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.

[Rufus21]

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...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?

The composition of the Earth's core definitely requires extraordinary proof - which we have!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... s-9750875/

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.

We do not necessarily need to look at supernatural claims to disprove the God. An easier and much more effective method would be to investigate the bible's many natural claims. There are many things that the bible claims have happened, and many things that God has supposedly done. If we can determine that these things either did not actually happen or that they were not done by the hand of God then we can reach some very strong conclusions.

But I believe we all know how that line of investigation has gone.

[KingandPriest]

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...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?

The composition of the Earth's core definitely requires extraordinary proof - which we have!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... s-9750875/

Is this what you call extraordinary evidence?

Today, by using seismological and magnetic field data as well as other theoretical calculations, it's possible to get a sense of the actual size and composition of our planet's nether regions. Because there's no way to get a sample of the Earth's core, Miaki Ishii, a professor in Harvard University's seismology group, says, "We basically use methods that are similar to medical imaging.
...
These tests are what allowed scientists to see that the core of the Earth is broken into three layers all with slightly different structures. The core's heat is mostly due to the slow decay of radioactive elements left over from when the planet first formed. The molten iron outer core lies about 3000 kilometers below our feet, while the solid iron inner core is another 2000 kilometers further down. A few other elements, including oxygen and silicon, are thrown in for good measure. But for the most part, iron rules the Earth's underbelly.

To learn more about Earth's innards, scientists have looked outward. Researchers like Maria Zuber, a geophysics professor at MIT, and Ishii have used evidence from space to support their conclusions about Earth. Iron meteorites collected after their fall to Earth are pretty solid clues that the element is plentiful in the Universe. Zuber says iron seems to be favored planetary building block. It's the heaviest element made during stellar fusion, so planets form with high concentrations of it.

So in summary, we use scans of the layers of the earth to determine thickness, approximate weight and consistency. In addition, by looking at the elements outside of the earth, we have a good guess at which element is the most likely to be the composition of the earths core. Do you call this extraordinary? A most likely answer is hardly what a reasonable person would consider extraordinary evidence.

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.

We do not necessarily need to look at supernatural claims to disprove the God. An easier and much more effective method would be to investigate the bible's many natural claims. There are many things that the bible claims have happened, and many things that God has supposedly done. If we can determine that these things either did not actually happen or that they were not done by the hand of God then we can reach some very strong conclusions.

But I believe we all know how that line of investigation has gone.

Please provide your results for comparison.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 132 by KingandPriest]

I'm just going to wait for the forum's resident geology professor to weigh in on your latest post.

[KingandPriest]

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.

You are correct in that I never responded to benchwarmer. If I remember correctly, I think I got caught up in a discussion with blastcat and missed these comments. I will go back and take a look.

You are also correct in that I did not give scriptural insight as to where the math equation: Man = Spirit + Soul + Body, came from. I will address this in my response to that post by benchwarmer.

Thanks for taking me down memory lane. (Feels like so many posts ago).

[Rufus21]

Is this what you call extraordinary evidence?

In short, we know about the Earths interior from observations of Earths gravity, seismic waves that travel through the Earth, and the Earths magnetic field, as well as from comparison with the chemical composition of meteorites and from experiments that simulate conditions at the center of the Earth.

There is still more to be studied and we don't know everything yet, but what we have so far is extraordinarily solid evidence from several branches of science.

Now where is your evidence for the invisible man who lives in the sky?

Please provide your results for comparison.

Just read other threads in this forum. See what happens when people try to claim that the creation story is scientifically accurate. Or the ark story. Or the Garden of Eden. Or the Tower of Babel. Or Exodus. These are all events that the bible claims happened and were done by God. We can (and do) investigate these claims scientifically.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 60 by benchwarmer]

It was brought to my attention, I never responded to this post.

I think this is a fair question as I've asked the same of others on these forums. I was presenting evidence, but it was dismissed because it was not palatable i.e. they didn't want to read anything. So I asked what type they would like and got no response.

So, for me, the type of evidence that would be acceptable would be any of the following:

1) Scientific, peer reviewed articles. The articles themselves can reference whatever data they deem to be 'scientific'.

2) An experiment that I can do myself and get useful data that points to your hypothesis.

3) Physical evidence that can either be directly examined or it is well enough documented that links to information about where it is can be trusted. i.e. if you wanted to reference something in a museum, archive, etc.

