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.

[joer]

I ran across this story a few days ago. It seems related to the theme of this thread. Especially the issues of faith as discussed by cdcdcd and PC1. They may find something new to add to this discussion. Cheers my frineds.

"University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God."

The grant to the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring anthropologists, thelogians, philosophers and other academics together for three years to study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind's makeup.

Roger Trigg, acting director of the center, said anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe.

The study will be funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a U.S.-based philanthropic organization."

I checked out these links some here may enjoy them.

Cognition, Religion and Theology Project
here

We see main contributor and apparent designer of the project seems to be Justin Barrett author of “Why would anyone Believe in God". he seems to be the Project lead in collaboration with and perhaps under Roger Tiggs author of Religion in Public life. Also listed as Post Doctoral Researchers are David Leech, Nicola Knighty and Emma Cohen.

I wonder if we may (a long shot) have a chance of sharing data an ideas with - Peter Harrison. He’s listed on the following link
Recent books by IRC researchers
here

Peter Harrison He seems to be the least visible researcher and perhaps one interested in anything resembling True Religion. In the brief write-up of his book, The Fall of Man and The Foundations of Science. He says,

“At it’s inception, modern Science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing a knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed.”

Perhaps he would be interested in the recent genetic discovery dated 37,000 years ago possibly in the Time of Adam. It would be a long shot but it might buoy Mr. Harrison up in the less visible position he appears to hold in this research.

These other links can give you more information on the Grant.
Our Philosophy of Grant Making
here

We are investors, not just donors. As philanthropic investors, we seek high-potential projects likely to generate a significant return on investment – in the sense of impact relative to the resources invested. This "return" belongs to you and to the world, as your work generates exciting new knowledge and contributes to important new discoveries and breakthroughs.
We look for bold ideas that engage the "big questions" and draw in multiple disciplines. The division of labor and increasing specialization in most fields means that some of the most interesting, difficult or profound research questions don't get addressed. In a contrarian spirit, we try to help give great minds the space and opportunity to address significant questions and issues that cross disciplinary boundaries.

Core Themes
here

In the Charter establishing his philanthropy, Sir John Templeton expresses that his Foundation should serve as a philanthropic catalyst for research on concepts and realities such as love, gratitude, forgiveness and creativity. Twenty years later, the Foundation continues to fund rigorous scientific research and related cutting-edge scholarship on a wide spectrum of "Core Themes."

In looking at the Core Themes of the Templetan Grants, it appears as if it would be a rich area for the influence new religious ideas. But on further investigation of a few themes where new religious concepts could add value we notice that the type of Grants awarded are based more on the academia of the presentation with specific study within the theme core rather than with the general understanding of the themes themselves.

Here a couple of links to themes in areas where generalized understanding of faith values might be of more interest to the basic human being.

Spiritual Development
here

New Concepts of God
here

The Foundation seeks to catalyze interdisciplinary research on the following "big questions": How do concepts of God evolve? What are the mechanisms and cultural forces that shape conceptualizations of God? Do scientific discoveries necessitate new concepts of God?

PC1 if we were to try and contact anybody in this project I might try Peter Harrison with the links to recent scientific Adam and Eve connections and maybe you could try Justin Barrett with new concepts of God.

Just a passing thought. Thanks again for your excellent discussion.

[PC1]

joer, thanks for the kind words. Those links and articles you posted look very interesting, I will make sure to thoroughly check them out.

Hi again, PC1. Don't worry, I have no intention of drawing you into any tedious debate that neither of us wants. Thank you for your honesty in this discussion. It is a pleasure to "talk" to you. If I understand our discussions so far, we agree on the following points:

Hey cdcdcd, thanks for the kind words. I greatly appreciate your insight.

(1) Science cannot disprove the existence of God, from which it follows that the existence of God cannot be totally discounted, but this says nothing about the likelihood of God's existence.

Agreed.

(2) The likelihood of God's existence is a function of the quality and quantity of evidence for God's existence. There may be differences of opinion regarding what constitutes substantive evidence.

Agreed.

(3) There is very little in the way of scientifically admissible evidence to support the existence of God, and there does not appear to be any scientific evidence that proves the existence of God. To your credit, you happily provided reasons why you believe that scientific proof is unlikely to ever turn up, which of course weakens the theistic case by reducing the evidence available to support God's existence.

