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.

[The Duke of Vandals]

If you start with the assumption that there exists an omnipotent God who created the universe, surely it follows that such a God could likewise manipulate the universe without constraint to the laws of physics or energy.

But the idea that god created the universe and can manipulate is, itself, an unproven scientific claim. We can never use unproven claims to support other unproven claims. It would be like me saying, "Since it's possible for the sun to be a fiery chariot (as the Greeks alleged), then surely it follows that we could mistakenly perceive the sun as a giant ball of plasma gas..." God's existence isn't an axiom. It's a claim that theists assume is true without any rational basis. You've been conditioned from birth to believe it's acceptable to believe this claim without evidence. More than that, you've been conditioned to believe holding to faith is a mark of character while perfectly rational doubt is a flaw. The irony is that in your day to day life the exact opposite is true; You'd chastise a friend who bought a used car on "faith" and praise another friend who took the time to investigate the claims of the used car salesman.

You need to start applying skepticism uniformly. You need to discard the special pleadings you're invoking. You need to stop invoking fallacies like appeal to popular opinion / authority.

• When has science done so? According to NAS:
  "Science can neither prove nor disprove religion." And "many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science."
  
  This is the overwhelming stance that scientists take. You'd only find dissent from more extremist types such as Dawkins.

First, this isn't a popularity contest. A lot of very smart people believed the earth was flat while a minority knew otherwise. Second, the NAS quote you offered is simply a rehashing of the sentiment expressed by Ghould which Dawkins soundly demolished. You need to offer a new argument, PC. As I stated, this is a debate site and restating an argument that's been refuted isn't an acceptable debate tactic.

Lastly...

If God doesn't exist in the universe, exactly what would you practically go about looking for to prove God one way or another?

That's your problem. Not mine.

You're the one claiming he exists so you need to come up with the evidence for him.

[PC1]

Again, I say, you cannot have it both ways. If you postulate a God that can influence events on Earth by suspending or altering natural laws, but are then careful to add that God only DOES these things in a manner that cannot in practice be detected, then what you have in fact done is to very carefully postulate an entity which inherently cannot be detected. Such a postulation has no value. Again, any fool can postulate ANY God of their choosing in that way, and you would be defenceless to argue that your God is any more credible than theirs. I am trying very hard to be fair on this, what do you think?

This answer will be more theological than scientific, so you may not care for it. The Abrahamic God, as understood by Christians, is said to desire "faith". Could you detect miraculous intercessions of this God in the biosphere? Perhaps. But I highly doubt (based on my theological standing) that God would want to leave some sort of absolute proof; that utterly defeats the faith concept.

Can you explain that concept, as "faith" means differenct things to different people.

Paul says, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."

The example, as I understand, is that prayer is offered to a sick person, and then that person "miraculously" recovers from their sickness.

We know from experience that people do sometimes make amazing recoveries from sickness, irrespective of whether prayer was given. Therefore science cannot usually draw any conclusion from an individual case of "miraculous" healing, and neither can the theistic believer. Science should not and does not state in advance, and with absolute authority, that prayers do not assist healing. If conclusive evidence was found to show that prayer assists healing, then scientists would not conclude "it makes no sense that this healing occurred". Science is most definitely NOT in the business of denying what it sees, but instead seeks to explain and understand what it sees.

Right. That was essentially my point. I feel this goes back to my original statement that science cannot prove nor disprove God.

As individual "healing" cases provide little evidence either way, serious studies have been undertaken involving large numbers of patients, often financed by "believers". As yet, no positive evidence has been found.

There have been some studies that seem to suggest prayer is beneficial. See:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj1.html, for one.

Regardless, whatever the studies conclude, even if they all concluded that prayer was beneficial, I still don't like them. It assumes that God is going to answer everyone's prayers; we have no reason to assume such.

This is a good question, and I hope to return to it. I find your debating style and genuine honesty and curiousity in seeking truth to be a "breath of fresh air" on this forum. No doubt there will be some points where we "agree to disagree", and that's fine.

Thank you. I have been enjoying our discussion.

[PC1]

But the idea that god created the universe and can manipulate is, itself, an unproven scientific claim. We can never use unproven claims to support other unproven claims. It would be like me saying, "Since it's possible for the sun to be a fiery chariot (as the Greeks alleged), then surely it follows that we could mistakenly perceive the sun as a giant ball of plasma gas..."

