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.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to RonE]

Hello RonE,
In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of scientific evidence would suffice. Furthermore, there is also the question of how much evidence is acceptable. Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

For example, the Einstein–Rosen bridge or wormhole has never been observed and thus cannot be tested or proven with empirical evidence, yet most physicists would agree that the theory has enough mathematical models to explain how it could exist. The mathematical possibility is enough to validate or prove that it exists.
I will now use the same logic applied to theoretical physics to lay a foundation for the scientific proof of God as explained in the bible.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language. Abstraction is a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific real examples, signifiers, first principles or other methods.

With this definition (easily confirmed with any textbook or web search), we can now move forward. So to prove the existence of God, I need only to combine any mathematical model (no matter how simple) with an abstraction. As stated above abstractions are almost always conceptual, and cannot be readily measured empirically. Examples of this would be the famed Higgs Boson particle (or commonly named God particle) or dark matter. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth. There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God. While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic. Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. This is the abstraction component a person uses to validate their claim that God exists.

Now to the mathematical component. Mathematical components are dependent upon a formula or a combination of formulas. We know a formula is a concise method of explaining information symbolically. So if I were to take a human being and begin to search for a concise method of explaining his formation and existence, only the God of the bible provides such a formula. The formula is comprised of three variables: spirit, soul and body. In short humans are tripartite beings like our Creator. Our essence is our spirit. We have a soul which would best be described as a compartment that houses our emotions, will, personality, character and mind. Both of these are housed in our physical body.

Both the soul and spirit are invisible, but we have methods of experiencing each and interacting with each in the physical world. When a person a person is unconscious, what they are experiencing is a lack of communication between their soul and their body. This is why a person can be alive physically, but mentally, emotionally, etc. The entire field of psychology is dedicated to this aspect of a person, but uses different words to describe what is taking place. This is also why when a person dies, we look at the physical body, and realize that the flesh is not who they really were, but that person has left that body. So in short the formula for man is Spirit + Soul + Body = Man. This is a model made after God who is Spirit + Soul + Body = God.
Now let’s compare these equations with verses found in the bible confirming such an equation.

(Note: I am aware that the Subsection I below will require scripture from the Bible which you are likely to ignore, but this is where the Christian mathematical model is found)
[center]Begin Subsection I[/center]
Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;…�
Gen 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul�

Here we see God creating the essence of man as a spirit in Gen 1, and then form a body for that spirit man. The soul was breathed into man so the spirit man can interact with his physical body.
1 Thess 5:23 “Now may the God of peace, himself sanctify you completely and may your whole Spirit, Soul and Body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ�
Acts 17:29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God�

Throughout the old testament there is a vast number of references to the Spirit of God. See Gen 1:2, Exod 31:3, 2 Chron 24:20, Job 33:4 and John 4:24 “God is Spirit…�

There are also references to God having a soul:
Lev 26:11 “I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you.�
Hebrews 10:38 “Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him�
Rom 8:27 “Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit�
1 Thess 4:3 “For this is the will of God,�
These verses outline the mind, will and personality of God which we identify with being housed in the component of the soul.

Finally, we see Jesus as the physical representation of God.
John 1:1 and 1:14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� And “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.�
John 5:18b “but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.�
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.�
Speaking of Jesus, Paul writes in Phil 2:6-8 “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.�
[center]End Subsection I[/center]

With that said, a parallel can be made between the abstractions made by scientist to postulate and affirm a theory, with the belief people have in God. To further connect these two thought processes, let’s take another look at the Higgs Boson particle. The Higgs boson has been incorporated into Big Bang theory as part of a theory called “inflation.� Physicist Alan Guth proposed the idea of the inflation of the universe back in 1987. Not all cosmologists accept the inflationary universe scenario. Even without a complete consensus, the Higgs boson is currently part of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and an important part of that theory. So even without statistical and proven analysis, a theory which explains events not yet verified can be accepted as true. The same can also be said of God, using scientific reasoning without having tangible evidence which can be tested in a controlled environment.

The theory on the Higgs Boson does not precisely pin down what its mass should be, but implies it should be between about 115 and 140 GeV/c2. Theory on the Higgs particle also says it would have no spin and no electric charge, for instance. All that has been measured so far is the particle's mass, which is approximately 125 GeV/c2. This is very plausible for the Higgs particle, but there could be other particles or combinations of particles that could explain the July 4 result also. For those who believe in God, there are methods which should be used to determine His existence. None of these methods are empirical as they unanimously deal with the soul and spiritual dimension.

