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.

[byofrcs]

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

I wasn't intending it as an equivocation but as a stepping stone to showing that humans have a propensity to believe which is selected for. We have the ability to hold a understanding of the world in our head. Be it a political ideology, a religious belief or a technical understanding, it is an expectation on how some thing functions or is expected to function in our worldview.

I believe the basis of all these beliefs can be explained as simple evolved human behaviours. I do not see it as being necessary to presume that because we allocate a different word, "faith", to certain implementations of this core human mental process that there is a different process for religions faith from any other expectation of behaviour in our worldview.

There isn't anything unique about religious faith as any other belief that humans have. If theists feel emboldened by this reasoning then they are welcome to this mind-field because that is what they have just stepped into.

[vce211]

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

Regardless of whether a piece of evidence can convince you to believe in the Christian god, can any scientific evidence support faith? Wouldn't it then cease to be faith? At any extent, if some piece of scientific evidence leads you to believe in the Christian god then is that not faith in the evidence itself? The faith wouldnt be in God. Because if that evidence disappeared so would your belief.
This is a condundrum for christians trying to evidence god in the world, no? At least in terms of truly converting people.

[joer]

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

Regardless of whether a piece of evidence can convince you to believe in the Christian god, can any scientific evidence support faith? Wouldn't it then cease to be faith? At any extent, if some piece of scientific evidence leads you to believe in the Christian god then is that not faith in the evidence itself? The faith wouldnt be in God. Because if that evidence disappeared so would your belief.
This is a condundrum for christians trying to evidence god in the world, no? At least in terms of truly converting people.

For those with Faith, no evidence is necessary.

For those without Faith, no evidence will suffice.

[byofrcs]

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

Regardless of whether a piece of evidence can convince you to believe in the Christian god, can any scientific evidence support faith? Wouldn't it then cease to be faith? At any extent, if some piece of scientific evidence leads you to believe in the Christian god then is that not faith in the evidence itself? The faith wouldnt be in God. Because if that evidence disappeared so would your belief.
This is a condundrum for christians trying to evidence god in the world, no? At least in terms of truly converting people.

For those with Faith, no evidence is necessary.

For those without Faith, no evidence will suffice.

Faith thus need not be grounded in any truth but any false claim can be believed. That certainly sums up faith.

[vce211]

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,

Hey joer, my names ben and am new to the forum, so sorry if im bringing up old topics or misudnerstanding your perspective:

Have you heard of the evolutionary by-product theory? It supposes that the human inclination to perceive the supernatural is the result of some evolutionary advantageous trait, misfiring. Let me premise with an example:

- Many insects have the ability to navigate by moon/starlight (advantagoeus evolutionary trait), keeping the light waves at particular angles to their eyes. Because the light sources are at an optical infinity, the light waves are parralel and thus facilitate a linear trajectory.

- Environment changes; artificial lights come onto the scene.

- The above insects will spiral into the artificial light source in order to maintain an angle to the light waves (the light radiates from a perceivable point now). The adaptive mechanism has misfired.

The religion as a by-product theory has many candidate adaptations misfiring, such as:
- children's ability to uncritically accept information from an authoritive source (usually prevents children from analysing if the tiger will, in fact, eat them or not).
- couples in love/parents in love (betters offsprings chances of survival).
- formation of coalition (strength in numbers)
- in-group discrimination and xenophobia (in-group members more likely to share your genes)
- teleology; assignment of meaning (assign an intention to an object in the environment to facilitate decision making).
The theory suggests something like the above primes us psychologically for religious belief. If this were ever to be proved it, of course, neither supports not evidences the existence of God, but is one less 'scientific reason' for the existence of god.

There is evidence for this. Richard dawkins in his 'god delusion' covers all this much better than I and is worth a read if you havent already.
Have you heard of the cargo cults? They are pacific island 'religions' that popped up deifing white man ;and some still exist. They all apparently grew in isolation from each other and all have in common a white male who has come with followers in strange vessels with many delightful goods (cargo ships), performed rituals to ensure the cargo would return (marched up and down the forest; most settlers were temporary military establishments), and are expected by the locals to return. When asked by investigators (David attenborough actually) after 19 years how long would they wait for the white man to return, at least two have wittily replied, "youve waited for jesus for 2000 years (there were also attempted missionary establishments), i will wait for more than 19," representing the mood of most of these islands, and giving some amazing insight into the roots of religion in my perspective.

Anywho, sorry for the long post!
Cheers
Ben

[Fred R]

In the science of radio astronomy, using the Big Array, scientist discovered remanence of the Big Bang which could only be caused by a Singularity. Now the Hubble teliscope shows us that all galaxies have energy membranes surrounding them like all life forms, and contain black holes in their centers with singularities in their centers. These black holes metablize star energy, like all life forms get energy. It is theorized that at the end of evolution only one of these singularities will exist after absorbing all the rest of the galaxies. Science has inadvertently discovered the pre existence of a singular creator that has multiplied into all life forms and ceased to remain as one but will return as one in the end of this time era. Pressently the singularity is in the form of a fetal galaxy floating in the amniotic fluid of space in the universal womb. This is why we should avoid abortion, because one of those fetuses might evolve into us. Stop refereing to the Creator as a he, him, his, father, lord, and life begins to become logical.

[steen]

To need physical evidence of God is indeed to cheapen Faith. It is similar to the Israelites needing a golden calf as a tangible item to worship, the believing through seeing.

Today's creationists who so desperately seek to "prove" God are as weak in their Faith as were those Israelites, of which God commanded Moses to kill a whole bunch because they lacked faith.

So much for creationism.

[joer]

byofrcs wrote:

Faith thus need not be grounded in any truth but any false claim can be believed. That certainly sums up faith.

To an atheist.

Hey joer, my names ben and am new to the forum, so sorry if im bringing up old topics or misudnerstanding your perspective:

Howdy Ben. I hope you enjoy the forum.

Don’t worry about old topics or misunderstanding. Your stuff looks like new stuff to me and very good questions.

I’ve heard about Dawkins and the God Delusion. Haven’t read it yet. I just ordered Justin Barrett’s book. “Why would anyone believe in God.” I'm curious about his Cognitive Science of Religion ideas.

Rather than looking for “candidate adaptations misfiring” as a basis for religious pursuit in human kind, I’d rather try to find other legitimate candidate reasons of the existence of our “religious beliefs”. Thus my interest in Barrett’s new study. There are a couple of things I’m interested in. One our tendency to know right from wrong instinctively even without prior moral training. And two the supposed spiritual spark of God that is supposed to be in each of us. Would our instinctual moral preference be an indicator of that? Would childhood behavior patterns bear out any indications of a moral tendency towards “good” rather than “bad”?

Anyway Ben. I like your questions. The answers to them would certainly be interesting.

Cheers my friend.

Fred wrote:

Stop refereing to the Creator as a he, him, his, father, lord, and life begins to become logical.

How about Mother, she, her, hers, daughter? I wonder if after we return back to that single back hole if there's another Big Bang and we start all over again?

Steen wrote:

To need physical evidence of God is indeed to cheapen Faith.

I don't know about "needing" it (physical evidence) But I just think it's so exciting seeing God in everything around us. And seeing science as the discovery of God though understanding His/ Her physical creation.

Cheers Steen.

[byofrcs]

byofrcs wrote:

Faith thus need not be grounded in any truth but any false claim can be believed. That certainly sums up faith.

To an atheist.

No - to anybody. This even works in science. To have faith that something works isn't truthful until it has been proven through observation and experiment. Our trust that something works in a particular way develops over time.

Religious faith on the other hand has no clear method of proving what is said is true.

Without that method of falsifiability nothing of religious faith can be trusted as true. Show us how we can trust what you say your faith tells you ?.

[Beto]

I don't know about "needing" it (physical evidence) But I just think it's so exciting seeing God in everything around us.

And I understand how people can get "addicted" to that "high". Doesn't mean they see reality as it really is (pardon the redundance).

And seeing science as the discovery of God though understanding His/ Her physical creation.

Even though Science may deem several biblical accounts as being scientifically inviable?