Evidence for God from Science

ultimate777 wrote:In a book I'm reading the author claims that there is no proof that God exists or He doesn't. The author thinks there never will be any proof either way. Or that God created the universe. He thinks people should keep searching in case he's wrong. He thinks, however, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no God. So much so, I may have to ask you to read it in the book. I have trouble typing that much.

He says, however that if an atheist scientist, or any other kind of scientist, should be able to prove that to almost everybody God does exist and created the universe his reputation and his fortune would be made, and he'd be thrilled.

I think he's right. What do you think?

There are a number of former athiests that have come to realize that God does exist through "natural revelation".

However, I'm unaware of any that became rich as a result.

Even though nature and Science provides overwhelming evidence of an intelligent Creator, the blindness of men often causes them to miss what is obvious for everyone to see.

Romans 1:19-22

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

B. W. wrote:Re: What if an atheist scientist proves God exists? ie would they profiteer off this?

I would say no. They already see the evidence for God before their eyes and still deny it so why would anything change?

Evidence does not matter, however, pride does ...
-
-
-

I gotta agree with BW on this. Even if the atheist could make a billion dollars selling this data, I think they would rather just throw it in a river.

Also it has more to do with pleasure than pride IMO, but you can categorize smugness under pleasure I suppose.

DBowling: Even though nature and Science provides overwhelming evidence of an intelligent Creator, the blindness of men often causes them to miss what is obvious for everyone to see.

Romans 1:19-22

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

EXACTLY! How many times have I posted that Romans passage? As for "the blindness of men," THEY are the source of the blindness - they blind themselves via hard hearts and wills determined to remain permanently in rebellion and resistance to God. For such people, NO amount of phenomenal evidence will ever be enough. Why? Because, for such people, their TRUE problem has nothing to do with a lack of evidence. One will never find what one is determined to not see, never find, never truly look, that keeps their spiritual filter set to not let any light penetrate. And so it won't - it CAN'T!

DBowling wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In a book I'm reading the author claims that there is no proof that God exists or He doesn't. The author thinks there never will be any proof either way. Or that God created the universe. He thinks people should keep searching in case he's wrong. He thinks, however, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no God. So much so, I may have to ask you to read it in the book. I have trouble typing that much.

He says, however that if an atheist scientist, or any other kind of scientist, should be able to prove that to almost everybody God does exist and created the universe his reputation and his fortune would be made, and he'd be thrilled.

I think he's right. What do you think?

There are a number of former athiests that have come to realize that God does exist through "natural revelation".

However, I'm unaware of any that became rich as a result.

Even though nature and Science provides overwhelming evidence of an intelligent Creator, the blindness of men often causes them to miss what is obvious for everyone to see.

Romans 1:19-22

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

I didn't say come to realize God exists, I said prove to almost everybody God exists, a big difference.

B. W. wrote:Re: What if an atheist scientist proves God exists? ie would they profiteer off this?

I would say no. They already see the evidence for God before their eyes and still deny it so why would anything change?

Evidence does not matter, however, pride does ...
-
-
-

I profoundly disagree. Some would accept any evidence, some would accept no evidence, but some could be persuaded by good evidence. (Not necessarily evidence you think should be good enough.) Can you deny this is true? Can you deny this is of value?

ultimate777 wrote:

DBowling wrote:

ultimate777 wrote:In a book I'm reading the author claims that there is no proof that God exists or He doesn't. The author thinks there never will be any proof either way. Or that God created the universe. He thinks people should keep searching in case he's wrong. He thinks, however, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no God. So much so, I may have to ask you to read it in the book. I have trouble typing that much.

He says, however that if an atheist scientist, or any other kind of scientist, should be able to prove that to almost everybody God does exist and created the universe his reputation and his fortune would be made, and he'd be thrilled.

I think he's right. What do you think?

There are a number of former athiests that have come to realize that God does exist through "natural revelation".

However, I'm unaware of any that became rich as a result.

Even though nature and Science provides overwhelming evidence of an intelligent Creator, the blindness of men often causes them to miss what is obvious for everyone to see.

Romans 1:19-22

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

I didn't say come to realize God exists, I said prove to almost everybody God exists, a big difference.

What percentage of the world's population is atheistic?
I believe the overwhelming majority of the world's population is convinced of the existence of some sort of "God".

God has provided the proof.
The evidence is available to everyone.
Some have chosen to accept the evidence.
Some have chosen to reject and rationalize around the evidence.
The problem is not in the abundance or quality of the evidence.
The problem is in the hearts and minds of those evaluating the evidence.

No.

The issue that Db raises is a very valid one.
Through out history, and now is no exception, there have been those that believed and those that haven't and the evidence to them, AT THAT TIME< was always, pretty much, the same.
So what would some believe and others not?
Quality of evidence is one reason of course, because not everyone can understand or agree with evidence presented.
It isn't a matter of intelligence of course because there are and always have been great thinkers that believe and those that don't.
It isn't a matter of want, for there are many a story of those believing IN SPITE off not wanting to.

The hardest thing for anyone to see is the weakness, the faulty, of their own bias.
Some people will find any reasons to disbelief, though I don't think the reverse is naturally true.

To say that some people simply need "better" evidence is not very helpful unless you can define what "better" means ( compered to what?)

The thing I keep going back to is what SOME skeptics like to state and that is that they simply require either personal proof ( personal revelation) or more convincing evidence ( whatever that may mean).

The latter is subjective, of course, and not very helpful BUT the former is fascinating since it seems to imply that, even though the typical skeptic doesn't take the personal revelation of OTHERS as valid, they seem to take THEIRS as enough to warrant belief. OR so they say.

I recall speaking to one skeptic and when asked what he would do if he heard or saw Christ he said the first thing was to make sure that we wasn't crazy !
When asked how he would prove that he went on about mental tests this, psychological test that, MRI, there and CT there.
Pretty much making sure that SOMETHING would prove that he did NOT truly hear or see Christ, but was simply his imagination.

ultimate777 wrote:No.

Are you disagreeing with the assertion that the overwhelming majority of the world's population is already convinced that some sort of "God" exists?

Do you believe that the 80% to 90% of the world's population who are convinced of the existence of a "God" have no evidence to support their conclusion?