Can God's Existence be Proven through Science?

[AAA]

Empirical science cannot prove the existence of God, since empirical science deals with things that are measurable and God is beyond measure.

This doesn't mean we cannot know that God exists, just simply that we turn to other forms of human knowledge for God's existence. Science is not the only way we can come to know something.

francisdesales,

Could you please amplify on these routes to, or methods of, acquiring knowledge that are you referring to and demonstrate how they provide us with knowledge of the existence of the Christian god? Your reference to science has been specific enough to call it "empiric science" and to mention measurements as a part of science. Can you be equally or more specific in describing these other routes to knowledge of the Christian god?

There have been many Christian forum members who have expressed exactly francisdesales sentiment in different posts, so in his absence, I would be interested in hearing how other Christians would answer this question.

 

[Drew]

I am not sure I agree with you, even in this example. I could, for example, postulate that adultery causes an electrical imbalance in the adulterer that attracts lightning. Or, I could postulate a mad scientist who developed a machine to punish adulterers or space aliens conducting a social science experiment. While all of these would be a stretch, at least they would be consistent with our understanding of the physical world.

I suggest that you are implicitly inappropriately constraining how scientific models are constructed. On what precise basis do you exclude "invisible powerful beings" from your palette of options for the basic componentry of the world? Why are "strings" and "electrons" allowed, but "gods" not allowed?

Most objections to the inclusion of "divine agency" in scientific models of the world are grounded in the belief that such agencies are arbitrary and unpredictable. Well, that's true for some versions of "god" as a concept, but there is no principled reason why one cannot assert the exitence of a "god" who is entirely predictable in respect to its actions.

 

[Drew]

There have been many Christian forum members who have expressed exactly francisdesales sentiment in different posts, so in his absence, I would be interested in hearing how other Christians would answer this question.

When someone hits me on the hand with a hammer, I have an experience - pain. This is a subjective private experience, forever cut off from "objective third party" characterization.

Yes, we can look at nerve impulses, and neurons firing in the brain. But these only get us part of the way. The the phenomenology of the event - the "what it feels like"-ness of it - is simply not an available target for scientific inquiry. Yes we can create scientific models for things "in the vicinity" of the subjective experience, but not for the experience itself.

Nature has simply dealt us this hand of cards. We can make scientific models for how balls bounce and how magnets attract bits of metal. These things are "out there" in the public domain. But some things clearly are not.

What relation does this have to the "God" question? I am not sure. But if person A claims "inner experience of God", we need to be careful to not dismiss this because it is not subject to scientific inquiry.

When I get struck in the genitals by a frozen tennis ball playing ball hockey, the all-consuming pain is not really available for scientific characterization. But it is very "real" nonetheless.

 

[veteran]

I'm not a physicist nor a scientist, and believers on The One True God are not required to show evidence of His existence to those who refuse to believe on Him. The Apostle Paul showed that Faith is a requirement to understand the existence of the Invisible Creator of all things. He declared by the existence of things made, like material matter, that should be enough evidence that matter did not create itself, and thus points to an invisible Creator.

We Christians choose to call that invisible Creator God, and that because of how God has revealed Himself to those who believe on Him. But emprical materialists keep using the things of the creation itself to try and reveal its creator, which is going around in circles, since things made (like matter) did not create itself.

That also means God can change time to whatever dimensional reality He so chooses...

Rev 10:6
6 And sware by Him That liveth for ever and ever, Who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
(KJV)

It certainly should be very clear, that if the emprical materialists cannot prove the first origins of the universe, of where matter came from, they certainly cannot disprove the existence of an Invisible Creator behind it either. They simply don't know, and they have no proven evidence that explains how material matter was created. Just assuming that time-space and matter has always existed proves nothing. But they do know that material matter cannot create nor destroy itself, but only change its form.

 

[veteran]

So then, can a believer be given evidence of God's existence? Yes, absolutely! And how's that, some might ask?

