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?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

I find that both telepathy and souls have been proven, but that the evidence is being withheld from the public or that is suppressed.

You 'find?' Then you admit there is no evidence for what you have 'found.' Instead you offer a conspiracy theory.

Study after study has shown there is no evidence of telepathy. Scott O. Lilienfeld and colleagues have concluded that ESP has not been successfully demonstrated in experiments for over 150 years.
See: Lilienfeld, Scott O; Lynn, Steven Jay; Ruscio, John; Beyerstein, Barry L. (2009). Myth #3 Extrasensory Perception (ESP) Is a Well Established Scientific Phenomenon. In 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405131124

There is zero evidence for "Souls" or ghosts or anything of the kind. The idea of the 'soul' emerged from ignorance about the derivation of consciousness. We now know that consciousness comes from matter and energy via brain cells. When you claim there is evidence for telepathy and 'souls,' please provide the 'evidence' with citations for review.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 51 by Danmark]

No, I do not say "conspiracy theory", but rather in a World today, 2018, where one still can not present either suicides or suicide candidates for who they are, pretending that they only suffer from some mysterious mental illness "without any crime whatsoever" in their lives is quite telling for what level of honesty there is in a difficult time like ours.

Also, it should say quite a lot that one has had an intuition for the importance that telepathy must be researched for 136 years (Society for Psychical Research (SPR)).

There must also be a reason why TNT TV-channel keeps sending Psychic Detectives season after season, I guess, from outside your living room and nose for reality.

Just in case, I hope more rigorous science will "turn in" evidence for both telepathy and the existence of souls in the next 5 years or so. My perception is that the necessary body is somewhere to be found, but that fears of irrational attacks from crazy people are keeping the evidence from being made public. Indeed, many people have very strong feelings about these subjects and many of them are not trustworthy, if not to say monsters or enemies of humanity.

[Tart]

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?

Great question... Here is what i think... If Christ wasnt risen from the dead, then Christianity is false...

And even the First deciples said it.
14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.
~Paul

This is a genuinely authentic belief in the early Disciples. I think the evidence shows us that the Disciples genuinely believed that they encountered Jesus after the Resurrection, and they said if Jesus wasnt raised, then get out of Town..

Historian Michael Licona captures the key point in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach: “After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it. They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.�

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist Biblical scholar) writes: “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.

So I take this, extraordinary claim as a genuine belief in the first Disciples...

But ill have to be honest, with Biblical liberalism I withhold my judgments on one way or the other. If God had the power to raise Jesus, then this is an all powerful God...

Certainly some were sincere in their belief of a Christ risen from the dead. This is evidence of only one thing, sincerity. Sincerity of belief is not evidence of the truth of the belief itself. Some people sincerely believe the Earth is flat. That does not change the fact the Earth is almost a perfect sphere. Thousands of people have died for their false beliefs. Or do you think Muslim suicide terrorists prove the truth of Islam because they are willing to die for their beliefs?

Sincere belief is certainly some kind of evidence… Everything would be some kind of evidence.. Like if some author really believes they are writing fiction, then that motivation of writing and what they say in their written documents… Is probably fiction… If someone claims they are writing history, and literal events, then its probably historical.. If they are writing a lie, and don’t even disclose that they are writing a lie, that would still be evidence that it is a lie that they telling….

Sure, intent, motive, these things are entered into a court of law, when trying a case, all the time… It is evidence that they are sincere in their beliefs… Now you can question if it isn’t a true belief, or whatever you believe about it… But maybe you would have to justify that belief, that the story the diciples told, is not true… (Kind of like how I just backed up my belief with evidence of motives and intents)…

[Tcg]

Sincere belief is certainly some kind of evidence…

It most certainly is. It is evidence of sincere belief. It is most certainly not evidence of anything more.

[Danmark]

Sincere belief is certainly some kind of evidence… Everything would be some kind of evidence

Evidence of what? Nothing of value. Nothing worth arguing about. Belief is merely evidence that the believer exists, nothing more.