Hmm. By scientifically admissible evidence of the existence of God do you refer to things such as studies on answered prayer, etc.? I've read a few decent books that try to suggest scientific evidence of God. But I'd certainly agree that I don't see nor expect solid proof to ever surface. I'm sure there are many a theist who could deal with this subject much better than myself.

(4) The likelihood of God's existence, therefore, ends up being a function of the quality and quantity of non-scientific evidence available that supports the existence of God. This "evidence" could be biblical claims, or could be personal experience and "feeling", and the weight that should be placed upon such evidence will be very much a matter of opinion.

By and large, I can agree. I feel there are certain philosophical arguments that can make valid points as well as Biblical phenomena like prophecy that have an empirical side to them. I also think it's worth mentioning that many outspoken defender's of God in the intellectual community are former atheists/agnostics who claim to have converted on evidence. Like I say, I'm not here to debate the evidence, but I could list examples of such people if need be.

I have spoken to many intelligent and sincere Christians and theists, and frequently we get to agreeing on the above summary. I know that on another thread you said there are "other reasons", which I would take to mean "non-scientific evidence", why you believe that God exists. I would be interested to hear more of your views and, when we get to the point where we "agree to disagree", that is fine with me.

In terms of non-scientific things, I feel some of the classical Aquinian reasoning for God's existence can be strong. Such as the one that dealt with the necessary vs. contingent cause for the origins of the universe.

To give you a brief idea of my "personal" reasons for belief come from things that I, or the people around me have experienced (I'd call them miracles). If you'd like, I'd be happy to share these stories. Larger then that, though, is the Bible. This is multi-faceted and includes quite a number of aspects that, to me, seem to defy human nature and reasoning. Unlike many former Christians who have horror stories to tell about how they were treated by people who called themselves Christians, I was fortunate enough to have a few Christian people in my life with a general sort of niceness about their spirit and attitudes which I can't really put into words or do it justice by typing it here. Does the way they were say anything about whether Christianity is true? No. But it tells me that this religion can yield powerful results.

[byofrcs]

I ran across this story a few days ago. It seems related to the theme of this thread. Especially the issues of faith as discussed by cdcdcd and PC1. They may find something new to add to this discussion. Cheers my frineds.

"University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God."

The grant to the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring anthropologists, thelogians, philosophers and other academics together for three years to study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind's makeup.

Roger Trigg, acting director of the center, said anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe.

The study will be funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a U.S.-based philanthropic organization."

.......

That study looks biased from the start, for instance, Roger Trigg, acting director of the center is quoted as saying,

“One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation,” he said."

This immediately implies that there can be no atheistic religions; clearly false given some Buddhism or Jainism.

It could be that Trigg is simply in a managerial role and not educated in the nuances of what is being studied or he has prematurely revealed the agenda of the study. Given the funding source, I feel Trigg probably spoke truthfully.

[joer]

byo wrote:

That study looks biased from the start, for instance, Roger Trigg, acting director of the center is quoted as saying,

“One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation,” he said."

This immediately implies that there can be no atheistic religions; clearly false given some Buddhism or Jainism.

It could be that Trigg is simply in a managerial role and not educated in the nuances of what is being studied or he has prematurely revealed the agenda of the study. Given the funding source, I feel Trigg probably spoke truthfully.

Greetings byofrcs. I hope you are well and in good health.

I actually thought on first look that it was going to be slanted the other way. (towards the atheists or scientific position) Now I’m starting to believe they may be able to give Faith a fair shot. While Faith can’t be proven scientifically at least the reason people HAVE THAT FAITH may be able to be studied and evaluated in an attempt to help us better understand it. I think it’s great because how many disagreement between believers and non-believer come down to the understanding of Faith? It seems to me a great many of the discussions here boil down to Scientific Reason vs. Faith in God.

I had my doubts about the study so I can now certainly understand yours. BUT I think we’ll have to wait and see what approach the group will take. What data they will attempt to include and what questions will the allow to be fathomed.

I appreciate your concern because initially I felt that myself. But now I’m more interested in the details and parameters of the scientific research.

