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.

[MikeH]

The former is also ambiguous as a technically savvy creator-God who fine-tunes physics to arrive at us could also be (less comfortingly, but equally as awesome IMHO) a vast probabilistic meta-state for our universe existing beyond our space-time horizon. We sometimes call what we can see "the universe" and then mistakenly define it as being "all that exists" -- but this is plainly wrong as it ignores the ignorance imposed upon us by the very properties of our universe.

I think that this is a great point. We are confined to the 3-dimensional world that we move around in, yet so far we can only attempt to imagine the additional dimensions that make up our universe. Time, for example, is a fourth dimension that we only barely understand. I think currently it is agreed upon that the universe is actually 11-dimensional (or more).

[Cathar1950]

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

[MikeH]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

So, in answer to the original question, do you think that one day we will be able to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of god?

[Cathar1950]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

Do you mind explaining?
It seems he was wrong about somethings and right about others. Much like the bible only no one is claiming he was inerrant.

I don't know what hapened to my last post but all I had to say was whatever dates we decide to give the gosples they still are never mentioned until the second century and there are not copies before then. The later the date the more sense they make. The earlier the manuscripts the more variation we find.
The Hebrew writings are even more hundreds of years off and they represent the times of their writings and not the actual history.

[seventil]

If rea

Well "IF REA" to you too!

I had the mental image of a lightning bolt hitting you as you typed a sentence.

So, what were you saying?

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

Happily, I think that the debate is still on.

I hope that over time we can boot Einsteins theories off the board so that we can travel faster than light or find some other way to make space travel possible.
While his theories live, faster than light seems to be impossible.

You usually show a source??

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

So, in answer to the original question, do you think that one day we will be able to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of god?

God may not want this if history shows us His mind set.

As to the question, my best guess based on the above is no.

If God wanted it He would have put it in place. The fact that He has not is telling.

I think it may have to do with a man being the ultimate king of man.

Regards
DL

[Chad]

This is a fair assessment to make, but I think no matter how life was formed, whether it was abiogenesis or something we haven't even thought of yet, there will always be a natural explanation to how it happened. Wouldn't there have to be, in a physical world?

Well, technically there could be a natural explanation, but there would need to be evidence of a process to account for it. Just because they can think of it doesn't mean it's correct. I think my example of extreme "complexity" appearing at the start of the fossil record , which started not too long ago, would leave us with a rational reason to believe a supernatural origin may be behind it. However, if defeating evidence can show that this is not the case, then so be it.