Since we have a soul and a spirit, we see God communicating with humans in this format. 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. Once again this is verified by the bible where it states Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he that comes to God must believe that He is.� In the same way scientist must first believe that the Higgs Boson particle existed to even build particle accelerators to attempt to find it. As a person searching for God, you must first believe, and then search according to the methods applicable to His nature. That would be like a physicists looking for the “God particle� buy arbitrarily looking in a microscope of amoeba specimens. It only makes sense to search in the method applicable to the thing/person you are looking for.

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.

I am aware that you are entrenched in your position, and this would likely do little to persuade you, but once again the emphasis here is that to find God, you must first believe that He is. Next you identify how you can prove He exists based on His nature. Then you compare what you find with what you first believed.

Sources:
https://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula
https://answersingenesis.org/physics/hi ... particles/
Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe,� in Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics Volume III, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 321–348
Alister McGrath, “Higgs boson: the particle of faith,� December 15, 2011.www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8956938/Hig ... faith.html
CERN Press Release 17.12, (July 4, 2012), “CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson.� press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html
Robert Evans, “The Higgs boson: Why scientists hate that you call it the ‘God particle’,� December 14, 2011.news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/the-higgs-boson-why-scientists-hate-that-you-call-it-the-god-particle

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of scientific evidence would suffice. Furthermore, there is also the question of how much evidence is acceptable. Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

Just present your evidence, and we'll sort it out.

Making excuses as to why no evidence is forthcoming doesn't bode well for theistic claims.

With this definition (easily confirmed with any textbook or web search), we can now move forward. So to prove the existence of God, I need only to combine any mathematical model (no matter how simple) with an abstraction.

No. That numbers combine to create new numbers is hardly evidence for gods.

As stated above abstractions are almost always conceptual, and cannot be readily measured empirically. Examples of this would be the famed Higgs Boson particle (or commonly named God particle) or dark matter. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth.

That one notion may help explain another'n is not evidence of gods.

There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God. While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic. Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. This is the abstraction component a person uses to validate their claim that God exists.

I don't doubt religious believers consider asking 'em to show they speak truth is "unrealistic". In debate though, it's not only realistic, but expected.

Now to the mathematical component. Mathematical components are dependent upon a formula or a combination of formulas. We know a formula is a concise method of explaining information symbolically. So if I were to take a human being and begin to search for a concise method of explaining his formation and existence, only the God of the bible provides such a formula. The formula is comprised of three variables: spirit, soul and body. In short humans are tripartite beings like our Creator. Our essence is our spirit. We have a soul which would best be described as a compartment that houses our emotions, will, personality, character and mind. Both of these are housed in our physical body.

A siamese triplet proves a god's existence?

Both the soul and spirit are invisible, but we have methods of experiencing each and interacting with each in the physical world. When a person a person is unconscious, what they are experiencing is a lack of communication between their soul and their body.

Unevidenced assertion.

This is why a person can be alive physically, but mentally, emotionally, etc. The entire field of psychology is dedicated to this aspect of a person, but uses different words to describe what is taking place.

'Cause psychology doesn't rely on "god did it".

This is also why when a person dies, we look at the physical body, and realize that the flesh is not who they really were, but that person has left that body. So in short the formula for man is Spirit + Soul + Body = Man. This is a model made after God who is Spirit + Soul + Body = God.

Unevidenced assertion.

You're doing great on making claims, you're just strugglin' to support 'em.

Now let’s compare these equations with verses found in the bible confirming such an equation.

I got a book that says dinosaurs can be found on an island, in a zoo.

Are we all to fret what the dinosaurs think of our actions?

With that said, a parallel can be made between the abstractions made by scientist to postulate and affirm a theory, with the belief people have in God. To further connect these two thought processes, let’s take another look at the Higgs Boson particle. The Higgs boson has been incorporated into Big Bang theory as part of a theory called “inflation.� Physicist Alan Guth proposed the idea of the inflation of the universe back in 1987. Not all cosmologists accept the inflationary universe scenario. Even without a complete consensus, the Higgs boson is currently part of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and an important part of that theory. So even without statistical and proven analysis, a theory which explains events not yet verified can be accepted as true. The same can also be said of God, using scientific reasoning without having tangible evidence which can be tested in a controlled environment.

I'm just not hearing a lot of scientists tell how the Higgs boson is mad at some of my doings.