For starters I think it would be important to devise a test to determine wether this statement is true or false. And more importantly as well as more difficult to answer, if it is true…WHY is that so?

faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world,

Cheers my friend! Peace be with you.

[byofrcs]

byo wrote:

That study looks biased from the start, for instance, Roger Trigg, acting director of the center is quoted as saying,

“One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation,” he said."

This immediately implies that there can be no atheistic religions; clearly false given some Buddhism or Jainism.

It could be that Trigg is simply in a managerial role and not educated in the nuances of what is being studied or he has prematurely revealed the agenda of the study. Given the funding source, I feel Trigg probably spoke truthfully.

Greetings byofrcs. I hope you are well and in good health.

I actually thought on first look that it was going to be slanted the other way. (towards the atheists or scientific position) Now I’m starting to believe they may be able to give Faith a fair shot. While Faith can’t be proven scientifically at least the reason people HAVE THAT FAITH may be able to be studied and evaluated in an attempt to help us better understand it. I think it’s great because how many disagreement between believers and non-believer come down to the understanding of Faith? It seems to me a great many of the discussions here boil down to Scientific Reason vs. Faith in God.

I had my doubts about the study so I can now certainly understand yours. BUT I think we’ll have to wait and see what approach the group will take. What data they will attempt to include and what questions will the allow to be fathomed.

I appreciate your concern because initially I felt that myself. But now I’m more interested in the details and parameters of the scientific research.

For starters I think it would be important to devise a test to determine wether this statement is true or false. And more importantly as well as more difficult to answer, if it is true…WHY is that so?

faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world,

Cheers my friend! Peace be with you.

Faith is almost certainly universal across humanity once you go beyond reason or instincts or habits. Even in science there is "faith", albeit not ones that last long if there is no supporting evidence.

I have faith in many things. Faith in processes, in technology, in my ability to debug problems, in science and the method, numerous things. Others have faith in the supernatural (of which God is one example).

Faith to me is to maintain a belief that 'x' exists or will happen. Many years ago humans would have had faith that animals would migrate on certain routes and then that crops would grow in certain ways. This knowledge is essential for survival and so humans would be selected on this basis. This pattern was recognised but the cause wasn't so a supernatural cause has been invented.

This also applies to science in that a cause is hypothesised and there is for a short time a faith that this is believed until it is proven or dis-proven. Once proven the cause (in effect a supernatural until it is identified) becomes natural.

Nowadays we have a better understanding of crop growth without any prayers to the goddess, Ceres, even though your breakfast cereal is named in part after her !. The important point is that our understanding, beliefs and faith in how crops grow doesn't necessarily mean that Ceres actually exists without other evidence of her existence.

Same with the Jewish tribal God which Christians have picked up. I need not pray to that any more than you need pray to Ceres.

[joer]

byofrcs wrote:

This also applies to science in that a cause is hypothesised and there is for a short time a faith that this is believed until it is proven or dis-proven. Once proven the cause (in effect a supernatural until it is identified) becomes natural.

What an excellent post byofrcs!

I especially like what you call a supernatural unit becoming natural. That follows comments I made on a thread about Spirit with QED and others awhile back. I mentioned that the supernatural was just the natural that hadn't been discovered yet. Here's a link and a few more brief comments when at the end I realized that what I saw as evidence of God QED would see as evidence of Nature and I had to go back to the Faith argument because I could see any physical evidence of God would never be seen as that by one who didn't believe in God. (Have faith in God).

The nature of 'spirit'

here

I think QED pretty much would not see a physical indication of the existence of Spirit as just that. He would most likely see any new discovery of energy footprint attributed to as an evidence of the existence of "Spirit" as an extension Nature and some higher "Natural" Non-intelligent design generator. So for QED I must revert to the "Faith argument" for the existence of God.

And in the post immediately preceding that one I wrote:

I have been thinking that even if I was able to show physical evidence of what I call spiritual to you, you would accept that evidence as being part of Nature as I do. BUT you don't see the intelligence of the designer of that Nature (nature as we know it) as being intelligence of a Supreme Being. You see something more like the intelligence of the Supreme "non-intelligent design generator" Creating designs out of what naturally exists. And you see it as always having existed and not having been made but as having always been. And everything that we witness in our lives is generated from that “ultimate non-intelligent design generator”, including the engineers here on earth that have generated their own lower level non-intelligent design generators.

