That God cannot be proven to exist or to not exist by scientific means alone. I am a Christian and I think nature and creation is irrefutable proof of the existance of God but I will be the first to admit that it is scientifically impossible to prove that He does exist quite simply because no one was there to see the creation of God who has always been. The same goes for the Big Bang and Evolution. I beleive we all put too much stock in science when it has in the course of history been proven to be terribly wrong after every 50-100 years. So can we all at least agree that science can not prove our sides and that our entire belief system although possibly benefited by science the main reason we BELEIVE is because of faith?
2007-11-10 14:44:48 · 16 answers · asked by halofan373 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The universe is expanding and this has been proven supposedly because light when traveling away shows a different wavelength and color so sure it's expanding if you want to beleive so. That is still not proof of Big bang. Notice I said I THINK and I BELEIVE that nature and creation are irrefutable, not that they are scientifically proven to be so. Those were just personal beleifs. LL Sweeney Miricals happen everyday around you but you will never see them as miracles only coincidences and miracles although sometimes tangible are still not scientifically proven to be anything other than coincidence. Oh and BGrimey sorry to say but you don't know what your talking about. Evolution has never been proven to be correct except by evolutionist scientists. Sortave like a judge ruling for himself it dosn't work like that.
2007-11-10 15:36:37 · update #1
Why is no one actually answering the question but instead are debating me about wether God is real or not? Let me try and make it more simple of a question. Isn't Chrstianity and Atheism both based on faith more so than science? It can be a simple yes or no answer and why you beleive so.
2007-11-10 16:01:58 · update #2
Evolution is an "accepted theory" which is a term we use for a law of nature that doesn't stomp people's beliefs into the ground. I will however agree that God's existence cannot be proved.
2007-11-10 14:50:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
god cannot even be defined in a coherent way, so of course it cannot be proven or disproven. science is rarely wrong, although it is frequently incomplete. i would not claim that evolution and the big bang provide complete and final answers, but it seems about as likely that we will someday discover that humans don't share a common ancestor with apes (for example) as that we will discover that the earth is actually flat or that the sky is actually green. sometimes evidence doesn't mean what we think it means, but it doesn't just go away. when we discovered that the earth was not flat, it didn't suddenly mean that the distance between two points on the surface was any different.
2007-11-10 14:59:26 · answer #2 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you smoking crack? Evolution has been proven time and time again, by a variety of methods. In a court of law the verdict on the theory of evolution would be beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as your contention that God cannot be proven to not exist, I ask you - What constitutes proof? Creationists often make vague statements without expanding upon their claims. If the theory of evolution stamps out creationism (Which it does) then yes - the Christian God has definitely been proven to not exist.
2007-11-10 14:54:30 · answer #3 · answered by Future 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not quite. If God works through miracles, and affects the world in some way, then it should be (conceivably) measurable and detectable. If God does not affect the material universe in any way, then God is irrelevant. So the God described in the Bible is in principle detectable.
Also, if you think it's 'irrefutable' proof, why do you think it's impossible to prove?
Furthermore, I'm much more inclined to trust a system that has room to acknowledge its own mistakes, rather than "The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow".
2007-11-10 14:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's the beauty of science. We don't just take is as truth because someone tells us it's so. It's tried and tested. Not everything that is comes out with a correct answer but at least it's a means of challenging theories to find out the answers. I can say that we can agree to disagree. You have your beliefs and I mine and I wont do anything to convince anyone otherwise and would hope people would have the same respect for me. I am concerned with only me.
2007-11-10 14:52:40 · answer #5 · answered by Maureen B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I disagree including your place that a guy or woman named Jesus by no capacity lived. yet that's not a similar element as saying that the myths that progressed approximately that guy or woman after his dying are real. Jesus develop into proclaiming that god might imminently overturn the prevailing order and set up a clean kingdom--the dominion of righteousness, and countless felt that he develop into calling for the Jews to insurrection against the Romans. And that develop into the reason the Romans accomplished him. by utilising the time the gospels have been written, there had a schism between the unique Jewish followers of Jesus and people who accompanied Paul, who develop into the actual originator of Christianity. Paul introduced in many esoteric and pagan suggestions and added them to the myths approximately Jesus that had progressed in the years following his execution. Paul additionally bigger his church by utilising preaching to and bringing in Gentiles, who did not carry any particular allegiance to the Jews. besides, the Christian church on the time develop into attempting to make their way in the detrimental Roman international, and that they didn't wish to antagonize the Romans, so as that they minimized the Roman involvement in the dying of Jesus and laid the blame on the Jews. The perspectives of Paul and the developed church finally performed a functionality in the early Christian writings, with the end result that those writings incorporate a revisionistic version of the existence and dying of Jesus.
2016-09-29 00:02:40 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the universe is expanding, that HAS been proven. This means that at one point in time the universe was very small and compact, so a "Big Bang" is highly probable.
2007-11-10 14:49:05 · answer #7 · answered by Ode to the Damned® ÆA NR 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Belief in God is just that "A belief" not a fact or even a theory . I have never heard anyone say ever that God was a fact . At best he is an unproven theory . If it gets you through your day why not . We can agree to disagree . peace
2007-11-10 15:06:22 · answer #8 · answered by Peace of Mind 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are correct. It cannot be "proven", to any satisfactory degree, that God either does or does not exist.
We can examine evidence, propose theories, and present arguments. But in the end, we are left with making an individual decision.
2007-11-10 14:51:00 · answer #9 · answered by spencer7593 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, because I believe god can not be proven to exist or not exist by any means what so ever. Your proof to the existence of god is your "belief" of his existence. It is not proof. Nature and creation is not irrefutable proof.
2007-11-10 14:50:18 · answer #10 · answered by punch 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