100% proof, for theists and atheists?

Question

Theists if scientists were able to pove 100% that God wasn't real would you believe it?

Atheists if scientists were able to prove 100% that God was real would you believe it?

Right now almost nothing is 100% sure in the scientific world, not even gravity, so it only happens when they are completely right.

Proud, you didnt answer the question so im just going to assume your the same as what you said about atheists.

Answer 1

if the scientific world was ever completely right, that would truly be a miracle from God.

Answer 2

Interesting question. I'll answer it from the perspective of a young scientist and one who believes in God. ( As a muslim, I don't think science and faith are mutually exclusive.)
Science will never answer all the questions. Why? Because the universe is infinite and the frontier is vast. We have made huge, amazing strides and continue to do so and the ultimate discovery is that of the Supreme Being, who is also infinite. If you read about the nobel laureate physicist, Sir Dr. Abdus Salam, you'll find that he aimed to link the Divine with science. I don't know if the "ultimate Force" will ever be discovered. I do know that as human beings we have limitations and the Divine is far beyond our understanding. This is where faith comes in. Belief in God is faith, the feeling in your heart that there is an Almighty that created us, guides us and eventually takes us back. For me personally, I see His reflection everywhere, in the smallest and seemingly most insignificant places. The powerful waves of the ocean, the delicate balance of of our Earth, the songs of birds, the kindness of others. What comes to mind is a line by Thomas Hardy when Tess came upon a puddle of water that reflected the night sky. She thought that the 'vastest things of the universe imaged in objects so mean.' In other words, you don't need the scientific method to see God. His reflection is everywhere.

Answer 3

There are theists who try to support the existence of god by the theory of "creationism".
To argue against evolution, they point out the inability to conclusively prove macro-evolution since it can't be created in a petri-dish (obviously because its a process that takes thousands of years).

At the same time as having such a great need for evidence, they prefer to blindly and unquestionably take an unreliable book as fact, a book which isn't even close to some of the oldest religions in the world. They also ignore actual scientific evidence illustrating that the true age of the earth is much greater than the mere 6000 years christians believe the earth to be. True hypocrisy.

To read more on this debate, I suggest you visit the passion of christ messageboard on IMDB. There are plenty of people debating it on both sides of the discussion.

Answer 4

I can answer this question. A hardcore theist would still not believe it if science were to somehow prove god did not exist, although the flock might lose a few members.

An atheist, or more precisely, a scientist, would definitely believe god exists if that were proven. That's how science works. It is not some evil scheme with ulterior motives being funded by Satan. It is a process of inquiry, discarding that which is wrong and keeping that which withstands scrutiny, until that is also disproved, at which point a long-held scientific belief is discarded.

Answer 5

Theists make a useful fact. that there is a God. My own place is a loss of theory in God, as i'm a susceptible (adverse) atheist. this means that i'm making a adverse fact (absence of theory, as unfavourable to theory of absence). So i'm not asserting the "non-existence of non-actual, non-measurable issues", i'm asserting that for the reason that no information has been provided of God, I lack theory. the load of information is on the guy making a useful fact. additionally, atheism and agnosticism are actually not incompatible. To be agnostic is to take the region that some thing is unknown, or perhaps inherently unknowable. that's a place of understanding at the same time as to be a theist or an atheist is a place of theory. that's feasible to be an agnostic atheist - "i don't understand whether God exists or not, yet i don't think He does/i've got self belief He does not." or perhaps an agnostic theist - "i don't understand whether God exists or not, yet i've got self belief He does."

Answer 6

If scientists were able to prove 100% that God was real, then I would believe it, yes.

Answer 7

Eyewitness testimony is considered evidence in every court of the world except the court of the closed minded.

There are hundreds of thousands of records of eyewitness accounts of people interacting with God, Jesus or an angel acting in behalf of God.

Atheists choose to reject this evidence and all reasonable logic around the definition of evidence for no other reason than it does not fit into their ideology.

Logically this makes all atheists closed minded although not all closed minded people are atheists.

An Open Minded person might say "I find no compelling evidence in either direction", but, no open minded person can say "There is no God".

If a person has had a personal experience with God, Jesus or an Angel then the person might say, "I have seen incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God." Having had the existence of God established beyond a reasonable doubt a person can no longer be open minded about the existence of God.

The difference between these closed minded positions is one closed minded position is based on reasonable evidence, IE personal eyewitness of God.

The atheist position is based on rejecting reasonable evidence and the commonly accepted rules establishing evidence as accepted in most courts throughout the world.

Atheism is therefore unreasonable, illogical and closed minded.

Answer 8

No, there is never 100% way to prove or disprove anything. But that does not make everything worth believing or disbelieving.

Religion is based on unsubstantiated myths, and there is no evidence for a deity involved in human affairs. Science is revealing more things about our civilization and fueling new technology, and it works.

Science is more reflective of reality than religion. I find the notion of a god unlikely. It's not 100%, but it's close.

Answer 9

Psychologically speaking, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove, or disprove, anybody's belief system(s); Nobody is ever "completely" right, or wrong (beliefs are so much influenced by personal experience that it would take the next 12 hours to explain the dynamics); If you truly believe what you believe, and you're not just caving in to popular opinion (mind you that the whole "christian" trip is nothing but popular opinion), then you're beliefs cannot even be dislodged by a grenade!! (look at all of these suicide bomber idiots in the Middle East; they're willing to blow themselves into oblivion for what they believe in. I don't agree with their methods [i.e. slaughtering innocent people] but I admire the f-ck out of their resolve... about the only thing I believe I'd lay my life down for would be to protect the life and liberty of my love (s-it, I'd probably even blow myself up for her, which doesn't say much for anyone who would ever even concieve of harming her!! Everybody else on the planet is on their own!!

Answer 10

If scientists manage to prove something 100%, then that thing ceases to be fit as an object of belief.

But how on Earth will we ever be able to determine that something has been proved 100%, even if it has been indeed?... Where should we acquire the intuition of that whole of necessity that has been completed?...

Answer 11

There's some degree of faith in everything, including the nature of human existence. I believe the scientific community can be a very arrogant bunch, always claiming discovery for something that had already been known to exist for centuries, but it was just that the people who knew about it didn't wear lab coats. I believe in God, and as a pantheist, I don't believe God can be proven to not exist.