Evidence for God from Science

In a book I'm reading the author claims that there is no proof that God exists or He doesn't. The author thinks there never will be any proof either way. Or that God created the universe. He thinks people should keep searching in case he's wrong. He thinks, however, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no God. So much so, I may have to ask you to read it in the book. I have trouble typing that much.

He says, however that if an atheist scientist, or any other kind of scientist, should be able to prove that to almost everybody God does exist and created the universe his reputation and his fortune would be made, and he'd be thrilled.

I think he's right. What do you think?

I mean sure, but you're talking about "prove God exists," which is like -- well, it goes completely against the whole thing about faith for one thing.

patrick wrote:I mean sure, but you're talking about "prove God exists," which is like -- well, it goes completely against the whole thing about faith for one thing.

Well, that's just too bad.

Define God.

PaulSacramento wrote:Define God.

This is not origional, but it's the best I can do.

In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

To prove the existence of anything, we need to know what we are looking for and what constitutes evidence and how that evidence can lead to proof.

To prove God one must first define which/what God they are trying to prove.

According to your definition, you are looking for evidence for :
the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.


First off, IF God exists "He" is not A being but IS being, that is the first thing to grasp and the first part to understand because if you can't get there, you have already "created" a God that isn't any of the other things that he would have attributed to Him.

PaulSacramento wrote:To prove the existence of anything, we need to know what we are looking for and what constitutes evidence and how that evidence can lead to proof.

To prove God one must first define which/what God they are trying to prove.

According to your definition, you are looking for evidence for :
the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.


First off, IF God exists "He" is not A being but IS being, that is the first thing to grasp and the first part to understand because if you can't get there, you have already "created" a God that isn't any of the other things that he would have attributed to Him.

I don't think I even want to go there.

ultimate777 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:To prove the existence of anything, we need to know what we are looking for and what constitutes evidence and how that evidence can lead to proof.

To prove God one must first define which/what God they are trying to prove.

According to your definition, you are looking for evidence for :
the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God, as described by most theologians, includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.


First off, IF God exists "He" is not A being but IS being, that is the first thing to grasp and the first part to understand because if you can't get there, you have already "created" a God that isn't any of the other things that he would have attributed to Him.

I don't think I even want to go there.

Then maybe you should go here.

The question would be, what would be an acceptable, undeniable level of proof for most? God is Spirit - is is not a physical Being, although He has now forever taken on human form. But other than His form as Jesus, He is Spirit. So, how can one prove a Spirit they can't see or touch? One would have to examine things that Spirit has touched or done, correct?

Philip wrote:The question would be, what would be an acceptable, undeniable level of proof for most? God is Spirit - is is not a physical Being, although He has now forever taken on human form. But other than His form as Jesus, He is Spirit. So, how can one prove a Spirit they can't see or touch? One would have to examine things that Spirit has touched or done, correct?

I don't know what would be an acceptable, undeniable level of proof for most. Part of proving it would be finding out what that is, then getting it. Maybe people could see it and hear it.

I have often asked skeptics what evidence would be acceptable and the majority say that some sort of personal revelation is needed ( see God for themselves type of thing), of course they to NOT accept that as evidence if sated by others.
I irony is obvious.

PaulSacramento wrote:I have often asked skeptics what evidence would be acceptable and the majority say that some sort of personal revelation is needed ( see God for themselves type of thing), of course they to NOT accept that as evidence if sated by others.
I irony is obvious.

That is obvious. I think much more than a personal revelation is needed, and it would be little good to proving anything to anybody else. I actually think it cannot be proved with 100% certainty. On top of everything else one can never be completely sure one is not imagining things, one must have faith one is not if one is to function. But a certain level of evidence can cause almost everybody to have faith. I'm 99.9999% sure the Earth is not flat, not 100%, so I suppose I have faith the Earth is not flat.

Or if I was 100% sure, could I still have faith?

Faith is based on reason and rational, it exists because of those things not in spit of them.

Faith is based on reason and rational, it exists because of those things not in spit of them.

But for SOME, least in Jesus' day, faith required very strong evidences, not normally seen:

Jesus told the official in Capernaum, with the dying son: "So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” (John 4:48)

And there is a certain level of understanding that is necessary for faith - but the evidence required is different - meaning, at a differing level for different people - some require a LOT more, and for some, NO level of evidence will ever be sufficient - because their problem isn't with insufficient evidence, it's having a closed mind and hard heart: "And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?" (Numbers 14:11)

But to others Jesus asserted that NO level of the miraculous will convince one determined to remain in deliberate, SELF-maintained / enforced resistance to belief: "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

I would argue, that especially in the scientific age, one has much evidence of God's existence all around them - or within very easy access. People see what they want to see, per their own internal, often selfish and narcissistic motivations.

Re: What if an atheist scientist proves God exists? ie would they profiteer off this?

I would say no. They already see the evidence for God before their eyes and still deny it so why would anything change?

Evidence does not matter, however, pride does ...
-
-
-