Those who believe on Him by Faith can 'know' because of how He reveals His working in their lives. Events that reach far beyond the limitations of scientific measurement can and do happen in believer's lives. Such events we call miracles, while the empricist believes anything that exists must have a plausable scientific explanation.

The Word of God as given through His Old Testament prophets exists as one of the strongest evidences for these events, as king David himself was given to know the events of Christ's crucifixion around 1,000 years before it happenned, even down to the soldiers casting lots on Christ's robes (Psalms 22). Biblical archaeology is constantly finding evidence for the historical events written in God's Word, so there should be no mistake that The Bible is NOT just a Book of poetry or of one man's philosophical wonderings. The Bible gives evidence of teachings on many things that scientists only later confirmed, showing what? That the people of Israel were early scientific experimenters themselves, and knew more science than the empricist has given them credit, or that God showed them, and later science simply confirmed the knowledge of laws God gave Israel as Truth?

Yet at the same time, the non-believer can be totally daft to God's working, because they choose to rely on scientific experimentation for the origin of every cause and effect they can imagine, which only involves what they can measure, i.e., only things that are made. They do not even have the tools of discovery to converse about the existence of an invisible dimension where God's Abode exists, and that's why they come up with kindergarten references to aliens, magic and make-believe when the subject of the invisible is proposed to them. To them, it's like the Lost In Space robot, "It does not compute."

 

[veteran]

Here's an example of just how deceived the empiricist can get in their own mind, if they choose to rely only on scientific discovery to 'know' a thing absolutely...

There's a group called Capricornists. They do not believe man ever went to the moon. They believe it was all staged out in the desert, using Hollywood type producer style stage production. You can show them evidence of the U.S. space program, the methodical methods of space flight and theory of physics behind it, and even instrumentation, and they still say it was a hoax.

Are they correct in their disbelief? To themselves, yes. The reason is because if they did not physically travel to the moon theirselves, then they have no DIRECT personal EXPERIENCE of it. Now the astronauts who did go to the moon cannot deny they went, and they have each other's direct experiences as proof. But those who didn't have direct experience must choose to BELIEVE it happenned, or not.

I believe man did go to the moon, but that's only because I choose to believe the testimony of others, like the astronauts. What does all this reveal? It reveals that even most empirical materialists cannot prove everything in this life, that they also must and do accept the testimony of others as proof, and that while not having the direct experience theirself. In other words, it shows they also use the principle of faith. But make no mistake, a person who requires direct experience as proof of all things is a walking question mark, and can validly question the existence of anything they've not personally experienced.

What I find strange, is how the empricists turn that function on when it comes time to believe something in this life they had no direct experience of, and then turn it off when considering the invisible things of God.

 

[Physicist]

Trust, evidence, and faith.

What you call empiricists I would call realists. They make judgments based upon the best available evidence. Realists understand the science and engineering behind the moon landings, can either see movies or perhaps experience in person the rocket launches, even look at the moon rocks brought back. They TRUST the astronauts and NASA because past evidence has shown them to be reliable reporters. The contrary view, that the moon landings were a hoax, requires belief in extremely unlikely events and actions of the people involved. Hence, it is given a very low (but not zero) probability of being true.

Those who base their beliefs on faith often choose the explanation with a very low probability. For example, to a very high degree of probability (based on the archeological record) we can say that the story of Adam and Eve is myth yet millions of Christians accept it as factual, solely on faith.

 

[AAA]

Could [a Christian] please amplify on these routes to, or methods of, acquiring knowledge that [Christians so often refer] to and demonstrate how they provide us with knowledge of the existence of the Christian god?

When I get struck in the genitals by a frozen tennis ball playing ball hockey, the all-consuming pain is not really available for scientific characterization. But it is very "real" nonetheless

Thanks for that. Made me laugh out loud (then cross my legs).

What relation does this have to the "God" question? I am not sure. But if person A claims "inner experience of God", we need to be careful to not dismiss this because it is not subject to scientific inquiry.

Of course, experiential evidence is real. The questions are : what types of conclusions can be drawn from it and whether one ought to believe the conclusions that people do draw from it.

