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.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to Blastcat]

As requested, I am responding to post 44 to identify why my 3 tests for truth should be considered viable. Just to refresh other readers memory

I proposed the following mechanisms as a means to test my claim that God as found in the bible exists

A) The only realistic way of measuring whether God exist is to first believe that He is there, and then identify the parameters of how to verify His existence.
B) The methods for proving God are not empirical in a physical sense, but I propose that they unanimously deal with the soul and spiritual dimension.
C) Man is a being made in the image of God, so to understand God, we have to understand man.

You stated

Why is it "realistic" to have to first believe something exists in order to verify that it exists?

The reason it is realistic to believe something exits in order to verify or refute its existence, is because that is the only way to begin testing. I can take any science experiment and apply this logic. Example: Scientist A believes there is a correlation between the speed of light and how far away an object is in space. If the scientist does not believe a correlation exists, what is there to test. If Newton did not believe a "force" existed that caused apples to fall from trees, or a rock thrown in the air would fall back to earth, he could not have tested and arrive at a accurate description of gravity. Any experiment or attempt to prove or disprove something begins with a belief. I hold this to be the reason RonE started this discussion by saying a person has to state their claim. A claim is nothing more than a belief about an event, place, person or thing.

To my B) method of providing evidence:

You ask

What KIND of evidence are you talking about?

In essence I am saying that a God who is Spiritual as we Christians believe, can be proven using spiritual evidence. In the same way that a person uses physical evidence to prove a physical hypothesis, I intend to provide spiritual evidence.
Remember the basis of the original question is to provide evidence for the Christian God. This limits my evidence to the Christian God and not any notion of God which may be found in the world. No comparison with other religions can or should be made since RonE described the environment as a Christian environment.

To my C) method of providing evidence:

You ask

We aren't trying to find out if HUMANS exist, but if the god you believe in exists.
It's not controversial that humans exist. It is controversial if your god exists... created in the image of man or not.

I don't see how "understanding man" demonstrates that your god actually exists.
What's the connection?

The connection is that the God of Christians is described as making humans in a structure similar to Himself. So if I take the spiritual evidence from point B) and compare it to the known components of humans, I can connect the dots and show this God must exist.

Here is an example to help: Lets say a scientist/mathematician in the day of Copernicus proposed the idea/belief/claim that more than one sun existed. He then set out to prove this with evidence, so three claims were expressed
A) More than one sun exists (belief)
B) The other suns exist outside of our galaxy (similar to saying God lives in a spiritual dimension)
C) The other suns which exist are stars just like the sun in our solar system (sun is made in the image/structure of a star just like man is made in the image of God)

So by believing that suns exist outside of our solar system he/she would have a place to look and explain how these other suns could exist. By comparing the evidence, testimony or information found to the sun within our solar system, the claim could be verified or refuted.

To ask a Christian to provide evidence for God without understanding what he/she believes is like asking a combinatorics mathematician (one of the most complex levels of mathematics) to explain a complex computer algorithm to a baby without using math. (I am in no way equating you or any nonchristian to a baby) This is why I state to answer this question, I have to know will I be limited to physical evidence or can I use evidence which is adequate of the subject matter. That evidence includes some physical as well as spiritual evidence.
>>>>>
To your most recent post, Post59 I will answer the last question to keep this post as brief as I can.
You state

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.

To this I would agree that asking questions does not make a person close minded. What I describe as close minded is a demand for evidence with a predetermined mindset to reject any evidence that does not fit in an undefined box. To define what you expect, and then reject evidence to the contrary is one thing. But to ask for any scientific evidence, and then in turn reject such evidence as not being scientific enough gives the appearance of being close minded.
I myself am thrilled when any person, atheist or not has questions about why I believe what I believe. Even if they don't believe me or my reasoning, I take their question as a genuine request for information.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 51 by RonE]

Hello RonE,

Once again I will restate my hypothesis:
A) The only realistic way of measuring whether God exist is to first believe that He is there, and then identify the parameters of how to verify His existence.
B) The methods for proving God are not empirical in a physical sense, but I propose that they unanimously deal with the soul and spiritual dimension.
C) Man is a being made in the image of God, so to understand God, we have to understand man.