Yet the idea that God doesn't exist isn't an unproven scientific claim? Your CoE idea is interesting but it hardly disproves the existence of God. The sun analogy isn't exactly the same as the sun is sitting in our universe, directly admitting 99.99999999% of the energy that our biosphere uses, and this is measurable. God does not sit at a fixed point in our universe, nor reside in it.

You need to start applying skepticism uniformly. You need to discard the special pleadings you're invoking. You need to stop invoking fallacies like appeal to popular opinion / authority.

Wait a minute. I got that from the Creation / Evolution book that NAS recently updated. Are you telling me I may therefore discard NAS' defense of evolution because popular opinion doesn't count?

Second, the NAS quote you offered is simply a rehashing of the sentiment expressed by Ghould which Dawkins soundly demolished. You need to offer a new argument, PC. As I stated, this is a debate site and restating an argument that's been refuted isn't an acceptable debate tactic.

Dawkins is much more of a rhetorician than a sound debater. He made two meaningful claims, 1) that we should be able to detect a god that lives in the universe and 2) supernatural intervention (as in the case of Jesus) should be detected. Those are both theoretically valid. Yet #1 fails because we are not discussing a god that "lives" in the universe. And #2 fails because of the practical impossibility of validly detecting such past miracles.

That's your problem. Not mine.

You're the one claiming he exists so you need to come up with the evidence for him.

I entered this thread with the claim that God cannot be scientifically proven/disproven. Your going off-topic and thinking that I'm trying to prove God here. I'm not, I'm trying to show that this question cannot be thoroughly answered through science alone, therefore it is not my problem, but actually supports my position.

[cdcdcd]

cdcdcd wrote:

Again, I say, you cannot have it both ways. If you postulate a God that can influence events on Earth by suspending or altering natural laws, but are then careful to add that God only DOES these things in a manner that cannot in practice be detected, then what you have in fact done is to very carefully postulate an entity which inherently cannot be detected. Such a postulation has no value. Any fool can postulate ANY God of their choosing in that way, and you would be defenceless to argue that your God is any more credible than theirs. I am trying very hard to be fair on this, what do you think?

(PS from cdcdcd - I try to avoid writing anything that cannot be backed up - I can certainly provide examples to back this up if required)

PC1 answered

This answer will be more theological than scientific, so you may not care for it. The Abrahamic God, as understood by Christians, is said to desire "faith". Could you detect miraculous intercessions of this God in the biosphere? Perhaps. But I highly doubt (based on my theological standing) that God would want to leave some sort of absolute proof; that utterly defeats the faith concept.

I think you have summed it up perfectly. My claim above stands, you have made no effort to deny it. Your position appears to be that your God can only be justified by "faith". That is, you must believe that he exists in order to believe that he exists. Do you know how absurd that proposition is? Do you know that if you used that reasoning to justify the existence of any other belief in our everyday world, you would be regarded as a nutcase? I'm not accusing you of being a "nutcase" because I am very sure that you would not use such an absurd argument in everyday life. Are we agreed that the faith argument is nonsense, or would you like some examples to back up what I have said?

Paul says, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."

I have no interest in what "Paul" says, I don't know him from a bar of soap, and he is not here to justify his claim. I am interested in what you think, and how you justify your claims. I state again that faith cannot be used to justify anything. Evidence can be used to justify faith, by faith cannot be used as a substitiute for evidence. You will have to get over this "faith" nonsense and move on. Yes, we can discuss further and I'll give as many examples as you like to back up what I have said, but I hope it is not necessary. Are we agreed, "faith" does not in itself provide any evidence or justification for a belief or proposition?



cdcdcd wrote:

We know from experience that people do sometimes make amazing recoveries from sickness, irrespective of whether prayer was given. Therefore science cannot usually draw any conclusion from an individual case of "miraculous" healing, and neither can the theistic believer. Science should not and does not state in advance, and with absolute authority, that prayers do not assist healing. If conclusive evidence was found to show that prayer assists healing, then scientists would not conclude "it makes no sense that this healing occurred". Science is most definitely NOT in the business of denying what it sees, but instead seeks to explain and understand what it sees.

PC1 replied:

Right. That was essentially my point. I feel this goes back to my original statement that science cannot prove nor disprove God.

Let's go over this carefully. What exactly do you mean by "science cannot prove God".