Lets start with these scientific studies, and then we can discuss the other items from this post. You do raise some good questions, which I believe can be answered, but they are not one word answers, so there is a certain amount of time one must devote to gaining an understanding. You state you are an engineer, and as such I think you would appreciate how concepts build upon one another. Either way, here are the first set of links and research for review.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0

Thinking in Tongues

Glossolalia: Paid Content

All about Words: On Glossolalia Project

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 60 by benchwarmer]

It was brought to my attention, I never responded to this post.

I think this is a fair question as I've asked the same of others on these forums. I was presenting evidence, but it was dismissed because it was not palatable i.e. they didn't want to read anything. So I asked what type they would like and got no response.

So, for me, the type of evidence that would be acceptable would be any of the following:

1) Scientific, peer reviewed articles. The articles themselves can reference whatever data they deem to be 'scientific'.

2) An experiment that I can do myself and get useful data that points to your hypothesis.

3) Physical evidence that can either be directly examined or it is well enough documented that links to information about where it is can be trusted. i.e. if you wanted to reference something in a museum, archive, etc.

Lets start with these scientific studies, and then we can discuss the other items from this post. You do raise some good questions, which I believe can be answered, but they are not one word answers, so there is a certain amount of time one must devote to gaining an understanding. You state you are an engineer, and as such I think you would appreciate how concepts build upon one another. Either way, here are the first set of links and research for review.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0

Thinking in Tongues

Glossolalia: Paid Content

All about Words: On Glossolalia Project

Thank you for providing those links. I should point out that I only saw one study in there: "The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study" which is behind a pay wall. I could only read the abstract (and the commentary in the articles).

I also note the following from the NY Times article (I added the bold):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0

The scans also showed a dip in the activity of a region called the left caudate. “The findings from the frontal lobes are very clear, and make sense, but the caudate is usually active when you have positive affect, pleasure, positive emotions,� said Dr. James A. Coan, a psychologist at the University of Virginia. “So it’s not so clear what that finding says� about speaking in tongues.

So this is interesting, but hardly conclusive in any way. I'm also a little mystified why they didn't do brains scans while having the subjects simply babble about nothing in particular as well i.e. just 'tune out' and babble some nonsense. They compared speaking in tongues with singing which are very different activities. That's fine in itself, but it would make more sense in my opinion to compare two similar activities and note the differences.

I also noted that there seems to be different meanings of what 'speaking in tongues' actually is. When I was in a charismatic church, it was explained to me that speaking in tongues is not God speaking through you, but you speaking to God in a language that is personal to you and God that let's you praise Him fully. Or something like that anyway. None of the speaking in tongues I witnessed was scriptural anyways since there were never any interpreters:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

I'm sure this will probably start a debate on what does speaking in tongues really mean.

At the end of the day, if no-one can interpret what is being said, there's no way to verify what the communication is other than the gibberish it sounds like. If it can be interpreted reliably then maybe there is something to it. That could be tested. One person 'speaks in tongues' (not a known human language) while being recorded. They also write down what they were saying in a known language. In a separate room they ask someone to interpret the 'tongues' and write it down in a known language. Compare. If they are more or less the same, then we're getting somewhere. If not...

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 133 by rikuoamero]

I, for one, would say that theories concerning interior of the Earth do NOT require extraordinary evidence because they are not extraordinary claims.

First, they are identified as theories -- not as absolute knowledge.

Second, they do not depart from what is known of the Earth. Iron is the fourth most common element in Earth rocks we can sample and is a common component of meteorites (space debris that falls to Earth).

Third, theories are based on known and verifiable measurement of specific gravity / density of Earth and its components, behavior of earthquake waves, geothermal temperature and pressure gradients (increase in temperature and pressure with depth), etc.


What would require extraordinary evidence is to claim that the Earth is hollow or is composed of water -- in defiance of all known physics and geology.

Relating this to the OP request "present scientific evidence for your god: The 'evidence' for God is 'This book says so' and 'I think so (and they do too)' and 'Use your imagination' -- none of which is verifiable.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 128 by KingandPriest]

KnP your problem with this OP is you want to bend science to your own use. The OP is simple...

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

So far you haven't.

[McCulloch]

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.

Two observations:

1. Debaters seem to have lost focus. In reading the past few pages, I'm seeing very little in the way of "[…] therefore God".
2. We are missing a coherent consistent definition of what we mean by the word god. Science does not jump in with evidence until they have their terms well defined. One might be trying to disprove a comic book super hero type God while another might be trying to prove the deist concept.