If proof is for scientific matters (as opposed to religion), then HOW can anyone "prove" that God does or does not exist? Doesn't this j?

Question

It has been said time and again by myself and others that religion is a matter of faith, and faith is belief without evidence. This statement is logical because anything that can be proven, as well as almost everything that has been proven thus far is backed by science in one way or another. So with that said, I don't see how it is that people think they can "prove" that God exists, or prove anything that has to do with religion or keep trying to prove it. Furthermore, if no one can prove that God exists as anything more than a spirit or a matter of faith, then does this even matter? Like is there anything wrong if God IS just a matter of faith? What real difference would it make? Also, I am not saying that God may not exist as something more than a spirit or or a religious figure, but does it matter either if He is anything more? Basically, the only thing that would change under either circumstance is that we could potentially know if God does or does not exist outside of religion, so why does it matter to anyone? This also does not explain how or why people try to "prove" matters of religion such as the existence of God (without science). It really doesn't even have to be proven if God does or does not exist, because logistically it doesn't even matter if God is just a religious/spiritual figure, or if He exists as something more than that. Like it wouldn't change anything if God is just a religious figure vs something more.

Answer 1

@Chelle has the insight, the VISION, and intuition of a sage.



@J - We need a measuring stick for God, not proof; if you actually understood science you would know that proof applies in philosophy and math - not science. Your use of 'proof' makes your pedigree as a scientist questionable.



Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?



Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. Get back to the evidence rather than circle our thinking around myths of OPINION and atheist concoctions and fabrications like evolution. It's tiring chasing one's tail, and you can't go anywhere with it, or while doing it.



Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Futuyma 1983, p. 197).



Either someone or something created, or nature created itself, which is it? The atheist/evolutionist relies on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life, a requirement of the unproven philosophy of naturalism.



God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything. Nature cannot literally select. Nature did not create itself because it has no consciousness, will or intelligence - all three are needed to "create".



In a court of law, the "story" is generally true when the evidence of the people and places is proven true, especially with several lines of outside evidence. Science has been confirming the Bible for hundreds of years. Modern archaeology has challenged the world of education to admit that the Bible is factual. Solid, documented evidence outside the Bible record confirms events and persons that were at one time considered to be suspect or plain false.



The evidence outside the Bible of Noah and Moses in real places writing real literal history confirm that Noah is not a myth, that Moses is not a myth, two of the most literal people of the Bible. Noah wrote his own section of Genesis, as did his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Noah's grandson, Cush, is named in the Sumerian King's List (son of Ham).



What evidence do you have that Moses and Noah were not real people recording history in real time, literally?



Molecular studies suggest that, relatively recently, one woman provided the mitochondrial DNA which gave rise to the sequences in all people alive today.



We all have access to the same evidence, but the evolutionist uses a different standard of the unproven philosophy of naturalism to evaluate the evidence, and has already decided there is no God, therefore, the evidence of proof for the Creationist is not evidence at all to the evolutionist. So we started with the same evidence, but one of the two approaches the evidence with an unproven exclusionary presupposition -- Atheists. That by definition is closed minded and delusional! Untruthful. It’s easy to be an atheist if you evade, ignore and deny operational science, and it represents atheists congenital (hereditary or from birth) inability to accept reality.



In scientific terms, Creationists claim evidence from the Bible with corroboration of the observed origin of matter, and it is consistent with our belief. Evolutionists cannot say the same, and are frequently inconsistent, like life from non-life, exactly the opposite of laws of the universe; nonsense. Like wishing on a star, wishing for aliens or some form of life out there, or that pesky missing link, when there should be millions/billions of evidences if true.



The laws that govern the universe preclude it from not having a beginning, and no matter how how you slice it, you cannot escape an external cause for the Physical Universe.



I am satisfied that the evidence found in nature clearly points to the material world being the product of creation and so there must be a creator..



"Creationism is a viable model of origin in today's scientifically literate world" because science has established the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. This was the law established by the Author of Life. Science has proven abiogenesis to be false over and over, even though the media and our humanist school curriculum teaches otherwise. The materialist attempts to explain origins (that are relevant and applicable) are non-existent.