(a) You could mean that science inherently cannot prove the existence of God. If that is what you mean, then it is not correct. There are many ways that science could potentially "prove" the existence of God, or at least find very strong evidence for God. Evidence that prayers influence outcomes is an obvious example, and I can provide more examples if you wish. Any belief that science inherently cannot prove the existence of God is pure conjecture. If you absolutely insist on postulating a God that inherently cannot be detected, then I will accept that, subject to my unchallenged statement that a God defined in that way is worthless, because any fool could define any God of their choosing in the same way, and you are defenceless to argue that your God is any more credible than his.

(b) Alternatively you could mean that science has never found any scientifically credible evidence that proves the existence of God. That is correct.

The next part of your statement is that "science cannot disprove the existence of God". Correct. What follows from that is that the existence of God cannot be totally discounted, but it says nothing about the likelihood of God's existence. The only way to estimate likelihood of existence is to look at the evidence for existence. If you believe there is strong evidence for God's existence, and can tell us what that evidence is, then you are entitled to claim that there is a high likelihood that God exists. From a scientific perspective, I claim that the evidence for God's existence is extremely weak, and therefore the likelihood of existence is extremely low. This gives you plently of freedom, by the way. All you need to do is state that, in your opinion, the Bible provides strong evidence for the existence of God, and therefore there is a strong likelihood that God exists. Too easy. Are we agreed on this point? I would be really happy if we could agree, as this would provide a common foundation for further discussion.

[PC1]

I think you have summed it up perfectly. My claim above stands, you have made no effort to deny it. Your position appears to be that your God can only be justified by "faith". That is, you must believe that he exists in order to believe that he exists. Do you know how absurd that proposition is? Do you know that if you used that reasoning to justify the existence of any other belief in our everyday world, you would be regarded as a nutcase? I'm not accusing you of being a "nutcase" because I am very sure that you would not use such an absurd argument in everyday life. Are we agreed that the faith argument is nonsense, or would you like some examples to back up what I have said?

When I appeal to the faith argument, I don't mean "we must believe in a sky-God just because." Your right; that is ridiculous. What I mean specifically (and this goes back to theology) is that I don't expect that the God we are discussing, based on the Bible, would want to leave proof of himself lying around that would 100% guarantee his existence. I see no reason why it wouldn't be theoretically possible in science to investigate claims that would ultimately either suggest or muddy the existence of this God. But proof? I don't ever see that happening.

I have no interest in what "Paul" says, I don't know him from a bar of soap, and he is not here to justify his claim. I am interested in what you think, and how you justify your claims. I state again that faith cannot be used to justify anything. Evidence can be used to justify faith, by faith cannot be used as a substitiute for evidence. You will have to get over this "faith" nonsense and move on. Yes, we can discuss further and I'll give as many examples as you like to back up what I have said, but I hope it is not necessary. Are we agreed, "faith" does not in itself provide any evidence or justification for a belief or proposition?

Faith cannot produce empirical evidence - is that what you wanted to hear? Your misunderstanding me though. I didn't bring up faith to try to justify the existence of God. I brought it up because theologically it wouldn't make sense for this God to leave scientific proof lying around. You seem to have difficulty accepting this theological stance.

(a) You could mean that science inherently cannot prove the existence of God. If that is what you mean, then it is not correct. There are many ways that science could potentially "prove" the existence of God, or at least find very strong evidence for God. Evidence that prayers influence outcomes is an obvious example, and I can provide more examples if you wish. Any belief that science inherently cannot prove the existence of God is pure conjecture. If you absolutely insist on postulating a God that inherently cannot be detected, then I will accept that, subject to my unchallenged statement that a God defined in that way is worthless, because any fool could define any God of their choosing in the same way, and you are defenceless to argue that your God is any more credible than his.

We're talking about PROOF here. I take proof to mean 100% certainty. What does prayer prove? I feel I've already addressed this. Firstly did you take a look at the results I provided that suggest prayer works? If some results conclude that people who were prayed for heal better than those who weren't, what does that tell us? At the best it would suggest God exists, but it can't prove it. You said you could provide more examples and I'd like to see them. It seems like these tests of God's existence assume that they know how an unknowable variable will work: God. They don't. These prayer tests are easily nullified because they assume God will actively be participating in those who are prayed for - that position is unsupported.
Furthermore, how would you prove God not to exist with 100% certainty? I could see how God could be proven with 100% certainty, if he were to come to earth and put on a light show for us or something. But if God doesn't act on the earth that does nothing to PROVE he doesn't exist; nothing at all. At best it suggests God has no interest in us, which is what deists such as Anthony Flew would say.

