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.

[polonius]

[Replying to RonE]

RON E posted:

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.

.

RESPONSE: Apparently you continue to miss the point. Science is limited to the study of matter and energy, and cannot provide any scientifically credible evidence for an entity which is not matter or energy.

Perhaps you should expand rather than limit your inquiry.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by RonE]

You know if God came right out of the sky and told us he was God and performed all kinds of God like acts in front of us........how would we know that is God and not some high tech illusion by some advanced humans or other beings?

In fact how would God even know it is God?.....it could be programmed to think it is by some other entity?........

There is no existential absolute truth claims that doesn't come up against this issue of regression to another level of reality no matter whether you are a naturalist or a theist...

They only difference is the naturalist has working models of provisional claims within reality as we can best define it and leaves its open to another reality if we can find working models to demonstrate that......

Whereas Theists...........well, they claim a higher reality with no working models to demonstrate that and also claim there is no more reality beyond that one............funny how there are more than one higher reality claims all in conflict with each other too.....

[RonE]

[Replying to post 121 by polonius.advice]

[Replying to RonE]

RON E posted:

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.

.

RESPONSE: Apparently you continue to miss the point. Science is limited to the study of matter and energy, and cannot provide any scientifically credible evidence for an entity which is not matter or energy.

Perhaps you should expand rather than limit your inquiry.

That's a slippery slope. Until someone can provide some credible evidence that the supernatural exists that kind of expansion won't come from me. This topic is looking for credible scientific evidence, if god existed I believe it would be there. Your inability to prove claims you may make does not obligate me to widen my parameters.

[RonE]

Nearly 6 weeks into this topic and still no credible evidence of the christian god has been presented. Several have posted that science cannot disprove the supernatural. I think in my new topic "Can science prove supernatural claims" we are finding that science can be expected to 'speak' to supernatural claims, as long as they are proposed in a viable scientific hypothesis. As I have pointed out in my other topic, science provides the structure and methods for testing a hypothesis. Whether a hypothesis is proven or not is a question of the evidence provided.

[RonE]

Now 8 weeks into this topic and still no credible scientific evidence has been presented for the christian god. I wonder why that is? If these claims of a god cannot be evidenced why do we debate?

I've made this point a number of times in the past few weeks but I'll have another go at it. If the christian god, who is claimed to have "supernatural" powers, and who is claimed to intercede/interact with the natural world, then we should be able to detect evidence of him/her/it. The problem, IMHO, becomes one of creating and evidencing a hypothesis that proves the existence of this god.

I've walked several theists on this forum through the process of doing these things and yet none of them, nor any of those reading my posts, have picked up the ball. The theStudent took a single attempt at it in another topic but jumped straight to presenting evidence without bothering to create a hypothesis, and consequentially provided no workable evidence to prove his non-existent hypothesis. theStudent abandoned this work after his single attempt.

In science they don't just give up after a single attempt, some scientists spend a lifetime testing variations of a hypothesis, or variations in their processes.

Each of you who make these claims of your god should, IMHO, be wondering why it seems to be so easy and yet so hard to provide scientific evidence of that which you claim.

[RonE]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Going on 12 weeks now on this topic and still no one has offered any scientific evidence for their god.[/font]

[RonE]

[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]This god seems to have no champion here, no one who will step up and provide evidence of his existence. Over 4 months now, and coming up on x-mas seems like someone would be inspired to validate their god.

[KingandPriest]

[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]This god seems to have no champion here, no one who will step up and provide evidence of his existence. Over 4 months now, and coming up on x-mas seems like someone would be inspired to validate their god.

I challenge your assertion that no one has provided evidence. The evidence that has been provided has been dismissed because you either cannot replicate it (which as a non-believer it wouldn't make sense how you could replicate) or you deem it unacceptable.

I remember when this post began. It was actually one of the threads that promted me to join this web forum and provide evidence. Rather than actually discuss the evidence I presented way back around post 60-70, it was just dismissed as either not scientific enough or insufficient.

Your argument remained extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. I challenge this claim in that there are many means in the physical sciences where extraordinary claims do not have extraordinary proof. In fact there are some claims which rely on inidirect empirical evidence, presumption and statistical analysis. The composition of the core of the Earth is one such claim. Does this claim require extraordinary evidence, or is the present evidence sufficient because we have no means of actually measuring the composition of the core of the earth?

Likewise, we have no way of measuring supernatural events empirically. An event can be empirical (observed) but not measurable. There are also events which can be measured, but not observed. We make presumptions based on either what we can measure, what we can observe and if we are fortunate we can use where these two intersect, measurement and observation to affirm a fact.

There are many things in science which are presuppositions supported by indirect evidence, because we do not have the means to verify the presupposition. Like wise, the knowledge of God's existence is supported by indirect empirical evidence (observed events), yet we do not have a means to scientifically study supernatural claims.
----

BTW, I am glad to see you still checking in on this thread. I check on it from time to time as well, as I stated above this was one of my first posts on this forum. Since joining, I have been asked some difficult questions which forced me to do some research. This research has allowed me to gain insight on even more things God has done than I knew before. My faith has been affirmed by the debates on this forum, because I have a firm basis in which to believe. The amount of evidence to support Christ is so much, that for those who reject him, they appear as cynical as those who reject that the holocaust did occur, or that 9/11 actually took place.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 128 by KingandPriest]

The evidence that has been provided has been dismissed because you either cannot replicate it (which as a non-believer it wouldn't make sense how you could replicate)

That's your problem, KnP. Belief is NOT a factor in science. Claims that are grounded in science are not predicated on whether or not one believes them. Scientist A who makes a claim based on science has his claim tested by other scientists, who more than likely are non-believers in what he says. Those other scientists do not have to already believe in Scientist A's claims before they do the testing.

Rather than actually discuss the evidence I presented way back around post 60-70, it was just dismissed as either not scientific enough or insufficient.

Okay, so let's have a look at what you presented. Time to refresh my memory...I wonder did I comment on what you provided? Probably did...
So post 33 is your first post on this thread
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 867#805867
and you talk about mathematical models and how scientists are sure wormholes exist because the mathematics for them work. What I notice in that post is a complete lack of actual mathematics!
You then said

"In conclusion, to prove God exists scientifically would be like trying to prove the ocean is wet by looking at the composition of the moon. To understand a spiritual God, I would have to use spiritual means, and therefore look beyond empirical evidence, statistical analyses, or scientific controls that only exist in a physical dimension. "

so why are you complaining here?

Rather than actually discuss the evidence I presented way back around post 60-70, it was just dismissed as either not scientific enough or insufficient.

Why are you complaining that your evidence is dismissed as not being scientific enough when you admit in your posts that your methodology involves something 'spiritual' that 'looks beyond empirical evidence or scientific controls'?

You even had

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.

Scientists quite simply do not do that.
Here's how bad your logic is. "The only realistic way of measuring whether or not John murdered Mary is to first believe that he did murder her".
There is a reason that courts, when they are busy trying to select jury members, try to weed out any potential bias. Imagine if a jury member declared at the onset of a trial that he already believes John murdered Mary.

[rikuoamero]

KnP, I invite you to re-read benchwarmer's reply to your post in this thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 202#806202

Everything he says regarding your post is correct. You talked about math, pulled a formula out of seemingly nowhere, gave no evidence for this formula and just basically waffled on about things that you think are evidence for God but are unevidenced themselves.