How do you go from any mathematical model which could describe anything plus any abstraction and end up at God? It was going so well up to this point.

Here you go:

A = 4 * pi * r^2 (Surface area of a sphere)

Happiness (an abstraction of a feeling)

Please tell us how you get God from that (or how you even combine it).

As stated above abstractions are almost always conceptual, and cannot be readily measured empirically. Examples of this would be the famed Higgs Boson particle (or commonly named God particle) or dark matter. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth. There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God.

I'm with you until the last sentence (or at least until you can show this parallel).

While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic.

Actually all I 'demand' is evidence, not proof.

Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. This is the abstraction component a person uses to validate their claim that God exists.

So let me see if I'm following what you are saying here. You are proposing the abstraction is 'belief in God'. I'll grant you that it is an abstraction, it explains how a person feels about a god concept. i.e. they 'buy in' and believe it.

Now to the mathematical component. Mathematical components are dependent upon a formula or a combination of formulas. We know a formula is a concise method of explaining information symbolically. So if I were to take a human being and begin to search for a concise method of explaining his formation and existence, only the God of the bible provides such a formula.

Whoa, hold on there. I've read the entire Bible cover to cover and don't recall any mathematical formulas. I think you mean that you are inferring some math based on how you have interpreted what is presented in these ancient documents.

The formula is comprised of three variables: spirit, soul and body.

Please give the scripture reference that states the formula that uses the variables you are speaking of. Or if you are simply inferring something and making up your own formula, at least give the formula. i.e. is it H = Sp + So + B? That makes no sense to me, I assume you have the exact formula.

In short humans are tripartite beings like our Creator. Our essence is our spirit. We have a soul which would best be described as a compartment that houses our emotions, will, personality, character and mind. Both of these are housed in our physical body.

Now you are just making non-evidenced based claims. Are these more of your abstractions? I thought you were combining abstractions with math, not abstractions with abstractions.

Both the soul and spirit are invisible, but we have methods of experiencing each and interacting with each in the physical world.

Do tell. What experiment can I perform to see this?

When a person a person is unconscious, what they are experiencing is a lack of communication between their soul and their body.

Another non-evidenced claim.

This is why a person can be alive physically, but mentally, emotionally, etc. The entire field of psychology is dedicated to this aspect of a person, but uses different words to describe what is taking place.

You mean they use actual, empirical definitions as opposed to your abstractions?

This is also why when a person dies, we look at the physical body, and realize that the flesh is not who they really were, but that person has left that body.

'left the body' is another non-evidence claim unless you mean they have 'ceased to exist' in their previous form. i.e. alive

So in short the formula for man is Spirit + Soul + Body = Man. This is a model made after God who is Spirit + Soul + Body = God.

What are you basing these on? Your formula suggests something like:

Wheels + Chassis + Engine + Body + Interior = Car. That's not math, that's an assembly shorthand. Nothing can be done with this equation mathematically.

For example, using your formula I can derive the following:

Spirit + Soul = Body + Man

What the heck does that mean?

Now let’s compare these equations with verses found in the bible confirming such an equation.

(Note: I am aware that the Subsection I below will require scripture from the Bible which you are likely to ignore, but this is where the Christian mathematical model is found)

... scripture verses that contain no actual math ...

No math or equations found upon reading what you presented.

With that said, a parallel can be made between the abstractions made by scientist to postulate and affirm a theory, with the belief people have in God.

Since you have provided not actual math, no parallel can be made.

In the end, all you have provided are non-evidenced abstractions that aren't based on anything that can be verified. I could come up with a formula that gives the ratio of Leprechauns to Unicorns and it would have the same usefulness in showing anything to be true.