You've done nothing but refer to the book making the claims, to support the book making the claims.

...
Since we have a soul and a spirit

Unevidenced assertion.

we see God communicating with humans in this format.

Only those who wear god glasses see it that way.

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.
...

If you'da said that to begin with, you'da sure saved me some time.

Alas, "believe, so that you might start accepting these goofy claims" is the mantra of the theist.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 33 by KingandPriest]

[Replying to RonE]

Hello RonE,
In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of scientific evidence would suffice. Furthermore, there is also the question of how much evidence is acceptable. Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

For example, the Einstein–Rosen bridge or wormhole has never been observed and thus cannot be tested or proven with empirical evidence, yet most physicists would agree that the theory has enough mathematical models to explain how it could exist. The mathematical possibility is enough to validate or prove that it exists.
I will now use the same logic applied to theoretical physics to lay a foundation for the scientific proof of God as explained in the bible.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language. Abstraction is a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific real examples, signifiers, first principles or other methods.

With this definition (easily confirmed with any textbook or web search), we can now move forward. So to prove the existence of God, I need only to combine any mathematical model (no matter how simple) with an abstraction. As stated above abstractions are almost always conceptual, and cannot be readily measured empirically. Examples of this would be the famed Higgs Boson particle (or commonly named God particle) or dark matter. Science often proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) entities – such as dark matter – to explain what can be seen. The reason why the Higgs boson is taken so seriously in science is not because its existence has been proved, but because it makes so much sense of observations that its existence seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an indicator of its truth. There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God. While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic. Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. This is the abstraction component a person uses to validate their claim that God exists.

Now to the mathematical component. Mathematical components are dependent upon a formula or a combination of formulas. We know a formula is a concise method of explaining information symbolically. So if I were to take a human being and begin to search for a concise method of explaining his formation and existence, only the God of the bible provides such a formula. The formula is comprised of three variables: spirit, soul and body. In short humans are tripartite beings like our Creator. Our essence is our spirit. We have a soul which would best be described as a compartment that houses our emotions, will, personality, character and mind. Both of these are housed in our physical body.

Both the soul and spirit are invisible, but we have methods of experiencing each and interacting with each in the physical world. When a person a person is unconscious, what they are experiencing is a lack of communication between their soul and their body. This is why a person can be alive physically, but mentally, emotionally, etc. The entire field of psychology is dedicated to this aspect of a person, but uses different words to describe what is taking place. This is also why when a person dies, we look at the physical body, and realize that the flesh is not who they really were, but that person has left that body. So in short the formula for man is Spirit + Soul + Body = Man. This is a model made after God who is Spirit + Soul + Body = God.
Now let’s compare these equations with verses found in the bible confirming such an equation.

(Note: I am aware that the Subsection I below will require scripture from the Bible which you are likely to ignore, but this is where the Christian mathematical model is found)
[center]Begin Subsection I[/center]
Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;…�
Gen 2:7 “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul�

Here we see God creating the essence of man as a spirit in Gen 1, and then form a body for that spirit man. The soul was breathed into man so the spirit man can interact with his physical body.
1 Thess 5:23 “Now may the God of peace, himself sanctify you completely and may your whole Spirit, Soul and Body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ�
Acts 17:29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God�

Throughout the old testament there is a vast number of references to the Spirit of God. See Gen 1:2, Exod 31:3, 2 Chron 24:20, Job 33:4 and John 4:24 “God is Spirit…�

There are also references to God having a soul:
Lev 26:11 “I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you.�
Hebrews 10:38 “Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him�
Rom 8:27 “Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit�
1 Thess 4:3 “For this is the will of God,�
These verses outline the mind, will and personality of God which we identify with being housed in the component of the soul.

Finally, we see Jesus as the physical representation of God.
John 1:1 and 1:14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� And “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.�
John 5:18b “but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.�
John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.�
Speaking of Jesus, Paul writes in Phil 2:6-8 “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.�
[center]End Subsection I[/center]

With that said, a parallel can be made between the abstractions made by scientist to postulate and affirm a theory, with the belief people have in God. To further connect these two thought processes, let’s take another look at the Higgs Boson particle. The Higgs boson has been incorporated into Big Bang theory as part of a theory called “inflation.� Physicist Alan Guth proposed the idea of the inflation of the universe back in 1987. Not all cosmologists accept the inflationary universe scenario. Even without a complete consensus, the Higgs boson is currently part of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and an important part of that theory. So even without statistical and proven analysis, a theory which explains events not yet verified can be accepted as true. The same can also be said of God, using scientific reasoning without having tangible evidence which can be tested in a controlled environment.

