What scientist wouldn't want to prove the existence of God if he could?

Question

He or she would immediately be the greatest scientist of all time provided the proof was actual and not simply asserted.

It is ridiculous to think that scientists are actively trying to disprove God, they are simply dealing with the evidence.

Yes a good scientists is objective but only in the sense that they are honest with the experimentation. A personal opinion about something is only a hinderance to good science if it somehow influences the work at hand.

For instance, a researched might more or less know beforehand the outcome of an experiment, but the quality of the science is in the methodolgy (which is subject to peer review).

grrrr. Sorry about the sloppy grammar up there.

Answer 1

I completely agree. The fact that no one has succeeded in doing so in several thousand years of trying suggests that it is probably impossible, and it is my opinion that it is absolutely impossible.

Answer 2

Science disproves the distorted idea of God (as an old man with a white beard sitting on the cloud), but it proves the existence of God or Universal Intelligence with each new discovery it makes.
What is God? It is the law of nature. It is the principle by which the things are created and operate, it is a cause and effect relationship. Some of these cause and effect relationships have already been discovered, measured, and proved by science, while others have not . Often times the unproved phenomenons are percieved by science as old tales, a fantasy of a religious fanatic. The religions just speak of undiscovered laws, such as discouragement of negative thoughts. Not because the God will punish you, but because for every action there is a consequence and religious rules warn you of the inevitable consequences that cannot be seen. In this case, the reason you should not think negatively is that your own negative energy will return to you. People used to have the intuitive sense of these laws and that would keep them on the right path of behavior. However, now everything has to be proved in order to be accepted.
God is a mystery; while trying to solve it and put all the little pieces of a puzzle together, scientists should keep in consideration one whole system with its own set of rules (visible and invisible, measurable and immeasurable) by which we all operate. One would not beleive in the existence of magnetic field and radio waves because they are invisible and could not be "counted" back in a day. It, however, did not change the fact they existed.
Science has to keep its mind open about things out there that a human mind cannot comprehend yet. As, one of the greatest scientific minds ever, Albert Einstein said: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
So, before going into any discussions about the existence of God, one should first concentrate on defining the concept of God. And once again I turn to Einstein who saw it as "...illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Answer 3

A good scientist is objective. Does not try to prove or disprove anything based on personal preference, but takes facts and reality for what they are. As it stands, for all effects and purposes, God does not exist. Does that mean that he really doesn't? No. I can't possibly know that. None of us can, at least for the time being. But considering the existence of God would have no positive impact on any area of science.

Answer 4

This is so true. What would be enough of proof though?

All the attempts to find naturalistic explanations for the historical facts related to the Resurrection have failed. The direct evidence concerning the tomb and the appearances combined with the circumstantial evidences ( Christ predicted His own Resurrection, the silence of the Jewish leaders about the Resurrection eloquently testified that they knew these things were undeniable, disciples fearful men whose faith was weak but after the Holy Spirit came to guide them they boldly proclaimed Christ to the multitudes in Jerusalem...etc ) establishes beyond resonalbe dout the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He conquered the grace, adn He offers resurrection life to all those who place their trust in Him.

Answer 5

As you said, scientists follow the evidence. They ask questions and look to find the answers. If one of those happened to suggest a "god" then someone would follow it, I'm sure, but so far the answers have always been natural things that happen in a natural world.

Answer 6

i agree with you for the most part. However, even though science can be pure, humans are not. There ARE some scientists who do actively try to disprove G-d, and they unfortunately are the most vocal.

Like another poster said, a good scientists is objective, however not all scientists are good.

Answer 7

The reality is that science is starting to have an inkling that something like God might exist. Our technology will soon be to the point where we can detect and meet God at a level nears Its.

Answer 8

I know of many scientists that set out to prove there is no god, and find more evidance for the opposite in this complex world. It is hard to prove the existance of God, but harder still to prove he does not exist!

Answer 9

The concept God was created before humans were literate and needed something to believe in to give them strength since they were weak. We have energy that is within all of exhistence and if you want to call it God thats your choice.. Thats why scientists have never discovered a God. Way back then people did not know how to explain exhistence so gave it a name as God.God told me so! LOL

Answer 10

God has to do with your personal experience with him and if you fail to have this experience just because you refuse to trust and believe and grow closer to him each day then don't think he has any obligation to try to make you believe. God does not want that type of believers. Only those who choose to believe.