Scientific Evidence of God?

"God" only exists because there are people that actually believe such nonsense.

 

So it is agreed, god exists.
Do you believe in good?

 

Is that a typo? I'll answer both just to cover the bases.

Do I believe in "God"? No.

Do I believe in "Good"? Yes.

 

Well since most of the posts here are either very long, or very short and only seem to make sense to those involve (no insult intended, I just got thrown off by the little critter eating broccoli) I'm just going to respond to the original post and one side comment I did get a chance to read.

I do not know of any "scientific" evidence of God. The meaning of something being science means that you can set up an experiment and that the results are the same for every experiment that you set up. As I see it, you really can't do something like that to "prove" God exists.

That being said, we also don't have "scientific" evidence that evolution is real... just a theory that subsequent experiments show to work on a micro level, but not a macro level (I will be happy to explain the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is anyone needs it.. assume this crowd does not).

Bottom line there is a lot of stuff that people , even "greats" like Stephen Hawking, see as being scientifically proven, that are really not. There is also no real way I can see of setting up an experiment to prove God exists.

The comment someone made earlier was that faith and reason are opposites? I disagree. You can reason through a lot of things about religion.

For example, we do have "evidence" in the validity of the Bible as a document. If you want a good book that gives good well laid out details try Evidence that Demands a Verdict... I am also told the Case for Christ is good, but I have not read that one yet.

From Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and my own personal research over the last 20 years, I point to historical documentation. Everyone knows (or believes) that Homer wrote the Illiad, but we really only have 4 copies of copies of it and a few other commentaries that mention this guy name homer who wrote this book. In contrast we have thousands upon thousands of full and partial documents that date to within the generation of authors that wrote the New Testament. So based on "evidence" (not proof), which document should we really be questioning the origin of? Reason can tell us that at least in this case, the Bible is a more valid document than the Illiad.

Now to be fair, this is where evolution also sits. There is "evidence" in fossils records that show things I can not explain, but to be fair, neither can "science". We have lots of theories that explain them, but not proof (again a big distinction). I have met a lot of scientific minds, many with scientific credentials and 90% of them have told me one of two things: either they believe in God, or they admit it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution and science.

My personal stance on it is this, God gave us a brain for a reason, and he wants us to use it. He also is a God who like order, so he set up the world to work according to certain rules. We call these rules as we discover and understand them "science".

 

I didn't ask if you believed in god. You said god only exists,,,.
We are in agreement, god exists. We even agree by what instrument in some cases, god exists.

The word god is a variant of the word good. You are devoted to your good, your good is your god. God is that which you invoke as good cause.

 

Nice try. "God" only exists to those that BELIEVE in "him". Not to those who do NOT believe. YOU need to prove "he" exists. Good luck with that.

The word "God" is NOT a variant of "good", unless YOU think so of coarse. Anyone that has read the WHOLE bible knows that it's complete bullshit.
It is the worst horror story ever told by MAN. Sole purpose? To CONTROL people's minds and actions.

 

HOLY CRAPOLA BATMAN!!!
Wow! after years of perusing the religious sections of the forums it is nice too see someone who takes a very pragmatic, rational, and, forgive the term, scientific approach. I've been trying to get folks to see that science requires as much faith as religion forever.
Plus that the Bible is pretty fucking solid and reliable as a historical document(s) if one takes the time and intelligence to apply some simple "tests" such as demonstrated in the above post.
Yes we do accept as valid many documents with much less veracity than the Bible.

 

Good, [ Old English gōd < Germanic, "unite"]
God, [ Old English , < Indo-European, "that which is invoked"]

Here is an artifact to contribute to our scientific investigation of god.

The definition of god,
god [god]
n (plural gods)
1. supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe
Thor, the Norse god of thunder

2. figure or image: a representation of a god, used as an object of worship
the little bronze god standing in a niche above the altar

3. something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life (informal)
worshiping the false god of fame

4. somebody admired: a man who is widely admired or imitated (informal)
He was one of the rock music gods of the early Seventies.

God exists in the form of belief as well as disbelief.

If god does not exist, what are we talking about?

 

The "scientific minds" he's talking about are Christian apologists associated with Creationist or ID centers. They have Ph.D.s, but have long ago given up real scientific research in favor of churning out critiques of evolution. As you say, macro-evolution has plenty of evidence, but people who are determined to resist it for religious reasons will deny the obvious: that Archaeopteryx is not just a funny looking lizard with wings or a bird with teeth and a tail, but an actual transitional species between reptiles and birds; that the horse evolved from the dog-sized multi-toed eohippus to the mares and stallions of today. And that the whale was once a land-dwelling, legged creature, whose residual limbs bear witness to its dramatic metamorphosis.

