Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?

[Danmark]

Is there any scientific evidence that, if discovered, would prove to a Christian that the God of the Bible is man made and does not correspond to reality? In other words, is there anything you can imagine that would demonstrate there is no God?

Many Christian apologists appeal to science to support their belief in the Christian God; however, I suggest those apologists do not actually accept any scientific evidence that might suggest this 'God Story' is a hoax. I would like to test this hypothesis by asking if there is anything science could report that would convince believers in the God of the Bible that the Biblical claims about God are false?

[Wootah]

The flood is believed to be just.

Given that there is no evidence that the flood as described in Genesis ever happened, there is no reason to consider it anything other than mythology. If such an event had happened, there would be no reason to consider it anything other than the unjust actions of a raving lunatic god who can't control it's temper.

Given the context of the thread is your post relevant?

[Wootah]

If i believe in evolution then the Christian God is necessarily false.

Only if you take a hyper-literal view of the first few chapters of Genesis. Many Christians manage to accept the obvious truth of evolution and yet maintain their irrational belief in god.

A good loving God cant logically justify a billion year horror show called evolution.

It is the belief in a good loving god that would show Christianity false as it teaches nothing of the kind.

Well it's a funny old world where atheists defend Christianity. Why do you argue against a hyper-literal view in Genesis but clearly have your own hyper view that thinks Christianity teaches nothing of the kind.

Do you observe a double standard in your writings?

[Bust Nak]

If there was no fall then it implies God intended the violence as part of a good creation.

Why is that a problem though, simply alter your beliefs and accept that God's intention of violence to be just, as you believe the flood is just.

There was no sin before there was sin. Beliefs need to be rational.

So don't believe there was any sin before there was sin. What seems to be the problem here?

[Willum]

So the premise is:

There is a God, but he does not want to be proven.
Is there a Bible verse stating this?
No.

So we have no basis.

None-the-less, you have presented a widely accepted hypothesis.
Albeit a negative one?

Well let's take a similar situation.
The corpuscular theory of light is a classic.
You can't prove the corpuscular theory of light is not true.

So, what can you do?
You prove another hypothesis is better, and you can prove that hypothesis.

Quantum theory of light.
Fits the data, better describes phenomenon.

So, what we need is a better hypothesis than God.
It is a question of not giving up, and saying "we can't do that."

Well, we can start with the classics:
Creation, in seven days? or according to modern day cosmology?
One has proof, the other doesn't. One hypothesis fits the data better.
Proof there is no God.

Life, from evolution, or from God?
Premise, only life can come from life.
God fits no definition of biological life, therefore evolution is as valid as a divine spark.

So there are literally hundreds of paths to disprove God, they all involve the process of simply putting up better hypothesis.
Once you have promoted hypothesis that prove something other than God to theories, or, in many cases, facts, how many are necessary to disprove God totally?

Well, that's up to a person, but I'd say, four or so.

Then you can take a different approach:
Looking for Biblical inconsistency.
Not scientific, but certainly supporting.

The bottom-line is Judeo-Christianity has been disproved since, well, now that I think about it, before it was even conceived. It was disproven again beginning with Darwin and Cavendish.
Evolution was discovered and accepted as fact, before Christianity.
Creation was disproved under "Ex nihilo," where it was an established fact that only something can produce something, and only nothing can produce nothing.

[Danmark]

Well it's a funny old world where atheists defend Christianity. Why do you argue against a hyper-literal view in Genesis but clearly have your own hyper view that thinks Christianity teaches nothing of the kind.

Do you observe a double standard in your writings?

Getting back to the question in the OP, you have suggested that evolution, 'a billion year horror show,' would prove to you that the Biblical God does not exist. But then you muddle this by saying 'the fall' (due to man's sin I suppose) somehow neutralizes this or changes your conclusion in some way.

Since evolution, accepted by virtually all and everyone of science agrees that the billion plus year evolution is a fact, a fact that does indeed involve a 'horror show,' if you will, of species devouring, killing, maiming, causing diseases in others to the point of extinction, and since science tells us this 'horror show' went on from the beginning of life on Earth and thus predates man's existence (whether that was 200,000 years ago or only 6000, then how could 'the fall' change anything? The 'horror show' of evolution has always been. Or is there evidence of a time after man was created where species did not kill each other?

In any event, you appear to be saying you don't accept evolution because it conflicts with your understanding of the Bible. From this I conclude that no, nothing in science contradicts your belief in God.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Danmark]

Hasn't there already been an abundance of evidence to support that if there was a GOD it wouldn't be the one the Jews invented with their stories, and the Christians and Muslims built upon?

Yes, but that isn't the issue I've raised.

Be that as it may, the issue you did raise begs the question. As such it needs to be acknowledged as part of the overall 'problem'.

As you suggest, there already is much evidence that suggests the God of the Bible is a ridiculous and outmoded notion.

