Can God's Existence be Proven through Science?

[anthony123]

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

 

[ChattyMute]

No.
Science explores the natural.
God is supernatural.

Perhaps we will one day when some of the current supernatural is no longer so 'super'.
However, I doubt that will be anytime soon.

 

[shanyin]

I thought I just posted this but I don't think it went through.

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?

 

[anthony123]

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.

 

[Rick W]

Science proves nothing. Science is not an entity of it's own.
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.

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.
Lazarus who was dead long enough that his flesh was rotting was never brought back to life.
Christ didn't create the fish and bread that fed the multitudes.
Christ never turned water to wine.
Paul never brought back to life the man killed after a fatal fall.
And on and on and on.

Therefore because we can not produce the proper data scripture is wrong and therefore there is no God. Our technology is not up to the task. Man can't figure out how to produce the data. It's not the fault of science. It's that man can't do it. Maybe there are some things man cannot understand. Maybe there are things man will never understand.
Or are we so proud as to think there is nothing we can't explain or understand given enough time? No matter how long I lecture a chimpanzee he'll never understand the concept of evolution. Are we so proud as to believe our intelligence has no limit? But if we believe there is a limit to our intelligence then why can we not accept something for which we can't produce the data?

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

 

[ChattyMute]

I thought I just posted this but I don't think it went through.

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?

Yeah. And like someone else said, if I was conscious and a camera and video camera especially.
But do you honestly think that will ever happen to anyone?


Side note: I liked Rick's post. It explained what I was thinking but didn't write.

 

[Pogo]

anthony123 -

You posted...

Can we prove God's existence through science?

Just as important is the question, "Can science disprove God's existence?"

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[ChattyMute]

anthony123 -

You posted...

Can we prove God's existence through science?

Just as important is the question, "Can science disprove God's existence?"

In Christ,

Pogo

.....
You're kidding right?
You can't prove a negative.
Science has never claimed to be able to disprove God/gods.

 

[Vic C.]

You're kidding right?
You can't prove a negative.
Science has never claimed to be able to disprove God/gods.

No, Pogo is not kidding.

You can't prove a negative.

That is a phrase commonly used by many people, even agnostics and especially atheists. First point, if that were true then there is something fundamentally wrong with you and your logic. Why? Because atheists spend an tremendous amount of time and effort desperately trying to prove God doesn't exist.

Secondly, I can show you where that statement goes south. I read a good example recently. If existent is a positive, then nonexistent is a negative. So, you and I can probably easily prove we aren't nonexistent.

Remember, nonexistent is a negative. So, with little effort, we just proved a negative. Of course, getting into a discussion or debate over the existence of nonexistence of God would not be that simple, proving your statement is wrong negates any possible use of it during the debate.


One more thing, remember that you are on a Christian forum and proper respect is expected. So, no saying God is a negative, please? Thanks.

 

[ChattyMute]

That is a phrase commonly used by many people, even agnostics and especially atheists. First point, if that were true then there is something fundamentally wrong with you and your logic. Why? Because atheists spend an tremendous amount of time and effort desperately trying to prove God doesn't exist.

I have met very few atheists who actually try to disprove God/gods. It can't be done. Don't make such a generalization about all of us.
And no, it does not break my logic. I don't beleive in your God because I see no evidence for him. I have never tried to disprove God, and I never will try because it is not possible.

Secondly, I can show you where that statement goes south. I read a good example recently. If existent is a positive, then nonexistent is a negative. So, you and I can probably easily prove we aren't nonexistent.

Yes, we can.

Remember, nonexistent is a negative. So, with little effort, we just proved a negative. Of course, getting into a discussion or debate over the existence of nonexistence of God would not be that simple, proving your statement is wrong negates any possible use of it during the debate.

You said prove that we aren't nonexistent. That is two negatives and is equivalent to existence. So you really didn't prove anything except what is already commonly known.

One more thing, remember that you are on a Christian forum and proper respect is expected. So, no saying God is a negative, please? Thanks.

I said God is a positive assertion. Where did I ever say God is a negative?
Edit: I see where you thought I said that.
I was saying that you can't give evidence for the nonexistence of God, which is equivalent to you can't prove a negative assertion. I just let off the assertion part.

 

[JudaicChristian]

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

Over all, the answer is yes. The problem with proving God is a matter of fact, is that a great multitude of things have to be considered. The average person does not have the time or want to be bothered to search it out. Another problem is that people are not always honest with themselves. Also another problem is, of those who have searched it out, they are saying an alien being created the universe, but not no God. The bottom line is this: People believe what they want regardless of the facts.