(b) Alternatively you could mean that science has never found any scientifically credible evidence that proves the existence of God. That is correct.

Yes, and the question becomes: will it ever? If undeniable proof came along that God doesn't exist I will convert to atheism.

The next part of your statement is that "science cannot disprove the existence of God". Correct. What follows from that is that the existence of God cannot be totally discounted, but it says nothing about the likelihood of God's existence. The only way to estimate likelihood of existence is to look at the evidence for existence. If you believe there is strong evidence for God's existence, and can tell us what that evidence is, then you are entitled to claim that there is a high likelihood that God exists. From a scientific perspective, I claim that the evidence for God's existence is extremely weak, and therefore the likelihood of existence is extremely low. This gives you plently of freedom, by the way. All you need to do is state that, in your opinion, the Bible provides strong evidence for the existence of God, and therefore there is a strong likelihood that God exists. Too easy. Are we agreed on this point? I would be really happy if we could agree, as this would provide a common foundation for further discussion.

Yes, I agree with this paragraph. I feel like your trying to draw me into a classic debate over whether the evidence leads to God or not. I really don't feel like engaging in such a tedious endeavor.

[byofrcs]

I think you have summed it up perfectly. My claim above stands, you have made no effort to deny it. Your position appears to be that your God can only be justified by "faith". That is, you must believe that he exists in order to believe that he exists. Do you know how absurd that proposition is? Do you know that if you used that reasoning to justify the existence of any other belief in our everyday world, you would be regarded as a nutcase? I'm not accusing you of being a "nutcase" because I am very sure that you would not use such an absurd argument in everyday life. Are we agreed that the faith argument is nonsense, or would you like some examples to back up what I have said?

When I appeal to the faith argument, I don't mean "we must believe in a sky-God just because." Your right; that is ridiculous. What I mean specifically (and this goes back to theology) is that I don't expect that the God we are discussing, based on the Bible, would want to leave proof of himself lying around that would 100% guarantee his existence. I see no reason why it wouldn't be theoretically possible in science to investigate claims that would ultimately either suggest or muddy the existence of this God. But proof? I don't ever see that happening.

Trust is needed first, not faith. With Trust then you can have faith. The problem we have is how can we trust something that does not want to reveal itself ?

Honesty is having a willingness to reveal oneself. To be transparent and not concealing ones actions behind a screen.

There can be no trust between two if there is no honestly between the two. It follows that whilst God cannot be honest, then it cannot be trusted and without trust there can be no faith.

It does not require faith on our part but the first move is God's; how can we trust it ? For me, as for many atheists I imagine, trust is created through the scientific method. The experiments, the peer reviews, the citations, the publications, criticism the metastudies, the data, as a system it seems to work well and we trust this as it is honest. When it is shown to be dishonest then the system rapidly sanctions and corrects the error.

Thus our faith in this method isn't blind but earned through trust in the honesty of the process.

Why should people adopt a different approach with Religion ?. What makes religion so special that we are told to have faith without trust and without seeing the honesty ?

[The Duke of Vandals]

Yet the idea that God doesn't exist isn't an unproven scientific claim?

Nope, it's not. What you've done here is a fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". God is the outlandish claim. You're the one who has to prove he exists. Not the other way around.

Your CoE idea is interesting but it hardly disproves the existence of God.

Of course it does. Remember to keep things in context, PC1. We're talking about scientific hypotheses. An hypothesis that states, "well, for this hypothesis to work, energy has to come into existence from nothing" is false. Not unknown. Not unproven. Not true.

False.

The god hypothesis is no different. It is allotted no special treatment. You as a theist are responsible for providing the evidence to show where CoE doesn't apply. If all you have is a "what if" sort of explanation, then you're argument fails.

The sun analogy isn't exactly the same as the sun is sitting in our universe, directly admitting 99.99999999% of the energy that our biosphere uses, and this is measurable. God does not sit at a fixed point in our universe, nor reside in it.

