Evidence for God from Science

My thoughts on this matter:
God want's us to love and believe in him out of free will. When mankind has proved God's existence mankind won't believe in god out of free will anymore. Poeple will simply know the existence of God. So God wiped out all his traces wich coold proof his existence.


This is my favourite filosophical assumption, because this assumption would make it unable for scientist to ever proof the NON-existence of God



I would love to see your thoughts on this


(forgive my spelling, im behind a very slow computer)

No scientist will ever be able to disprove the existance of God, so I wouldn't worry about that. In fact, i'm a bit concerned that you're worrying about having God being disproven. If you truly believe, you should KNOW He exists. I used to be in conflict with myself over the issue all the time. I came out of that internal struggle with two "Laws" that have been proven to me:

Atheism is Satan Incarnate, and will likely lead humanity to its destruction if allowed to run rampant. If people weren't so dumb, this would be happening already. However, the lack of logic in a huge chunk of the population is slowing it down. For how long, I don't know...

There is a spirit (I would like to thank God for giving me the honor to experience astral projection)

From my struggle, I left truly believing in Jesus. By all logical and sentimental "witnesses" that proved it to me, He Is. The feeling of the Holy Spirit within is something truly amazin, and something no sane man can deny. The devil still tries to tempt me once in a while, but he will never succeed. He's had plenty of chances, and blew them all. Not that I'm complaining.

Mastermind wrote:In fact, i'm a bit concerned that you're worrying about having God being disproven. If you truly believe, you should KNOW He exists.

Im not worried about that, i didnt say that.
Scientist will never be able to disproof anything. Every modern scientist knows that it's much harder to disprove something then A prove something. This problem is widely known as "the problem of induction"

Induction is using examples to discover the rules.

Who cares about disproving some convoluted theory - the task is to PROVE! I've seen NO direct evidence of ANY kind showing there's a God. That's what I use to base my conclusion

The ammount of evidence required to convince a hardcore atheist to give theism a chance is staggering. I have seen proof with my own eyes(so to speak), but if I used that in an argument, I would be called either crazy or a liar. The benefits of "scientific thought"

Mastermind wrote:The ammount of evidence required to convince a hardcore atheist to give theism a chance is staggering. I have seen proof with my own eyes(so to speak), but if I used that in an argument, I would be called either crazy or a liar. The benefits of "scientific thought"

No scientist EVER utilizes 'anecdotal evidence' as support for (or against) a theory. Real science (the kind that benefits you + me every day) is performed rigorously - double blind + repeatable by peers. That's how we move forward in EVERY discipline EXCEPT theology. There is NO scientific evidence of God. None. Period. The matter has been closed for a long time now.

willrich,

Our board originally served as a place for non-Christian and Christian to debate one another, but such often seemed pointless, and was not really conducive to the desired purpose of GodandScience.org. I encourage you to read carefully over our discussion guidelines, and also why we decided to take a new appraoch currently in action.

So I request that you make an honest decision on your motivations for being here in accordance with purpose of this board, and make a judgement on whether this board is really for you.

Kurieuo.

erasmus wrote:God want's us to love and believe in him out of free will. When mankind has proved God's existence mankind won't believe in god out of free will anymore.

I'm not sure whether you've reading about Irenaeus' theodicy, but this is an argument he makes (at least I think it was him and not Augustine) for why God isn't more directly present in the world. Because if God were, then noone would be able to truely and completely deny God. Yet, to those who seek, such people will see the evidence is plainly obvious, and as far as the Christian message is concerned, God will reveal Himself to such people.

Kurieuo.

erasmus wrote:

Mastermind wrote:In fact, i'm a bit concerned that you're worrying about having God being disproven. If you truly believe, you should KNOW He exists.

Im not worried about that, i didnt say that.
Scientist will never be able to disproof anything. Every modern scientist knows that it's much harder to disprove something then A prove something. This problem is widely known as "the problem of induction"

Mastermind, I can understand where you are coming from, but please bear in mind that not everyone here is a believer. Erasmus, at least from what I understand, still seems to be in a seeking phase. And from what I can see, he is doing so rather respectfully and sincerely.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:

erasmus wrote:

Mastermind wrote:In fact, i'm a bit concerned that you're worrying about having God being disproven. If you truly believe, you should KNOW He exists.

Im not worried about that, i didnt say that.
Scientist will never be able to disproof anything. Every modern scientist knows that it's much harder to disprove something then A prove something. This problem is widely known as "the problem of induction"

Mastermind, I can understand where you are coming from, but please bear in mind that not everyone here is a believer. Erasmus, at least from what I understand, still seems to be in a seeking phase. And from what I can see, he is doing so rather respectfully and sincerely.

Kurieuo.

I assumed he was. Sorry.

willrich wrote:

Mastermind wrote:The ammount of evidence required to convince a hardcore atheist to give theism a chance is staggering. I have seen proof with my own eyes(so to speak), but if I used that in an argument, I would be called either crazy or a liar. The benefits of "scientific thought"

No scientist EVER utilizes 'anecdotal evidence' as support for (or against) a theory. Real science (the kind that benefits you + me every day) is performed rigorously - double blind + repeatable by peers. That's how we move forward in EVERY discipline EXCEPT theology. There is NO scientific evidence of God. None. Period. The matter has been closed for a long time now.

How many scientists do you see doing real research in the subject of the paranormal? Hardly any. It is considered "ridiculous" and as a result, it is ignored. You can't say there is no evidence when you don't even bother to look.

In the 80's much ressearch has been done in experimental labs. There wasnt any significant proof of anything being remotely paranormal

Take it from a last year psychology student.

erasmus wrote:In the 80's much ressearch has been done in experimental labs. There wasnt any significant proof of anything being remotely paranormal

Take it from a last year psychology student.

The simple reason for that is Satan can do better with first-world countries by turning everyone into an atheist... So he hides.

Spiritual forces run rampant in poorer nations.

i dont think we will ever prove 100% to everyone that God exists. someone somewhere will just ignore it or set some rediculus standard of what they consider proof.

erasmus wrote:In the 80's much ressearch has been done in experimental labs. There wasnt any significant proof of anything being remotely paranormal

Take it from a last year psychology student.

What kind of "research"? The CIA had a mildly successful psychic program during the cold war, but they scrapped it and that was pretty much the end of it. Then again, given the CIA's lack of organization, inefficiency and downright stupidity, I wouldn't trust them to tie my shoe lace.