Can we be confident that a hockey player who gets a puck in the groin is in pain when he is rolling around on the ground silently wincing? Probably (though we might be less inclined to believe a professional soccer player rolling around on the ground!), because this is a reproducible phenomenon, and we all experience it, just as we all experience lust, compassion, thirst, indigestion, etc.

But can we be confident of gaining the most important knowledge in the universe in this way? What, given that which we have learned by being intellectually honest with ourselves in the last few thousand years, would ever make anybody think that we can?

The plain and undeniable fact of the matter is that experiential evidence has brought mankind to worship thousands of gods throughout the millenia, most of which are contradictory and, therefore, mutually exclusive. The latter indicates that virtually or absolutely all of them are false, and this tells us just how terrible a route to knowledge experiential evidence is, especially for what is always considered to represent the most important knowledge in the universe.

Accordingly, when one claims that his favorite deity told him to commit murder, nobody - not just scientists, but nobody - ever accepts this as a defence, and rightly so.

If Abraham were caught on film today with the knife at his bound son's throat, he would surely be convicted of attempted murder, or insanity, and rightly so.

Imagine the anarchy that would ensue if experiential evidence was happily accepted in any sphere of conversation significantly more weighty than, "mommy, i have to go potty now".

Yet, when the conversation falls to the topic of why one believes in one's favorite deity, as it often does here and as it must among Muslim circles, Jewish circles, Zoroastrian circles, and Hindu circles, etc., experiential evidence is widely celebrated and revered. The result? One need only watch the news to appreciate how humanity's current state of "knowledge" of the supernatural is indeed, one of anarchy.

So while experiential evidence may be good for indicating when to defecate, like you, I am also unsure of what its relation is to the "god question".

 

[AAA]

most empirical materialists cannot prove everything in this life...they also must and do accept the testimony of others as proof...while not having the direct experience theirself. In other words, it shows they also use the principle of faith...

What I find strange, is how the empricists turn that function on when it comes time to believe something in this life they had no direct experience of, and then turn it off when considering the invisible things of God.

1. Is DNA the basis for genetic inheritance?

2. Did man land on the moon?

3. Is an iron age carpenter named Jesus part of an invisible triune deity that created the universe and will allow an invisible component of us to eternally escape the finality of death with proper worship?

These 3 questions represent three spheres of discourse: (1) scientific, (2) historical, and (3) "faith" based or religious

As Sam Harris has written: "...all spheres of discourse are not on the same footing for the simple reason that not all spheres of discourse seek the same footing (or any footing whatsoever). Science is science because it represents our most committed effort to verify that our statements about the world are true ... What are the chances that DNA is not the basis for genetic inheritance? ... They are effectively zero."

What are the chances that man did not land on the moon? Also close to zero, because we know that there were checks and balances operative among the hundreds of journalists covering the repeated stories of lunar landing as they unfolded, not to mention the mounds of physical evidence that the landings produced that have been examined by thousands of people since including scientists.

What are the chances that the third statement is false?

Well, the math is largely in my previous post for anybody to do.

So if you honestly think that the faith that is required to believe propositions 1 & 2 is close to being as reasonable as, or similar to, the faith that is required to believe proposition 3, then I would have to flatly disagree with you.

I would have to ask you why you think that ways of thinking that aim to absolutely minimize the amount of faith required for belief (scientific rigour, and to a lesser extent, historical rigour), should be compared (rather than contrasted) to a ways of thinking that champion faith, especially when the former has been so spectacularly successful in providing our species with knowledge about the factors and items that influence our lives and our world, while the latter has given us anarchy.

 

[Pogo]

All of this has gotten over my head.

Though, I am able to grasp the concept that the Theory of Evolution DOES conflict with the Laws of Thermal Dynamics!

Or, am I wrong about even this?

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[AAA]

Though, I am able to grasp the concept that the Theory of Evolution DOES conflict with the Laws of Thermal Dynamics!

Or, am I wrong about even this?

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not conflict with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Earth is not a closed system: it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. All life on earth competes for that energy in one form or another to renew itself.

