Actual Evidence of God vs. Science?

Question

Im playing devil advocate here but what proof do we have of god. I mean hard material proof. The same could be said for science such as the big bang ect. So what if some people wrote down things in a book and so what if Jesus said he was gods son ( or god in human form) What does that prove. Just because someone says something it doesnt make it true. People lie. Everyone uses their religious text and circular reasoning to support themselves. Can anyone give hard evidence of the existance of a God. Now remember im just playing devil advocate so please dont jump me this is just for the sake of discussion so play nice please.

Macbeth... you would be suprised in the number of people that enjoy other positions more than face to face. It is a good point though. Hard evidence is hard to describe... Ive read college science books they dont prove any existance of a god. yes there are amazing things in this world but how do we know where they come from. are we even able to comprehend it. Only ment for discussion purposes

Answer 1

Science relies almost exclusively on observation and empirical testing (see my argument below), while religion relies exclusively on faith. Some would argue the Bible is proof, but it all boils down to faith. So to answer your question: No, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.

This dichotomy in thinking is why you can never sway a religious person who favors religion over science to a scientific way of thinking, no matter how rational and complete your explanations. Likewise, this is why die-hard, logical atheists can never be persuaded to convert to a religious viewpoint.

Each camp is entitled to their own point of view.

I normally argue the case for science, but for the sake of fairness, let me point out a case against science to counter any anti-religious sentiments that might pop up under this question... though I will include caveats to defend science from the misinterpretations of members of over-zealous religious circles.

Science has uncertainty. This does not mean that science is a fraud, however. Unfortunately, this simple underlying principle has been widely misunderstood, and has resulted in semantically fallacious attacks against science, and particularly evolution. (Statements like "it's only a theory" and "scientists are uncertain" fall into this category.) They twist the very nature of science into a field of wild speculation and conjecture -- which it is not. (For more details, see the link "Scientific Theory" in my sources.)

As I said previously, science is based on observation, and it will forever contain uncertainty. Science never proves anything! It only decreases uncertainty. In the case of Electromagnetic Theory, Gravitational Theory, or Evolution, thorough testing and a lack of contradictory evidence have resulted in *nearly* 100% certainty of their validity. Details for specific cases may not be known, often marred by issues of complexity and more specific, unknown underlying principles that work within the framework of the broad, overlying theory. (The study of evolution, for example, contains much debate over such underlying mechanisms, but the encompassing theory itself is not questioned within science.)

So although science contains some uncertainty and has yet to answer many questions about the world around us, through thorough testing and observation (and implementation in our daily lives), many feel confident with the picture it paints. Aside from the simple assumptions that 99.99999999% certainty is essentially 100% certainty, it appears as though science takes no broad leaps of faith. However, at the very heart of science, there are assumptions -- or leaps of faith, if you will. They are called axioms: self-evident principles that are accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument. These are always very elementary concepts, and form the foundation of mathematical logic. For example, "When an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results." This can be observed (by taking $5 from two people who both have $7 and observing that they both now have $2), but we have to *assume* that this logical axiom is always true in every case throughout the universe. Therefore, all such axioms (self-evident truths upon which other knowledge must rest, and from which other knowledge is built up) form the foundation of all scientific knowledge. Faith is involved.

For that reason, science can never claim true superiority over religion, for both involve faith. From this common foundation, the two camps diverge. Religion relies solely on faith, making claims that may or may not be directly observable and are never empirically testable. Science relies on a limited amount of underlying faith (in its axioms) since nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed, while then relying on observations and empirical testing to further knowledge.

I hope this both answers your question and helps everyone understand all the issues involved.

And by the way... because science can't currently explain something does not prove the existence of God. To make such a case demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of science. Once again, the two schools of thought will never be able to persuade each other, because of the dichotomy between the rationales of their ideologies only create misunderstanding. When either ideology crosses into the realm of the other, it only makes itself look foolish. Examples include those by Mac13eth and ddr_machine (answers posted below). Mac13eth obviously isn't familiar with the scientific literature, nor is he familiar with the fundamentals of science. The "logical proof" by ddr_machine presents a case that cannot be tested -- therefore it is not scientific and is merely philosophy.

Answer 2

God VaticanreVaticanVaticaned "SVaticanVaticaneVaticanVaticane" (sVaticanVaticaneVaticanVaticane meVaticanVaticans "kVaticanowledge") so VaticanhVaticanVatican humVaticanVaticans VaticanVaticanVatican VaticanppreVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticane extra wholly Vaticanhe VaticanreVaticanVaticanVaticanoVatican He mVaticande. The "BVaticang BVaticanVaticang" Vaticanheory, Vaticans Vaticanhe bVaticanby of Vaticanwo VaticansVaticanro physVaticanVaticanVaticansVaticans sVaticanVaticaneVaticanVaticanVaticansVaticans of Vaticanhe CVaticanVaticanholVaticanVatican VaticanhurVaticanh [VaticanVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticanVatican] , who Vaticanre Vaticanlso serve VaticanVatican Vaticanhe VaticanVaticanpVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticany of prVaticanesVaticans. CurreVaticanVaticanly; NASA jusVatican lVaticanuVaticanVaticanhed Vatican spVaticanVaticane VaticanrVaticanfVatican Vaticano serve Vaticans Vatican mVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticaneVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticane / repVaticanVaticanr vehVaticanVaticanle for Vaticanhe HUBBLE VaticanelesVaticanope. ThVaticans wVaticanll eVaticanVaticanble Vaticanhe HUBBLE Vaticano furVaticanher, uVaticandergo VaticanhVaticanVaticanges VaticanVaticand replVaticanVaticanemeVaticanVaticans Vaticano VaticanVaticans ouVatican-dVaticanVaticaned equVaticanpmeVaticanVatican VaticanVaticand up-dVaticanVaticanVaticanVaticang of VaticanVaticans sVaticanopes Vaticano VaticanVaticanfrVaticanred leVaticanses, Vaticano furVaticanher see VaticanVaticanVaticano ouVaticaner spVaticanVaticane Vaticano VaticanVaticanvesVaticanVaticangVaticanVaticane Vaticanhe BVaticang BVaticanVaticang Theory eveVatican, furVaticanher. ThVaticans must be VaticanVaticanVaticaneresVaticanVaticanVaticang !