The theory on the Higgs Boson does not precisely pin down what its mass should be, but implies it should be between about 115 and 140 GeV/c2. Theory on the Higgs particle also says it would have no spin and no electric charge, for instance. All that has been measured so far is the particle's mass, which is approximately 125 GeV/c2. This is very plausible for the Higgs particle, but there could be other particles or combinations of particles that could explain the July 4 result also. For those who believe in God, there are methods which should be used to determine His existence. None of these methods are empirical as they unanimously deal with the soul and spiritual dimension.

Since we have a soul and a spirit, we see God communicating with humans in this format. 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. Once again this is verified by the bible where it states Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he that comes to God must believe that He is.� In the same way scientist must first believe that the Higgs Boson particle existed to even build particle accelerators to attempt to find it. As a person searching for God, you must first believe, and then search according to the methods applicable to His nature. That would be like a physicists looking for the “God particle� buy arbitrarily looking in a microscope of amoeba specimens. It only makes sense to search in the method applicable to the thing/person you are looking for.

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.

I am aware that you are entrenched in your position, and this would likely do little to persuade you, but once again the emphasis here is that to find God, you must first believe that He is. Next you identify how you can prove He exists based on His nature. Then you compare what you find with what you first believed.

Sources:
https://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula
https://answersingenesis.org/physics/hi ... particles/
Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe,� in Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics Volume III, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 321–348
Alister McGrath, “Higgs boson: the particle of faith,� December 15, 2011.www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8956938/Hig ... faith.html
CERN Press Release 17.12, (July 4, 2012), “CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson.� press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.html
Robert Evans, “The Higgs boson: Why scientists hate that you call it the ‘God particle’,� December 14, 2011.news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/the-higgs-boson-why-scientists-hate-that-you-call-it-the-god-particle

Welcome to the forum.
It is not intended to be a trick question. I put no restrictions other than that stated in the OP. No extra credit for bible quotes, or for excessively lengthy replies.
Those who make the claims must provide proof, or withdraw the claim. Do you claim that your god exists? Do you claim that he is the intelligence behind creation? If so please provide your evidence/proof of those claims. These claims are of a supernatural entity, they are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence/proof.

[JLB32168]

Then why don't you provide some real evidence?

What is “real� evidence?

Lots of people have claimed to have seen icons weep.

I agree. Is your point that they all are lying?

Of course, tears are not a “chrism" (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankincense tears) Human tears don’t contain these substances.

Okay – so the fact that they weep chrism and not human tears means . . . what exactly?

Perhaps you would tell us where and when you witnessed this and the names of some of the men went to Mt. Athos and a copy of their report?

I witnessed it at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, PA – the year was 2006 I believe.

We have a Psychic Reader in our town who I imagine has a similar reputation to the monks of Mt Athos but only from those who’s “fortunes� came true. Perhaps you can tell us which men went to Mt. Athos and experienced this miracle. Or maybe not. Why ruin a good story?

And when one cannot tackle an argument he mocks it – known as the argumentum ad ridiculum is forensic’s circles.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 36 by JLB32168]

Then why don't you provide some real evidence?

What is “real� evidence?

Lots of people have claimed to have seen icons weep.

I agree. Is your point that they all are lying?

Of course, tears are not a “chrism" (a mixture of olive oil mixed w/ground frankincense tears) Human tears don’t contain these substances.

Okay – so the fact that they weep chrism and not human tears means . . . what exactly?

Perhaps you would tell us where and when you witnessed this and the names of some of the men went to Mt. Athos and a copy of their report?

I witnessed it at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, PA – the year was 2006 I believe.

We have a Psychic Reader in our town who I imagine has a similar reputation to the monks of Mt Athos but only from those who’s “fortunes� came true. Perhaps you can tell us which men went to Mt. Athos and experienced this miracle. Or maybe not. Why ruin a good story?

And when one cannot tackle an argument he mocks it – known as the argumentum ad ridiculum is forensic’s circles.

Could we please stick to the OP.

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.

JLB32168, please present your evidence/proof of your god as requested in the OP, or admit that you have no evidence of your god/claims.

[benchwarmer]

...the emphasis here is that to find God, you must first believe that He is. Next you identify how you can prove He exists based on His nature. Then you compare what you find with what you first believed.

