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 109 by tfvespasianus]

Thanks TFV,

You are the first to actually analyze and dissect the evidence presented appropriately.

Thanks, I do try.


I don’t think the snow in NY analogy fits what I am trying to convey. To put it crudely, if I composed a biography of an individual filled with allusions to David Bowie songs as details of this person’s life as a persuasive tool that said individual was David Bowie redivivus, then it would be of little use calculating how unlikely (or likely) that such allusions would be as biographical details. As an aside, I did actually compose a prologue to such a ‘gospel’ once.

With respect to Jewish messianic expectations in the early first century, this is in itself a hotly contested issue in scholarship. Needless to say, without engaging in anachronism or circular reasoning, it’s difficult to find direct contemporary evidence of a ‘standard’ idea of what an expected messiah might look like (i.e. a job description) and, moreover, the state of the evidence in ambiguous on the question of how widely held this expectation was in the period in question (i.e. early first century). I have purchased the book Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, a collection of essays edited by Jacob Neusner, but I have yet to read it. In any case, it will most likely be a bit before I do so.

Take care,
TFV

Please try to stick with the OP, let's not get derailed into a debate on the issues surrounding a messiah when we've still got no evidence for the god.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 94 by RonE]

I am correcting a typing problem I didn't catch before posting the following quote, hopefully it was obvious to all readers

[Replying to post 92 by liamconnor]

What is meant by "scientific" evidence?

Is there scientific evidence that Alexander the great existed?

You have hailed a certain kind of science as the ONLY valid path to knowledge: the kind that can be verified in the laboratory manner.

This is obviously erroneous.

History is not science. History has it's own set of standards I'm sure. If you can prove your god exists like Alexander did, such that history professional proclaim it to be true you will have gone far.

For the purposes of the OP I consider scientific methods to be apart of all the various disciples of natural sciences. Necessary to each one of them. Although lab work can be included as a part of scientific proofs I wouldn't consider a lab setting an absolute necessity.

I've tried several times in several posts to make it clear, scientific methods are those methods that the scientific community uses to make their discoveries accepted by others in the community. Scientific methods go to the quality of evidence to support a hypothesis. It is what makes the AH! moments possible.

The second paragraph should read: (bold shows changes)
For the purposes of the OP I consider scientific methods to be a part of all the various disciples of natural sciences. Necessary to each one of them. Although lab work can be included as a part of scientific proofs I wouldn't consider a lab setting an absolute necessity.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 111 by RonE]

RonE wrote:

Please try to stick with the OP, let's not get derailed into a debate on the issues surrounding a messiah when we've still got no evidence for the god.

Not sure if you are aware Ron, but the whole Christian argument is that the messiah figure in question is God. By debating the evidence about this messianic figure and what he should have been like, we can compare it to the known facts about Jesus. Since Christians believe Jesus is God, to ask Christians to prove their God exists without talking about Jesus is absurd.

This is why whenever you ask a Christian about proof or evidence that their God exists, they will always point to Jesus.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 113 by KingandPriest]

I was thinking along the same lines. To a Christian, the advent of the Messiah is the action of a god – no divinely sent Christ, no divinity. So, we can discuss the relevant material in a forensic manner, but if we cannot discuss the texts in a rigorous fashion we are somewhat disadvantaged. That is, if the bar is set so that we would need some sort of instrument like a Geiger counter to detect Jesus even a Christian would acknowledge that’s not going to happen. Still, if that’s the case that isn’t sufficient to jump up and down claiming ‘victory’. Of course, different strokes…

Take care,
TFV

[RonE]

[Replying to post 113 by KingandPriest]

Which makes for circular logic, that making the claim cannot be proof of it's self.

This site has specific rules to exclude exactly that.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 107 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You wrote

But as I attempted to point out, the recognition that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is close to unanimous among modern scholars. Which is the reason I supplied you with the opinions of both Jewish and Catholic experts. This is not simply a secular opinion. That Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy is an opinion supported manly by fundamentalist who exhibit a good deal more religious partisanship then genuine scholarship in their entrenched position. it's a classic example of just how much self deception people are willing to swallow in order to support their foregone conclusions.

Moses did not have to write the book of Deuteronomy himself. Just because Moses did not write the book of Deuteronomy himself, it does not mean Moses was not the author. Throughout the bible and other non-biblical texts we find those in leadership typically had scribes, chroniclers and historians who would write on behalf of the author. In some cases, the kings and prophets wouldn't even read documents themselves. They would have the document read back to them. The Jewish and Catholic scholars typically argue that the text describing the death of Moses is the "smoking gun" that shows he could not have wrote the book. Outside of this section, scholars are in agreement. Self deception takes place in every field of academics, not just in religion.