This is a borderline straw man fallacy. The issue I brought up with the sun illustrates how not having the technology to answer a question isn't a failing of science. Unknowns that are scientific questions... like the content of the sun or the existence of god... remain scientific questions.

Wait a minute. I got that from the Creation / Evolution book that NAS recently updated. Are you telling me I may therefore discard NAS' defense of evolution because popular opinion doesn't count?

Straw man. I said nothing of the sort. The National Academy of Science isn't particularly interested in dealing with the scorn and drama that theists are always ready to dish out when the subject of god's existence comes up. Regardless, you need to deal with Dawkins' argument rather than appealing to popular opinion (a fallacy). Why does the NAS believe that and how does it dispel what Dawkins said? Demonstrate that or my argument stands.

Dawkins is much more of a rhetorician than a sound debater.

Ad hominem fallacy.

He made two meaningful claims, 1) that we should be able to detect a god that lives in the universe and 2) supernatural intervention (as in the case of Jesus) should be detected. Those are both theoretically valid. Yet #1 fails because we are not discussing a god that "lives" in the universe.

Nope. You're wrong. The "outside the universe" claim is, itself, a scientific claim that you need to evidence. You've not done so. You cannot simply declare that something exists, provide no evidence for it, and allege that it exists beyond our detection.

And #2 fails because of the practical impossibility of validly detecting such past miracles.

Then you shouldn't believe a word of the bible... or you should admit that you're in the habit of believing specific unevidenced claims.

I entered this thread with the claim that God cannot be scientifically proven/disproven.

And your argument has been soundly rebutted by myself and others. God is a scientific claim. Like any other scientific claim, it requires proper evidence and fails when compared to evidenced claims it contradicts (like CoE).

[PC1]

Nope, it's not. What you've done here is a fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". God is the outlandish claim. You're the one who has to prove he exists. Not the other way around.

Regardless of whether or not I committed a fallacy, your claim of scientific disproof of God is untrue (although very clever) as it makes unknown theological assumptions.

Of course it does. Remember to keep things in context, PC1. We're talking about scientific hypotheses. An hypothesis that states, "well, for this hypothesis to work, energy has to come into existence from nothing" is false. Not unknown. Not unproven. Not true.

False.

The god hypothesis is no different. It is allotted no special treatment. You as a theist are responsible for providing the evidence to show where CoE doesn't apply. If all you have is a "what if" sort of explanation, then you're argument fails.

Your saying it's impossible for God to exist because the CoE prevents energy from being created, right? Remember that we're discussing an omnipotent God, who is said to have created the universe. Why should I expect that he would be held hostage to the very laws he created? Anyways, I could simply hypothesize that God works miracles with existing energy or something of the like.

This is a borderline straw man fallacy. The issue I brought up with the sun illustrates how not having the technology to answer a question isn't a failing of science. Unknowns that are scientific questions... like the content of the sun or the existence of god... remain scientific questions.

Yes. But my point was that the sun was sitting there staring them in the face everyday; not so with God.

Regardless, you need to deal with Dawkins' argument rather than appealing to popular opinion (a fallacy). Why does the NAS believe that and how does it dispel what Dawkins said? Demonstrate that or my argument stands.

DoV, you said "You need to stop invoking fallacies like appeal to popular opinion / authority" in reference to NAS. By your logic, I could dismiss NAS' defense of evolution (which I've seen cited many times in evolution/creation debates) because invoking popular opinion is a fallacy. As for why NAS believes so? They claim such beliefs are not "within the current domain of science." Perhaps I'll e-mail them to expand on that.

Nope. You're wrong. The "outside the universe" claim is, itself, a scientific claim that you need to evidence. You've not done so. You cannot simply declare that something exists, provide no evidence for it, and allege that it exists beyond our detection.

Dawkins specifically stated that he was referring to a "god in the universe." How does science, beyond theoretical physics, extend past the universe? How would I begin to use science to detect something outside our universe?

Then you shouldn't believe a word of the bible... or you should admit that you're in the habit of believing specific unevidenced claims.

I have several reasons for believing what I do. This would open up a can of worms and derail the thread.

And your argument has been soundly rebutted by myself and others. God is a scientific claim. Like any other scientific claim, it requires proper evidence and fails when compared to evidenced claims it contradicts (like CoE).

I feel my argument of -proof- stands. Solid, undeniable, proof - I've yet to see it. Like I said in another response, at the most you could infer that God cares nothing for us if after attempting to look for God's interaction on earth you found nothing. Such a position would force deism, not atheism.