 

[toddm]

We cannot PROVE anything. Presenting a case for the existence of God is much like a courtroom scene. If God's existence is on trial, then one would expect a lawyer to present EVIDENCE that points toward His existence, much like evidence that points toward a suspect's guilt or innocence. All we have is evidence and from their it requires faith.

For those of you wishing to argue that evidence is not sufficient, then that would mean that 95% of court cases are irrelevant and meaningless.

 

[mondar]

I am not a scientist, but somewhere remember that science is a method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. It usually involves the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

There is an obvious problem in using the science to prove or disprove the existence of anything supernatural. How can you get a piece of deity and place it into a test tube, observe it work, and do repeated experiments to test any hypothesis that the substance is deity? If we could do that, obviously God would not be the sovereign God of scripture, but a much smaller controllable God. Most scientists seem to be aware of this. Some, like Hawking, seem to think physics somehow disproves the existence of God.

Is not the proof of the existence of God found in a consistent world view (neither am I a philosopher)? I am not a student of VanTil, but neither am I an evidentialist. If I can express the opinion of a lowlife layman it seems to be the only consistent epistemology lies in theism.

 

[Sound Silence]

anthony123 -

You posted...

Can we prove God's existence through science?

Just as important is the question, "Can science disprove God's existence?"

In Christ,

Pogo

Can you disprove God's nonexistence?

That kind of arguing just goes round in a circle.

 

[Rick W]

I am not a scientist, but somewhere remember that science is a method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. It usually involves the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

There is an obvious problem in using the science to prove or disprove the existence of anything supernatural. How can you get a piece of deity and place it into a test tube, observe it work, and do repeated experiments to test any hypothesis that the substance is deity? If we could do that, obviously God would not be the sovereign God of scripture, but a much smaller controllable God. Most scientists seem to be aware of this. Some, like Hawking, seem to think physics somehow disproves the existence of God.

Exactly.
In the spirit of this thread I don't believe one can "scientifically" prove or disprove we have a soul.

Oh, wait. Can't prove the thread has spirit either.

 

[francisdesales]

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

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.

Regards

 

[TheOddGoat]

anthony123 -

You posted...

Can we prove God's existence through science?

Just as important is the question, "Can science disprove God's existence?"

In Christ,

Pogo

No...

The burden of proof is always on a positive.

 

[Good News Bob]

If science is empiricism, then science cannot affirm numbers. And if science cannot affirm the existence numbers, then what is science?

History is often far simpler. Science came from the Christian Renaissance, ala the works of good crafted Science. And science surely was not based on Empiricism in the 1600s.

And if all modern science comes to the conclusion that we should not have nuclear power, we should watch our carbon footprint, and we should feel sorry for ourselves in this crazy, chaotic and random universe-- well then, modern science is crap.

 

[TheOddGoat]

History is often far simpler. Science came from the Christian Renaissance, ala the works of good crafted Science. And science surely was not based on Empiricism in the 1600s.

Science is:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Science was around a very long time before christianity and has always been empirical, that is pretty much the point of science.

Understanding that when you drop something, it falls is the most basic example of science I can think of and is of course empirical because it is something you are observing through use of your senses.

Numbers were invented through empiricism, needing to be able to explain quantities in the things we experience ... So I do not understand why you would say what you did in the first part of your post.

 

[veteran]

But I declare that empirical science has ALREADY proven that God exists...

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(KJV)

Rom 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(KJV)

The above verses sum up the idea that by the mere existence of things that are made reveals existence of the invisible things of God.

How many have quickly read over those above verses without really grasping what profound Truth they declare? Here's a greater clue...

One of the major empirical laws of physics is that material matter CANNOT be created or destroyed, but only change it's form.

That also shows MATTER CANNOT CREATE MORE MATTER, nor destroy itself! Our senses can fool us about material matter changing its form. We might tend to think matter is being destroyed, but science has long since proven matter only changes its form or state of manifesting into one of four forms.

What's the PROFOUND idea of that? Most of all, it shows MATTER DID NOT CREATE ITSELF! It proves the existence of something Invisible that's responsible for the existence of material matter. And that Invisible something is our Heavenly Father.

Of course empirical science cannot measure The Invisible Godhead. But science certainly CAN recognize that matter did NOT create itself! The "Big Bang" theory itself is a hidden declaration of the existence of The Godhead. Only that most scientists simply won't admit "the invisible things of Him" which could be behind it. (I'm not suggesting any credibility of the Big Bang Theory either).