My path to evidence includes the following though process

It is realistic and critical to believe something exits in order to verify or refute its existence, because that is the only way to begin testing. I can take any science experiment and apply this logic. Example: Scientist A believes there is a correlation between the speed of light and how far away an object is in space. If the scientist does not believe a correlation exists, what is there to test. If Newton did not believe a "force" existed that caused apples to fall from trees, or a rock thrown in the air would fall back to earth, he could not have tested and arrive at a accurate description of gravity. Any experiment or attempt to prove or disprove something begins with a belief. Remember your original question was posed to theist

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.

So a claim that I believe God exists or believe Him to be a spirit, doesn't need to be validated because it is the starting point of this whole discussion. Also you requested a person to state their claim. A claim is nothing more than a belief about an event, place, person or thing.

As to the type of evidence, I intend to provide a combination of physical and spiritual evidence. I am saying that a God who is Spiritual as we Christians believe, can be proven using spiritual evidence. In the same way that a person uses physical evidence to prove a physical hypothesis, I intend to provide spiritual evidence.
Remember the basis of the original question is to provide evidence for the Christian God. This limits my evidence to the Christian God and not any notion of God which may be found in the world. No comparison with other religions can or should be made since you described the environment as a Christian environment. To reject this assertion is to request a Christian to provide evidence for a different god and not the God they believe in. Christian beliefs about God can only be substantiated on the level they experience/understand Him.

The connection is that the God of Christians is described as making humans in a structure similar to Himself. So if I take the spiritual evidence from point B) and compare it to the known components of humans, I can connect the dots and show this God must exist.

I make the example below to show how I intend to provide evidence.
Lets say a scientist/mathematician in the day of Copernicus proposed the idea/belief/claim that more than one sun existed. He then set out to prove this with evidence, so three claims were expressed
A) More than one sun exists (belief)
B) The other suns exist outside of our galaxy (similar to saying God lives in a spiritual dimension)
C) The other suns which exist are stars just like the sun in our solar system (sun is made in the image/structure of a star just like man is made in the image of God)

So by believing that suns exist outside of our solar system he/she would have a place to look and explain how these other suns could exist. By comparing the evidence, testimony or information found to the sun within our solar system, the claim could be verified or refuted.

Is it ok for me to move forward and present evidence on this basis, or is there still an issue.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by KingandPriest]

[Replying to Blastcat]

As requested, I am responding to post 44 to identify why my 3 tests for truth should be considered viable. Just to refresh other readers memory

I proposed the following mechanisms as a means to test my claim that God as found in the bible exists

A) The only realistic way of measuring whether God exist is to first believe that He is there, and then identify the parameters of how to verify His existence.
B) The methods for proving God are not empirical in a physical sense, but I propose that they unanimously deal with the soul and spiritual dimension.
C) Man is a being made in the image of God, so to understand God, we have to understand man.

You stated

Why is it "realistic" to have to first believe something exists in order to verify that it exists?

The reason it is realistic to believe something exits in order to verify or refute its existence, is because that is the only way to begin testing.

You have never heard of curiosity?.. You have never ever heard of wanting to know the truth? When someone says something extraordinary like "God exist".. I want to know how they got that info, so I ask them. I don't need a BELIEF to start investigating.. here's proof of that.. I am investigating.. I don't yet believe.

So, here is one example of the opposite of your claim. Belief just ISN'T the "only way " to begin an investigation. Some people just want to know the truth for a claim. Christians make the claim that a god exists. I want to know if it's true or not.. I can't prove that a god exists.. any god. So, I ask the BELIEVERS for their reasons.

But it gets worse for you, I'm afraid:

You think it's wise to begin testing if a phenomenon is happening by having a BELIEF that the phenomenon is really happening BEFORE investigating? You are describing "confirmation bias" and that, I'm afraid, is the very OPPOSITE of a good investigation method, OR scientific method.

It's like the "most wanted" poster child of logical fallacies.
To be avoided at ALL COSTS.

I can take any science experiment and apply this logic. Example: Scientist A believes there is a correlation between the speed of light and how far away an object is in space. If the scientist does not believe a correlation exists, what is there to test.

The POSSIBILITY that a correlation exists might be important to investigate.
Do you think that confirmation bias is something that is required in order to make a scientific investigation?

http://infomory.com/famous/famous-examp ... tion-bias/

If Newton did not believe a "force" existed that caused apples to fall from trees, or a rock thrown in the air would fall back to earth, he could not have tested and arrive at a accurate description of gravity. Any experiment or attempt to prove or disprove something begins with a belief.

