[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 720x479, deep thoughts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940763 No.1940763 [Reply] [Original]

What scientific evidence would be necessary to prove the existence of God?

>> No.1940770

>evidence
any

>> No.1940785

What scientific evidence would be necessary to disprove the existence of God?

>> No.1940786

>>1940770
>>1940763
Depends how you define god.....

>> No.1940794

>>1940786

The one in the book

>> No.1940795
File: 13 KB, 250x226, 001f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940795

>>1940763
>still believes in god

you will believe in santa clause too?

>> No.1940802

The first step is to learn how science works.
Then you'll know how to ask a useful question.

>> No.1940805

>>1940785
a lot

>> No.1940807

>>1940794
Which book?

>> No.1940812

>>1940807
The one and only book of God

>> No.1940816

Turning the ocean into blood thus dooming us all.

Abrahamic god is a prick like that and it will prove his existence.

>> No.1940817

>>1940763
>What scientific evidence would be necessary to prove the existence of God?
Miracles would be a good start.

>> No.1940820

Would be cool if he, you know, appeared.

>> No.1940822
File: 323 KB, 800x532, lalala i can't hear you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940822

>>1940795
SANTA IS REAL, STFU.

>> No.1940828

No attempts at science whatsoever.

All semantical arguments. If any y'all had balls, you'd proceed and allow parameters to be defined as necessary.

The point is to understand each other, and every quip is a direct display of avoidance.

Pathetic losers.

>> No.1940829

>>1940763
any evidence

>> No.1940833

>>1940794
logically impossible

anything else?

>> No.1940846
File: 27 KB, 424x466, book_ad1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940846

>>1940812
Ohh yes, praise the spaghetti monster!

>> No.1940857

>>1940846
Your sarcasm does not make God's word any less true

>> No.1940871

>>1940857
God's word was written and translated by man to control other men. "God" is a creation of man.

I'm an open minded person though and I believe that were COULD be some type of god other there. Just not the god we know to believe in.

>> No.1940870

>>1940763
Perhaps a modern day observed miracle of some kind, one that is in blatant violation of a widely accepted scientific law/theory.

Think about it, if you met someone who claimed to be god, you'd say prove it. How would he likely prove it? By doing something impossible, so to speak, that you absolutely could not explain upon focused observation.

Even in the bible, many of the well known stories are of acts that would appear to be impossible, therefore acts by the will of god. Splitting seas, reviving, the ark, etc.

>> No.1940869

>>1940833
>implying an omnipotent spiritual being would be bound by petty mortal logic

>> No.1940876

>>1940870
All those miracles were done by time travelers with ridiculously advanced technology. Everything always has a logical scientific explanation.

>> No.1940877

An omnipotent doesn't have to be like you in the way it has two eyes, ears, moves on legs etc. It can be something such as a star, or light, or space, or tiem, or love, or love , or love , or love.

>> No.1940878
File: 40 KB, 514x514, Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940878

>>1940857

I have a deep personal relationship with our creator, ALL PRAISE THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

can I get a Ramen!

>> No.1940881

>>1940870
It would have to happen in front of everyone. Everyone. If it's a "private revelation" then any logical person would be more willing to believe in hallucination than violation of the laws of nature.

>> No.1940887
File: 30 KB, 364x240, fat-asian-queers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940887

>>1940877

>> No.1940888

>>1940877
"love" is a chemical reaction in the brain, nothing more.

>> No.1940900

>>1940888
What about the love that the sun has for our planet? Represented by the heat it gives to allow the plants to grow? Or the love between hot/cold sweet/salt water which allows it to bond and create a metabolism?

>> No.1940919

ignostic > agnostic >atheist/theist > christian > evangelical christian

>> No.1940925

Natural Human > All of them

>> No.1940983

>>1940881
>>1940876
Yeah, a modern widely observed phenomenon. Perhaps something with the equivalent public attention as 9/11, thousands of people see it, multiple recordings, evidence of the event present, etc.

Although, if some Hawking (or an equivalent) and some other respected scientists were to suddenly revoke their beliefs over some private event, I'd be pretty taken aback in terms of my own beliefs.

>> No.1940988
File: 64 KB, 469x386, WHAT!!! FACE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1940988

>>1940925

>> No.1940993

>>1940763
Dunno about necessary. Let's suppose God comes down, smites people and gives lectures on a weekly basis. Thus there's some uber powerful entity. Is that "god"? The problem is that "god" means different things to different people. To quote a good fiction character "What is the measure of a god?"

>> No.1941019

>>1940870
No. That is not scientific reasoning. The argument you just said was: "If we don't know how something happened, then a wizard did it!" That has not nor ever will be science. That gave us the sun is a big ball of fire pulled by a dude on a chariot, and thunder is when some other dude threw his magic hammer.

Better evidence for god would be direct conversation after doing a miracle, then he would say he'd do another miracle, then he does another miracle.

Then we have to ask the question "What is the difference between a god and a sufficiently advanced alien?" aka: "What is the measure of a god?"

>> No.1941102

>>1940871
The men who recorded God's word had no ulterior motives. They were recording God's word in its truest form

>> No.1941169

>>1941102
Let me tell you of a story. There was a man, the king of kings, Elvis Presley. He lived during a time where everyone in his land was literate. In fact, it was less than 100 years ago.

There are people who say that he isn't dead. Sound familiar? We have pictures of him dead as a fucking nail in the morgue, yet there are people won't believe it.

>> No.1941168

Well first of all you need to define what a "god" is. I could say that a "god" is a is a blue Logitech Bluetooth+USB mouse. If this is a "god" then it is right in front of me.