[joer]

cdcdcdc wrote:

Science is bound by reality, that is all.

Actually I'd say science tries to define the boundaries of reality. But can't touch the reality that lies beyond it's reaches. And when it's found to be Wrong in was bounded by illusion of set boundaries to an illusion and NOT Reality.

Byo wrote:

If the claim that God created the Earth is true then God has a natural element in the same way that when presented with an egg then the Hen chicken is not supernatural but part of the creation of the egg.

Don’t follow you byo. Please don’t repeat.

PC1 wrote:

The Biology department at my university claims science is bound by the scientific method. I could provide an e-mail if you'd like to take it up with them.

He’s got it right CDCD. That makes a lot more sence.

Vandals wrote:

PC1, you really need to understand what you're stating. The following was written by a prominent atheist biologist. Please read carefully:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.

What’s the beef Vandal? God can be posed as a scientific hypothesis, But it CAN'T be scientifically proven. So the statement, “science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature” is True. What’s your protest with that fact.

You need Faith to know God and science is for knowing the physical world.

PC1 wrote:

That isn't a fair analogy because we have empirical proof that water will not only boil at 5000 degrees. We have no such empirical proof that God doesn't exist.

Exactly.

Semantics. Really, that's just a dodge used by atheists
How true it is.

Cdcdcd wrote:
I

suspect that with discussion we would end up agreeing on many points. I am not here to automatically disagree with every statement or idea expressed by theists,

PC1 wrote:

When has science done so? According to NAS:
"Science can neither prove nor disprove religion." And "many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science."

Thank you PC1. I’ve said that so many times but didn’t have this documented Scientific Source on record as saying it.
PC1 wrote:

Would you be able to detect a past manipulation with the accepted laws of the universe?

Even if they did detect something new they would say it was some previously undetected “Natural” phenomenon. They would still need “Faith” to spiritually sense God.

PC1 wrote:

I entered this thread with the claim that God cannot be scientifically proven/disproven. Your going off-topic and thinking that I'm trying to prove God here. I'm not, I'm trying to show that this question cannot be thoroughly answered through science alone, therefore it is not my problem, but actually supports my position.

PC1 I really enjoy your solid focused answers. You do very well at not falling for any sidetracks and staying on Point.

PC1 wrote:

Faith cannot produce empirical evidence - is that what you wanted to hear? Your misunderstanding me though. I didn't bring up faith to try to justify the existence of God. I brought it up because theologically it wouldn't make sense for this God to leave scientific proof lying around. You seem to have difficulty accepting this theological stance.

I can see it clearly.

Vandal wrote:

Nope, it's not. What you've done here is a fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". God is the outlandish claim. You're the one who has to prove he exists. Not the other way around.

Wrong! You can’t scientifically prove the existence of God is the Claim. Quite different than what you’re claiming.

PC1 wrote:

I feel my argument of -proof- stands. Solid, undeniable, proof - I've yet to see it. Like I said in another response, at the most you could infer that God cares nothing for us if after attempting to look for God's interaction on earth you found nothing. Such a position would force deism, not atheism.

You represented your position quite well PC1. I’ve enjoyed your capable defense of your position.

Thank for the pleasure or reading your posts they brought up the level of discussion on the thread.

[cdcdcd]

cdcdcd wrote:

The next part of your statement is that "science cannot disprove the existence of God". Correct. What follows from that is that the existence of God cannot be totally discounted, but it says nothing about the likelihood of God's existence. The only way to estimate likelihood of existence is to look at the evidence for existence. If you believe there is strong evidence for God's existence, and can tell us what that evidence is, then you are entitled to claim that there is a high likelihood that God exists. From a scientific perspective, I claim that the evidence for God's existence is extremely weak, and therefore the likelihood of existence is extremely low. This gives you plently of freedom, by the way. All you need to do is state that, in your opinion, the Bible provides strong evidence for the existence of God, and therefore there is a strong likelihood that God exists. Too easy. Are we agreed on this point? I would be really happy if we could agree, as this would provide a common foundation for further discussion.

PC1:

Yes, I agree with this paragraph. I feel like your trying to draw me into a classic debate over whether the evidence leads to God or not. I really don't feel like engaging in such a tedious endeavor.

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:


(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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.