Nah, that's just not so.

I CAN concede the point that investigations CAN start off with beliefs, fair enough, but they don't HAVE to. But that's not what you were initially saying, is it? You said that we should have to first believe that He is there, and then identify the parameters of how to verify His existence.

I'm interpreting that to mean that someone OUTSIDE of your faith should first have to believe that the god exists in ORDER to find out if the god exists. But if I would first BELIEVE that the god exists, so, why bother finding out? I believe things that I know to be true. I don't just PRETEND they are true ... I don't get your requirement at all.

I don't know about you, but the word "belief" means "an acceptance that something exists or is true". Why on EARTH would any honest investigator ACCEPT that something is true BEFORE investigating?

And I can investigate things that I don't believe in... It's as if you never heard of impartiality or a non-biased approach to investigations.

Why should anyone BELIEVE something that they don't yet know is TRUE?

I hold this to be the reason RonE started this discussion by saying a person has to state their claim. A claim is nothing more than a belief about an event, place, person or thing.

Right... if you want to prove that something is true, then we have to know what you are going to be proving. That's another problem with the God hypothesis... it's VERY hard, it turns out, to DEFINE what we would be LOOKING for, OR how we would know IF WE FOUND IT.

How do you know that your god beliefs are true?

To my B) method of providing evidence:

You ask

What KIND of evidence are you talking about?

In essence I am saying that a God who is Spiritual as we Christians believe, can be proven using spiritual evidence.

And I have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what you mean by "spiritual evidence"....

In the same way that a person uses physical evidence to prove a physical hypothesis, I intend to provide spiritual evidence.

I hope that you explain what spiritual evidence happens to BE along the way.....

Remember the basis of the original question is to provide evidence for the Christian God. This limits my evidence to the Christian God and not any notion of God which may be found in the world. No comparison with other religions can or should be made since RonE described the environment as a Christian environment.

Sure, go ahead and give us your "spiritual evidence" for the Christian god whatever that is. I really don't know what the Christian god is or what "spiritual evidence" is ... you know that, right? To me, it's just a bunch of words.

To my C) method of providing evidence:

You ask

We aren't trying to find out if HUMANS exist, but if the god you believe in exists.
It's not controversial that humans exist. It is controversial if your god exists... created in the image of man or not.

I don't see how "understanding man" demonstrates that your god actually exists.
What's the connection?

The connection is that the God of Christians is described as making humans in a structure similar to Himself. So if I take the spiritual evidence from point B) and compare it to the known components of humans, I can connect the dots and show this God must exist.

Say what?... that is VERY hard to understand. You want to go from.. some "spiritual evidence" ( whatever THAT is ) from the soul and spiritual dimension ( whatever THOSE are ) and compare THOSE.... to humans and BINGO... You prove that GOD EXISTS?

I don't know what those terms mean, and I don't see the connection between what we KNOW exists ( humans ) , and what is CLAIMED to exist ( a god claimed to have certain human characteristics )

The way I see it so far is that you have two problems:

1. Undefined terms.
2. Unjustified leaps of logic.

Here is an example to help: Lets say a scientist/mathematician in the day of Copernicus proposed the idea/belief/claim that more than one sun existed. He then set out to prove this with evidence, so three claims were expressed
A) More than one sun exists (belief)
B) The other suns exist outside of our galaxy (similar to saying God lives in a spiritual dimension)
C) The other suns which exist are stars just like the sun in our solar system (sun is made in the image/structure of a star just like man is made in the image of God)

So by believing that suns exist outside of our solar system he/she would have a place to look and explain how these other suns could exist. By comparing the evidence, testimony or information found to the sun within our solar system, the claim could be verified or refuted.

Ok, but I don't know at all how that even REMOTELY relates to understanding man and proving that a Christian god exists, let alone any god at all of any kind. It SEEMS to me.. and I probably have this all wrong.. so don't hesitate to correct me.. it's hard for me to follow your example very much, but it seems to me that you are saying that we

1. Have a hypothesis
2. We test it with reality.
3. If the hypothesis matches with reality, then we have pretty good evidence that the hypothesis is true.

So in YOUR case.. the "God" case... you have

1. A hypothesis... "God exists".
2. You propose tests that I can't even understand the TERMS of and that are in some cases would be completely UNACCEPTABLE to honest, unbiased investigators.
3. We have not yet done the tests... so we can't yet tell if your hypothesis matches reality or not.

