Is scientific proof of God even possible?

[MikeH]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

Even if God himself came down and shook hands with you, there would certainly be no way to repeat the event, or to test its authenticity. Video evidence? Easily altered with a number of video editing programs. So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

This is kinda like the "What kind of scientific discovery may challenge your faith?" thread, only in reverse.

[MikeH]

The former is also ambiguous as a technically savvy creator-God who fine-tunes physics to arrive at us could also be (less comfortingly, but equally as awesome IMHO) a vast probabilistic meta-state for our universe existing beyond our space-time horizon. We sometimes call what we can see "the universe" and then mistakenly define it as being "all that exists" -- but this is plainly wrong as it ignores the ignorance imposed upon us by the very properties of our universe.

I think that this is a great point. We are confined to the 3-dimensional world that we move around in, yet so far we can only attempt to imagine the additional dimensions that make up our universe. Time, for example, is a fourth dimension that we only barely understand. I think currently it is agreed upon that the universe is actually 11-dimensional (or more).

[Cathar1950]

I might agree except for Point 2. There is no indication that the "experience" or claims were written down at the time of the experience (or shortly afterwards)" as they were written later for communities already in existence and represent their already formed and forming beliefs.

Hi Cathar! Hmm....

The gospels were written later and not even mention until the second century and
as the Church grew Mark's gospel was no longer adequate to meet the proto-orthodox needs while it took another 200-300 years to pick what worked best.

I said they are not mentioned until the second century. I tend to see them on the later scale while all are dependent on Mark but John who seems to know of it.
Of course none of this takes into account the editing over the next 200 years or more.
The farther the pieces of writing go back the more variation we see.
At any rate they were not writing as they experienced. In other words they are not eyewitness accounts but later writings or propaganda to meet church needs and what we have is the proto-orthodox understanding and their writings.


Would you mind referencing this? I can't say I've heard that one before!

This viewpoint is in complete disagreement with the whole of theological scholars.

From wikis:

Matthew: 70-100 AD

There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100. The writings of Ignatius possibly reference, but do not quote, the Gospel of Matthew, suggesting the gospel was completed at the latest c. 110. Scholars cite multiple reasons to support this range, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context. Some significant conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, generally considering the gospel to be written by the apostle Matthew.[10] In December 1994, Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment in Greek of the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds. Most scholars date this fragment to the 3rd century, so Thiede's article provoked much debate.

A minority of Christian scholars argue for an even earlier date, as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, favor the years 40–45..."[11] In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew.

Mark: 60-70 AD

There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70s.[13] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.[14] There is no definite way to determine how early it was written, as most scholars reject the assertion of Callaghan and Thiede that a fragment of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as lacking sufficient evidence.

Mark 13:1-2, known as the "little apocalypse", remains a controversial passage regarding the dating of the text. Exegesis is often employed to show correspondences between the passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70. The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus.[15]

If Jesus' prophetic remarks do indeed concern the destruction of the Temple, then three options appear concerning the text's date. Either Jesus correctly predicted the event, which would allow for a date of composition prior to 70, or the events were put into the mouth of Jesus after the fact by the Gospel's author, entailing a post-70 dating of the text. Or this part was added later. Because the text does not observe the fulfilment of this prophetic passage, some scholars[citation needed] argue that the text must date before 70.

Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (Mark 6:52–53); thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68. Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the letters to be correct, only Mark matches these twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts.[16] Most papyrologists, however, consider this identification of the fragmentary text, and its supposition that early Christians lived at Qumran, to be dubious. It is written on a scroll, and all known early papyrus Gospel manuscripts come from codices.[17] It is true that no other known Greek work matches its wording, but no extant copy of Mark matches it exactly either, as it misses the phrase "to land" found in 6:52–53. It also could come from an unknown Greek work or a Christian could have left a copy of Mark there around the time the Qumran community was destroyed.[18]

Tradition associated the text's composition with the persecution of Nero, which would allow for a date circa 65.[19] Additionally, tradition held that Mark was written after the deaths of Paul and Peter.[20] Some point to internal evidence in the Gospel, contrasting 13:1–2 with more specific passages in Luke and Matthew, hesitating to assign a date later than 70–73, the latter year being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked.

That's alot of reading. I can do the other two if you want.

As far as the Hebrew scriptures go they is evidence that they were writing 100's of years later and fit the experiences of the needs then as well as the times not the 100's of years some times 1000 or more earlier.
In the last 40 years much has been learned about the writings and their times to realize they are not as historical as they are propaganda, imagination and what they wished it to be.

Interesting proposition. Would you consider this conclusion more probable and scientifically plausible than the widely accepted theory?

I'd like to see evidence of this claim, as I've provided mine.

If rea

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

[MikeH]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

So, in answer to the original question, do you think that one day we will be able to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of god?

[Cathar1950]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

Do you mind explaining?
It seems he was wrong about somethings and right about others. Much like the bible only no one is claiming he was inerrant.

I don't know what hapened to my last post but all I had to say was whatever dates we decide to give the gosples they still are never mentioned until the second century and there are not copies before then. The later the date the more sense they make. The earlier the manuscripts the more variation we find.
The Hebrew writings are even more hundreds of years off and they represent the times of their writings and not the actual history.

[seventil]

If rea

Well "IF REA" to you too!

I had the mental image of a lightning bolt hitting you as you typed a sentence.

So, what were you saying?

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

Turns out Einstein was wrong.

Happily, I think that the debate is still on.

I hope that over time we can boot Einsteins theories off the board so that we can travel faster than light or find some other way to make space travel possible.
While his theories live, faster than light seems to be impossible.

You usually show a source??

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Einstein indicated that the big bang had to have a place to expand into. He called this thing the ether.

I believe that until we can find this ether we cannot find god in any way. I believe that this ether is the same frequency as telepathic thought and may be made of the smallest frequency that can exist. The super colliders may help us to find this frequency. Even this though may not be believed because the possibility will always exist that someone else has a sender/receiver and is speaking to us through it.

It all comes down to whether or not we are willing to believe the words given.
Perhaps this is why the first name given to God is the word. If man is not willing to believe other men then no God can ever be found.

Regards
DL

So, in answer to the original question, do you think that one day we will be able to scientifically prove/disprove the existence of god?

God may not want this if history shows us His mind set.

As to the question, my best guess based on the above is no.

If God wanted it He would have put it in place. The fact that He has not is telling.

I think it may have to do with a man being the ultimate king of man.

Regards
DL

[Chad]

This is a fair assessment to make, but I think no matter how life was formed, whether it was abiogenesis or something we haven't even thought of yet, there will always be a natural explanation to how it happened. Wouldn't there have to be, in a physical world?

Well, technically there could be a natural explanation, but there would need to be evidence of a process to account for it. Just because they can think of it doesn't mean it's correct. I think my example of extreme "complexity" appearing at the start of the fossil record , which started not too long ago, would leave us with a rational reason to believe a supernatural origin may be behind it. However, if defeating evidence can show that this is not the case, then so be it.