-1.jpg){kind=small}
Is there any actual scientific proof that God exists?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$25 Answers
Many people who do not believe in God, will try to use science and reason to claim that God does not exist. However, consider the concept of the omniscient God. How can God know what will happen? Serious physicists and philosophers have considered the concept of time being a trick of the mind. That there is no past-present-future (see podcast of the Scientific American below). This idea/concept does not prove the existence or possibility of God and it certainly does not disprove it. It does make one think.
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=in-search-of-time-09-03-19
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$For one, God is a supernatural being. By definition, he exists OUTSIDE the realm of nature and science.
"Proving" that God exists is impossible since he would exist in the physical, rather than spiritual, realm if there were proof, which nullifies any supernatural qualities.
Most rational people live their lives by thinking critically about life, even autonomically, in everyday situations. "There is a car coming toward me - I should not walk in front of it." "A man is handing me Monopoly money and trying to buy my stereo, but this is not real money." Strangely, most people do not apply this line of critically thinking to religion. It is exempt from rational thought, and has been encouraged and lauded thoughout the ages. God can only exist on "faith" alone.
Faith is the belief in something without evidence.
People that are LOOKING for evidence can find it anywhere if they look hard enough, which is why lawyers, doctors, psychologists, and scientists do make mistakes... if you want proof, you can find pictures of Mary on a tortilla, or a slice of bread. But show me a paraplegic that has been healed, ever.
I'll never understand why, for example, a middle-class soccer mom who in that morning feels like her son winning the big game is evidence of the existence of God, while African children are starving to death and while vultures haunt the skies; ostensibly, God prefers to answer the prayers of rich, white Americans. Ask Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, or Robert Tipton and they'll tell you how God can make you rich if you just believe; send them some money, and look carefully - you will receive the evidence! Of course, if you lose your job, that is just God testing your faith, so that is evidence, too.
And by the way, regardless of how this goes, aabacus has the Best Answer.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Daigakuins, I am using the dictionary definition to establish that faith is belief without proof. I never used the definition you refuted, "faith is belief without any evidence whatsoever." Perhaps you should see my post on "Does questioning the existence of God lead to faithlessness" to see the ways I agree with your refutation. So here are the definitions for faith that I am using:
1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof (Collins Essential)
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. (American Heritage)
I do appreciate what you wrote.
Evidents that God exist are everywhere around us and inside of us!
I don't think that your answer is the right one no matter how many people vote for it as interesting one!
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
The Holy Bible does not suggest that "faith results from a similar process as scientific theory." Instead it asks us to suspend belief in what we can determine by reason and accept the feelings that flow through us. It says that by doing so, we will live a more happy life. This is a perfectly legitimate concept, but it does not relieve us of our responsibility to teach our children the science of the world.
@hishaman
see, but the question was specifically for SCIENTIFIC proof. beakers, and test tubes, and graphs with the bell curves and what nots.
it's not a "belief" question in the slightest.
I voted @aabacus’s answer as unhelpful because it contributes nothing to the question.
If someone had answered “Will the new iPod touch come out this Spring?” simply with “Yes,” would that be considered a helpful answer? What if someone had answered the question “Is there a God?” with “Yes,” and listed their source as “Faith.”
I think you may be mistaken that the essence of faith is belief without evidence. Of course, if you mean scientific evidence, then I would agree with you, for some of the reasons you state, as well as some of the other answers to this question. But to say faith is belief without any evidence whatsoever is problematic.
In reality, faith results from a similar process as scientific theory. People make observations and draw conclusions based on them. From your response, it’s clear to me that you disagree with their conclusions—as such, you can try to reason them out of them, but in many cases you cannot strictly speaking disprove them (at least not in the scientific sense). For many of them, all you are left with is that your reason does not lead you to the same conclusions, and you consequently think their conclusions are erroneous.
But even in the framework of science, erroneous conclusions can be reached. Moreover, the resulting theories can even be tested and found to be consistent with the data available at the time—but that does not mean they are “truth,” or even entirely correct in the scientific framework. For example, in the early 1900s, Newtonian mechanics was found really to be a subset of the more general formulations of quantum mechanics. More concerning, the Drude model of electronic conduction in solids is currently known to be downright wrong (it was proposed in 1900, before the development of quantum mechanics), even though it gives remarkably accurate prediction accuracy in many cases (it turns out to have been attributable to a lucky mathematical chance, and it still widely used for its utility, albeit with the disclaimer that the theory is now known to be wrong).