So your problem are the tests for God. I don't know what they MEAN... and I find logical LEAPS of wonder. And when it comes to cold hard LOGIC.. leaps are NOT allowed, I'm afraid. P

Define your terms.
Plug the gaps of reasoning.

To ask a Christian to provide evidence for God without understanding what he/she believes is like asking a combinatorics mathematician (one of the most complex levels of mathematics) to explain a complex computer algorithm to a baby without using math.

I agree. That's why I've been asking you so many questions.
I want to understand what it is you are talking about. Your terms are not defined.

But I am patient and here to learn.
Teach away.

(I am in no way equating you or any nonchristian to a baby) This is why I state to answer this question, I have to know will I be limited to physical evidence or can I use evidence which is adequate of the subject matter. That evidence includes some physical as well as spiritual evidence.

Still no clue what "spiritual evidence" means.

>>>>>
To your most recent post, Post59 I will answer the last question to keep this post as brief as I can.
You state

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.

To this I would agree that asking questions does not make a person close minded.

Good, now I hope we can lay the implied accusation that I have some predetermined bias and that I won't consider your arguments or your evidence. It's just that so far, I hardly know what you are talking about, I am continuing to ask you to clarify and define your terms, and I wont be convinced until I get SOME kind of evidence that what you believe in is true.

Lots of people have false beliefs.

What I describe as close minded is a demand for evidence with a predetermined mindset to reject any evidence that does not fit in an undefined box.

Undefined box?

If you have a better box, don't be shy. It's just going to be REMARKABLE to me that scientists haven't come up with that better box yet. But if your box makes no sense... I'm not going to be impressed.

Good evidence is something that convinces. I am asking you to provide some good evidence. That doesn't mean, however, that I am ready to accept BAD evidence or poorly framed arguments. Confirmation bias, for example is just NOT acceptable as a method to prove any hypothesis.

To define what you expect, and then reject evidence to the contrary is one thing.

Well, it DOES seem that you are accusing me of being closed minded. If I don't accept your reasoning... I'm being "unreasonable" or something.

But I'm sorry.. I just can't accept poor reasoning.

The proposition that "God exists" IS NOT MY CLAIM.

I don't have a horse in that race. If you want to prove the proposition is true... do it.
It's not up to me to prove it for you, OR come up with a way for you to be able to prove it. I think the god hypothesis is UNFALSIFIABLE.... So, believe away, if you must.

I just don't know why you would believe something that you don't even DEFINE or PROVE TRUE. I honestly DO NOT KNOW any way for you to prove your god beliefs are true. Sorry about that.

This one is going to be up to you and the THOUSANDS of people "defending the faith".. why don't you ask some THEOLOGIAN, or something? I can't help it if they want to use worthless methods. You don't HAVE to justify your beliefs, you know.

I certainly am not forcing you to.
You can drop the claim if you can't prove it's true. I'm ok with that.
I've been there, done that !!

But to ask for any scientific evidence, and then in turn reject such evidence as not being scientific enough gives the appearance of being close minded.

Do you imagine that all attempts at being "scientific" are just going to work?.. how about sticking with the scientific method? I don't think any skeptic in here would object to THAT method... what do you say?

I'm not too sure that the scientific method really INCLUDES "spiritual evidence"...are you?

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f ... thod.shtml

I myself am thrilled when any person, atheist or not has questions about why I believe what I believe.

Cool, that's basically why I'm in here.. I want to learn as much as I can.

Even if they don't believe me or my reasoning, I take their question as a genuine request for information.

What... do you expect people to just accept your reasoning automatically?
What if your reasoning sucks? Do you think that you would just ace Logic 101 automatically?

Sorry... you will have to do better than that.

Your reasoning is GOING TO BE CHALLENGED my friend.
And I guarantee you that I will do my best to challenge it vigorously.

That's what I'm here for.....among other things.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 61 by KingandPriest]

If Newton did not believe a "force" existed that caused apples to fall from trees, or a rock thrown in the air would fall back to earth, he could not have tested and arrive at a accurate description of gravity.

This just shows you literally have no idea whatsoever how to do science. Especially with your comments about 'spiritual' evidence, and the 'methods for proving God are not empirical'.
Newton did not wake up one day and suddenly started 'believing' in gravity. He formed a hypothesis, and tested it to see if it was true. His belief or non-belief didn't enter into his experimentation, just as it should not enter into any experimentation.
If your methodology for proving X (in this case God) start with believing that the X is real, then you're going about it all backwards.