For critiques of McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/ ; and http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html

 

I am not trying to nullify the word evidence... just point out that evidence is not proof. Anyone who truly understands science knows there is a difference, just like they know the difference between a theory like evolution, and scientific facts.

If evolution were real we could reproduce it. as pointed out above, we see different changes inside of a species and that thing like colors in moths can change, dogs can take on certain traits and get rid of others, and that finches with different genes that give them different beak sizes thrive and different environments. but they are all still finches, dogs and moths. We have never ever OBSERVED (big science word there) one species change into another. Even in the fossil record there are holes (hence the missing links), and therefore no continuous line.

That being said I am not against the idea of evolution. I have no explanation for the Archeopteryx, except that there are thousands if not millions of species that once existed but are now extinct. Again it's not PROOF, just EVIDENCE.

And what is wrong with critiquing modern science? doing so is what scientists have done for thousands of generations. People always remember that scientist were suppressed by the church (and they were) but they often forget that many times they were oppressed by common scientific opinion as well.

Meagain - please expound on your thought of the Bible not being a valid document. I think we agree historical evidence is behind it... whether that means what it says is accurate is a slightly different debate I agree. I can promise you I try to listen and not just repeat rhetoric on the subject. Also what problems do you have with Evidence that Demands a verdict? I am curious.

Also my statistic is only for the personal people I know... not meant to be made up which is why I said it pertained to people I have met and talked to. Okie can bash it as well if he likes, but many of these people are highly intelligent, highly rational, highly educated, and have no problem with people challenging their beliefs like any good scientist wouldn't.

Okievfreak - transitional species I believe to be used as a cop out to explain fossils of things we are not familiar with. Maybe you have seen fossil records that I haven't, but a few special bones a whale has that look mammalian instead of ... fishy??.. . or whatever, is again odd and may be evidence, but not proof. Neither are the miniature horse like fossils we have. There are wide wide steps in the fossils, no transitions like there should be. But I am always open to new information on the subject.

 

Meagain - read the article on Darwin finches... funny how even the article says that it does not line up with the traditional view of evolution. Not a discredit to evolution, but it backs my point of scientists needing to be willing to change ideas.

That being said, it is still micro-evolution, something I do not disagree with. I am looking for an article I read years ago on fruit flies. The gist is this: evolutionist use fruit flies because they reproduce quickly, meaning many generations in as short time. That being said, they noticed fruit flies evolve (micro -evolution) when toxins were introduced into the environment, as bugs immune to the toxin passed on genetics and the bugs not immune died and did not pass on genetics. Good solid proof for evolution (micro) except that it did not stop there. Scientists than noticed that when the toxin was no longer present in the environment, that the fruit flies quickly reverted BACK to their original genetic code, making again some flies immune and some not. Eventually the "evolution" disappeared into the normal population, and did not start a new branch of fruit fly genetics.

still working on the link for it... again it has been years since I read it.

 

Since god exists by definition a more meaningful avenue for scientific inquiry is what is god and what are it's effects. Since god is an element of the human psyche the field of inquiry would be social science, although an interdisciplinary application would be helpful in understanding all implications. For example the biological underpinnings generating the psyche.

 

We have a dictionary with the word god in it which is defined by experiential conjugation. We use the word to mean something as it means something to us.
Words are symbols of conditions and in our neural organization conditions are bound by words.

In the same way that Darwin nurtured his theory, through observation of the natural world we can surmise that god, or the relevance of god to us, is in every instance, an element of the human psyche.

 

"But as far as historical documentation that supports the Bible....I've given up on this one, the book you cite is not even worth talking about."

That was your statement earlier, and I have no idea why you made it. Why is the book I mentioned not worth talking about?

"I don't think proving or disproving evolution will prove or disprove the existence of a god."

I agree with this statement if God is who the bible claims he is, than he could have used evolution, or not. At least as far as I believe.

My point is there is just as much reason to doubt evolution than the bible. There is also just as much reason that people use to believe in God than in evolution. So in keeping with the original topic, I doubt there is scientific proffthat God exists, just there is a lakc of proof for most things in science. Just evidence that people interpret, sometimes only the way that is convenient for them.

Where I disagree with your explanation is this: generalizations are not laws... neither is a "best fit for the evidence we have" approach. I have no problem with these since this is what science is about, but if this is what science is about than why do we just keep believeing theories? We should keep an open mind that there is a possibility that something greater than what we can see could exist.

 

I am not suggesting that god is man made but that man makes an image of god, an image from some sensory manifestation.

 

Just like people make images of other people in their heads that are usually not true.

Not sure if we agree on who or what god really is but I think we can agree that just because man thinks god is something does not make it true.

I believe that God is a relational being and that we can get to know him like we can get to know a person. I know that off topic, but there it is.