Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Seeker wrote:what do you believe to be the best evidence of a God?

Depends on what "God" you are talking about.
IMO, the best evidence for a personal God, like what Christianity claims, is a personal relationship WITH God.

My own life

Seeker wrote:what do you believe to be the best evidence of a God?

the world

The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

Neha wrote:The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

So you understand what coherence means when it comes to beliefs now do you?

The universe we live in contains both physical matter and consciousness. What came first?

God could hate us, but such doesn't remove arguments for intelligence coming before matter, rather than matter before intelligence.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

So you understand what coherence means when it comes to beliefs now do you?

Ideally, it would only be logically more reliable since I don't think one can successfully show empirical proofs for God. One could say the fine tuned universe, but even at its best that argument just gets you to "an outside force or agent" beyond that you have to have belief its the God you follow.

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

So you understand what coherence means when it comes to beliefs now do you?

Ideally, it would only be logically more reliable since I don't think one can successfully show empirical proofs for God. One could say the fine tuned universe, but even at its best that argument just gets you to "an outside force or agent" beyond that you have to have belief its the God you follow.

Empirical 'proofs', of course not. But then again no scientist worth his weight would claim anything can be 'proven' empirically considering science is not in the business of proving anything. Metaphysical proofs, on the other hand, well that's a whole 'nother story altogether.

Byblos wrote:

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

So you understand what coherence means when it comes to beliefs now do you?

Ideally, it would only be logically more reliable since I don't think one can successfully show empirical proofs for God. One could say the fine tuned universe, but even at its best that argument just gets you to "an outside force or agent" beyond that you have to have belief its the God you follow.

Empirical 'proofs', of course not. But then again no scientist worth his weight would claim anything can be 'proven' empirically considering science is not in the business of proving anything. Metaphysical proofs, on the other hand, well that's a whole 'nother story altogether.

Science establishes facts.

There are two ways to look into this, technically science can only prove ideas or theories as false. Take for example the idea "what will happen if you put your hand into fire" with two assumptions, your hand will burn or it won't burn. Science will only prove false the wrong idea. This is only a technicality, because in principle science cannot say that your hand will always burn, its expected to burn and will likely always burn, but improvement for theory is always considered as there may be a time that for unknown factors your hand may not burn at all and thus it can never be "proved". In layman terms, science has proven a lot of things and will prove a lot of things in the future.

The other is a lame one being "everything is just a theory"...while that is also technically true and that binds into what I said above, this is often used as "its all thought up or made up" but a theory is more than just "thought up". In science the meaning is that it is supported by evidence and has not been refuted or proved false. Nonetheless this view is often used to falsify established theories without providing any type of evidence.

Neha wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Neha wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neha wrote:The best evidence of God to me can only be complete coherence with his own nature. Something that I have lost confidence in.

Carry on.

So you understand what coherence means when it comes to beliefs now do you?

Ideally, it would only be logically more reliable since I don't think one can successfully show empirical proofs for God. One could say the fine tuned universe, but even at its best that argument just gets you to "an outside force or agent" beyond that you have to have belief its the God you follow.

Empirical 'proofs', of course not. But then again no scientist worth his weight would claim anything can be 'proven' empirically considering science is not in the business of proving anything. Metaphysical proofs, on the other hand, well that's a whole 'nother story altogether.

Science establishes facts.

There are two ways to look into this, technically science can only prove ideas or theories as false. Take for example the idea "what will happen if you put your hand into fire" with two assumptions, your hand will burn or it won't burn. Science will only prove false the wrong idea. This is only a technicality, because in principle science cannot say that your hand will always burn, its expected to burn and will likely always burn, but improvement for theory is always considered as there may be a time that for unknown factors your hand may not burn at all and thus it can never be "proved". In layman terms, science has proven a lot of things and will prove a lot of things in the future.

The other is a lame one being "everything is just a theory"...while that is also technically true and that binds into what I said above, this is often used as "its all thought up or made up" but a theory is more than just "thought up". In science the meaning is that it is supported by evidence and has not been refuted or proved false. Nonetheless this view is often used to falsify established theories without providing any type of evidence.

No disagreement there.

But this is not what you were talking about, you referred to 'empirical proofs of God' when such 'proofs' have no basis in science since science would then have to account for itself in scientific terms, which is circular.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Neha wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Science is man's invention - creation is God's...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Science is man's invention - creation is God's...
-
-
-

And this is also your belief, which is manmade, you are human.

Neha wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Science is man's invention - creation is God's...
-
-
-

And this is also your belief, which is manmade, you are human.

All we have is a view from the wormhole...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Science is man's invention - creation is God's...
-
-
-

And this is also your belief, which is manmade, you are human.

All we have is a view from the wormhole...
-
-
-

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please? Thanks.

Neha wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Neha wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear. There can be no empirical proofs of God and to ask a theist for one is unfair. God by definition is outside of empirical reality. Science has no position on God.

Science is man's invention - creation is God's...
-
-
-

And this is also your belief, which is manmade, you are human.

All we have is a view from the wormhole...
-
-
-

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please? Thanks.

Look up...
-
-
-