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 post 40 by rikuoamero]

Hello,

Everything wrote which came from the carn.org website was housed in Subsetion I. Outside of this website and subsection, there is still a plethora of information contained in my post. Is there any component which you would like further clarity?

[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).

In the example I gave, physicists search for the Higgs particle with a preconceived notion on what it should look like, where it should be, or how it should work. Science typically identifies what it expects to find. We call this a hypothesis. Without such a hypothesis, how can I verify whether my reasoning, evidence or proof meets your test. A test is only as valid as the parameters placed upon it. If you leave it open, that means it is open to interpretation and can be rejected by anyone with a different perspective.

So I restate the question in the first line of my post: what type of scientific evidence would suffice?

If one branch of science accepts mathematical reasoning and abstraction as evidence/proof of a theory, is this acceptable?

Is the proof requested only limited to something that can be tested in a laboratory or duplicated?

Thanks

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 34 by JoeyKnothead]

Hello Joey,

Can you please read post 44 where I restate my original question to RonE. Without this basis, I cannot provide scientific evidence. Parameters define acceptable evidence. In any statistical model, you have to present a Ho and then your test validates and provides evidence whether to accept/reject Ho. This would be like performing a regression analysis with no parameters.

Most statistical tests rely upon certain assumptions about the variables used in the analysis(1).

If I am to provide evidence for God, I must make certain assertions, predictions of where and how I expect to find or prove God. From there, I can provide evidence.

So if my assertions in post 33 are accepted, even if only as a hypothesis, I can now provide evidence. This hypothesis is as follows:

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.

These three elements are the basis in which I would provide evidence unless you specify a different type of acceptable evidence.


Source
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?n=2&v=8

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 43 by KingandPriest]

3 tests for truth :

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.

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

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.

What KIND of evidence are you talking about?

Vagueness isn't going to help any case. Please be specific so that we know what kind of evidence you are proposing.

C) Man is a being made in the image of God, so to understand God, we have to understand man.

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?

[Justin108]

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.

Just to clarify, can any claim be an abstraction? Even if one does not agree with said abstraction? As any atheist would tell you, we do not believe that God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. We disagree with this abstraction. Do we proceed with your argument despite the disagreement on which your abstraction relies?

Furthermore, unless you actually provide an argument for why God gives the best framework, I would reword your abstraction to "Believers claim that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world."

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.

What? How did we get here? Did I miss something? Why the Bible? Why not the Quran, or Vedas? Why any religious text for that matter?

Your argument fails miserably. Your conclusion rests firstly on your unsupported claim that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world, then it goes on to assume the Bible is anything more than just a book written by ancient man.

[liamconnor]

[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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by KingandPriest]

Everything wrote which came from the carn.org website was housed in Subsetion I. Outside of this website and subsection, there is still a plethora of information contained in my post. Is there any component which you would like further clarity?

Are any of the other subsections influenced in any way by the 'findings' of Carm/AiG? Or are the other sections containing information completely unrelated to those two?
I'm extremely hesitant to approach someone who quotes Carm/AiG, for the reasons I previously stated. It means it's very likely that I'll be wasting my time looking at 'evidence' that has been manipulated.
Are you going to use Carm/AiG in the future?

[Neatras]

[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.

That's probably a hold-over from the era in which scientists tried to distinguish themselves from laymen and creationists who use unscientific methods to 'prove' their arguments. The challenge to bring it to the lab was eventually warped into a kind of sectional and strawman idea that science can only be real if it's done in a lab with beakers and goggles. This isn't true. Something is scientific if it accurately explains reality and makes predictions, with the intent of finding evidence for or against the position. I can make a million wrong hypotheses right this second, and I'm still doing science if I go out with the intent of finding an answer, either by going to a lab or digging for bones in a wasteland.

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

Fortunately, natural sciences deal with the real world, so laboratories are only useful insofar as restricting outside forces for the purpose of unique experiments, not for rejecting the world at large. When it requires it, scientific experiments can be outside the lab. Not very shocking.

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

Never heard of the Pelopponsian war, though there's probably a natural science that has to do with that. Evidence can be dug up, manuscripts and dialogues between nations, as well as the ruins themselves of wherever the war took place. A lab would be ill-suited for forming scientific predictions about the war because it concerns the planet's history, and you can't put it in a lab unless you wanna study one small part by distinguishing it from its surroundings. Lab work and field work go hand in hand because they all have to do with finding evidence, using whatever method is best for drawing that evidence out.

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"

I have to wonder why science needs to be invoked here, since it's unrelated to the axiom of identity, or whatever it's called.

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.

Some of the examples you provided are validated by scientific work. And arguing that natural history is unscientific could get you in a lot of trouble depending on which scholars and historians you are in the company of; they wouldn't like being told their work is unscientific, since their education is based on scientific methods.

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

Good thing there are a number of other avenues open to you to demonstrate your god outside of a lab. Preferably in a public venue with evidencing records and a method for testing the demonstration. We only ask for so much.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 40 by rikuoamero]

Agree with what you have stated............funny thing about this Christian idea that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts as stated at the CARM site.....

While Christians don't have the original manuscript its an Alpha and Omega ministry website that states the position is that Christianity has enough abundant copies of manuscripts throughout history to cross correlate them in such a fashion that we can determine the original manuscript by this methodology.....

It would be like you have a jigsaw puzzle made out of 1,000 pieces but you have found over 5,000 pieces and by comparing and putting them together you can weed out the odd pieces that don't fit and come up with the original puzzle complete with the right pieces because you have an overabundance of both the correct and incorrect pieces to use trial and error to fashion the correct puzzle.

Ummm..........why would a person God in revealing this revelation use such a convoluted method to arrive at the original message?

and.........even if you found the original message why are their so many interpretations of that in conflict with each other?

Seems to me this is man made stuff trying to figure out other man made stuff and you end up with a giant convoluted mess of conflicting theology, doctrine and dogma........

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

[polonius]

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.

And the "spirit or being" definition of God seems limiting. Perhaps the term "entity" (a thing with distinct and independent existence) would be more accurate.