Science takes evidence and formulates theories—sometimes erroneous theories. Faith relies upon a process of making observations and coming to (generally scientifically unverifiable) conclusions. Faith is not the belief in something with no evidence whatsoever.
Whoa, I did not suggest that we should not teach science to our children. Nor did I suggest we suspend belief in what we can determine by reason. Rather, regarding faith, I said that “People make observations and draw conclusions based on them.” That implies that they’ve used their reason. Maybe you were just adding your two cents instead of replying to my comment above, though, so I’ll leave it. : )
Second, that’s an interesting quote you post from “The Holy Bible.” But I don’t see how that quote implies that I should “suspend belief in what we can determine by reason and accept feelings that flow through us.” To parse it, it seems to say, in essence, that faith IS evidence. Almost seems to suggest that one person’s faith could be taken as evidence by someone else that what that person believes is true.
@mrnemo
I see. Then perhaps your statement that “Faith is the belief in something without evidence” was referring to a particular kind of evidence (perhaps “scientific”?). I added the “whatsoever” as a rhetorical device to call attention to the generality of your claim.
Debates of philosophy or theology always run into these kinds of difficulties. One of the hardest but most important things is to come to terms with another person—to understand what they mean when they use a particular word. I think we may be running into a bit of that.
For example, I still take issue with that first definition you post. I would say that “strong belief in something, esp. without proof” is the definition of blind faith—as opposed to a reasoned faith. There are no doubt many people in the world who have this kind of faith, but there are also many people who have faith on the basis of observation and reason. I think it’s an important distinction. If someone tells me he has faith in God but can’t explain why—I question whether he really does. Likewise for someone who can’t explain why they disbelieve in God.
The second definition is better, IMO.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$but this question is turning into a science VS. god debate; that will never, ever, ever, end.
but take the question literally:
Is there any actual scientific proof that God exists?
no. there is no scientific evidence that god exists.
i challenge ANYBODY to present scientific evidence that god exists.
whether you CAN prove that god exists with science is moot ...
whether god exists OUTSIDE of science is moot ...
what you personally believe about god is moot ...
... all three within the context of this question.
the answer is irrefutably no. no, there is no science to prove the existence of god.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Believe what you will, and use observation and reason to argue for your viewpoint. But at the end of the day, science cannot answer this question.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Ok, so you're an atheist because you haven't been convinced that there's a God. Fair enough, but why be so adamant about your point? There's a point at which to argue strongly against the existence of God is to cross over from the passive position (i.e. "you haven't proved you case for God") to the assertive position ("I want to prove to you why there isn't a God").
At that point, the burden of proof lies with the atheist.
At any rate, my point is not that there is or isn't a God, but (as relates to the question) that scientific inquiry cannot answer that question.
@daigakuinsei I don't agree; I feel that I can have a strong position against the evidence Christians present. I am the first to admit that it is impossible to disprove that there is a God. I don't know which "point" you are accusing me of being "so adamant" about. The one you just commented on - I truly don't know how I could be more neutral, even poking fun at the "cool atheist" trend, and admitting it is impossible to be a complete atheist. As for the main post, I let my true colors shine, but I was editing my response and clicked submit as soon as an hour had passed. I wanted to originally point out that there is as much of a danger, for instance, for scientists to had blind faith or see evidence where there is none; e.g., when a psychologist is convinced that a girl has suppressed her memories of being raped by her father to the point that she believe it, even when it is false. And I agree, scientific inquiry can't answer it completely, but it has given me a much more reasonable foundation for decision making than, say, the Bible.
Ah, let me clarify my point then.
I brought this up because in your first comment, you said that “the safest thing even a strong atheist as myself can say is, ‘Sorry, the evidence just sucks’.” But I contend that the atheist position makes a claim of its own—that there is no God. Actually, it looks like you agree more with the agnostic position, because you also said that “it is impossible to disprove that there is a God.”
If the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, this applies equally to atheists as to theists. I don’t agree that the atheist position is the ‘default’ position when a person is not convinced by arguments for the existence of God. The neutral position in the debate on God is the agnostic position. This is the position of one who is undecided—unconvinced as yet by either side.