Once a fairly clear definition of a "god" has been established (I'm sure intellects could come to a general conclusion if they talked about it for a while), then it's just a matter of seeing whether any evidence that could support the existence of such an entity is found in the past/future. If such evidence is found...it's evidence. A piece of evidence alone is not enough to send someone to prison. You need more evidence. Once enough evidence supporting a certain claim is collected, a conclusion could be reached (regardless of whether it proves or disproves the existence of one or more "god"(s)).

Of course, chances are we'll never get any of this evidence. The universe is a big place, and if a "god" is an entity comprised of great/infinite power, then it wouldn't leave any "mistakes". If it leaves evidence it's because it chose to do so.

>> No.1941175

>>1941169
Elvis Presley was not the son of God

>> No.1941182

>>1941102
>The men who recorded God's word had no ulterior motives. They were recording God's word in its truest form
Prove it.

>> No.1941176
File: 36 KB, 422x284, sciencevscreation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1941176

>What scientific evidence would be necessary to prove the existence of God?

Unfortunate for you, that's not how science works.

Pic related.

>> No.1941184

>>1940869
>implying an omnipotent spiritual being could exist

>> No.1941198

If we're talking BIBLE God?

Actually, it's pretty tricky now that I think about it. You know the old saying about sufficiently advanced technology and magic, right? God is effectively "magic", which means that even the most convincing depiction of "God" could simply be a being with access to incredible technology.

So I suppose in a strange way, God's existence could NEVER be truly proven, nor could his nonexistence.

But frankly, given that the Bible has such a crappy track record, that should be reason enough to discount most of the stuff in it.

>> No.1941203

>>1940876

>logical time-travel

can't tell if troll

>> No.1941209

>>1940900
he's just fusing his shit

he don't give a damn

>> No.1941223
File: 107 KB, 577x656, HARMONY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1941223

>>1940877

HARMONY!!!

>> No.1941228

>Prove God scientifically

Except that God is defined as supernatural. So it isn't provable scientifically.

>> No.1941248

>>1941228
Until not so long ago, lightning was supernatural. Turns out it's made by friction in clouds and the Earth's mgnetic field, eh? Pretty fucking supernatural.

>> No.1941249

>>1941203
Well he must be a time traveler because you're replying to a post that is dated an hour ago. He must have seen this coming somehow!

>> No.1941252

>>1941182
They were several different men, of different times, from various different parts of the world, all recording the word of God. They couldn't have been conspiring

>> No.1941317

>>1941252
No, but they each could have been bullshitting. Look at modern alien abductions. Just as reasonable. Just as much evidence. Hell, we have more accounts of alien abductions than the number of prophets in the whole bible. Got a point?

>> No.1941349

Sup /sci, so Psychology is sort of an off shoot of Mathematics... Ish, but there isn a place for this.

So have any of you heard of the game? not the 'ohshitijustlosttehgame', no, the how to pick up women game.

>> No.1941358

>>1941248
God wouldn't be God if it weren't supernatural. It would just be some thing. The comparison to lightning is a poor one. Lightning is something we observe on a regular basis; God has never been observed.

>> No.1941367

>>1940763
His phone number would be good.

>> No.1941369

>>1941249

>>1941371
obvious troll is obvious

>> No.1941401

>>1941317
Why would they make up things which ruined their lives and got them killed?

>> No.1941406

>>1941401
Why would alien abductionists make up things which ruined their lives?

>> No.1941414

>>1941406
they don't

>> No.1941427

>>1941358
According to billions of people worldwide, miracles are an observance of God in action.

>> No.1941441

Null Hypothesis: God doesn't exist.

You can't possibly test this without first defining what God is and defining what existance is, otherwise how do you know what you are testing for.

>> No.1941448

>>1941441
God is beyond human comprehension.

>> No.1941484

>>1940763
scientific evidence is physical (tangible, measureable) while 'god' is a metaphysical concept, therefore scientific evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of a 'god' cannot exist

>> No.1941489

>>1941448
except for when he performs miracles

>> No.1941591

I like how no one acknowledges the evidence of miracles

>> No.1941593

>>1941427
"Miracles" defined as supernatural don't actually happen. If they did, they wouldn't be Miracles. What you're thinking of all have natural causes.

>> No.1941598

>>1941591
fucking magnets?

>> No.1941623

>>1941448
Think about that.
If it's beyond your comprehension, you would have no understanding of any of the properties of it that are necessary to make such a statement about it.

>> No.1941642

For a start, the claimed creator could create another creation as we observe and test.

>> No.1941648

>"Miracles"
>Beauty and Awe

>> No.1941649
File: 53 KB, 187x198, 1272428774733.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1941649

Honestly, I think a lot of theists believe every word of 'holy text' much to easily. At the same time, a lot of atheists forgo anything that isn't proven beyond nearly all doubt to work/exist/etc.
However, the real problem that the two sides in question are rarely willing to admit or even consider the possibly of something that opposes their stance without evidence that is literally irrefutable.

Thus the cycle continues.

>> No.1941655

>>1941649
Oh, really? To what evidence ignored by atheists are you referring?

>> No.1941666

>>1941649
Just because there is passion on both sides does not mean the truth lies squarely in the middle. Sometimes one side is just wrong.

>> No.1941672

if you are talking about a god that transcends the natural world, then no amount of scientific evidence could prove it because it is outside of the scope of science.

Any other god would simply have to manifest itself and perform miracles in such a way that they are well-documented and verifiable.

>> No.1941771

>>1941484

If God has no physical existence, then it is worthless, because there is no such thing as a methaphysical world.