While browsing the internet I came upon a site that purports to prove God exists SCIENTIFICALLY! This of course intrigues me as I have never in my life met anyone that could definitively prove that God exists via science. I read their article and am going to respond to it here. You can
read the article here if you want to see that I didn't take anything there out of context. My responses to the article will be
italicized for easy differentiation.
Before we can discuss the existence of scientific proof of God, we need to identify what we mean by proof. Also, to know what type of evidence supporting the existence of God would be considered by science, we also need to know which definition of science applies.
Interesting isn't it? Before we can even begin, we have to define what "is" is. Since there is ONLY one definition of science I am already skeptical of the entire article.
The definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of God. The truth or untruth of this statement is not based upon evidence or lack of evidence, but by definition alone. Even though there is extensive, solid evidence for God’ s existence, none of that evidence would be admissible in the science court of law using the current definition.
Interesting! Let's see if I have this correct. Science says there is NO GOD, in order to make your argument you are now going to throw out the accepted scientific definition and decide to go with the definition (right or wrong) that best suits your argument. Not sure how credible your argument is going to be, but I am willing to see where you take this.
Consequently, to know what evidence really supports the existence of God, we need to base our statements on the old classic definition of science to eliminate the disqualification of the evidence. The kind of evidence we need to consider is the same type that would be admissible in a court of law.
The level of proof is different in a criminal court than a civil court. In a civil court the prosecution only needs to prove that the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in their direction. Alternatively, in a criminal court a higher level of proof is required. The prosecutor needs to provide evidence that proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What types of evidence are admissible in courtrooms? These include direct evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or eyewitness accounts. Also, circumstantial evidence is normally admissible unless it is abnormally weak. Although circumstantial evidence is indirect, it can be powerful evidence to prove guilt or innocence.
I see, so in order to prove that God exists, we are now going from SCIENTIFIC proof which is what the author purported to be proving to now LEGAL proof. The kind of evidence/proof that would be acceptable in a CIVIL court, since Criminal courts would require ACTUAL proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The author is going with the weakest possible standard of evidence here. Typical creationist mantra, we will PRETEND to use proof and science when in REALITY we will simply use smoke and mirrors and lots of verbiage to prove NOTHING.
Scientific Proof of God – The Evidence
First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.
Let me get this straight. Since I cannot prove the non-existence of God, God must therefore exist? Using this logic, I must also accept that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, all the Greek Gods, Mesopotamian Gods, Egyptian Gods, Allah, Aliens, The Loch Ness Monster, The Kraken, Giant Ship Killing Squids, Vampires, Werewolves and the Borg MUST all exist? The argument itself is ridiculous, you cannot simply say "since you can't prove it doesn't exist, it must." and call that an intelligent argument.
Since everything listed above must now be considered a universal truth, then I think the people of planet earth have some serious issues to work through. Which supreme being should you be following since they all exist? And, if they all exist shouldn't we all be worshiping all of them just to be safe? I can see that now, human sacrifice on Monday and dancing and praying to Allah on Thursday with Tuesdays being set aside to burial rituals and the weekends for talking with our Alien brethren.
The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.
All I have to say here is: "Big Bang" anyone? This isn't proof, it's the same silly religious argument that I hear every time I discuss this with someone that is going to argue the existence of God.
Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.
Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.
First, the ONLY documentation of Jesus Christ is the Bible. Since the Bible cannot be considered a credible source of information - see the Council of Nicaea - and Constantine's efforts to make himself the image of Jesus Christ. (Constantine commissioned ALL the images currently of Christ and they are all Constantine). The calendar argument doesn't hold water as again that goes to Constantine and his efforts to deify himself. The predictions in the Old and New Testaments cannot be considered credible as there is NO definitive proof as to when the specific prophesies were written or included in the canonized scripture. The miracles referred to again cannot be proven to have occurred as there is NO collaborative proof outside of the Bible itself. If there were proof, it would have been not only constantly referred to but one of the biggest discoveries of this century. Also, the story of Jesus Christ is strikingly similar to the story of Osiris of Egyptian mythos as well as the stories of Hercules and many other Greek and Roman mythologies, not to mention Mohamed. C.S. Lewis had it right, IF Jesus did exist he was a lunatic.
Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.
Now we have completely gotten away from any kind of SCIENTIFIC PROOFS. Since the Bible itself was not canonized till well after the alleged time of Jesus Christ, any quotes where Jesus referred to the Old Testament cannot be regarded with credibility as all accounts of Jesus Christ are written by people OTHER than Christ himself. Also, since all interaction with God took the form of burning bushes etc. How much of what is written can be taken seriously? To do so would be to also take the work of fiction known as the Book of Mormon as literal truth, when anyone that has looked into it knows that Joseph Smith tried to SELL that scripture as FICTION with HIMSELF as the author. Given that information how credible is a book written 1000+ years ago that is a COMPILATION and incomplete at that, that has NO credible scientific or archeological backing?
God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.
Interesting isn't it? Still referring to the Bible as the "Scientific proof" of the existence of God. Using the testimony of an individual whose existence is debatable would be like arguing that Darth Vader exists because there are written accounts of his existence. Wait! Scientology is doing almost exactly that! Does that mean that L.Ron Hubbard is as credible as any Old Testament Prophet? Not in my book, but using the logic above he would have to be. Ancient Manuscripts? So if the writing is OLD it must be accurate? If that argument is to be used, then we MUST accept everything written that predates 1ad. as accurate and correct. If we did this, we would all be worshiping hundreds of Gods and sacrificing our friends and neighbors on a regular basis. The archaeology argument only works if all you are looking at is that a city listed in the Bible exists. Of course it would, who would write about cities and places and try to be credible to the PEOPLE of their TIME using made up places?
Eye witnesses and indirect accounts? Seriously? That cannot even be justified with a legitimate response outside of then stating that using that logic, we must then assume that all Alien encounters reported are factual and people the world over are being kidnapped by little green men and getting anal probed. We must also then accept that Vampires and Werewolves live among us and are plotting to one day rule the world as there are tons of indirect evidence to support this.
It is obvious to me that the author of the quoted article above cannot and will never be able to PROVE scientifically or otherwise of the existence of God let alone their own intelligence. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't see that the author has proven anything other than their undying illogical belief in something that they cannot and refuse to prove empirically.