In a sense, the agnostic position is the natural state of people at birth. We afterwards have the choice to affirm faith in God or disbelief. It’s not enough to say you don’t believe in God to be an atheist. You have to actively disbelieve in God. Likewise, to be a theist you have to actively believe in God. The only passive position is the agnostic.
Yes, as you mention, scientific inquiry necessitates that one must be able to test one's conclusions, and the burdon of proof is on the person proposing the claim, as there are innumerable things that could exist; one could say there is an invisible dog in my room that is impossible to detect, but that his powerful lick generates my life force and his silent bark keeps me protected from evil doers, but of course this is impossible to prove. So the safest thing even a strong atheist as myself can say is, "Sorry, the evidence just sucks. But if you bring me something, I'll be glad to look it over, and if the numbers look good, sign me up." Even though it is "punk rock" to disbelieve in God, I'd gladly do it if it seemed to make sense or if there were proof that of its existence, hell, &c.
Reason.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Reason is the reason.
reason (according to our buddies at dictionary.com):
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
etc.
The reason I want this answer to shine is that it is not necessarily because it is simply a "vote of agreement." I think this is the best answer because it is the most concise answer one could give. It directly answers the question, "No," and gives the reason: "Reason." This implies, at least to me, that critical thinking has dispelled any premises for such claims.
Your reason?
@phillipluther
Fair enough. But if the answer had been "yes" with the source given as "reason," would you still think that?
It just seems that in this case the "helpful" votes are votes of agreement, not votes that consider the quality of the answer itself.
RE: @daigakuinsei's - just seems that in this case the "helpful" votes are votes of agreement, not votes that consider the quality of the answer itself.
i don't want to want to put words in mouths that aren't mine, but i've got a nagging hunch you hit that one right on ...
I know a lot of people voted this answer unhelpful, but I thought it was a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
back @daigakuinsei ...
"Fair enough. But if the answer had been "yes" with the source given as "reason," would you still think that?"
absolutely not. because in that case, specific sources would definitely be required. links to evidence, articles, whatever. one shouldn't be able to say, "yes! there's stuff out there somewhere ..." and leave it alone.
but the negative works a little differently - you can't cite/show that there's nothing out there.
@phillipluther
True. But all aabacus did was express an opinion. Seems like in an opinion thread, a helpful answer would be one that explained why the opinion was held (like the one immediately below—which I voted helpful even though it gave no sources).
I just find it interesting how many people find @aabacus’s answer “helpful.” The button there doesn’t say “like” or “dislike” after all.
i misunderstood the query, then.
to me, it looked like @cjd was interpretting @aabacus's "reason" source as, "oh, you know ... several different reasons." and letting it hang, as opposed to, "reason" as the answer.
espeically in a logic sense (definition 6), i think it's an acceptable source.
meaning, "Logic dictates there is no scientific evidence."
@ phillipluther
Understood. But shouldn't aabacus actually take the time to explain the reasoning behing the answer? Is it considered "helpful" to answer other questions on Mahalo this way?
I wish I had enough money to tip everyone that played on this thread. Such great and thoughtful commentary! I'm truly impressed.
No. Science can't prove the existence of God.
Reason (as in the process thereof as others have stated).
I've had too many discussions that require me to prove God doesn't exist. It's a ridiculous conversation and is well illustrated in "The God Dellusion" by Richard Dawkins. I would do him a complete disservice to try and illustrate his points here. If you are interested read his book. I will warn you, however, that the first 3/4 of the book are well argued but the last quarter put me off as his mocking tone was inappropriate. That said I still hold his book up as a seminal work.
But why reason? Because reason is the enemy of blind faith. Faith is required to believe in any god (hence we must take a leap of faith to believe).
Besides, our religious institutions proudly proclaim it: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/03/churchsign.jpeg
Now, ask me why I trust in reason and not faith, not religion? Not enough room here, but here's some quotes that do a pretty nice job of illustrating where I land.
Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. (I trust in myself, my own abilities and the tangible abilities of others around me. Faith provides me no solace. How many people turn to faith after they completely ruin their lives? Why do they do that? Lost faith in themselves.)
Take away hatred from some people, and you have men without faith. (Hate is a destructive force. I do not systemically hate. Individuals are another story, as are olives. Can't stand them things.)
To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance. (I generally find that intolerance and ignorance (read: lack of reason) like to run hand in hand.)