Applying the laws of causality and the natural laws that relate to information one can infer certain things about the Creator. My understanding and definition of the Creator is based on the evidence. I call that creator God!



Nelson Glueck a Jewish scientist, and universally esteemed as one of the greatest archaeologists, said that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible.



So if the Bible wins hands down in every earthly thing we can test, why don’t people trust what it says? The issue is not the truth of Scripture, but vain reasoning and “willful ignorance” (Romans 1:21; 2 Peter 3:5).



The Bible is not a science book, but I'm not aware of ANY instance, where the Bible DOES touch on science, that it has been proven incorrect. How can anyone DENY the evidence of the Bible and the scoreboard, when science corrects itself (proven incorrect?) almost daily? Here is your "measuring stick" for God, in the evidence of Creation. Until you can skirt the natural Law of Biogenesis, given by our Creator, you have NO valid alternative. Life can only come from life, not non-life. Tough nut for the atheist to crack, huh? Kinda makes all your myths and fantasies about aliens and missing links and billions of years just goes away, doesn't it, when the truth is revealed by the evidence in fact? Your little "measuring stick" wouldn't excite anyone.



Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20170602030359AAZqaFC

Answer 2

Your statement "It has been said time and again by myself and others that religion is a matter of faith, and faith is belief without evidence. This statement is logical because anything that can be proven, as well as almost everything that has been proven thus far is backed by science in one way or another" need citation because of some reasons.



1) Faith is not "belief without evidence". Faith is, believe on facts. Faith is, believe with evidences. Some centuries ago I would be killed if I would say that earth revolved around the sun. Because people had such - so called "believe" and even they had falsely related that "believe" with the religion.



2) Human being or precisely said - normal human being, could not accept any thing without evidence. Even priests of false believes fabricate "evidences" for the people to believe in their set of baseless believes.



3) God knows the human nature. He knows that human being will not accept His presence without valid evidences. He also knows that false people will make their own set of believes and make the people astray. That's why He created this universe and its entities so smartly that make astonished every sight, heart, mind and soul. His creations challenge the intelligence of mankind all the time and have forced many to surrender against His uniqueness, creativity, power and wisdom.

Answer 3

When one applies the scientific method to The Bible it proves that mankind has mistranslated some of the scriptures that make up the first five Books of The Bible due to our lack of scientific knowledge to properly interpret the advanced scientific knowledge contained in this ancient Biblical text. This led to mankind's unscientific religious interpretations of this ancient Biblical text that we still think it means today. Modern science will now force mankind to reinterpret this scripture back into the scientific text its always been based on. This new scientific translation of this ancient Biblical text will supersede all previous religious translations of this ancient Biblical text ever written or handed down orally. This will lead to proving that the advanced scientific knowledge contained in this ancient Biblical text didn't originate from the unscientific minds of ancient sheep herders but from the advanced scientific mind of our Intelligent Designer named the God of Abraham.

Answer 4

Yes, God can be proven to exist.



And most people accept the evidence around them that he exists. But just like with flat-earthers when it comes to a round earth, athee-evos simply refuse to accept the evidence, and use much of the same wording to dismiss the evidence that the flat-earthers use.



Also, Biblical faith is based on evidence (Heb 11:1), but it is evidence of things unseen like that used by forensic scientists although the crime went unseen, that is circumstantial evidence. I'll show you what I mean.



Take the ancient pyramids. We have no records of exactly who built them or how they were built. But without anyone telling you, you know just by their complexity, they aren't the result of natural forces such as wind, sand, sun, etc. It's obvious that some intelligent design went into building them.



Now take a 5-billion atom DNA molecule which is almost infinitely more complex than the pyramids. And if that was not enough, they contain information, the codes for making proteins. It's obvious some intelligence went into creating it. I mean it took 25 years of painstaking research to make a 200-atom Star of David molecule. But an athee-evo will try to tell you that stuff like that can happen by natural forces, and no intelligence is needed whatsoever. Huh? What are they smoking? And they wonder why many people think they are complete nutcases. You don't waste time trying to prove the obvious with people like that, at least knowledgeable Christians don't.

