Scientists only: Does God exist?

Question

Please answer from a scientific point of view.

wow! i'm having fun reading ALL your answers, which i don't usually do with other answers on other questions. please keep on posting brilliant answers. have trouble picking the best answer, but to name a few that i like...
1. Scott C's Superman allegory
2. eejonesaux on Dr Stephen Hawking
3. Grendle's beautiful reconciliation of the religion vs. science conflict
4. nuffsaid on Einstein
5. Answerguy's robot theory
6. The Defiant One's Pyramid Analogy
7. sighhhhhhhhhh's invention-and-inventor
8. paul r's anti-oxidant parallelism
9. BEETLE's entomoligist views
9. xelua, well, scientific but i don't understand a word (try layman lingo?)
10. don's ineffable God
11. pelops dl's agnostic science

wow... just wow...

BEETLE, I'm not sure if this can help...?
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

G! That's also great idea from you! Tough decision to award 10 points to just one person. Can you all share? I have 13 favorites now! Wow!

Answer 1

Yes, he does.

The evidence among the various scientific fields is overwhelming.

For example, God is called the 'creator'. Even evolutionists who are atheists refer to a time, prior to the so called 'big bang', when there was, and I quote, "a point of creation", when everything that exists, all matter and energy, came into being.

And based on ALL observations, every creation has a creator. There has never been anything observed to have been created that did not have a creator, and nothing has ever been observed to have been created that did NOT have a creator. And science is about observation, everything else is speculation. So the evidence suggests that the universe had a creator. In fact, the word, ‘universe’, comes from the Latin ‘uni’ meaning one, and ‘verse’ which is a spoken sentence. So universe literally means a single spoken sentence. The Bible states that God spoke everything into existence.

Another point is the law of biogenesis, which states that life can only come from life, or rather, nothing that is not alive can become alive. This is a scientific law, and there has NEVER been an observation that violates this law. So based upon our science, life can only happen if it is created by a creator.

In microbiology, the ‘simplest’ cell is more complex then the space shuttle. It has a million micro machines working together, and if any of them were not working correctly, the whole cell would cease to function, and certainly could not replicate. Now, scientists would NEVER state that the space shuttle came together by a process of random chance, because that statement would violate all known scientific laws. Even the most staunch atheist would consider that statement very unscientific.

So, if no scientist could accept that something as relatively simple as the space shuttle could not come into being on its own through random chance, how could we ever expect that something as complex as a living creature could come into being on its own? It has never been observed.

In order to have life, you need oxygen, yet, the presence of oxygen will destroy the basic building blocks of life before they even come together, unless you already have a machine to assemble them while protecting them from the oxygen. But only a living machine can do this, and you need oxygen to have the living machine, etc.

Most of what we believe is based on evidence rather than actual experience. For example, neither you nor anyone you know, nor anyone alive has ever seen the Egyptians build the pyramids, but the evidence suggests that they built them, so we accept that.

My statement that God created the universe is as strong as someone’s statement that the Egyptians built the pyramids, because the evidence supports it. The pyramids are here, and the universe is here. There are ancient documents describing Egyptians building pyramids, and there are ancient documents describing God creating the universe.

So, no one can prove, beyond all doubt, that God exists, but the evidence suggest that he does, and the scientific method is to go with the evidence.

SUCCESS!

Answer 2

Well this is a very touchy question. I am an entomologist that studies zoogeography, and evolution. Evolution and Religion never really get along so to speak. I am a believer in God, but I really dont believe in the creationist view that the earth is only 6000 years old and God created everything as it is on the earth today. Scientific evidence puts the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years old, and the evidence is there, in rock formation and fossil evidence and many other factors demonstrate this. Evolution and natural selection exist and it has even been demonstrated, this microevolution can be extrapolated intomacroevolution, which hasnt been observed yet, but doesnt have to to be factual.
I do believe inGod and religion, but "magic" and "faith" cant explain everything that happens onthis planet.
Hope that is a good enough answer!

Answer 3

If you are asking "Is there scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being," the answer is "No."
See, belief in God is about what is called "Faith." By definition, this precludes the scientific method, which requires a methodical formulation of a proposition, testing of the proposition, evaluation of the testing, revision of the proposition, and conclusion (rinse and repeat for desired effect).
So asking for some "scientist" to tell you whether or not there is a God, is pretty silly. Rather like asking a blind person to define "Blue."
On the other hand, to the blind, it doesn't really matter whether or not there is such a thing as "blue," so long as they can pick the right button to push in an elevator. So (in the same way and for the same reason) it doesn't matter to scientists whether or not there is such a thing as "God", so long as they can accurately describe and predict the things and events in the world around them.
Science is about understanding God's world, if you like. It is not about believe, it is about intellect.
Once you grasp that basic distinction, you will understand that there is no real "conflict" between religion and science. They are answering different questions, and approaching different goals.
Cheers.