Answer 3

False. There is logical proof that the Christian idea of God does not exist.
Besides the classic problem of evil, there is a proof against omniscience. It's called the Atheist Argument against Symbolic Incoherence.
It assumes the following premise: God is Omniscient.
From this premise, and from this premise alone, it argues that God is incoherent. This is the argument (warning Will Robinson, this is as obtuse as it is profound):

We begin by creating a modified form of the Newcomb Paradox. We propose a contest in which the following conditions are met:

1. There is a predictor who can predict action with 100% accuracy
2. There are two boxes, blue and red.
3. An agent X has two options: take one box (either blue or red) or take both boxes.
4. The red box always contains $1,000
5. If the predictor predicts, with 100% accuracy, that agent X will select one box (and one box alone), it places $1M in the blue box
6. Otherwise, it places no money in the blue box
7. The boxes are made of glass (and are transparent)
8. Selecting a box costs $1
9. The predictor makes these arrangements before agent X selects a box

Game theorists (and economists) will note that (1), (3), (7) and (8) deviate from the Classical Newcomb Paradox initially presented by the late philosopher Robert Nozick. Note further that all agents fall into two categories: they will either select one box or they will select two boxes.

If the predictor predicts, with 100% accuracy, that agent X will select one box, he will place $1M in the blue box. Seeing this, a rational agent X will grab both boxes (since it gives him an extra $1,000). If the predictor instead predicts, again with 100% accuracy, that agent X will select both boxes, he will place no money in the blue box. Seeing this, a rational agent X will select only the red box (since it saves him a dollar).

In other words, a perfectly omniscient predictor will generate incoherent (and self-contradictory) predictions in the modified Newcomb's Paradox - whatever he predicts will be false, and this is a contradiction since he has 100% accuracy.

A fully omniscient being is a universally omniscient predictor (since prediction is a category of knowledge). A universally omniscient predictor will also be (by definition) an omniscient predictor for the modified Newcomb's Paradox. But this is incoherent! Therefore, a fully omniscient being is conceptually incoherent.

Conclusion: Either God is not omniscient or the concept of God is incoherent.

Answer 4

I don't think there is any proof that God does exist. I mean he or she never made a public service announcement and with the way things are going today I can not imagine a person out there that hasn't asked the same thing you are asking. But at the same time sometimes its good to have faith in something pure and good especially when we live in a world that is filled with so much loss and sorrow.

Answer 5

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imaginations, we learned to talk." That quote comes from Stephen Hawking who caused a lot of fuss on Answers in past week or two. Who is right? Stephen or the Evangelists who say the earth is only a few thousand years old. Just believe in the power of Good over Evil and the Bible is a collection of stories to illustrate that point. Jesus told parables, stories, similes with the odd metaphor....

Answer 6

Science and religion are like oil and water: the two will never mix.
One cannot use religion to explain science, nor can one use science to explain religion (despite those who want to find archeological evidence supporting Biblical references).
One requires logic, the other requires faith.
And yet the debates rage on.

Easier to train penguins to fly.

One word of caution: be careful "playing the Devil's advocate," for in the use of this phrase, there is an implication of a built-in bias.

Answer 7

Nope, I can't give actual, bona fide proof that there is a God. However, I've been reading lots of articles that lend credence to the argument that there is no God. So, I'm agnostic leaning towards complete atheism. Most Christians use their Bible as the argument towards their being a God, but if you take away that, what do you have left? Just a lot of stuttering...and no answers. Thanks, for an actual, intelligent question! It was nice to read for a change!

Answer 8

No real evidence, there is some evidence in the bible that can prove some historical accuracy of events, there was a point where the bible even said to wash before eating long before germs were known. As for a concrete formula, there is none, there have been miracles and many witnesses to them however.

Answer 9

I know what your saying. But science cannot prove it's validity any more than Christians can. Science deals with cause/effect. If this, then this. Science is very good at showing the progression of things since "the beginning" or creation, but falls flat on its face in explaining the actual beginning of things. I forget his name, but who was that guy that proved that flies didn't develop from rotten meat? (which was the scientific theory of the time). We laugh at that now days, cause it seems so simple that life begins from somewhere and doesn't just spontaneously generate. BUT that is the basic assumption of science and the creation of the universe. THERE WAS ONCE NOTHING, AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT CAUSED AN EXPLOSION WITH THIS NOTHINGNESS AND LIFE BEGAN. lo lol lol They haven't got if figured out either.

Answer 10

Sings, coincidences, people surviving impossible situation, people with fertility problems having a baby, my family coming to London, me and my mom being saved from a terrible attack, only thanks to a weird feeling and a few other sings. The way that, even with the big huge chaos the world is, still works. That I think, is proof that there's a higher power or energy in control, watching over us.

Answer 11

There isn't any proof. You have to use illogical arguments and go against evidence, facts, and right thinking to even consider the existance of god in any serious manner. In other words, you have to be ignorant.