Answer 5

There are several proofs of the existence of God. The ones that are irrefutable (when they are not straw manned) are the Thomistic arguments regarding the hierarchical order of contingent reality. I also like to modify that by introducing the quality of God with the argument from desire (also Thomistic). The Thomistic arguments have been keenly elucidated by Bernard Lonergan, Robert Spitzer, and Edward Feser.



And these arguments are proof, because the premises to them is evidence that is irrefutably true, and which have been tested.



This is important because for any doctrine of a monotheistic God to be relevant and necessary, the God has to be true first. Later, using more historical evidence one can decide which revelation of God he chooses to believe in.



Oh...and a word about faith. If my wife calls me on the phone and tells me to pick up the kids at school by 2pm, and then hangs up the phone. Should I not follow those orders, because to do so would be a matter of faith? There is no fact that the kids will be there. I have a reasoned faith that they will be there, and so I will pick them up, based on that reasoned faith.

Answer 6

Faith is God's method of operation, and to received anything from God, faith must be our method of operation, we must operate by faith. Only believe then you will see.

Answer 7

God says that if you seek him, you will find him. Just as any person in real life claiming this can be measured out by seeking out who they are, you can do this with God. It is a form of evidence. You match him to his words. If when you really seek him (not just glancing or looking, but seeking), and you find him, then that is a proof in his existence. There are many proofs of God, from archeological to prophecies in the bible coming about years after we know they were written. While they don't 100% prove a real God, they are evidences of his truthfulness in the bible. If that is a measure of his personality, we can then measure his truthfulness in other regards and match him to what he says. In this, you will see that God is real.



I came seeking in the bible as an enemy. One who did not believe that he was real. I sought to disprove him, and by reading the word, I was finding in it some flaw. However, as I really dug into the bible, he began to reveal things about his personality that I never knew before and that though I had oppositions to his existence, his newly revealed personality let me perceive him better. From there, it was a measure of what he said with what he did, and he proved, at least in the bible, that he was faithful. Therefore, I set out to test him in this. When he proved to be faithful to me, an enemy, countless times, I struggled, but eventually I put my faith in him. Since then, I have experienced amazing things in following God, and be it statistically or through experience, I do not doubt his reality at all. I believe also that anyone can seek him out and do the same I did--to recreate the experiment so to say as any do when someone claims something works a certain way in science. Will you though?

Answer 8

Gets jammed up right? Been getting the same conclusion myself.

Answer 9

It's my considered opinion that a number of things people consider fictional will be eventually proven real. Unfortunately, the gods are not one of them.

Answer 10

To determine a logical answer one must be able to afford a measure, faith does not include any measure and therefore it is worthless with regards logic and rationality for such cannot be determined.



Atheist.

Answer 11

Hebrews 11:1 gives the definition of faith. “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not.”

Faith isn’t blind! Rather it is evident demonstration of what we have seen. God doesn’t want us to have blind faith.

Answer 12

The basis of the scientific method is to test by various means any proposition that claims to explain some aspect of the natural order of things.



If any posited SPECIFIC manifestation or attribute of a particular god that supposedly impinges on the natural world and can be scientifically tested but is found to not exist, then that could be used to show the nonexistence of that god. Note this does not mean that a general statement about that manifestation or attribute that can have been simply observed and then attributed to that god would not qualify for the test.



Christians claim that the god of the Bible created the sun, moon, and stars, which is, in itself, disingenuous because is is a generalized claim.



However, when we examine the SPECIFIC description of the cosmos that god supposedly made, we have a different situation that can be scientifically investigated.



That is because the Bible describes a god-created cosmos that is NOT the universe that science has uncovered. Since that cosmos is a manifestation and attribute of that god, the god who created the nonexisting biblical cosmos does not exist either.



Note: Because only a few verses would not make the case, the material below is necessarily quite extensive and shows that the Bible has a consistent view of the structure of the cosmos throughout, with parts that are fully consistent with each other. That structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the writers of the Bible.