An absolute lunatic believes aliens are sending him signals from the planet Mongo. This is neither evidence of aliens nor of the existence of Mongo. Frankly, I am tired of this entire argument about religion and of this forum. Why even have a forum dedicated to arguing about religion? Might as well have a forum dedicated to the notion, pro and con, about whether a wheel of cheddar cheese has consciousness.

Christians believe Islam is utter nonsense and amounts to nothing more than an insane belief in something that fails to rise above the stupidest of ancient superstitions. Yet there is nothing about Christianity that makes belief in ITS nonsense more or less crazy than belief in Islam.

Evidence of the truth of any religious belief is a fool's quest. The very idea of religion, any religion, is by definition an irrational notion that is beyond evidence and beyond the world of rationality. Religion has taught us that the Earth is flat, supported by elephants on the backs of turtles; that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun and stars circle it. Religion is what people resort to when they know nothing. Religion is a synonym for ignorance.

[marco]

I must remind you that the founding document for Atheism, The Necessity of Atheism, rules out any "supernatural instances" and constrains itself to "local senses.

I am an admirer of Shelley's poetry but I would say that the short tract, written by Shelley as a teenager (he was expelled from Oxford University for writing it) is hardly the founding document of atheism. The term atheism was around at least 200 years before Shelley wrote, in the time of Francis Bacon, who condemned atheism.

[Tart]

Sincere belief is certainly some kind of evidence… Everything would be some kind of evidence

Evidence of what? Nothing of value. Nothing worth arguing about. Belief is merely evidence that the believer exists, nothing more.

An absolute lunatic believes aliens are sending him signals from the planet Mongo. This is neither evidence of aliens nor of the existence of Mongo. Frankly, I am tired of this entire argument about religion and of this forum. Why even have a forum dedicated to arguing about religion? Might as well have a forum dedicated to the notion, pro and con, about whether a wheel of cheddar cheese has consciousness.

You have just falsely equated Christianity to a bunch of nonsense... You know logical reasoning actually points to Jesus and the Word? John 1... And false equivalences are logical fallacies...

Christians believe Islam is utter nonsense and amounts to nothing more than an insane belief in something that fails to rise above the stupidest of ancient superstitions. Yet there is nothing about Christianity that makes belief in ITS nonsense more or less crazy than belief in Islam.

Actually... The Bible teaches us that these things, like Islam, is part of the design of the destiny of humanity... Becuase the Bible. written 2000 years ago and beyond, actually prophesies about Islam. We have prophecy in Genesis, prophecy in Matthew, and in Revelations, that all accurately prophecy our world today and Islam within our world. God has revealed a destiny of mankind in his Word. Where wisdom, knowledge, and foundations for truth.

Evidence of the truth of any religious belief is a fool's quest. The very idea of religion, any religion, is by definition an irrational notion that is beyond evidence and beyond the world of rationality. Religion has taught us that the Earth is flat, supported by elephants on the backs of turtles; that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun and stars circle it. Religion is what people resort to when they know nothing. Religion is a synonym for ignorance.

You dont appreciate the scripture for what it is... I would suggest studying with an open mind.
"A divine message must be received with implicit uncertainty regarding its truth. This ambiguity is an irrationality; it is a sort of madness that is inflicted upon the receiver of the message. Only one who possesses a rational method of interpretation (i.e., a hermeneutic) could determine the truth or falsity of the message."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

When i read the Bible, this is what i want to know... I want to know what the truth is. I want to know what is the truth about the Bible... A beautiful piece of literature, expressing things beyond ourselves, sometimes like a poet, some times in parables, sometimes with ancient reasoning, sometimes in documentation, in prophecy, law and the fulfillment of law... Etc...

The Bible is the number one best place to go for wisdom and knowledge... Period... You just dont appreciate that....

[marco]

Frankly, I am tired of this entire argument about religion and of this forum. Why even have a forum dedicated to arguing about religion?

Your exasperation would be justified if indeed the proponents of Abrahamic religions were universally thick, uncultured, uneducated and incapable of rational argument.
They're not, as you well know. It is interesting to discover how intelligence manages to find itself comfortable with the fruits of Moses, Lot, Noah and Abraham, not to mention Adam and the near 1000 year-old Methuselah. I haven't found a satisfactory answer ..... yet.

Religion is what people resort to when they know nothing. Religion is a synonym for ignorance.

Cicero took the time to write a treatise, "De natura deorum," about the nature of the gods. We learn: "Res enim nulla est, de qua tantopere non solum indocti, sed etiam docti dissentiant;" For there is no subject about which not just untaught people but also learned folk differ in opinion."

It would be astounding were there scientific evidence to affirm God's existence. However, it is surely good to seek the opinions of those with whom we violently disagree; it may simply reinforce our own notions but from time to time we learn a little. Go well.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 58 by marco]

I'm not in general disagreement with this response, but I side easily with Danmark on the frustrations of this conversation.

Arguing religion is one thing. Doctrine, dogma, hermaneutics, culture, progression, law, poetry, revelation, prophecy, yada yada yada.

Arguing the existence of a god, ANY god, strikes me as the first reasonable jumping-off point, though. I rather notice it's generally done in reverse. These accounts demonstrate a god, apparently, instead of (FIRST) this god's existence necessarily moving us to understand its backstory and commandments.

In other words, why bother with the theology while the god it focuses on remains absent from detection? Aside from the obvious, which is just a fascination with the history of religious ideas; where they come from, what was written, how it shaped communities, etc. All of that is certainly interesting.

So whilst it's fun, at times, to pretend to know what some really, really, really long-dead person wrote down about things people were saying millennia ago, there's nothing about the nature of stories that demonstrates the focus of said stories actually existing. Like, for real. This is further complicated when the agency in question is allegedly timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

A collection of old texts is not a tool for detecting the actual, literal existence of gods. In light of that, I agree that 98% of every word written here is just for funsies. What if this is true? Well then X might be right.

Fun, fun.

[Danmark]

Frankly, I am tired of this entire argument about religion and of this forum. Why even have a forum dedicated to arguing about religion?

Your exasperation would be justified if indeed the proponents of Abrahamic religions were universally thick, uncultured, uneducated and incapable of rational argument.
They're not, as you well know. It is interesting to discover how intelligence manages to find itself comfortable with the fruits of Moses, Lot, Noah and Abraham, not to mention Adam and the near 1000 year-old Methuselah. I haven't found a satisfactory answer ..... yet.

Religion is what people resort to when they know nothing. Religion is a synonym for ignorance.

Cicero took the time to write a treatise, "De natura deorum," about the nature of the gods. We learn: "Res enim nulla est, de qua tantopere non solum indocti, sed etiam docti dissentiant;" For there is no subject about which not just untaught people but also learned folk differ in opinion."

It would be astounding were there scientific evidence to affirm God's existence. However, it is surely good to seek the opinions of those with whom we violently disagree; it may simply reinforce our own notions but from time to time we learn a little. Go well.

Thanks Marco. You put me in mind of an old adage about the game of chess.
'Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe’

My point of irritation is the insistence by theists that there is 'evidence' of God. The problem is not that there is no evidence of God, but that they insist there is when they should not and do not need to. In their zeal to promote the claim of evidence, they pervert the definition of evidence.

There may indeed be a God of some kind, tho' most likely not the traditional God of orthodox theism. But this God is not to be found or even pointed to by evidence. The true God, if it exists at all, is beyond the natural and thus beyond mere evidence. This God is beyond our knowing.

This may surprise, but I fervently hope there is a God. I even hope that this God somehow takes note of each of us as individuals and that 'it' is beneficent and cares about us in ways we may never know. But what I see argued here on this forum is the idea of some 3rd rate, anthropomorphic god that exists in some natural way and of which there is natural evidence. This is a clunky, primitive, unsophisticated vision that reduces the true God to some super being conceived of in the image of man while the opposite is claimed.