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?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 67 by shnarkle]

shnarkle: "There can't be evidence for transcendence, and the God of the bible is synonymous with transcendence."

So what is the determinable difference between "transcendent" and "unreal"?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 71 by TSGracchus]

About 10% of your income per week.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

The problem here is that biblical tales are still in the transformation stage of passing into myth

I disagree. They began as myth, and at some point people began to look at them as historical fact. That's the problem. Mythologies have incredible explanatory power, yet when they are reduced to some historical account, that all goes out the window. It turns into old irrelevant news; what we would now call "fake news".

I agree. They not only started as myths, they continue as myths. Myths may or may not adopt actual events. But whatever the actual history, myths' explanatory power has less to do with reality than with providing a plausible (tho' possibly anti-factual) explanation that fits with a populist view.

The evidence indicates otherwise. Historians, geologists, physicists, psychologists etc. all approach these myths and marval at how primitive people came up with such accurate accounts.

[shnarkle]

The biblical texts clearly point out that there can be no evidence for God....

This is simply counter factual. 'Paul' says exactly the opposite.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
And from Psalm 1:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Thanks for pointing out my grammatical error. I should have posted: "The biblical texts clearly piont out that there can be no evidence OF God". Paul sees evidence that points toward God, but Paul is in no way presenting God. He shows the effect and posits God as the cause, but never shows or reveals the cause. This is all supposedly going to happen sometime in the future.

Here again, even Christ, who is described as the image of God, shouldn't be conflated with God. God and Gods' image aren't the same thing. An image is not what it is the image of, and in the biblical sense, God isn't even a "what" to begin with.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 67 by shnarkle]

shnarkle: "There can't be evidence for transcendence, and the God of the bible is synonymous with transcendence."

So what is the determinable difference between "transcendent" and "unreal"?

The "real" usually is in relation to what exists, so from that standpoint, transcendence transcends the real, and with it the unreal as well. The real and unreal are linked in a world of opposites, but transcendence transcends that world. The biblical authors don't seem to be constrained by existence. The reality of the whole is not necessarily the whole of reality.

[Danmark]

The biblical texts clearly point out that there can be no evidence for God....

This is simply counter factual. 'Paul' says exactly the opposite.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
And from Psalm 1:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Thanks for pointing out my grammatical error. I should have posted: "The biblical texts clearly piont out that there can be no evidence OF God". Paul sees evidence that points toward God, but Paul is in no way presenting God. He shows the effect and posits God as the cause, but never shows or reveals the cause. This is all supposedly going to happen sometime in the future.

Here again, even Christ, who is described as the image of God, shouldn't be conflated with God. God and Gods' image aren't the same thing. An image is not what it is the image of, and in the biblical sense, God isn't even a "what" to begin with.

Your grammatical hair split makes no difference. The verses I quoted present argument that nature shows there is a God. The argument is extremely weak, but scripture makes it. So do most Christians. This is why Christianity has long fought against the theory of evolution. The ancient argument of god as the ultimate cause makes the same argument.

[shnarkle]

Your grammatical hair split makes no difference.

It literally makes all the difference in the world.

The verses I quoted present argument that nature shows there is a God.

It doesn't show God though, and that's the whole point. There can be no evidence for transcendence, and showing the effects of something doesn't show us the actual cause. It is only infered.

The argument is extremely weak, but scripture makes it. So do most Christians. This is why Christianity has long fought against the theory of evolution.

Makes no sense because the theory of evolution makes the same claim. If Christians accept one they should accept the other for the exact same reason.

The ancient argument of god as the ultimate cause makes the same argument.

Yep, neither one provides any evidence for their repsective cause; just evidence of the effects attributed to a cause that neither can produce. Fanatical religious beliefs at their finest.

[Danmark]

"The biblical texts clearly piont [sic]out that there can be no evidence OF God".

OK, you win. There is no evidence of 'God' and the Bible says so. I guess we can end the argument with that. God does not exist. I agree.

[Atef]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Evidence to show there is no God:

If God created the heavens and earth, he should know what he created. In Christianity and Judaism Genesis is the first book of the Bible and Tanakh respectively. If Moses wrote the book on inspiration from God, God surely had to tell Moses about something as significant as the dinosaurs who existed for millions of years before man.

All types of animals are referenced and listed in Genesis as a part of God's creation except unbelievably, dinosaurs. Of course dinosaurs are not discovered and knowledge expanded upon until the 1800's and 1900's.

The Bible and Tanakh are not written by a mythical character named Moses, These mythical books were written by anonymous men. Because of when dinosaurs are discovered, there is no way the anonymous authors of Genesis knew about dinosaurs.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Science deals with the material world, you know, the real one. Science can't examine mythological beings because they don't exist. God is nothing but a mythological being and therefore can't be examined by science given that science deals with real things.

If god were a real thing, science could examine it. It isn't, therefore science can't examine it.

Theology is the study of imaginary beings, centrally the study of imaginary gods. It is an easy study as it requires no connection to reality. It requires no presentation of actual facts.