[WinePusher]

If Newton did not believe a "force" existed that caused apples to fall from trees, or a rock thrown in the air would fall back to earth, he could not have tested and arrive at a accurate description of gravity.

This just shows you literally have no idea whatsoever how to do science. Especially with your comments about 'spiritual' evidence, and the 'methods for proving God are not empirical'.
Newton did not wake up one day and suddenly started 'believing' in gravity. He formed a hypothesis, and tested it to see if it was true. His belief or non-belief didn't enter into his experimentation, just as it should not enter into any experimentation.

WRONG. Everything you've said is just so dead wrong.

Newton began with a hunch-hypothesis-a priori belief which was based off of the work of his predecessor, Kepler. Newton thought-believed-hypothesized that the force that causes, say, an apple to accelerate to the ground and the force that maintains the orbits of the planets were one in the same. He believed that this physical force was essentially universal (which is why it's called the UNIVERSAL law of gravitation). That was his belief-hypothesis-suspicion.

The way he tested this was through using those fancy little derivatives and integrals that he himself formulated. Do you actually know what Newton said about this force? He said that it follows the inverse square law, THAT was his foundational hypothesis. And he proved this belief using classical If-Then reasoning. IF the force governing the orbits of the planets obeys the inverse square law, THEN what? THEN the orbits of the planets must be in the shape of one of the four conic sections with the focus being the sun. For those who don't know what a conic section is, they are shapes that are derived from slicing through various angles of a three dimensional cone.

And THAT is how the universal law of gravity came to be, through mathematical reasoning. So you are wrong, and KingandPriest is right.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by RonE]

I have merely scanned through the names of those who have commented; I am confident they gave the most fundamental answers to this request.

I am merely adding one more 'nod'.

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?

Geometrical axioms like "if A = B and B= C then A= C" cannot be tested in the laboratory manner. You can test one, two, a billion examples. But it is not because of this that we believe it. We believe it on grounds that are not "scientific"

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


So then, there are numerous common beliefs that are not "scientific" in the sense used by common skeptics.

I don't think a single Christian has ever proposed that the proposition "there is a God" could be demonstrated in the laboratory manner.

That last remark you made.............let's see if the Christian God exists outside of space and time?.......Well, science is SOL for now in trying to demonstrate that...........but you believe in that God of the Bible right?

Well that God is no deity that sits outside the universe and time.......nope this God has to muddle around in all of reality right here on Earth..........and he did it at wholesale rates with miracles left and right back in Biblical times and according to some Christians, especially those pesky Charismatics..........well, he's right here wing dinging miracles around in reality today........

So, science can't test for your God but it can sure test for all those interactions in reality this God of yours is suppose to be doing in the natural world...........

and what do we find?

Nothing....... If there is a God its a deist entity that is undectable and non personal and of no use to you or anyone in that state......

but the minute that God is stated as being personal it must stir the waters of reality and we can measure that and what do we find?..........nothing.

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE:

No. Science is concerned with matter and energy only (as the only two existing entities). If there is another, then the question "Do you have any credible scientific evidence of you god" really can't be answered.

Still, even limiting the choices to matter and energy only, one would have to postulate that one or both had to be something self-existent and hence eternal.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 64 by rikuoamero]


Moderator Comment

This just shows you literally have no idea whatsoever how to do science.

Hello Riku! Please leave personal comments out of posts! Thank you!

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 65 by WinePusher]

And THAT is how the universal law of gravity came to be, through mathematical reasoning.

Through a single individual's efforts? I think not. Laws take rigourous experimentation from many individuals over a long period of time, before they are called such.
In fact, Newton had trouble with his calculations on gravity. He believed so strongly in his god, in an absolute observer with an absolute time, that he quite simply did not allow for the possibility of relative time, of the curvature of space-time. Several people have hypothesized that if he had jettisoned his beliefs, he may have discovered relativity long before Einstein did.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 62 by KingandPriest]

It would seem you went to grade school with Nancy Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". The best thing I can say for what you've presented so far is that it simply doesn't fit the OP, in so many ways I won't bore you or our other readers with. Most of what I would say would just be echos of what has already be provided by other users.

Thank you for your effort but it's just not what you present it to be.