One can 'prove' just about anything using this kind of logic.

I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.

His nature is to make meatballs and share with everyone.

Holy smokes! There are meatballs in my freezer! How did those get there?

I knew it!

[PghPanther]

First off the supernatural is often referred to being above or beyond the natural...therefore any validation of it cannot be established by natural processes.......fair enough but........

When you think about it....as science has expanded and continues to expand our knowledge and understanding of the natural from the quantum to the universe and possibility a multiverse.....the "natural" world can be equated to all of "reality" as best as we can know it.

So this idea of a supernatural claim is really above and beyond reality............and the only place something exists that does not in reality is in the imagination.

And that's exactly where the God of the Bible exists.......in the imagination of the believer and no where else.

If there was in fact a supernatural personal God who would interact with reality as claimed by the Bible then this God would have provided enough of a consistent revelation to its believers that you wouldn't have all the conflicts of the believers between each other of who this God is, what is its nature and in the case of Christianity an essential salvation doctrine that would not be in conflict with other Christians...

As it is...because the supernatural and the doctrine holding to that with the Christian God only exist in the imagination of the believers.........this becomes the reason why we have all the endless conflict and debate among Christianity now and throughout all of history..........From doctrine issues even as critical as salvation itself which is the essence of their whole world view to begin with.

In science, the process of the scientific method results in consistent and predictable working models in reality...............Christianity has nothing of the sort in reality and even in the proclaim spiritual revelation among believers there isn't even an imagined model of consistency and predictability among them.

Face it ..........the belief in the Christian God is as well established within reality as Santa Claus is living at the North Pole..............

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 33 by KingandPriest]

Thank you for the lengthy reply. However, I have to inform you that carm and AnswersinGenesis are not regarded well by the non-believer/skeptic community. I at the very least distrust literally everything they say and for a very good reason - they admit to manipulating evidence, and discarding any evidence that may be found that disagrees with their beliefs.
From Carm https://carm.org/statement-faith

The Bible is the Word of God,...

Also, we are to refute false doctrines, false religions, and whatever else might contradict the word of God

Basically, Carm treats the Bible as completely infallible and teaches that anything that contradicts it MUST be refuted, no matter how strong the counter-evidence. Imagine if there were a Church of Newton for example, that held that Newton's teachings were infallible. If followers of this church were like Carm, they'd try to refute Einstein's theories of relativity, treating Einstein as being false right out of the gate.


Consider statements like this from Carm

The Bible is the Word of God, and that its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions.

Okay...so the original manuscripts are free from errors. How can Carm justify this statement, since we do not have the original manuscripts?

As for AnswersinGenesis
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

I am not going to speak for the other skeptics here like JoeyKnotHead, but myself, I have a rule: Do not trust ANYTHING from Carm or AiG. They proudly admit to being biased with their 'research', disregarding anything that contradicts their beliefs.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 40 by rikuoamero]

Hello,

Everything wrote which came from the carn.org website was housed in Subsetion I. Outside of this website and subsection, there is still a plethora of information contained in my post. Is there any component which you would like further clarity?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 35 by RonE]

Hello RonE,

You are correct, I did not make a claim as outlined in your original post.
I claim that the God found within the bible is real, supernatural and can be proven using scientific reasoning. Scientific reasoning is the evidence I will utilize as shown in my original post labeled Post 33 in this same discussion. I claim that this God is the intelligent creator of the universe.

You say

These claims are of a supernatural entity, they are extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence/proof

I then ask, is scientific evidence what you seek or extraordinary evidence? If scientific evidence is sufficient, outline the parameters for what is sufficient. Scientific evidence relies on principles of inference until empirical proof is generated to contradict the original inference.

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence (1).

In the example I gave, physicists search for the Higgs particle with a preconceived notion on what it should look like, where it should be, or how it should work. Science typically identifies what it expects to find. We call this a hypothesis. Without such a hypothesis, how can I verify whether my reasoning, evidence or proof meets your test. A test is only as valid as the parameters placed upon it. If you leave it open, that means it is open to interpretation and can be rejected by anyone with a different perspective.

So I restate the question in the first line of my post: what type of scientific evidence would suffice?

If one branch of science accepts mathematical reasoning and abstraction as evidence/proof of a theory, is this acceptable?

Is the proof requested only limited to something that can be tested in a laboratory or duplicated?

Thanks

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence