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.

[graphicsguy]

I kind of doubt it is possible to prove/disprove God's actual existence...scientifically or otherwise.

Your example of video evidence can be turned around as well. Scientists could completely disprove God's existence and many, many believers would still hold to their faith. They would say it was a trick of Satan or something to that extent and "KNOW" that if they held out against the majority that they would be rewarded in heaven.

To me, it seems that a God who wants relationship with man wouldn't veil himself in such mystery thus making it difficult to relate to man in any fashion.

That's not evidence nor proof/disproof of anything, it's simply one of my personal feelings on the matter.

I am of the opinion that, no matter what, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

[Chad]

So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

Good solid evidence that leads to the rational conclusion of God. One I can think of would be the fossil record. Imagine if we found not a gradient of "simplicity" to "complexity" in the fossil record, but rather just a flat out start of "complexity" in the form of multicellular plants and animals of all sorts. And lets say that they all date back to 20,000 years ago. This leads us to conclude a supernatural force kick started life (Or a natural process we are utterly unfamiliar with).

Other sorts of examples might include things like the age of the universe, number/nature of galaxies/planets, a fine-tuning argument of some sort, among other things I'm sure.

In other words, it would take some form of scientific evidence to argue me into believing in God. I don't think this is being narrow in my form of evidence either. As something that is claimed to have created the universe, life, or a myriad of other things, it's reasonable to expect some sort of scientific verifiable way to show that it happened in such a way. Though I suppose a strong philosophical argument may sway me as well.

[MikeH]

Your example of video evidence can be turned around as well. Scientists could completely disprove God's existence and many, many believers would still hold to their faith. They would say it was a trick of Satan or something to that extent and "KNOW" that if they held out against the majority that they would be rewarded in heaven.

I don't think such proof is possible, but your point is equally true. So what, then, do people count as solid proof for anything? I have solid, scientific evidence presented to me that shows that evolution occurs, yet I have no idea as to how to personally test carbon dating or other things. On the other hand, I have literally hundreds and hundreds of reliable eyewitnesses accounts (sometimes in large groups), as well as personal observation, of supernatural events occurring. Do I chalk all of these up as group hallucinations and trust only what science can prove?

[MikeH]

Good solid evidence that leads to the rational conclusion of God. One I can think of would be the fossil record. Imagine if we found not a gradient of "simplicity" to "complexity" in the fossil record, but rather just a flat out start of "complexity" in the form of multicellular plants and animals of all sorts. And lets say that they all date back to 20,000 years ago. This leads us to conclude a supernatural force kick started life (Or a natural process we are utterly unfamiliar with).

Other sorts of examples might include things like the age of the universe, number/nature of galaxies/planets, a fine-tuning argument of some sort, among other things I'm sure.

In other words, it would take some form of scientific evidence to argue me into believing in God. I don't think this is being narrow in my form of evidence either. As something that is claimed to have created the universe, life, or a myriad of other things, it's reasonable to expect some sort of scientific verifiable way to show that it happened in such a way. Though I suppose a strong philosophical argument may sway me as well.

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?

[Undertow]

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.

That dosen't matter. If god came down to me and shook my hand, and I was of a resonable state of mind, I would believe in him.

In terms of trying to proove a god with science, It's basically impossible. You can have some pretty decent philosophical arguments but I probably wont budge to them due to my limited scope in terms of empirically based thought processes.

But hey, any physical manifestations or revelations, you'd basically have me hook line and sinker.

[Cmass]

From the OP:

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible.

I don't see why not - although extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
From the OP:

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?

The same kinds of evidence we require for believing other seemingly impossible things such as splitting atoms, landing a robot on Mars etc.. Remember, there are endless mythologies offering up all manner of Gods along with different rationale for existence - and most of them were invented before the Age of Reason and science and offer no evidence because their inventors did not apply critical thinking in the same way we do nor did they have any tools for evaluation. People in Biblical times were very, very, very different than you and me. (There is a tendency for many Christians to be anthropomorphic when considering Biblical societies) Lightening was not electricity, it was the hand of God. They were wrong but they had no way to evaluate it.
Beyond that, I think you will find there are many gradations of atheism that blur into forms of agnosticism. I would argue that many of those people - including myself - not only see no evidence for Gods in general but find the idea of a "personal God' (one that talks to you and does special favors for you) fails thought experiments. In addition, as personal Gods go, Bible God is an especially troublesome creature that has no appeal.

[Jose]

So what, then, do people count as solid proof for anything? I have solid, scientific evidence presented to me that shows that evolution occurs, yet I have no idea as to how to personally test carbon dating or other things. On the other hand, I have literally hundreds and hundreds of reliable eyewitnesses accounts...

But there is the possibility for you to test carbon dating (and other things.) The principle is clear, the math is accessible, and the original data (i.e. the facts) are recorded in the public domain. There are many examples, performed by many different people, which serve as a cross-check of the method. There are alternative methods for determining the validity of the results of carbon dating, such as tree-ring data, ice cores, river varves, etc that lend credence to the conclusions. Admittedly, you'd need to spend some time cross-checking all of this, but it's possible.

By contrast, you can't cross-check someone else's eyewitness account. Furthermore, eyewitness accounts have a tendency to change with time, because the memory does odd things. Along these lines, I was chatting with the head of our state police crime lab a while back, and he said that prosecutors now require forensic data to bring a case to trial; eyewitness accounts are no longer considered valid. This makes me wonder how we might determine whether an eyewitness account is "reliable."

I dunno....maybe god speaks to some of us but not to others. Maybe he speaks in different ways in different cultures, and sometimes in many different voices to account for the multiplicity of gods that some cultures have.

Alternatively, there is very strong selection for inborn behavioral traits that maintain group stability. We're a social species, each helping the other; it's important to catch cheaters and make 'em toe the line, or else the social cooperation breaks down. The behavioral trait that seems to have arisen in humans is the capacity for Belief. The rules and mythology of different religions may be wildly different, but the social function remains the same and they all work within their cultural groups.

[graphicsguy]

Do I chalk all of these up as group hallucinations and trust only what science can prove?

In my opinion...yes. What I call "group hysteria" or simply "group mentality" is far too common in Christian churches.

I have seen way too many miracles "undo" themselves hours or days after supposed healing.

I have seen way too many "revival meetings" get going because people wanting attention start falling down under the "power" or laughing hysterically or whatever.

I've seen it, I've been a part of it, I've experienced it. I do believe that it can be chalked up to a collection of people just wanting "feel goods" from their beliefs.

[MikeH]

Do I chalk all of these up as group hallucinations and trust only what science can prove?

In my opinion...yes. What I call "group hysteria" or simply "group mentality" is far too common in Christian churches.

I have seen way too many miracles "undo" themselves hours or days after supposed healing.

I have seen way too many "revival meetings" get going because people wanting attention start falling down under the "power" or laughing hysterically or whatever.

I've seen it, I've been a part of it, I've experienced it. I do believe that it can be chalked up to a collection of people just wanting "feel goods" from their beliefs.

Eh, I'm not really talking about these Benny Hinn type of events, which have more in common with hypnotism than Christianity. But let's say four people are just walking down the street, and they see an angel fly above them, eating a bucket of KFC.