Evidence against or for a creator?

Question

I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and have been really trying to honeslty look at everthing so I can figure out whether or not there is a god.....any input will be helpful

Answer 1

Science has not found evidence either in favor of, or against, the idea of a supernatural creator.

Some people find this disheartening ... and others find this encouraging (since science cannot eliminate the possibility of a creator either).

But this is just by nature of the definition of science. Science simply *CANNOT* find evidence for or against a supernatural creator, because science deals only in natural phenomena. It's like looking for the soul in an X-ray.

There are many people who look for evidence in "improbabilities" ... but this has always been shown to be a dead end.

Let me give you an example. What are the odds that you were born (where by "you" I mean the person with the unique set of chromosomes in your cells)? Without going through the details (I can if you like ... it's pretty simple), there are about 700 *trillion* different combinations of chromosomes from your father and mother that could be produced. But only one of them did occur ... you.

So you are a *highly* improbable event ... and yet here you are! Are you an act of personal creation? That's absolutely possible! But there is no way to find evidence of this one way or the other.

So science is a wonderful thing. But you will be disappointed (or taken advantage of) if you look to science for evidence to support faith. I know. I've tried. And while I have a deep and abiding love for science ... I derive *faith* from other sources.

Answer 2

I've done the same thing for a while now, and I've come to one conclusion: you can only answer this question yourself. If you ask a theologian for evidence of a creator, your going to get a bunch of subjective answers based on the personal experiences of people's beliefs interacting, but he can't offer any reasonable empirical evidence. If you ask a scientists, he'll show you the empirical evidence that evolution has most likely occurred, but must leave the door open for a creator (whether or not you call him God) in case of the fact that some of that empirical evidence shows up. If you want to believe in a creator, great, just don't lecture me on the scientific value of your ideas if you have nothing new to add. If you want to believe there is no creator and life is nothing more than a bunch of random mutation pressured into existence by changing environmental factors, great, just don't try to lecture me on matters of the soul. I don't have to have evidence of a soul (or need it, for that matter--I believe it exists), but I also don't accept a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, because it was written by man, and man is fallible, whether inspired by God or not. (Sorry about coming from the Christian perspective...it's the most familiar to me.)

Answer 3

It is just not true that there is no evidence either way.

Science is about a body of evidence - very rarely can something be shown irrefutably in one single observation. Each observation for or against a hypothesis makes the opposite more unlikely.

On this basis it is perfectly reasonable to test the hypothesis "there is a god" or any other such hypothesis put forward by the religious ("prayer works" etc).

In fact no robust supporting evidence has ever been found, which while not a proof that there is no god certainly makes it exceedingly unlikely in scientific terms.

For other hypothesis like "prayer works" robust scientific tests (double blind tests) have been done and have found categorically that it does not. In fact, those who are prayed for and know it in such tests generally fare worse - probably because of performance anxiety.

Answer 4

My personal view is this: Just like we now look back on the 12th and 13th centuries as the "dark ages" (because of the scientific ignorance at that time) I feel that hundreds of years from now people will also look back on our day as a "dark age" (because of our spiritual ignorance). My point is that it seems quite clear to me that Reality involves both a "physical" aspect (revealed by science) and a "nonphysical" aspect (revealed only in direct personal experience) and that both parts of the whole are needed. In some mysterious as-of-yet unknown way, they both must fit together.

There is no objective scientific evidence for the second "nonphysical" aspect, and I would argue there cannot be any. There can only be direct subjective experience. Does that make such knowledge uncertain? Consider this: There is no objective scientific evidence for your own personal human consciousness either (again I would say, there cannot be any) yet that is the most certain and direct knowledge you have.

One last point:
I often find myself thinking as follows: The natural laws possess such beauty and intelligence. How can they be? How can there be Laws? It is such an incredible mystery. Where does a Law come from? I can imagine maybe a rock just existing without any Divine Intelligence...but a Law?

Answer 5

Considering this is in the science section, I will answer scientifically.

There is no evidence for any kind of higher power. There is extremely strong evidence that the universe is governed by a set of unchanging rules. It is possible that a higher power exists, and set the rules in the beginning and has maintained a "hands-off" approach since then. It is also possible that there was no higher power involved in this process. Since the result is the same whether or not a higher power is involved, the higher power is a redundant variable. Redundant variables are eliminated until there is evidence that makes them necessary.

Until there's evidence that God is required for anything, we cannot conclude he exists.

Answer 6

It all boils down to your set of beliefs. Science is evolving and has no claim for any final answers on any subject. Religion believes and asks the followers to believe without questioning. Science and spirituality get really close at the highest level.

One argument in favor of a creator is that anything which is created must have a creator. And many things look as if they are created and not evolved.

Answer 7

Sorry, but you won't find the answer in a book. There is no proof of "God" therefore you will need to rely on faith/believing. Either you believe there is a god or you don't. From your question it sounds like you want to believe there is a god and just need reassurance. People can say just about anything and someone will believe it. I assume you are looking for a more scientific or historical reponse, but the answer is for you to decide.

Answer 8

I'm trying not so religious as possible
Man is a very intelligent being , God is more than that
Man created a lot.
. . . man invented fire, plow, ship, cannon, building. air plane
. . . . . man can build and can destroy
. . .man invented tape recorder, television, computer
. . . . .man can record the past, he can remember
. . . man can heal man, can manipulate the intangible mind
Now a day man can even read the mind of other - by Psycho analyst, psychic or by hypnosis.

God on the other hand has the consciousness embracing the cosmos. He is the spirit just like energy, He is every where just like the law of nature.
If man can think a very deep knowledge, God is more than this
If man can record the past, so is in his book of remembrance
If man can multidimensional images, God can do more
We are just men.
We can not comprehent the true nature of God.
We cannot even define his meaning
Why keep on digging the essence of God
We are in the material world, we define worldly thing
God is spirit
Just think He everything, every where, all knowing.
must of all , He loves us.

Answer 9

Neither the existence nor non-existence of a deity can be proven by logic or evidence. [Ref. 1.] But there is persuasive evidence that no such thing exists [ref. 2]. Since any theory of the existence or non-existence of a creator is irrefutable, no such theory is of any use in the real world.

Answer 10

In all my years of life, I,ve not seen one one shred of hard, verifiable scientific proof of evolution. The evolutionists I've met do the very thing they accuse creationists of doing--namely, assume something to be true just because they've heard it a lot of times, without really examining the evidence thoroughly for themselves. I guess the idea is that if enough people shout something hard enough and long enough, then it must be true.

For me, I just don't have enough faith to believe that this vast, beautiful universe of ours just spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing! The only choices you have left are that either the universe is eternal, or that it was created. Creation makes more sense to me.