Some people get hung up on Psalms and insist that the entire book was written by King David. Anyone who actually sits down and read the text will see that multiple authors are listed. This speaks more to the extremes found in all walks of life.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 107 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You wrote

But as I attempted to point out, the recognition that Moses did not write Deuteronomy is close to unanimous among modern scholars. Which is the reason I supplied you with the opinions of both Jewish and Catholic experts. This is not simply a secular opinion. That Moses actually wrote Deuteronomy is an opinion supported manly by fundamentalist who exhibit a good deal more religious partisanship then genuine scholarship in their entrenched position. it's a classic example of just how much self deception people are willing to swallow in order to support their foregone conclusions.

Moses did not have to write the book of Deuteronomy himself. Just because Moses did not write the book of Deuteronomy himself, it does not mean Moses was not the author. Throughout the bible and other non-biblical texts we find those in leadership typically had scribes, chroniclers and historians who would write on behalf of the author. In some cases, the kings and prophets wouldn't even read documents themselves. They would have the document read back to them. The Jewish and Catholic scholars typically argue that the text describing the death of Moses is the "smoking gun" that shows he could not have wrote the book. Outside of this section, scholars are in agreement. Self deception takes place in every field of academics, not just in religion.

Some people get hung up on Psalms and insist that the entire book was written by King David. Anyone who actually sits down and read the text will see that multiple authors are listed. This speaks more to the extremes found in all walks of life.

So Moses did not necessarily have to write the Book of Deuteronomy. He naturally could have had scribes do the physical writing for him. 700 or 800 years after he died!

[WinePusher]

Also, to suggest that Newton's deranged and obscure theological commitments somehow impeded him from discovering relativity is absurd. If you didn't know, Newton isn't only known for his laws of motion, he is considered the co-founder of calculus. What did it take for Einstein to discover relativity? It took a deep refinement and understanding of a particular branch of differential geometry, namely Riemannian geometry. What does differential and Riemannian geometry entail and involve? It involves an application of calculus to geometry. So Newton comes up with basic calculus , you know-all that basic tangent line and root finding stuff, and as we now know the discovery of relativity requires advanced differential geometry which entails many mathematical concepts and theorems that came after Newton. It would have taken a miracle for Newton to arrive at relativity.

Hmm...okay, for now, I'll retract the claim that Newton could have discovered relativity. I myself am not a mathematician. Can I get someone else to chime in please, to confirm what WinePusher is saying? Someone with a background in mathematics?

Is this a joke? Instead of asking for clarification from one of your internet atheist buddies wouldn't it be far more prudent to actually research the issue on your own? You don't need a formal understanding of calculus and differential geometry to learn about how Einstein developed his theory of relativity. Anybody who is even vaguely familiar with the topic knows that relativity probably wouldn't even be around today if it wasn't for the work of a mathematician by the name of Bernard Riemann.

But this is completely beside the point. KingandPriest's description of how the scientific process works was absolutely right. Your insinuation that he doesn't know how science works is WRONG, and is refreshingly amusing in light of the following statement:

(I never studied calculus in school. Yeah...my school didn't teach it. Nor did they offer physics or chemistry, because I was the only student in my year who applied for those classes. Great work [my school]!)

Newton began with a hunch, a belief; he believed-hypothesized

The problem I'm having here is that believed-hypothesized word. It's almost as if you're saying the two are one and the same. You did the same in your earlier comment "hunch-hypothesis-a priori belief"
I don't treat the words as synonyms of each other. I've had hunches where a customer I'm serving looks under 18, but if I were to classify it, I would NOT use the word 'belief'.
When I think of hypothesis, I think of something "Okay, maybe John did kill Bob. Let's see if that's true. We can check by seeing if John's fingerprints and/or DNA are on the murder weapon" and if we find there is not enough or no evidence, then I don't say John killed Bob. I don't treat it as true right off the bat, as I've seen so many other people on this site do.

In colloquial language, they are essentially synonymous. A hypothesis can also be seen as an educated guess, a conjecture. A belief and a hunch amounts to essentially the same thing. But hey, apparently the heart of your whole objection seems to be a trivial semantics issue which we needn't waste our time on any further.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 118 by WinePusher]

Your insinuation that he doesn't know how science works is WRONG, and is refreshingly amusing in light of the following statement:

Apparently, in Winepusher's world, mathematics, physics and chemistry make up the sum total of science.
I did take biology, just so you know, and studied science through that. I performed experiments and learned about the scientific process that way.

In colloquial language, they are essentially synonymous.

When doing science, don't use colloquial language. That's one thing I learned from my teachers. Use scientific language, be as precise as possible. Which is why I objected to what you deem to be synonyms. When I talk science, when I mean the concept behind the word 'hypothesis', I will use the word 'hypothesis' and not 'believed' or 'educated guess'.
After all, how many times do atheists tell theists there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory?

Another reason I objected to what you deem to be synonyms is that when you mentioned 'a-priori' it reminds me a lot of the Statements of Faith on Creationist websites. Those guys have an a-priori belief in X and this causes them to reject outright, BEFORE they've even found it, any and all evidence that may contradict their beliefs.

[RonE]

Thank you all who have participated so far in this topic. At this point I'd say we still have no scientifically credible evidence for the christian god, nor any other god. If I've missed a post please bring it to my attention.