Actually in the context of my post, what I suggested was more along the lines that some ideas attached to the biblical idea of GOD were ridiculous and outmoded notions. One can - with studious intent - discover the wheat from the chaff in that regard.
Some call this 'cherry-picking' (in the negative sense) as in recognizing this about biblical ideas of GOD - that not everything works well together and some things have to be dropped from the menu - one cannot so easily argue in the 'paint everything with the same broad brush' manner. This annoys those who prefer that method of argument.
I myself prefer not to throw babies out with the bathwater.

But the fact remains that there are many who claim to have some knowledge of science who still insist their God exists, but who also used science to try to support their religious beliefs.

You state this as if somehow the purpose of science is to disprove the existence of GOD, but that is not the purpose of science and no science that I am aware of has been able to do this.

What is really going on is that anti-theists use what science has discovered to claim that science has disproved the existence of GOD.

I am a theist and am able to say that for me, nothing about what science has shown me to date has in any way caused me to understand that GOD does not exist.

For me I simply take the same science and interpret it in relation to the idea that GOD exists, and that science doesn't show me otherwise.
Anti-theists take the same science and interpret it as proving for them that GOD does not exist.

I have yet to meet an anti-theist who claims that GOD does not exist, rationally explain to me the science behind why that is the case.

The best they have done is explain to me why they think it is the case, not actually showing me why it is the case.

Now, being the rational individual I am, I do not rationally expect anyone to come up with the actual evidence of science to support their assertion that science is saying that GOD does not exist. In saying that I am also saying I find it irrational for those who claim GOD does not exist, to do so on the grounds of the claim that science is saying exactly that.

Science is saying nothing of the sort. Science is not able to say such a thing.

[Tcg]

Well it's a funny old world where atheists defend Christianity.

Even funnier is when a Christian thinks I am supporting Christianity.

Why do you argue against a hyper-literal view in Genesis but clearly have your own hyper view that thinks Christianity teaches nothing of the kind.

I didn't argue against a hyper-literal view of Genesis in any way. It looks like you missed the point of my reply totally.

Do you observe a double standard in your writings?

Not when my "writings" are not replaced with a straw man of them.

[Danmark]

Depends what you mean by "God of the Bible". If you mean that every story in the Bible that describes what this God has done, then I think we already have scientific evidence that disproves this God "as written".

Take the flood story. Science has shown that there is no evidence of a world wide flood. Both geologically (no single time in the geologic record of a mass flood) and genetically (no genetic bottleneck to the supposed time of Noah).

So the evidence is already there. God, as literally written about in the Bible, does not exist. This does not mean there is no god, just not the one literally described in that collection of tales.

What has happened is that most Christians have retreated further and further into "well that's just an allegory/analogy/metaphor/etc" for the various stories that have fallen due to physical evidence.

What we end up with is an argument of "Can we disprove the loosely defined concept called God in the Bible" which of course is impossible because it's a moving target.

I recognize your message and agree, but the point of the question is to prove that there is NO evidence, none at all that will dissuade a believer from his or her belief, because their belief is not based on facts, scientific or otherwise. Their belief is based on tradition and upon the belief itself. It is not rational. It cannot be argued with. They believe because they believe. Wootah is the only believer who has come close to accepting the challenge by saying that IF he believed in evolution he would agree the God of the Bible does not exist. But he rejects the obvious fact of evolution for one reason, it conflicts with his belief.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

No, the purpose of science is not to disprove the Bible or the existence of God. The business of science is to discover the truth. The business of religion is to support its beliefs no matter the evidence. You haven't answered the basic question of the OP, which is "Is there ANY evidence that would convince you the God of the Bible does not exist; that the Bible does not represent the truth?"

From the failure to offer an answer to that question I conclude that religious belief is impervious to reason and science.

OTOH, as a rational person who accepts science, I would be willing to accept the God of the Bible if science, history, and rationality supported that view.

[Inigo Montoya]

The spirit of the question is very similar to asking the atheist to disprove God, or Russell's teapot, or sprites and gnomes. Only the theist has to put the work in and inject themselves with the dose instead of having it attempted by the non-believer.

As an atheist, I can't conclusively demonstrate no god exists, because it's not possible. For the same reason, a theist can't do it either. If we flavor the god with the jewish/christian canon(s), it gets slightly easier, perhaps. I still don't think it's possible, though.

Positions like Wootah's blow my mind. Why is it evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang aren't just the methods their god used to kickstart things? The either/or part isn't necessary. If i was a theist, I'd just keep pointing to every new discovery as even greater evidence of my god's talents and choices.

Anyhow, I don't think I've addressed the OP proper. That the bible doesn't represent ''truth'' is a far easier task than proving the non-existence of an invisible agency beyond time and space, which i reckon the theist has to do to meet the OP question head on.

From my vantage point, there are just too many people ( here and elsewhere) with an insanely high commitment to their religious worldview. It would cost too much, or it's too late now, to divorce the faith from the reason. The science is either wrong, misinterpreted, or it supports the mechanistic abilities of their god in even greater fashion than previously thought.