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains. (My favorite quote of all. If you have the tools, in this case reason, then you need not faith.)
All these are from Eric Hoffer. If you've not read his stuff I really reccomend his earlier works. The later stuff tends to get a little wonkey when he talks about corporate motivations but in general I find him facinating.
Again, many thanks to everyone that carried the torch in civil conversation. It's so refreshing.
1. Have we observed God? Well, historically people have observed Jesus Whom I believe is God incarnate, and we have observed effects that we attribute to God as part of our 2. hypothesis. Now comes 3. experimentation. How do I test and prove that Jesus is God or that God has done things? I can argue that no natural forces could provide certain results, but I cannot really experiment. So the scientific method does not apply to proving the existence of God.
Is there actual scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution? 1. Has anyone seen evolution? Well, we have seen animals that people believe have evolved and effects (such as breeding) that are attributed to evolution as part of a 2. hypothesis. Now comes 3. experimentation. Scientists attempt to prove that evolution happens by itself in nature. The problem is that even if they prove it can and does happen, no experiment can prove how animals historically came to be what they are. So the scientific method does not apply to proving that life resulted from evolution.
In a court room, cases are not proven scientifically but beyond reasonable doubt. This type of proof is used because, despite what CSI tells you, we cannot scientifically prove history and other things (such as proving leprechauns don't exist). Thus, is can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that leprechauns don't exist, and I believe base on what God has done in my life that God exists beyond reasonable doubt. Science is not truth. Science is a method of discovery and learning, and even the scientific method fails sometimes when experiments are done or interpreted poorly.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
@hcp56, this is not a discussion about whether believing that life began through evolution negates the existence of God. The point I made is that some things (like the existence of God and how the pyramids were constructed) are out of the realm of scientific proof. Evidence and good arguments are not scientific proof. Unfortunately, it seems to destroys people's world views to be told that the origin of life is not something that can be proved by the scientific method.
Similarly, @phillipluther, I am not intending in this thread to argue for or against evolution as the beginning of life. It is just outside of the realm of science to prove it.
hehe, first whether god exists or not, Then, whether gravity exists or not. Then I guess I should ask whether we exist or not( we are just imagination of something else).
Yes. We have seen evolution. We see evolution happen just like we see gravity happen. Then again, I suppose you can also make the claim that gravity doesn't exist and it is just one of god's appendages pushing everyone down towards earth. That works too I guess. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
That does not prove that the life we see today resulted from evolution.
To quote myself quoting myself: "'We do not have scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution. . . . the scientific method does not apply to proving that life resulted from evolution.'"
You do relize that repeating what you've said doesn't make you right, don't you?
Do we have scientific proof for how the pyramids were made? We can show ways it could have been made, we can even remake them ourselves. But we cannot prove historical facts.
The universality of the genetic code is evidence, but it is not scientific proof. Science has its limits, and we cannot scientifically prove history. If we could, we would require juries to find people guilty scientifically. You need to be careful not to ascribe to science more abilities than are in its framework.
Do you need more proof?
Great! How about bacterial resistance to anitbiotics? That is evolution by selection in progress.
Religion creates its own limits, it invents its own rules.
I'm still in the scientific framework. I work within the scientific framework. I know what I'm talking about. I don't repeat what others tell me to say.
We DO have scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution.
I have explained this a thousand times. The genetic code is universal, this means all the species share it, which means they all come from a common ancestor. Evolution is the process of speciation and diversification.
This information is in every basic biology book. Please, do not contribute to ignorance by saying there is no proof just because you don't have the information or proper skills to understand it.
@nushka, you are giving evidence of evolution. As has been has pointed out a couple times in this thread, I did not say whether evolution occurs. I said that "'"we do not have scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution."'" I am repeating myself only because you are not responding to the argument given. Everyone in this thread agrees that we have seen evolution: dogs are bred, bacteria resists to antibiotics, etc.
Can you give me scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution? Not proof beyond reasonable doubt, not a good argument, but scientific proof with observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion?
I don't believe I said whether evolution happens. To quote myself: "We do not have scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution. . . . the scientific method does not apply to proving that life resulted from evolution."
Check out dward's answer to this question. The Bible and the creation story do not negate the existence of God. If you are looking for comprehensive evidence of the evolution of man, please read "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean Carroll.
