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 74 by KingandPriest]

At its core what is a hypothesis?

Some may say its a theory, or an educated guess. One dictionary says its a theory or an idea that is unproven.

This one works pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

What is the difference between a belief and a hypothesis?

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." (wikipedia)

According to these two definitions the biggest difference would be the hypothesis is required to be testable by scientific methods.

[JLB32168]

Are we still trying to prove “A� or “B�?

• A) It is scientific fact that God definitely exists.
  B) It is scientific fact that God definitely doesn’t exist.

It seems kinda pointless to me. Neither can be known.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 82 by JLB32168]

Are we still trying to prove “A� or “B�?

• A) It is scientific fact that God definitely exists.
  B) It is scientific fact that God definitely doesn’t exist.

It seems kinda pointless to me. Neither can be known.

I would agree, neither can be known with 100% certainty.
What I've asked is for theists to provide their scientific evidence/proof of their god. So that we can examine the reasonableness of their beliefs.

[polonius]

[Replying to RonE]

Replying to post 82 by JLB32168]

JLB32168 wrote:

Are we still trying to prove “A� or “B�?
A) It is scientific fact that God definitely exists.
B) It is scientific fact that God definitely doesn’t exist.
It seems kinda pointless to me. Neither can be known.


I would agree, neither can be known with 100% certainty.
What I've asked is for theists to provide their scientific evidence/proof of their god. So that we can examine the reasonableness of their beliefs.

RESPONSE: One more time. Scientific evidence only
would apply to an entity composed exclusively of matter of energy. Unless you can establish that God must be composed of these and nothing more, your question is meaningless.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to RonE]

Replying to post 82 by JLB32168]

JLB32168 wrote:

Are we still trying to prove “A� or “B�?
A) It is scientific fact that God definitely exists.
B) It is scientific fact that God definitely doesn’t exist.
It seems kinda pointless to me. Neither can be known.


I would agree, neither can be known with 100% certainty.
What I've asked is for theists to provide their scientific evidence/proof of their god. So that we can examine the reasonableness of their beliefs.

RESPONSE: One more time. Scientific evidence only
would apply to an entity composed exclusively of matter of energy. Unless you can establish that God must be composed of these and nothing more, your question is meaningless.

On what rational basis are we supposing a conscious entity made of neither matter or energy is even possible? Even granting the objection, it defeats demonstration of any kind, no?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 79 by RonE]

I only included that note to say why I felt it was irrational for you require evidence of a biblical God without the bible as stated in the OP.

Did you have a change to read post 73Here is my evidence?

If so, what were your thoughts?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 79 by RonE]

I only included that note to say why I felt it was irrational for you require evidence of a biblical God without the bible as stated in the OP.

Did you have a change to read post 73Here is my evidence?

If so, what were your thoughts?

The evidence is that the Bible was written by humans. The claim that the humans who wrote the Bible did so under the influence of God is offered without evidence, other then by references to the Bible. The claim that the Bible provides evidence that the Bible is valid is circular reasoning, since the authenticity of the Bible is exactly what is being questioned. I have however read the entire Bible. My opinion is that the major claims contained in the Bible are far too silly and unsubstantiated to have any probability for being true.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 87 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am not sure I understand. You say the authenticity of the bible is what is being questioned. I offer non-biblical information/evidence which corroborates or at least validates components of biblical claims. Rather than dissect the actual non-biblical evidence, you lump it all as circular reasoning and give your self a pass to reject the entire argument.

You then write

My opinion is that the major claims contained in the Bible are far too silly and unsubstantiated to have any probability for being true.

So if I present non-biblical evidence that one of these silly and very low probability claims actually occurred, would you accept or reject this evidence in order to hold on to your opinion?
Doing so would fulfill the definition of confirmation bias which atheist content theist use in their argument.

Just a reminder, the definition of confirmation bias:

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

So any new evidence I provide which supports biblical accuracy can be interpreted as "irrational", "circular reasoning", "close minded" or other interpretation to confirm an atheist existing beliefs or lack there of about God. Last time I checked, this would make one guilty of confirmation bias.

The OP stated to present evidence, and then we would discuss the actual evidence presented.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 87 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am not sure I understand. You say the authenticity of the bible is what is being questioned. I offer non-biblical information/evidence which corroborates or at least validates components of biblical claims. Rather than dissect the actual non-biblical evidence, you lump it all as circular reasoning and give your self a pass to reject the entire argument.

You then write

My opinion is that the major claims contained in the Bible are far too silly and unsubstantiated to have any probability for being true.

So if I present non-biblical evidence that one of these silly and very low probability claims actually occurred, would you accept or reject this evidence in order to hold on to your opinion?
Doing so would fulfill the definition of confirmation bias which atheist content theist use in their argument.

Just a reminder, the definition of confirmation bias:

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

So any new evidence I provide which supports biblical accuracy can be interpreted as "irrational", "circular reasoning", "close minded" or other interpretation to confirm an atheist existing beliefs or lack there of about God. Last time I checked, this would make one guilty of confirmation bias.

The OP stated to present evidence, and then we would discuss the actual evidence presented.

Let's start slowly. Cut and paste a few of the best examples of what you believe to be physical evidence from your earlier posts. We can proceed from that point.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 89 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Section I from post 73

[center]I. Historical record (undisputed facts only)
[/center]

The bible is a collection of books written by various authors throughout history. This is a fact I doubt any will refute. It was once believed that sections of the bible could have been altered to make it match known historical records. Prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (DSS), the earlies copy of the bible dated somewhere in the 10th century AD. This meant it would have been possible for someone to include facts known about Jesus and change old testament scriptures to make them fit. The discovery of the DSS between 1947-1956 debunked this theory and found that the old testament recorded in these historical writings matched the current King James version with 95% accuracy. The only difference was due to spelling differences of certain names of people or cities, and no book Esther. The texts were found in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The collection of old testament documents in the DSS were dated using various dating methods between 200 BC – AD 26. There were also other writings found which have a greater date range of possible creation, 400 BC – AD 300.

I now ask, what is the probability of any historical book of similar length (old testament only) dated from earliest found to 200 BC, being translated into multiple languages, while retaining 95% accuracy, over 1000 years? To find this we must find the probability of each event, and multiply their probabilities.

According to Google’s advanced algorithms there are about 210 million unique books that have been ever been written. Of these, Google says 129M have been published. We know the printing press was not invented until the mid1400s, and paper making is attributed to China around AD 105. If I cut in half the remaining unpublished books by half for those used by the printing press and paper, I am left with about 20M books which could have existed in the world prior to AD 105. Lets say half of this books are of similar length to the old testament.

Now we have 10M/20M books multiplied by number of books translated into multiple languages, 1/100, multiplied by the t-stat value 0.05, 1/1.96, multiplied by time between translation comparisons 1/1000 = (0.5) X (1/100) X (1/1.96) X (1/1000) = 2.5 X 10^-5

So the probability of the old testament being altered as a matter of historical text written before the birth of Jesus is 2.5 in 100,000.

This was the foundation for other evidence, but you are free to critique. You should also note, I was conservative in my estimates, as to ensure my calculations were not altered to fit my beliefs. A more accurate calculation would show the probability of alteration is actually smaller than what I show above.