Interesting QED, because there would be no other intelligence before that Supreme "non-intelligent design generator" And every design there after would have it's cause, it's existence, it's design, and any other pattern it designed that could itself design other patterns, come from that initial Self extant "non-intelligent design generator". And that's what we would both call Nature or Natural, and you might call the Ultimate "non-intelligent design generator", and I would call GOD until a better expression existed or was designed!

So your comments on Faith are great. I'm looking into the study a little more and I believe they have two questions concerning God that they are focusing on. And "Faith" isn't mentioned in the questions.


Peace my friend! Thanks for the excellent positively stated post.

It's very stimulating of investigative conversation!

[bernee51]

byo wrote:

That study looks biased from the start, for instance, Roger Trigg, acting director of the center is quoted as saying,

“One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation,” he said."

This immediately implies that there can be no atheistic religions; clearly false given some Buddhism or Jainism.

It could be that Trigg is simply in a managerial role and not educated in the nuances of what is being studied or he has prematurely revealed the agenda of the study. Given the funding source, I feel Trigg probably spoke truthfully.

Greetings byofrcs. I hope you are well and in good health.

I actually thought on first look that it was going to be slanted the other way. (towards the atheists or scientific position) Now I’m starting to believe they may be able to give Faith a fair shot. While Faith can’t be proven scientifically at least the reason people HAVE THAT FAITH may be able to be studied and evaluated in an attempt to help us better understand it. I think it’s great because how many disagreement between believers and non-believer come down to the understanding of Faith? It seems to me a great many of the discussions here boil down to Scientific Reason vs. Faith in God.

I had my doubts about the study so I can now certainly understand yours. BUT I think we’ll have to wait and see what approach the group will take. What data they will attempt to include and what questions will the allow to be fathomed.

I appreciate your concern because initially I felt that myself. But now I’m more interested in the details and parameters of the scientific research.

For starters I think it would be important to devise a test to determine wether this statement is true or false. And more importantly as well as more difficult to answer, if it is true…WHY is that so?

faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world,

Cheers my friend! Peace be with you.

Faith is almost certainly universal across humanity once you go beyond reason or instincts or habits. Even in science there is "faith", albeit not ones that last long if there is no supporting evidence.

I have faith in many things. Faith in processes, in technology, in my ability to debug problems, in science and the method, numerous things. Others have faith in the supernatural (of which God is one example).

Using faith in that way only confuses theist and can even give them heart. In truth it is an equivocation.

The theistic use of the word 'faith' to apply how you have mentioned is used as an attempt to level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

Religious faith in the existence of a god - is a very different matter to faith in technology - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1) This is not the sort of faith used by those who think that the brakes on their car will work: this is the sort of faith used by those who believe without sound empirical evidence.

Faith to me is to maintain a belief that 'x' exists or will happen. Many years ago humans would have had faith that animals would migrate on certain routes and then that crops would grow in certain ways. This knowledge is essential for survival and so humans would be selected on this basis. This pattern was recognised but the cause wasn't so a supernatural cause has been invented.

Is you 'faith' that 'x' exists or will happen based on evidence or wishful thinking?

This also applies to science in that a cause is hypothesised and there is for a short time a faith that this is believed until it is proven or dis-proven. Once proven the cause (in effect a supernatural until it is identified) becomes natural.

If something exists in the natural world it was never supernatural. Ignorance gave it its 'supernaturality.'

[bernee51]

For starters I think it would be important to devise a test to determine wether this statement is true or false. And more importantly as well as more difficult to answer, if it is true…WHY is that so?

faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world,

'Faith' in 'god(s)' is a manifestation of a (perhaps) universal human trait of a sense of 'the other'. This 'faith' has evolved from the animistic beliefs of our early ancestors through to the monotheistic beliefs which currently dominate. (Off shoot beliefs incorporating extra-terrestrial influences notwithstanding).

Why is that so? The answer is deceptively simple.

"Who am I?"

[joer]

Hey Bernee! How are you doing? It’s good to see and hear from you friend. Well let me make a few comments about your post.
You wrote:

Using faith in that way only confuses theist and can even give them heart. In truth it is an equivocation.

That’s a bold statement. But I fail to see the truth in it. One, how does it confuse the theist and what difference does that make? And two, how can it give the theist heart and what difference that makes? And three it seems more like it’s your opinion that it’s an equivocation than a truth.

You wrote:

The theistic use of the word 'faith' to apply how you have mentioned is used as an attempt to level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

I certainly made no attempt to do that. (level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments) If you see it that way I’m sorry you feel threatened. If you want to claim reason is superior to faith in evaluating truth, that’s up to you. You do what ever you like. From my perspective and I’ve expressed here many times. Reason works for evaluating truth in the physical world as faith works for evaluating truth in the spiritual world. I see no conflict between those statements. They aren’t meant to replace or compete with each other. They work concurrently on different aspects of reality. You’re the one that denies that, not me.

You continue with:

If something exists in the natural world it was never supernatural. Ignorance gave it its 'supernaturality.'

You can just as easily say that it’s ignorance and refusal to accept the obvious that prevents someone from seeing that “the supernatural” is nothing more than something “natural” that has not been discovered and understood yet. God is as Natural as you and I. Although quite a bit more complex, more powerful, more knowledgeable, and when we discover more about God perhaps we will be able to know more about How He is just as Natural as you and I and in what ways naturally different.

You finish with:

Why is that so? The answer is deceptively simple.

"Who am I?"

And I remind you of another who made such a simple statement when He said:
“Who do you SAY that I am?”

Good Will to you my friend Bernee. I'm not trying to convince you not to be an atheist. Just sharing HOW I SEE THINGS.[/b]

[bernee51]

Hey Bernee! How are you doing? It’s good to see and hear from you friend. Well let me make a few comments about your post.
You wrote:

Using faith in that way only confuses theist and can even give them heart. In truth it is an equivocation.

That’s a bold statement. But I fail to see the truth in it. One, how does it confuse the theist and what difference does that make? And two, how can it give the theist heart and what difference that makes? And three it seems more like it’s your opinion that it’s an equivocation than a truth.

Equating a confidence in the utility of a technology (e.g. the brakes will work) as 'faith' when what is meant by the word is a religious faith in the unevidenced and unprovable can lead to confusion over the word faith and is an equivocation...a logical fallacy.

[
You wrote:

The theistic use of the word 'faith' to apply how you have mentioned is used as an attempt to level the playing field and remove one of the atheist's more powerful arguments, namely that using reason when evaluating truth claims is superior to using faith.

I certainly made no attempt to do that.

The post was not directed at you.

If you see it that way I’m sorry you feel threatened.

Where have I indicated I feel threatened?

If you want to claim reason is superior to faith in evaluating truth, that’s up to you. You do what ever you like. From my perspective and I’ve expressed here many times. Reason works for evaluating truth in the physical world as faith works for evaluating truth in the spiritual world.

And my persepctive is that the 'spiritual world' is dependent on the physical. Without the physical the spiritual could not exist.

I see no conflict between those statements. They aren’t meant to replace or compete with each other. They work concurrently on different aspects of reality. You’re the one that denies that, not me.

You are still unable it seems to tell the difference between a snake and a stick.

You continue with:

If something exists in the natural world it was never supernatural. Ignorance gave it its 'supernaturality.'

You can just as easily say that it’s ignorance and refusal to accept the obvious that prevents someone from seeing that “the supernatural” is nothing more than something “natural” that has not been discovered and understood yet. God is as Natural as you and I. Although quite a bit more complex, more powerful, more knowledgeable, and when we discover more about God perhaps we will be able to know more about How He is just as Natural as you and I and in what ways naturally different.

A concept IS quite natural in that it is a construct based on a neurorological mechanism. Ergo god, being a concept, is 'natural'.

You finish with:

Why is that so? The answer is deceptively simple.

"Who am I?"

And I remind you of another who made such a simple statement when He said:
“Who do you SAY that I am?”

Interestingly, both questions have the same answer.

Good Will to you my friend Bernee. I'm not trying to convince you not to be an atheist. Just sharing HOW I SEE THINGS.[/b]

And may you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.