The creation story is for man to understand. Could you envision the conversation between God and Adam? As he tried to explain the big bang and the expansion of the universe? How stars were made? Things that today we don't even fully understand. "Let there be light." He said it and it happened. He never bothered to explain how. Or maybe he did and to the early writers of the Bible it was to preposterous to even consider. We may never know. To discount science and scientific theory is to discount God.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Making-of-the-Fittest/Sean-Carroll/e/9780393330519/?itm=1
to quote the quote of @srgothard's quote, "We do not have scientific proof that the life we see today resulted from evolution. . . . the scientific method does not apply to proving that life resulted from evolution."
it seems to me that's supposing an awful lot has radically changed ...
it rains in present times; and you're right (@srgothard). that's not proof that it rained in the past ... but ... really?
regular, reoccurring instances are to be taken as one-offs?
Belief in a Creator (God) requires faith. Faith that he complicated, intricate, structure of life was created buy some sort of super being.
Personally, I find it easier to believe something came from something else (even if I don't understand that something else) than it is to believe that something came from nothing.
You will never, ever successfully prove or disprove the existence of God with science. It would negate the entire idea of God. God is such that he can't be proven or disproven.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Haha, I like that first bit a lot.
I mean, how much of what you learned in science class have you ever actually confirmed yourself? There are no such things as atoms. That's totally made up. Anyone without expensive lab equipment can't prove me wrong ;)
But I digress...
If you have trouble believing that the universe came from nothing during the big bang, why don't you have trouble believing that god came from nothing? Pushing creation back a step doesn't really get you anywhere.
The events:
(1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I'm not sure I fully understand your argument here, you say that the bible list 10 steps and because they are in the right order then it's really unlikely that they are just guesses?
Lets start at the first point, "1) a beginning" - Hmm well I'm pretty sure everyone would put that one at the start so that doesn’t count.
"2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;" If you really look at this its simply a list of 3 main components of the Earth as understood at that time 'Earth, Air and Water' and it also lists dark. So based on the understanding of elements at the time this statement simply says "2) the materials that make up our planet Earth". In which case it's not unlikely that this would be placed fairly early on.
"3) light;" As the previous statement was Dark it's natural to say Light next, ultimately this is just adding the missing component of the 'Earth, Air, FIRE and water' that was mentioned before.
"4) an expanse or atmosphere;" I'm not sure what the original quote from the bible is but I'd be surprised if it used the word 'atmosphere', but I can’t really comment as I don’t know what was actually referred to.
"5) large areas of dry land" and "6) land plants" these 2 statements are really one as there is no way they could have been written the other way around.
"7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning" In my opinion this one is actually in the wrong order based on the points above... but that's a different argument.
"8) sea monsters and flying creatures" I'm not an expert (so correct me if I'm wrong) but did land animals not come before flying ones? so technically the second part of number 8 is out of order.
"9) wild and tame beasts, mammals" The word mammal comes from the Latin mammalia which means beast, so that line is probably meant to just say beasts, in which case as with point 8 above I think it's out of order.
"10) man." Yep that one is in the right order.
So if you really look at them, saying that the odds are 1 in 3,628,800 or even 1 in 362,880 is just outlandish. A number of them could not be in a different order without contradiction, some are wrong and others are logically placed.
My very religious brother once asked me "What do you think about Christianity?"
I searched for an answer for a moment and then replied, "Everyone faces the fact that they are going to die, in their own way. Christianity is one of those ways."
The commandment is not, "Thou shalt study diligently to understand the manner in which I have created you." The commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill."
The commandment is not, "Thou shalt use reason and logic to understand the wondrous creation that I have made." The commandment is, "Thou shalt not steal."
Do you see a pattern here?
The Holy Bible and the other religious texts of our world are not trying to inform us about, "How we got here." They are defining ways to live with the question of, "Why we got here."
The existence of God is not a question for science. The existence of God is a question for how we are going to face the fact that the end of OUR existence, at least in this plane of reality, is inevitable.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
This really is a straightforward question and the answer is just as straightforward "NO" and aabacus does have the best Best Answer.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$What if all your senses that convince you of your existence were a charade, an elaborate con game. At this point I think the conversation is best answered by Descartes philosophy as noted below - and people with the appetite can take this argument further and see how he establishes or rubbishes the existence of God ( depending on your point of view)
Sorry not a scientific answer, but this question cannot be answered by science or reason.