 

[ChevyRodeo]

Can we prove God's existence through science? Specifically, the collection of non-scriptural facts that point directly to God?

science means to be able to measure.


God is not physical but rather spiritual. there is no way to measure a spiritual realm. This is why Christians are the progressive thinkers and atheists are confined to a box. We acknowledge there is a realm beyond the physical, they do not.


You basically cannot prove anything let alone God, only the feelings in you heart matter anyway.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Science generates data. That's all it does. It's you, me or someone else that's makes the conclusions based on the data produced.

No, the experimentation factor in Science gathers data, then the theory factor generates explanations. Each scientific theory is made up of millions of facts that all point to the same thing. If you want to make your own conclusion then fine, but it's not a scientific theory; it's your own hypothesis that remains untested. You still have to go through the arduous peer review process and millions of skeptical investigations and still survive, then be accepted as a scientific consensus, THEN you have a theory. Science isn't like politics, religion or society, it's amazingly self-critical.

A long time ago Dawkin's university professor had a hypothesis, then a man perhaps more learned than he entered the classroom and completely blew it out of the water. The professor said "Thankyou my dear man, for you have proved me wrong after so many years of living in ignorance". This is the attitude of Science, and it's one that has created the very computer you're typing on now, without any help from superstition.

Therefore since we have no data on how to bring back to life someone that's been dead for a few days Christ's resurrection never happened.

LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT! Argument from Ignorance . Just because you don't know how science works doesn't mean it works like you think it does. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence (This is also a non sequitur I suppose). This is why non-belief is the scientifically correct position to have on things we have no evidence for (And the reason a very large number of Scientists are Atheistic). Note: Atheism is no by default the assertion that there is no God, that is Gnostic Atheism, of which almost no Atheists adhere. Almost all of us say we don't know but there is no reason to believe.

Or are we so proud as to think there is nothing we can't explain or understand given enough time?

No, that's why we don't believe until evidence is presented. We don't exclude the possibility, however. We stay IMPARTIAL from a knowledge standpoint until evidence is presented, but we don't believe.

Not having the desired data doesn't mean scripture is errant but rather reflects the limitations of man to produce it.

I can say the same thing about any unproven concept, such as fairies, flying pigs or even Islam, therefore it is an invalid argument. This way of thinking places every possible idea on equal footing, if you want to go down that road then fine, but Science doesn't. You've mixed up belief and knowledge (See below)

-----------------------------------------

This attitude reflects a lack of understanding concerning the differences between knowledge and belief. They are NOT the same or interchangeable.

We shouldn't assume all ideas to be correct simply because we don't know everything, we should BELIEVE that they're all false until proven true (Innocent until proven guilty anyone?), however, we shouldn't claim that they aren't true, we should remain Agnostic to the idea.

Belief is what you think, knowledge is the claim to truth/farce. You combine belief and knowledge in the claims you make. For example, as an Agnostic Atheist (Agnostic = knowledge, Atheist = belief) I don't believe in God, but as an Agnostic I don't say he doesn't exist, I simply reject all claims that he does on insufficient evidence. You're probably a Gnostic Christian (Belief = Christian, Knowledge = Gnostic), this indicates that you make the positive assertion that the Christian God is real. I don't make an assertion, I make no claim to knowledge (Agnosticism baby!)

The correct position to have on things we don't know about is: non-belief and agnosticism.

I hope this helps, mixing belief and knowledge is fairly rampant on these forums, so hopefully I've cleared some of it up for you.

 

[mondar]

.... I simply reject all claims that he does on insufficient evidence. You're probably a Gnostic Christian (Belief = Christian, Knowledge = Gnostic), this indicates that you make the positive assertion that the Christian God is real. I don't make an assertion, I make no claim to knowledge (Agnosticism baby!)

What would you accept as "sufficient evidence?"

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

.... I simply reject all claims that he does on insufficient evidence. You're probably a Gnostic Christian (Belief = Christian, Knowledge = Gnostic), this indicates that you make the positive assertion that the Christian God is real. I don't make an assertion, I make no claim to knowledge (Agnosticism baby!)

