What will happen if, science runs across definitive proof of God?

[Archaeopteryx]

There already is proof God exists. People just choose not to accept it.

Think about it like this, Jesus (God in the flesh) walked, ate, breathed, slept with us. He shared our life. Yet vast amounts of people that could hold him and see him in the flesh still rejected him. That is the utter depravity of the human condition. That God did reveal himself in flesh and blood and people STILL chose darkness over light.

So people who say, give me proof of god before I believe are really only making excuses for remaining in unbelief. All of creation speaks of God's wisdom and power therefore we are all without excuse.

The Quran says that you are without excuse for rejecting its doctrines. Does that convince you to become a Muslim? If not, what makes you think that simply saying we are "without excuse" is reason enough to convince us of Christianity's truth?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Think about it like this, Jesus (God in the flesh) walked, ate, breathed, slept with us. He shared our life. Yet vast amounts of people that could hold him and see him in the flesh still rejected him. That is the utter depravity of the human condition.

How is that depraved? What if they thought that he was the human being he appeared to be?

There are con-artists in India that try to trick the gullible masses into believing that they have divine powers. Shouldn't one be skeptical of such people, even if one hasn't had the opportunity to place hidden cameras to detect fraud? Would it be depraved not to believe their divinity?

That God did reveal himself in flesh and blood and people STILL chose darkness over light.

Doesn't flesh and blood suggest non-divinity?

So people who say, give me proof of god before I believe are really only making excuses for remaining in unbelief.

If I believe you, I have no reason not to believe potential con-artists. I have no reason not to believe the claims of New Agers and quantum mystics. I have no reason not to believe the claims of all other religions, past, present, and future.

Don't you agree that standards of evidence are a good thing to prevent such mental chaos?

All of creation speaks of God's wisdom and power therefore we are all without excuse.

No, it really doesn't. It speaks of a godless natural existence to me. That is the story I am getting.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I like Jesus Christ so I choose to believe in him. God comes with Jesus, I'd explain why but most of you would already know or at least have a vague idea of why that is so. Now, if you think it is condescending to equate God with the Christian God what can I say? He is God. It would be disingenuous of me to say otherwise given that I believe in him.

But carry on, no doubt you have some specific god in mind as a replacement or was that not your intended point?

I suppose that proof of a god is proof of the Christian God and that's fine for you I suppose. But for a nonbeliever like me such proof in the OP would just be the beginning. There is a huge valley between proving a powerful being beyond the simple material world and the Christian God.


Among the many question I would need answered would be is this the same being that created the universe or even or solar system? Is it possible there are multiple brings of this type? If so how do we know which one to worship? Can we communicate? Does it even care if we attempt to? If this being can exert powers over our world or afterlife will anything we do affect the outcome. Is this being good and worthy of worship? Etc etc.

Basically, the extent of "proof" that would likely arise from scientific methods would likely be insufficient for the magnitude of the claims. To me, the question of God implies many more possibilities than a simple yes (Christian God) or no.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I like Jesus Christ so I choose to believe in him. God comes with Jesus, I'd explain why but most of you would already know or at least have a vague idea of why that is so. Now, if you think it is condescending to equate God with the Christian God what can I say? He is God. It would be disingenuous of me to say otherwise given that I believe in him.

But carry on, no doubt you have some specific god in mind as a replacement or was that not your intended point?

I suppose that proof of a god is proof of the Christian God and that's fine for you I suppose. But for a nonbeliever like me such proof in the OP would just be the beginning. There is a huge valley between proving a powerful being beyond the simple material world and the Christian God.

Among the many question I would need answered would be is this the same being that created the universe or even or solar system? Is it possible there are multiple brings of this type? If so how do we know which one to worship? Can we communicate? Does it even care if we attempt to? If this being can exert powers over our world or afterlife will anything we do affect the outcome. Is this being good and worthy of worship? Etc etc.

Basically, the extent of "proof" that would likely arise from scientific methods would likely be insufficient for the magnitude of the claims. To me, the question of God implies many more possibilities than a simple yes (Christian God) or no.

God has a way of making himself known without awesome apparitions but if you have questions then that's okay; nobody would believing in an invisible undetectable God and not have some questions. I can't say you'll find satisfying answers because from your current perspective almost nothing would provide a genuinely unassailable proof and answer all the residual questions too. But press on, asking is a good way to approach the issue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Quran says that you are without excuse for rejecting its doctrines. Does that convince you to become a Muslim? If not, what makes you think that simply saying we are "without excuse" is reason enough to convince us of Christianity's truth?

I tried to read the Qur'an a few times and managed a few surahs but that's all. It was heavy going. And the commentary was huge in comparison to the text. The qur'an is about 300 pages long but with English & Arabic text along with the commentary it was over 2,000 pages. Not a bit of light reading. I later bought a Penguin paperback Koran and it is around 400 pages with footnotes. Not too bad, I may read it some time.

