I think you may be confused about scientific methodology. The scientific method works basically in this way:
1) The existence of something is hypothesized (such as a deep underground source of diamonds)
2) A theory is formulated for such things (such as a deep volcanic origin of diamonds)
3) Tests or observations are proposed to confirm such theories (such as finding certain minerals which are precursors to the formation of diamonds)
4) If found, then the originally hypothesized existence is confirmed (as with Kimberly pipes containing diamonds)
5) If not found, then such existence is not confirmed, and left inconclusive.
In the matter of existence of God, there has been several tries to propose and confirm hypotheses for the existence of God. None have been successful, so we're left with no confirmation of the existence of God. It doesn't work the other way, where science is expected to prove that God does not exist, and if it fails, God therefore must exist. It might be great pop philosophy or religion to say that, but it's not science.
Trust me, if it were actually ever shown scientifically that God exists, and passes scrutiny of peer reviews, whoever was responsible will be one of the most famous scientists ever in history. And remember, most scientists believe in God.
2007-10-12 05:17:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Scythian1950 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
Let me try to put this in perspective in a few words. Assume for the sake of argument that God created the physical universe, and the spacetime containing it, and that God's primary communication with mankind as a whole is the Bible. That's what a large percentage of humanity believes.
If that's true, how could you possibly expect experiments done in the material universe to test a being which transcends spacetime? It's simply not testable materialistically.
If you want to learn about God, read the authoritative book on the subject, the Bible, with the attitude of seeing who God, how God deals with man, and what God expects of man. Does it make sense? Is it feasible? Is it part of a reasoned explanation for the nature of our world and of man? Is there any other explanation more feasible?
What makes you think being an atheist would help your research? The history of science argues strongly against that.
2007-10-12 19:14:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Frank N 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good luck with that. Usually, when people are asking for proof of the existence or non-existence of God, they are asking for something tangible or that is all wrapped up in a neat little, easy-to-understand package.
Since the whole concept of a higher being transcends the tangible, and is anything but wrapped up in a neat little package, then it really is not possible for such people to ever get an answer that will satisfy them, one way or the other. As such, the topic is, and likely will continue to be, a point of serious contention.
2007-10-12 05:19:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by kieranhcorran 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why it's called faith.
If you believe in God that's fine. Just don't try to argue with an atheist to get them to believe because all it will do is annoy the heck out of them. Another pointless venture is arguing whose God is the better God. I was raised Catholic and have had so many Protestants try to convert me and all it's done is completely turn me off organized religion.
Faith is a personal thing and most people should keep it that way!
2007-10-12 05:12:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by luckythirteen 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
i think of that it ought to have developed in us because of the fact it may supply advantages (no longer only advantages, there has of course been conflict besides) to civilization. only curious, the place did you detect out approximately it? i'd decide for to study a e book approximately it, that is going in to element approximately the way it originated, why it exceeded off, what are the author's theories, ect. It does no longer make a deity genuine, even yet it may supply stability. Unfortunently, those ideals have made us militant, and it sort of sounds like there are extra issues because of the fact of them. If a god will lead us, the god shouldn't attempt to generate followers who must be confident via fellow people. i ask your self what it would be decide for to talk to somebody no longer uncovered to the belief of religion or a miles better potential and notice in the event that they actually do have those emotions. it rather is a very interesting subject rely. in case you recognize or study a e book approximately it, please edit your question to enable me understand : )
2016-12-29 06:22:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no scientific proof one way or another. Science has little to say about how the Big Bang was "created".
Here's a good website by a scientist who is devoutly religious. It's not a difficult thing to be both.
http://www.reasons.org/
2007-10-12 09:57:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bob 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I honestly think you should seek the God of the Bible and if He exists He will show Himself. A lot of atheist have tried to disprove God but during that endeavor they came face to face with God and had to make a decision to humble themselves or let there pride get in the way and deny their experience. Life is short and temporary and good luck to every body's search for truth.
2007-10-12 05:47:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
we can't see air, or our breath, or many other things, but we know they are there, and that is the way God is, we believe,
All the trees, animals, earth, sky, seas, weren't made by man, they were made by GOD. These are from The Bible and study of the Bible, which all should do before saying yes or no. It is faith and love for our Lord in our hearts. We know He is here, even though we can't see HIM we see His work he has done and is still doing. There has been evidence found in Jerusalem and the places were Jesus walked.
2007-10-12 05:22:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by lana s 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
It is in human nature to question things that we can not see. because none of us have seen god some of us choose to think that he doesn't exist. Others take faith and say he exists and simply becaues we can't see him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Both are good arguments for and against. Who is right? Thats what everyone wants to know.
2007-10-12 05:08:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by zspace101 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Scientifically nobody has been able to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, regardless of what you call said being.
So it up to you to weight your own options and decide what you choose to believe.
2007-10-12 05:06:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Brian K² 6
·
5⤊
0⤋