According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun goes (hasteth) around the earth



"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose"



--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a circle--i.e., a flat disk.



That is also confirmed by Proverbs 8:27, which describes god as beginning the creation of the world when he "drew a circle on the face of the deep" (ESV). The Hebrew word translated as “circle,” "compass, “ and “horizon” in the different Bibles is the same word used for circle in Isaiah 40:22. The ancient Hebrews would have gotten the idea of a circular earth by viewing the horizon from the top of a mountain.



(The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If Isaiah actually meant "sphere" he could have used the Hebrew word duwr, meaning "ball" as he did in Isaiah 22:18.)



(But what is particularly significant is that the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek Septuagint during the third century B.C. used the Greek word gyron--γῦρον--meaning circle, instead of "sphaíra"--σφαίρα--meaning sphere, for their translation of the Hebrew chuwg in Isaiah 40:22. So those scholars CLEARLY understood what Isaiah was saying, in contrast to those today who ignorantly say that chuwg means "sphere.")



Underneath the flat disk of the earth is the abyss, the bottomless pit, which is referred to several times in the Bible (ex. Rev. 9:1,2).



That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. (The Hebrew word translated "upon" in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour. If the earth can be considered "hanging" over anything, it is the sun, which certainly is NOT nothing.



Several other verses in the Bible also indicate the earth is flat, such as Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 (the tree could not be seen from all the earth if it were not flat). Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat, it must be flat.



The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya, which is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa. That word is a verb meaning "to beat out," and is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."



The biblical firmament, or sky, is therefore a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. That is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:



"Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible).



There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.



The solid, or firm, nature of the biblical firmament is also indicated by Proverbs 8:27-28:



27. When he established the heavens...

28. When he made firm the skies above... [ASV, ESV, NRSV, NASV, NAB]



The Hebrew word translated as "firm" there is amats, which has a meaning of "be hard".



The solid vault of heaven is also implied in verses such as Deut 4:32:



"Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?"



The "ends of heaven" would be the base of the vault of heaven where it rests on the rim of the disk of the earth.



See also Ps 19:1-6, Isaiah 13:4-5, and, particularly, Matt 24:31, which states Jesus as saying:



"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."



The elect are those on the earth who will be saved in the last days. Jesus is saying there that the angels would gather the elect from all over the earth, from one side, or end, of the base of the vault of heaven to the other side or end, from the east, west, north, and south, which is what the reference to the four winds means.



Isaiah 34:4 likewise indicates that the firmament is solid rather than being the upper atmosphere or the emptiness of space.



"the skies will roll up like a scroll,

and all the stars will fall"



The material making up the vault of the firmament will roll up, and the stars that were attached to it will fall to the earth.



The solid vault of heaven has a specific purpose in the Bible. As the Genesis story in chapter one indicates, the whole cosmos consisted of water before the creation process began. As it is described in the Genesis creation story, god created the firmament of heaven on the second day so it would hold back the waters above the firmament when he created the earth on the third day.



6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.



So that passage clearly indicates that the purpose of the solid firmament was to hold back the waters above the heaven. Furthermore, those waters continued to exist in the biblical cosmos, as indicated by Psalm 104:1-3 and Psalm 148:4. Also, the firmament of heaven has windows that are opened to let the water above the firmament fall as rain, as indicated by Genesis 7:11 and 8:2,



The stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), which conflicts with finding that the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.



So, according to the Bible the earth is a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars and covered with a solid vault of heaven, the rim of which is is resting on the perimeter of the disk of the earth, and the stars are just lights set in the vault of heaven.



That this is the correct view of the biblical cosmos is shown by the fact that it describes a structure with parts that are fully consistent with each other. That structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the ancient Hebrews and as its writers incorporated that view in the Bible.



In addition, according to the Bible, earth is the centerpiece of creation and in the Last Days god will destroy the earth and the heavens and create a new heaven and earth as part of his plan for mankind. (2 Peter 3:10-13).