I did read some Confucian texts, one called The Mencius and it was very interesting. Confucianism is much more interesting than Islam in my opinion

 

[Conscious Z]

Has anyone on this thread actually given an account of what such a scientific finding might look like? I cannot imagine how any scientific finding could lead to the conclusion that god exists. I can imagine how a finding might disprove other findings or demonstrate that the current body of knowledge is insufficient, but I literally cannot fathom how a scientific finding could make one conclude "There is a god."

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

That would be rather circumstantial at this point in science. What the OP suggest would more our less be a great breakthrough in not only science but in religion.

 

[TillICollapse]

Has anyone on this thread actually given an account of what such a scientific finding might look like? I cannot imagine how any scientific finding could lead to the conclusion that god exists. I can imagine how a finding might disprove other findings or demonstrate that the current body of knowledge is insufficient, but I literally cannot fathom how a scientific finding could make one conclude "There is a god."

I haven't read any of the posts past page one ...

However I may presume that discovering an entity existing that would match an existing definition of "god" would involve discovering a form of life (arguably one that displays intelligence, perhaps will and intent) that isn't carbon based, or at least transcends classical carbon based restrictions in some fashion.

I suppose the term "spirit" would suffice as a placeholder: the discovery of "spirit" in a way that could be identified scientifically may be the door to any floodgates that may cause someone to conclude scientifically that what people have been defining as "god" in some fashion may or does exist.

Personally, I realize many "believers" claim something along the lines that "God" is undetectable, etc and so forth ... however I believe the opposite. In my experience, events which many would attribute to the "supernatural" have an effect on the physical environment.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Would this evidence differentiate between the "good" guy vs the "bad" guy as defined in most faiths? Would evidence of one be evidence of the other?

 

[Conscious Z]

I haven't read any of the posts past page one ...

However I may presume that discovering an entity existing that would match an existing definition of "god" would involve discovering a form of life (arguably one that displays intelligence, perhaps will and intent) that isn't carbon based, or at least transcends classical carbon based restrictions in some fashion.

I suppose the term "spirit" would suffice as a placeholder: the discovery of "spirit" in a way that could be identified scientifically may be the door to any floodgates that may cause someone to conclude scientifically that what people have been defining as "god" in some fashion may or does exist.

Personally, I realize many "believers" claim something along the lines that "God" is undetectable, etc and so forth ... however I believe the opposite. In my experience, events which many would attribute to the "supernatural" have an effect on the physical environment.

Detecting a life form that isn't carbon-based wouldn't imply that we've detected god. The requirements for what constitutes "god" are far greater. For starters, god is a non-physical entity. He is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

I cannot fathom how science could "detect" a non-physical being. Even if that being caused physical effects, there is no way to reason that the cause of a given physical effect was non-physical.

 

[Smidlee]

I cannot fathom how science could "detect" a non-physical being. Even if that being caused physical effects, there is no way to reason that the cause of a given physical effect was non-physical.

Science (scientist in the name of science) has no trouble supporting something that has no physical evidence of it's existence.

 

[agua]

Science is very concerned with probabilty. Maybe the question should be can we devise experiments that increase the probability of God, or vice versa.

 

[Conscious Z]

Science (scientist in the name of science) has no trouble supporting something that has no physical evidence of it's existence.

I disagree. Can you give me an example?

 

[agua]

Science (scientist in the name of science) has no trouble supporting something that has no physical evidence of it's existence.

This is sorta how we know certain large bodies in space ( way out there ) exist ie. by their influence rather than seeing them ?

 

[Smidlee]

Science is very concerned with probabilty. Maybe the question should be can we devise experiments that increase the probability of God, or vice versa.

The human brain. Are you someone who think computers, phones, telephones lines, power plants, roads , cars, planes ,etc are intelligent designed but the brain isn't ?

 

[Conscious Z]

Science is very concerned with probabilty. Maybe the question should be can we devise experiments that increase the probability of God, or vice versa.

No, we can't. Science has nothing to do with non-physical things. If god is non-physical, then there is absolutely no way to reason from a given scientific finding to the conclusion that "There is a high probability of god existing."

 

[bhsmte]

Science is very concerned with probabilty. Maybe the question should be can we devise experiments that increase the probability of God, or vice versa.

Experiments are not meant to be designed, to produce a specific outcome. That would be bias.

 

[Smidlee]

I disagree. Can you give me an example?

Dark matter ,dark energy, Big Bang, inflation, multiverse, LUCA to name a few.

 

[agua]

The human brain. Are you someone who think computers, phones, telephones lines, power plants, roads , cars, planes ,etc are intelligent designed but the brain isn't ?

I'm Christian I'm not sure why you'd ask me this ?

 

[Conscious Z]

This is sorta how we know certain large bodies in space ( way out there ) exist ie. by their influence rather than seeing them ?

"Influence" is physical evidence.