What would you accept as "sufficient evidence?"

God is one of those things like UFO's, they've been so heavily reported that there's an aura of plausible deniability surrounding it.

That said, there are numerous things that would prove him to me, if God came down in front of me and said something obscenely unlikely (Like gave me a list of winning horses for 50 days in a row, or the lottery numbers) then yes, I'd believe in him. If God came down in front of times square and appeared in front of millions of people, then proceeded to do something impossible like drop a trillion Mars Bars from the sky then yes, I'd become a believer

Ask yourself, if you saw a UFO in the sky would you become a believer? Or have they been misreported so many times that additional skepticism is warranted?

Even things less than these would make me an Agnostic Christian (One who doesn't claim to others that he exists, but has a very personal and non-claiming relationship with him). Really all I'd need for that is some sort of revelation that is indisputably not some sort of delusion, dream or farce.

Belief in God isn't out of reach for me.

 

[mondar]

[quote="Sir Pwn4lot":he41nvon]
.... I simply reject all claims that he does on insufficient evidence. You're probably a Gnostic Christian (Belief = Christian, Knowledge = Gnostic), this indicates that you make the positive assertion that the Christian God is real. I don't make an assertion, I make no claim to knowledge (Agnosticism baby!)

What would you accept as "sufficient evidence?"

That said, there are numerous things that would prove him to me, if God came down in front of me and said something obscenely unlikely (Like gave me a list of winning horses for 50 days in a row, or the lottery numbers) then yes, I'd believe in him. [/quote:he41nvon]
Really? Then I must admit I am much more of a skeptic then you. I would think the horse races are rigged.

More then this... I notice the person who claims to be God has to give you the list of winning horses. Reminds me of an old song by Janice Joplin... "oh lord, wont you by me, a mercedies bens..."

It also reminds me of Jesus own behavior in John 6...
John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled.
John 6:27 Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.

If God came down in front of times square and appeared in front of millions of people, then proceeded to do something impossible like drop a trillion Mars Bars from the sky then yes, I'd become a believer

Interesting, Christianity claims he did this... well, something like this. Yet if Christianity claims Christ came down, was resurrected on the third day, appeared to men, you reject that.

I think your safe in that Jesus will never come down to Times Square. He is going to return to the Mount of Olives something like this, but I doubt he will use the Mars Bars.

Ask yourself, if you saw a UFO in the sky would you become a believer? Or have they been misreported so many times that additional skepticism is warranted?

I am wondering at your motive for this statement. I think your pointing to the fact that I am most likely skeptical about many things, but you feel that I am not skeptical about the existence of God. Your right, I would be skeptical of a UFO. I would be skeptical of a God that showered Mars Bars on Times square or predicted horse races. Non of that would even begin to work with me. Even if I saw the UFO with my own naked eye would I not be skeptical.

Somehow I have the feeling that you think me to be inconsistent. Why would I be so skeptical, yet accept the truth of theism? I guess is that the reason I am a Christian is that it is the only world view that makes sense to me. I am no philosopher, in fact I have no education in philosophy other then one introductory course that was meaningless.

Even things less than these would make me an Agnostic Christian (One who doesn't claim to others that he exists, but has a very personal and non-claiming relationship with him). Really all I'd need for that is some sort of revelation that is indisputably not some sort of delusion, dream or farce.

Belief in God isn't out of reach for me.

Is this back to Times Square and the Mars Bars? What kind of indisputable revelation are you looking for? I see the events of the first century as an indisputable revelation. You feel they are not an indisputable revelation. Why are we looking at them so differently? I dont think it is the evidence. I think the difference is how we look at the evidence. We have different starting points, or different presuppositions.

