can you make a scientific case for god?

the other debate is getting kinda boring, so, lets start this one from a different angle: can you make a scientific case for god.

Rules: - your case must be strictly scientific.
- cannot contain logical fallacies

 

Religion and science are like parallel lines. By definition, they cannot merge. By definition of what is religion and what is science, they cannot be put on the same level of debate.

Religion uses faith and science use the complete opposite, skepticism and the search for facts.

So althought I'm completely atheist, and althought I think God really isn't needed to explain life, religious people think science isn't needed to explain God. So?

Parallel lines, really...

 

i still hope someone can take up this challenge.

 

The fact is nobody can prove God to you. You must do this for yourself. It can't be outsourced.

It depends on your personal ability, not that of others.

The best you can do is spend time with people who walk with God, and have the ability to help you bring what is inside of you to the outside.

--So you can see it for yourself.--


x

 

i still think someone out there can make a scientific case for god, the point isnt to prove god to me, just entertain me lol! ima go smoke a blunt i hope to see some takers when i come back.

 

Physicist J.P. Davies argues that Occam's razor justifies acceptance of some kind of cosmic intelligence as the simplest way of explaining a variety of facts about the cosmos. The OP can judge whether or not "some kind of cosmic intelligence" and "the simplest way of explaining a variety of facts" would be enough to satisfy his requirements re God and scientific explanations.

 

I like this answer.

 

nah, occam's razor is subjective to the individual. while you think that god is the simplest solution, one could also theorize that it could have been aliens.

 

yep , it's when the aliens of super-science come and tell you all about universal god - then you'll be oh so impressed . until then , all we got is a certainly provable local god . now there's no real evidence that the god of this planet did any world creating . but who cares about shit that happened all so too long ago . we are concerned with a living god - doesn't even have to be a god of great power . about all our god can do is push a bit of wind about - making words of clouds for example . this intelligent sort of wind action is actually not an uncommon experience , and the experience is and shall be felt as existential kindness .

yes , you may measure the intelligence of wind .

 

Sorry, I couldn't find anything on a J.P. Davies or his argument. Care to share a link to his work/arguments?

I can't fully argue against his views without at least reading them, however, I don't see how Occams Razor can justify any god type figure when we can never see a god type figure. To me, the easiest explanation for all the people in the bible who've claimed to have seen/heard god would be that these people were on drugs of the time, had mental illnesses that they were unaware of at the time or just plain control freaks who were charismatic and were able to convince the less intellegent people of the time. Its believed by some that Paul was epileptic, leading to his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. It certainly explains the vision as many epileptics have visions of light and hear voices.

As for the OP, it most certainly a scientific question. "Does X exist" is a scientific question. Either there is emprical evidence for X's existance or there isn't. If there IS empirical evidence for X's existence, the evidence should lead one to make predictions based on the evidence. Black holes were postulated long before they were observed because of other evidence that was available that lead to their prediction.

We have none of this for any gods. We have nothing that predicts the existence of gods that can be considered empirical evidence. At best, all we have is anecdotal evidence of personal experience from various people and anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence there is. Its subjective and leaves plenty of room for lies and wild imaginations. A prime example of this is all the various gods ever created by man. A hindu has experiences with Vishnu, a muslim has experiences with Allah, etc, etc, etc.... showing that personal experience is not reliable when it comes to the questions of any gods existence.

On the surface, it may seem like God is the easiest answer for the existence of the universe, but in reality it creates many more questions about the god that can't be answered, so I disagree that Occam can be argued for the existence of god(s).

What I'd like to see theists answer is how can anything intellegent (by our standards) exist without a physical brain? We know that our minds are nothing without a brain. We know that physical damage to various parts of the brain will damage various parts of our own intellegence. This kind of evidence leads to the conclusion that intellegence requires neurons and synopses and when these neurons and chemical pathways are damaged, so is intellegence, thus leading to the conclusion that mind can't exist without physical brain. When someone can explain how thinking, intellegent entities can exist without physical matter (brains) then, just maybe I can accept that an incorporeal god could exist. If god is physical, there should be evidence for it. So far, there has been no empirical evidence for any god and therefore it is not rational to conclude one exists. I'm not saying conclusively that one doesn't exist, I'm just saying it is not rational to assume one does based on the evidence (or lack thereof).

 

No, I cannot.

I believe in something higher based off of intuition and experietial knowledge. Is this type of thinking more susceptible to delusion? Certainly. Does this type of thinking necessarily involve delusion. I dont think so.

Some things you just know.

 

I think this is a poor response. While religion and science may seem to be opposed, they are not nessecarilly mutually exclusive. Many theorists used models of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and other scientific (albeit social scientific) domains to explain the origins of religion and the ideas of god. some even go so far to try to explain why we need religion through scientific means or why one religion is better or worse then another.

Also, the skeptic isn't the friend of science, Imagination is. It wasn't skepticism that made Newton think that there was a force that bound all matter, it was a "what if..." though. "What if... living things as a species gradually change over time", now lets test it. "What if..." is the keystone of the scientific method.

That being said, religion cannot be proved scientifically, nor can a divine being. Anything that goes against the recognized laws of science cannot be proven or disproven by science.

 

Thank you! I was just thinking this as I clicked on the thread. You summarized my thoughts perfectly.

It's the reason I don't believe in pushing my religion on others... Because who the fuck knows? I have my idea, but I would hardly call it a fact...

 

off the top of my head..I know there are quite a few scientific studies done that support "the great flood" with the findings of sedimintary rocks found on mountain tops and covering a good portion of the earth..with these rocks native to water..I will post some studies later.

 

well dig it up and lets get this thing started

 

Not always true! I am only defending the religion that immediately popped into my head when I read this post.

You must not have ever studied Buddhism. In Buddhism science is advocated. The Dalai Lama and other Buddhist spiritual leaders advise their followers to never take something and trust it as truth without proving it to themselves first. Ok, ok where does the science part come in? Buddhism and science are becoming more and more hand in hand, as the international communities unite. Emory University and members of the Buddhist faith in the Tibetan exiled community are teaming up for what is called the Emory-Tibet partnership in order to bridge Western philosophies with modern science.

I have studied with and heard lectures by various Buddhist rinpoches among other highly studied Buddhists including His Holines the Dalai Lama. They all say science is important, if science ever disproves something that they believe, it will be written off.

I don't have enough time to make a good argument, but Yes religion and science can overlap!!! Perhaps when I am les busy I will add to this...

sorry for not adding to your thread

 

Not until you can make a scientific case AGAINST god.

God will always exist 100% because you cannot find a single reason God does not exist whereas people will find hundreds of reasons why God does exist.

Regardless of what my beliefs may be, the point ive made still stands.

To be honest there isnt alot more that can be said.

 

very scientific...glad you can read

 

I see you didnt contribute to either arguement in your post, you merely stated that Religion and science can overlap, so you obviously CANT read otherwise you would see the title of this thread does not ask if science and religion can overlap.

'I don't have enough time to make a good argument, but Yes religion and science can overlap!!!' well thanks for this irrelevant and off topic point.

Buddhists dont believe in a god anyway so your post doesnt belong in a thread solely based upon God and science, let alone a thread like this in the CHRISTIANITY section.

If a fish kept its mouth shut it wouldnt have got caught. Remember that.

 

I was in fact responding to another post, so yes it was semi-relevant. And you don't know much about Buddhism so don't start on that. And touche, this is in the Christianity section...but i was making a point to correct someone.