Is that really realistic considering the vastness of the universe and its enormous number of galaxies? In the actual universe that science has uncovered, the earth is an insignificant mote, even more insignificant than the size of an atom is with respect to the size of the earth. Watch this three-minute video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9gy_BOnEOM&app=desktop



It is the height of geocentric IDIOCY to think that the whole universe was created merely for the sake of the earth and its inhabitants.



All of which goes to show that the cosmos of the Bible does not exist, and therefore, because that cosmos is an attribute and manifestation of that god, the god who created that cosmos does not exist either.



So, if one fully accepts the modern, present-day view of the universe as factual, then one would have to conclude that the Bible reflects the ignorant, myth-based beliefs of its writers and is not the word of god.

Answer 13

Only the natural world exists and that means all gods are myths.

Answer 14

Firstly, “proof” is NOT “for scientific matters”. There is no such thing in science as “proof” (apart from mathematical constructs). Science employs critical reasoning – meaning all claims remain open to scrutiny. Proof is an absolutist mathematical concept. The term “scientific proof” is therefore a logical contradiction. The term “proof” is commonly misused to exaggerate confidence beyond what is scientifically possible. Since proof is an impossible standard of evidence, anyone claiming, or requiring, “proof” OF ANYTHING is being irrational.



“Evidence” means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as 'evidence' of that position). So, unlike proof, evidence is not an absolutist claim (and therefore is a scientific word). “Faith” is a measure of confidence. “Belief without evidence” is blind faith. But the word “faith” does not itself imply the absence of evidence.



If the Biblical God is real, then there are eternal consequences to the decisions we make in this life. Therefore, it 'matters' quite a bit whether or not God is real.

Answer 15

First, you confuse "scientific matters" as all being empirical and subject to repetitive testing.

Much of science (and all of history) is evaluated forensically.



Second, faith is not "belief without evidence". All you are doing is applying your first incomplete definition of science to the question of faith. Faith is trust because of what we /do/ know, not just blind faith.

Because of what we /do/ know from science one can conclude through reason that God is the best, if not only, explanation for the existence of the temporal world and the many attributes we observe in it. Including observation itself.



What real difference would God make?

All the difference in what reality is.

From why there is anything instead of nothing.

To what our relationship with God is.



You are right in that if "God is just a religious/spiritual figure" then nothing about God matters much.

But, if God is the Creator who created us with a purpose then it might very well matter that we understand that God and what His purpose is.

Answer 16

What can anyone PROVE scientifically, which involves pictures, calculations?

What can anyone PROVE that NOBODY could dispute?



I had nothing but EVIDENCE for my faith.

FAITH...is EVIDENCE.



I saw no evidence, scientific proof for worldly beliefs.

Those were faith with no proof.



We have EXPERIENCES, which impact...OR NOT.



For example, long before I had any belief in anything,

I was walking during a bitterly cold winter about a mile to the buswhich then I'd need ANOTHER to go to work.



Nobody around, everyone inside, cold. An AUTHORITATIVE voice spoke

And told me what was going to happen. It told me what to do But more so, what not to do. Strict, DO IT!!

This directive utterly, completely went against MY WAYS.



It played out 100%.



Only years later did I understand the necessity, the wisdom.



So that HAPPENED. That's better evidence than I've gone through.

I will make my email available. Not comments, no time.

Answer 17

Science starts with evidence, not a conclusion. Since there is no evidence there is a god it's not even in the running yet.

Answer 18

God's existence can't be "proved" or "disproved" scientifically or empirically because it's not a scientific claim in the first place. It's a philosophical one.



You can make a reasonable argument though for God's existence routed in philosophy and experience. In fact you can make a reasonable argument for beliefs in general that don't have a scientific or empirical basis.



The Cogito "I think therefore I am" by Descartes. That is in his words a point of absolute certainty we have in our own existence. And yet we have no way of verifying or falsifying that belief scientifically. As Descartes puts it for all we know we can be a brain in a vat made to believe we exist. And yet despite empirical or scientific proof, we are rationally justified in assuming our own existence.