"Cogito ergo sum" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descartes-god.html
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
generally agree that science verifies....but the problem with this struct is that we are dealing with something that is beyond verification atleast as far our senses go..and that is why this philosphy which does not rely on our senses is pertinent
Philosophers can wonder if they really exist, or if you do. Scientists do not have to wonder, they can form the hypothesis that you exist and test it.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$First of all, to properly answer the question, we have to know what you really mean by "God". If you mean that classic Bible God, then no, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that there is some bearded guy way up in the clouds somewhere, turning people into pillars of salt and whatnot. As far as there being some other, subtler force helping to drive along the workings of the universe, immeasurable by modern science, there is a possibility.
Consider "scientific discoveries" that are "outside the realm of science" - (mrnemo):
-Gravity is taken for granted as...oh wait, what is it again? "Oh, I'm some other answerer, and I'm going to toss a bunch of scientific THEORIES at you to say that gravity is a science, and a few scientists totally *believe* that they know what it is!" Other than watching things fall over and over again, gravity is something that *modern* science cannot provide real answers for(, yet?)
-Quantum Physics: Man, I cannot believe that this isn't laughed at more often! This is pseudoscience at best. There are plenty of totally plausible theories, reinforced ONLY by other nice theories. Until someone sends a satellite into one of these other dimensions and sends back pictures, we can't really know that we're right. Guess we'll have to take it on faith :)
-The Big Bang; Ok, that one is easy. Scientists admit that they really have no idea why it might have happened, or how. Although there is some compelling evidence, I'm glad that it is admittedly only a theory
-Evolution; The evidence keeps piling on as we get closer and closer to discovering the missing link! Sure, there is evidence that evolution occurs, and has occurred, but evolution suggests that somehow, someway, some animal decided it would have a better chance of surviving if it sprouted wings. I know that by some freak chance, this could have happened, and there is probably some *theory* as to how this may have occurred, but I think that some driving force, perhaps only the will to live and exist, might have rigged the odds in favor of the more miraculous products of evolution.
The point there is that not everything considered "scientific" may actually even exist, and that some things can exist outside the scope of science. Maybe on day we can learn to travel through time (which may or may not exist) and verify some of these theories, but until then, I would suggest that people should stop putting so much emphasis on science as that grand explanation for all things. It is becoming very much like a religion, and it is hypocritical of people who hang on the word of every textbook to combat those who cling to the Bible, even though there is no way Moses parted the red sea :)
Sources? Hah! You'll be linking to me later!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$There are people who argue that the only form of knowledge available to humans is experiential knowledge or experimental knowledge, gained primarily by the use of outer senses. This led to the belief that human beings are constituted in such a way that the knowledge of reality is always unavailable to them; and so it resulted in a renewal of attention to the everyday world of appearances. The knowledge of here and now became the only object of human knowledge and concern. Thus from this point of view, the project of seeking knowledge of reality behind appearances must be abandoned, because it is beyond the scope of human understanding.
"The s**t is leading to the cow, and the foot prints leads to a walking man, so a wide land, a wide sea, a stable continues system in the human life history leads to the creator!!"
you don't any scientific proof to be sure that God exists!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Modern astrophysicists have proven that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning which supports the universe's creation by God.
Modern astrophysicists have also proven that the universe is not infinite but has a size and is expanding from a central point which again supports the universe's creation by God.
Newton's Third Law of Motion states "For every action there is equal and opposite reaction."
Every action in the universe was caused by a prior equal and opposite reaction.
If we logically follow each and every action and reaction back to the beginning then logically there has to be a first action without a prior equal and opposite reaction. Modern astrophysicists call this event the Big Bang.
This first action was completely independent of outside forces. Monotheists beleive this action was God creating the universe.
With love in Christ.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
"Modern astrophysicists have also proven that the universe is not infinite but has a size and is expanding from a central point"
The universe, or just matter? The fact that matter in the universe seems to be expanding from a central point supports the Big Bang theory, not God.
"Modern astrophysicists have proven that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning"
I really feel that sources need to be supplied for this statement, especially since "proven" is such a strong word.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? :-)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
if you don't believe in God, I feel so sorry for you. He loves you and wants to know you. Why would you say he doesn't exist. Can't you have a little faith and save yourself from spending forever in Hell? I will pray for you.