Answer 4

It is not the purpose of Science to answer whether or not God exists. The existence of God is an untestable hypothesis. The purpose of science is to understand the basic principles that explain the functioning of the world around us, specifically observable phenomena. God and science are not at opposition. God is handy for explaining the things that science can't (such as the meaning of life.. many people find meaning in their lives from God). Science is not going to tell you how to live your life, or what moral values you should hold.. religions CAN do this for you. On the other hand, faith is not an excuse to be lazy and ignorant. The dark ages are over and science provides better explanations for most natural phenomena than God or religion do. (The whole flat earth / round earth thing.. earth being at the center of the universe, Atlas holding earth on his shoulders.. you get the idea).

My personal opinion.. I don't know if God exists. I hope so. Sometimes I'd really like to believe that He does. I will find out one day, that's a certainty.

Answer 5

Yeah, sure, how do we define God.
Moreover, how do we define science?
Don't kid yourselves science neophytes, science epistemology does NOT exclude hypotheses that are not "testable". Behaviorism is an example of an untestable tautology that is generally accepted in science. Moreover, behaviorists openly understand that it is a tautology, but deal with it. Positivism assumes a concrete reality, of which we humans only have a small view. It's positivism that is generally carried as science, and it is important for a perspective on conceptualizations of properties we observe in our environment. Pop culture and science assumes that we actually do "know" some things, but if you look at the history and process of science, it is only a process of forming paradigms (aka-ways to explain and understand things).
If you are really a scientific researcher instead of a elementary school science of life graduate, you should be deeply familiar with the theories of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerbend or Lakatos among others with respect to the progression of scientific knowledge. You would be far less adamant that science excludes the existence of God.

Don't insult yourselves by not reading things that are challenging or uncomfortable.

Answer 6

There is no evidence to support the existance of God. While this doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it makes it seem less likely. There is no way to disprove the existance of God, either.

The problem with attempting to use science to show the existance of God is that the scientific method cannot deal with supernatural explanations. There are no tests that can be performed to prove or falsify the hypothesis of God's existance. Therefore, science has no stance on the existance of God or Santa Claus because neither can be proven or disproven (and for the same reasons).

So science is decidedly agnostic on the matter of the supernatural. Personally, I choose to be atheistic concerning such things as God, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.

Answer 7

Consider that a few decades or centuries from now, man is able to make intelligent robots which have the capabilities of a man. And then they take these robots to a far off planet and leave them there to grow, evolve and breed.

Could these robots be ever able to figure out how they got there, and who created them and why ? The purpose of them being on that planet, would probably be as incomprehensible to them, as to humans here.

One answer is that if god does does not exist, how did universe come about? Either way, god does not seem to be causing or not causing any events at least as you see them. Most things we understand follow the rules of physics/science (but who created them?). So may be universe is god, the laws of science is god, or the force that made them is god. There is no straight forward answer.

Answer 8

It's impossible to talk rationally with some people about God, so I prefer to talk about Superman. This type of argument works for any kind of hero or religious being with supernatural powers.

It's impossible to prove that Superman doesn't exist, yet reasonable people agree that he is a fictional character. There is no evidence for the existence of Superman. There are many works of fiction that involve Superman, but we have a reasonable explanation for their creation that does not require the involvement of an actual Superman. Admittedly, this lack of evidence does not constitute proof that Superman doesn't exist.

If Superman were to have the powers described by the Superman literature, we would not have an explanation for them that is consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. The yellow light from our sun is only good for a few watts, yet Superman is supposed to be capable of exercising megawatts and gigawatts through his tremendous strength derived from our sun. Superman is supposed to be able to fly, but we have no physical explanation for how this is accomplished. Basically, if Superman existed then that would mean our understanding of physics is horribly inadequate.

So:
1. There is no evidence Superman exists.
2. If Superman did exist that would mean there are significant basic principles of physics that we don't understand (new forces, sources of energy), which is unlikely.
3. There is a good explanation for the existence of his stories that does not require his actual existence.

These facts support the decision to assume that Superman doesn't exist.

Answer 9

Based on pure science, no. However, we don't have enough facts to prove He doesn't exist. No one seems able to gather much evidence from the spiritual world. Without evidence, we can't support a hypothesis one way or the other. In the mean time, as long as belief in Him motivates people to do good in this world, it seems pretty logical to go ahead and believe in Him if it will improve your life and those around you. Einstein was a believer, and since he is arguably the best scientist that ever lived, that's good enough for me. Besides, how could Einstein have possibly reasoned his predictions without some kind of divine inspiration? Food for thought....

'nuff said?

Answer 10

I don't believe that there is a 'GOD' or supreme being, creator, or any force that controls our lives or desides our fate......or whatever. It doesn't make much sense. The fact that humans are inclined to believe that there is, does make sense. To me. If I am wrong and there is something or someone controlling anyhting on the planet, then I can't help but notice that they are either incompitent, or stupid, or sadistic......or all or two of the above. It certainly wouldn't have my respect, and I can't imagine worshipping it. So, I doubt seriously if God exists. It's hard to believe anyone could be that cruel, or oblivious. I prefer to have a more positive view of us and our world/life. If he exists, he should worship us for putting up with all his abuse and still being faithfull and hopeful. And why the big cloak and dagger act? Nah, doesn't make sense. We're so silly.