I think what you are saying is that you must observe the supernatural. You must see something beyond science to believe there is anything beyond science. Science is a great way to truth, but it has its limits. I know that these atom smashers are working trying to find the subatomic particle that created the universe. I doubt they find it. Science is limited to the physical, observable universe. This is a problem. If God is going to enter into his creation (and he did--Jesus the savior), and he enters at certain times in history, then God is not going to be observable. Few will have that chance to observe the finger of God working in history. I have never seen God, but I have the record of his entry into his creation. Only there can I find the evidence I search for. I dont think you can possibly find any evidence as I have. Your beginning from the wrong starting place.

Good luck.
Mondar

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Are they correct in their disbelief? To themselves, yes. The reason is because if they did not physically travel to the moon theirselves, then they have no DIRECT personal EXPERIENCE of it. Now the astronauts who did go to the moon cannot deny they went, and they have each other's direct experiences as proof. But those who didn't have direct experience must choose to BELIEVE it happenned, or not.

Well neither can you. The only thing you can really know is "I think therefore I am", anything beyond that is an assumption of some kind. You have standards of evidence. If you pass electricity through a million cows and they all die then it's pretty conclusive evidence that cows don't like electricity, but in reality they all could have had a stroke and died, independent of the electricity. The odds of this are astronomical, but still, you don't actually know that electricity kills cows, you've made an assumption based on standards of evidence. Everyone's standards are different; some people have lower standards and accepted relativity sooner than others, with less evidence.

By any definition of the word 'fact' it's a fact that the moon landing was real lol.

Really? Then I must admit I am much more of a skeptic then you. I would think the horse races are rigged.

That is a possibility, and would likely make me an Agnostic Christian (I wouldn't claim to know he's real, but I'd still believe). This was just an example, you know what I mean.

You say you wouldn't accept this because you're skeptical but then you turn around and accept him because a 2000 year old book on 4th and 5th hand accounts says he made some water into wine, it seems my evidence would be much more conclusive if it occurred.

Somehow I have the feeling that you think me to be inconsistent. Why would I be so skeptical, yet accept the truth of theism? I guess is that the reason I am a Christian is that it is the only world view that makes sense to me. I am no philosopher, in fact I have no education in philosophy other then one introductory course that was meaningless.

Well that's your choice, you can believe whatever you want, I'm not gonna stop you lol.

Just because no other one works for you doesn't automatically make Christianity true, there must be some sort of reason (Which I'm sure there is, I just thought I'd point this out)

but it has its limits.

Such as?

I know that these atom smashers are working trying to find the subatomic particle that created the universe. I doubt they find it

So do I, because that's not what they're trying to find lol. The LHC in Geneva is trying to find the Higgs Boson,which accounts for the existence of mass. They've already found 'communicator particles', Photons for electromagnetism, W+Z bosons for Nuclear forces and are trying to find the gluon for gravity. If they find the Higgs Boson it will no way show how the universe was created with it lol.

then God is not going to be observable

Then 'he' has no effect on our lives and we have no reason to believe in him. Evidence is the ONLY way to determine truth, without it everything is on equal footing.

 

[epistemaniac]

If you see God sitting on his thrown in front of you in plain view; would you call that scientific evidence of God's existence?

If I was conscious and I saw God on his thrown in front of me in plain view, that would absolutely be scientific evidence of God's existence. Especially if I had a camcorder. The images could be tested to see if they were not CGI.

Also, in all of history, what was considered supernatural has been explained by natural processes by science.

perhaps some or even many things that were once thought to be supernatural have been given natural reasons for occurring, but certainly not everything. The existence of God is one supernatural proposition which itself, to my knowledge, has not been given a scientific reason or explanation for why and how God exists.

blessings,
ken

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

perhaps some or even many things that were once thought to be supernatural have been given natural reasons for occurring, but certainly not everything. The existence of God is one supernatural proposition which itself, to my knowledge, has not been given a scientific reason or explanation for why and how God exists.

blessings,
ken

Ultimately everything in the natural world (The universe) that can affect us in any way shape or form is either natural or supernatural but in natural form.

Anything else doesn't affect us in the slightest, or at the very least unless we enter the supernatural realm.

 

[veteran]

So how DID material matter come into existence, through itself?