I do believe in God, but there's no proof he exists...read the question.
Thank you for your prayers.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$My life, the Bible, the words of Jesus.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
"There is scientific proof that Jesus Christ lived, he and God are one"
Wow. I don't want to be a jerk or anything, but no, there isn't. There is only some small traces of what may or may not be real historical evidence about Jesus having ever lived (besides that Bible) As far as him being God...?
brain
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
>No there is not any actual scientific proof that God exists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8agreed
>Conversely, there is no scientific proof that God does not exist.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on the person disproving the claim, but "agreed."
>Belief in God requires faith,
agreed
>which is outside the bounds of science.
this presupposes there is something outside the bounds of science
>However, science and reason do not negate the existence of God.
They don't have to; the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The evidence they have presented, however, can be negated, which can lead people to believe that the claim is not credible. There is no way to disprove 100% anything, from ghosts to gods to demons to leprechauns, but I am pretty sure none of these exist; if they did, hell, I'd think it would be on the news. OH WAIT...
>Many people
who?
>who do not believe in God, will try to use science and reason to claim that God does not exist.
I think they are more likely to simply counter any arguments FOR the existence of God; they aren't claiming that God doesn't exist and trying to prove it. If you know someone who is, this is a waste of time and an unwinnable battle.
>However, consider the concept of the omniscient God.
OK, so God exists and he/she/it knows everything.
>How can God know what will happen?
Only God knows, but he is sneaky, and it is hard to ask him. Communication with him seems to be one-way.
>Serious physicists and philosophers have considered the concept of time >being a trick of the mind. That there is no past-present-future (see podcast >of the Scientific American below).
Agreed; time in layman's terms is a conceptual organization tool. It is possible that the "world" has always and will always exist. I'm not sure what this has to do with proving God exists. However, there are obviously serious unknowns with respect to the physical study of "time," and I wish I were better trained in physics to properly discuss it. This seems like a different ontological discussion to me.
>This idea/concept does not prove the existence or possibility of God and it >certainly does not disprove it.
agreed
>It does make one think.
Yes, it does. You should check out the idea of eternal recurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
Ahh, @mrnemo, I was just pointing out that the each side of the question is impossible to prove. I am not trying to prove the existence of God nor do I need to.
Belief is always outside the bounds of science because it has nothing to do with science. Science is based on evidence. In the scientific method, negative answers are just as valuable as proof of a Theory. If you presume the non-existence of something, i.e., God, without scientific evidence disproving its existence, you are resting on a belief. A belief that is outside the bounds of science as you cannot prove that there is no God. Just as I cannot prove scientifically that there is a God.
Again, as I said before, I don't need to prove there is a God. But, as it is a free country and the first amendment guarantees me the right to do so, I BELIEVE that there is a God. These same things entitle you to your beliefs.
@mrnemo
You object to @hcp56’s claim that “faith… is outside the bounds of science” by saying “this presupposes there is something outside the bounds of science.” But in your answer to the question, you say that “Faith is the belief in something without evidence” (with which I take issue in my comment above). Regardless, isn’t a lack of evidence outside the bounds of science? (Moreover, are you sure your position doesn’t presuppose the opposite position—that nothing is outside the realm of science?)
Also, you claim that “the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.” But doesn’t that also apply to the atheist position? And isn’t that what the question is all about—can we prove the existence of God (which implies can we disprove it)? This is the same problem in the following statement you make, that atheists are just responding to theists and so they can just get away with shooting down their arguments. Again, as you point out in your answer to the question, people who are looking to believe something can always find the justification for it—this should apply equally to people who want to believe in God as well as to those who want to disbelieve in God (there are some on each side, it seems).
Finally, your response to hcp56’s “if, then” statement “…is to express dislike for the premise of a hypothetical proposition, but you can’t counter a hypothetical by saying you don’t like the sound of it.
I don't agree, because there is too much people who tried before the way of since to discover God existence and they found the right way!
@hishaman I understand how you feel. But this discussion is not about finding God in a spiritual sense, but it is about scientific evidence proving the existence of God. If there were scientific evidence of the existence of God, it would be able to be completely reproduced under the same circumstances. If this were possible, then there would be no atheists. If there were scientific proof of the existence of God, there would be no need for faith. At that point what would be the need of religion?