# Scientific evidence of God's existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043 "2008-10-29T03:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/261 "2008-11-06T19:33:57Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > If you stand before a reproduction of yourself, with all bio-chemical processes and physical attributes completely replicated, it is you? > > How can you tell? > > How can anyone who observes you tell? > > If the reproduction continues while the original is eliminated, do you continue to exist? > > Do you stop existing when your body stops existing? > > What, specifically, is the difference between you and the reproduction of you? > > Can that be specifically determined to be bio-chemical? > > If so, and that bio-chemical process is included within the reproduction, is it you now or are you “you”? > > As with any other decent paradox, lather… rinse… repeat. Maybe I’m a little dim, but I don’t see the paradox here. We don’t have absolute answers to anything. So what? You said, “Of course none of this addresses my paradox of individuality if all functions are truely bio-chemical”. What’s paradoxical about what makes us individuals being bio-chemical? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/262 "2008-11-06T19:36:10Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > You are correct, there is no observable evidence for something uncopyable. > > But as you stand there looking at yourself, the divergent experience has already begun. You know who you are and you know this is a copy. The copy knows who he is (the original) and thinks you are a copy. > > A trap door opens and you drop into a meat grinder, your copy thinks that his copy was just distroyed and goes on about his business. > > But that’s not your business any more. > > And nobody knows it but you. Thus it’s completely unobservable. Let’s presume that somebody is watching the whole process, and in fact is the one who made the copy, and even who pushed the button to drop you in the meat grinder. (Presumably while laughing maniacally, since he knows damn well he’s killing you.) How would the fact that people have observed that your copy is a copy change anything? What if we don’t kill you? What if instead you pal up with your copies and start a restraunt? Is that a problem? (Are you disturbed by the concept of identical twins? They’re in a comparable situation - though hopefully without the meat grinder…) ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/263 "2008-11-06T19:54:39Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I know a woman whose baby died shortly after birth. Due due her belief in God, she lives every day with the guilt that her baby’s death was a punishment from God for her not being a good enough person. That woman is now in her seventies. You propagating incredible beliefs without evidence rather than stressing the importance in using rational thought to reach conclusions to your children or others can cause all sorts of harm. Does this lady suffer because of her belief in God or because of something another human said to her? Does she believe in God or does she believe in man? Is her perception of punishment directed from God actually directed from God (e.g. Did God kill her baby as a punishment?) or is it self imposed and a manifestation of some deep rooted unresolved guilt she may have within herself? A belief in a continuing soul, a belief in a creating God, these things do not have to burdon us. I don’t believe these things should burdon us at all, such things were meant to enrich us. Men have twisted peoples beliefs around for thousands of years though. One of the easiest way to manipulate someone is to manipulate their faith. Cause a rational person to believe that you speak with a higher authority than is found in this world and you can cause them to become an irrational killing machine. This has happened more often than not. A by product of this is those for whom the machine has no direct use, they become puppets, existing to spread the word and enlist new recruits. Individual faith only hurts you if you let it. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/264 "2008-11-06T20:04:59Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Maybe I’m a little dim, but I don’t see the paradox here. We don’t have absolute answers to anything. So what? > > You said, “Of course none of this addresses my paradox of individuality if all functions are truely bio-chemical”. > > What’s paradoxical about what makes us individuals being bio-chemical? Because if it’s bio-chemical, if it’s physical, if it’s tangeable, then it should be replicable. But how can it be 100% replicable if the copy is still a copy and not you? Even if it’s 99.9999% bio-chemical and there is that .0001% part of it that is not, that’s still .0001% that we don’t understand, which can be quite a bit. I seem to recall that 99.9999% of the population of the earth is about 26 people, 26 people can be quite a bit if you all try to fit into a porta potty. So either everything is bio-chemical and thus replicable or there is some small bit that is not replicable and thus not bio-chemical but is significant in that this small bit encompasses at least a portion of, if not all of, our individual awareness. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/265 "2008-11-06T20:17:54Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Because if it’s bio-chemical, if it’s physical, if it’s tangeable, then it should be replicable. But how can it be 100% replicable if the copy is still a copy and not you? > > Even if it’s 99.9999% bio-chemical and there is that .0001% part of it that is not, that’s still .0001% that we don’t understand, which can be quite a bit. > > I seem to recall that 99.9999% of the population of the earth is about 26 people, 26 people can be quite a bit if you all try to fit into a porta potty. > > So either everything is bio-chemical and thus replicable or there is some small bit that is not replicable and thus not bio-chemical but is significant in that this small bit encompasses at least a portion of, if not all of, our individual awareness. There is still nothing paradoxical about the situation you described. An exact copy of a human body is just that, an exact copy. Is it me? If the definition of “me” includes the exact atoms that comprise my body this instant, then no. If the definition of “me” is something, anything, that substantially duplicates the physical nature of this body, without necessarily being the same atoms, then yes the copy is “me” also. Nothing paradoxical. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/266 "2008-11-06T20:20:14Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Because if it’s bio-chemical, if it’s physical, if it’s tangeable, then it should be replicable. But how can it be 100% replicable if the copy is still a copy and not you? > > Even if it’s 99.9999% bio-chemical and there is that .0001% part of it that is not, that’s still .0001% that we don’t understand, which can be quite a bit. > > I seem to recall that 99.9999% of the population of the earth is about 26 people, 26 people can be quite a bit if you all try to fit into a porta potty. > > So either everything is bio-chemical and thus replicable or there is some small bit that is not replicable and thus not bio-chemical but is significant in that this small bit encompasses at least a portion of, if not all of, our individual awareness. This post is just filled with ignorance. I can copy every file on my computer. Physical process, 100% replicable, yet the copies are still copies and not the “original”. 0.0001% of the world’s population (appr. 6.7 Billion) is 6700, not 26. Just because you can replicate something does not steal the original’s individual awareness, no more than taking someone’s picture steals their “soul”. You can keep any analogies drawn on porta potties, they are all yours. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/267 "2008-11-06T20:23:03Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Because if it’s bio-chemical, if it’s physical, if it’s tangeable, then it should be replicable. But how can it be 100% replicable if the copy is still a copy and not you? Say you are standing at a fork in a path in the woods. Is the you who takes the left hand fork different from the you who takes the right hand fork? The situation is the same here. “You” refers to the person before the copy is made. After there is you(1) and you(2). You clearly have a preference for you(1), but because by definition the you’s are identical, I don’t know why. If you get knocked out during the copying, how do you know when you wake up whether you’re the original or the duplicate? You’re misunderstanding the concept of paradox here. You’re uncomfortable with the scenario, but there is nothing paradoxical about it. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/268 "2008-11-06T21:35:40Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Does this lady suffer because of her belief in God or because of something another human said to her? Does she believe in God or does she believe in man? Is her perception of punishment directed from God actually directed from God (e.g. Did God kill her baby as a punishment?) or is it self imposed and a manifestation of some deep rooted unresolved guilt she may have within herself? You’re failing to understand my overall point. Her belief in God is irrational because it’s a fantastic belief with nothing to back it up. That her beliefs in how a being that has no evidence to back up Its existence chooses to punish is largely irrelevant. That you believe God wouldn’t punish in her case is good for you, but propagating irrational beliefs will in someway lead to unnecessary harm much like it does in the woman I described. Does she believe in God or does she believe in man? I don’t see much of a difference. People mostly have religious beliefs that were handed down to them from people. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > A belief in a continuing soul, a belief in a creating God, these things do not have to burdon us. I don’t believe these things should burdon us at all, such things were meant to enrich us. There is nothing enriching about irrational belief. We can lead moral, just and fruitful lives and pass down morals to our children without bringing wishful thinking and Pascal’s Wager in to play, and without any of the danger that irrational thought brings along with it. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Men have twisted peoples beliefs around for thousands of years though. One of the easiest way to manipulate someone is to manipulate their faith. Cause a rational person to believe that you speak with a higher authority than is found in this world and you can cause them to become an irrational killing machine. > > This has happened more often than not. > > A by product of this is those for whom the machine has no direct use, they become puppets, existing to spread the word and enlist new recruits. Alright then. Sounds like you understand why irrational belief is not beneficial. I’m guessing it’s okay as long as others buy in to your beliefs in God’s make believe behavior and through this no further irrational though processes will cause any harm? > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Individual faith only hurts you if you let it. This is the path that irrational and supernatural belief always leads to. History has shown that. BTW, you didn’t respond so some of my other points and questions: > [@](#): > > Okay, you believe that no harm comes from your belief. So what part about accepting incredible claims without evidence leads to something good? How can you make yourself accept a claim, which is what accepting Pascal’s Wager entails- choosing belief based on what has the better outcome if God ends up existing despite the lack of evidence? > [@](#): > > Okay, so you realize you’re insignificant. I don’t see how that leads you to accept a claim that has no evidence supporting it. > [@](#): > > It’s really irrelevant. It’s just as outrageous if he’s made out of nothing or is Casper the Ghost like. Why can’t you relate to someone who believes God is made of material? It seems like you’ve got a lot in common with people like that, unless I’m misunderstanding what you believe God to be. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/269 "2008-11-06T21:40:45Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Because if it’s bio-chemical, if it’s physical, if it’s tangeable, then it should be replicable. But how can it be 100% replicable if the copy is still a copy and not you? What you have is a classification problem (and a desire to nitpick about it.) The difference between an original and a perfect copy is that they occupy different spaces in place-time. Whe you use “you” to refer to a _specific_ instance of you in space-time, then the copy is not you - but I don’t need to zerox you to do that. I can just distinguish between different ‘yous’ in different time slots. You are not the same person you were twenty years ago, for example. (Heck, you’re probably not even a good copy of that person - people could tell you apart in an instant.) You’re not the same person you were ten years ago, either. Or five. Or one. Or six months, three months, one month - you’re not even the same person you were _yesterday_. Heck, you’re not the same person you were five seconds ago; you’re in a different physical position, with most of your blood cells in completely different places in your body. Yet, you still classify all those prior forms of yourself as “you”, because they satisfy a criteria that makes such a classification appropriate - you can establish a continuity of location between yourself and those prior selves. You can also establish a continuity of memory and awareness with some of them, but that’s not necessary - you’d still classify your sleeping self as ‘you’ for example. Copies are ‘you’ in another sense - in that they match you with regard to identifiable properties. We use this sort of classification a lot; multiple copies of a computer file are ‘the same file’ because they are sufficiently similar. The same goes for books. It goes for people as well - when we se a person later we identify them as the same person even lacking evidence of a continuous physical presence moving from one place to another. Heck, we consider Captain Kirk to be one guy even though he was _explicitly_ made copies of, with the original put through the meat grinder, numerous times. (Not to say he actually existed, of course, but nobody had any trouble with the concept.) You’re making hay about this because you believe, against evidence, that something exists in the original that wouldn’t be represented or simulated in the copy, we get that. But that has nothing to do with whether a perfect copy, if it _was_ created, should be classified as a ‘you’ or not in various situations. And, by the way, how do you know that non-physical things are _not_ copyable? You’re making a distinction about this without establishing a difference - there is no reason not to believe that even if ‘spirits’ existed that you could not in theory make duplicate spirits out of surplus ectoplasm and thus replicate a person anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/270 "2008-11-07T00:43:22Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > As you stand there looking at Cyber-Curt, ingenious blend of organic chemistry and bio-mechanical technology, is that really you? > > Once the Cyber-Curt has been fully uploaded and field tested for performance and the Meat-Bag-Curt has been recycled, do you then still exist? Yes. And if the process is non-destructive and meat-Curt isn’t recycled, now there are two of them. Separate versions of the same person; rather like how in a sci-fi story with parallel universes and time travel you can end up with two different potential future versions of the same person in the same room, neither realer than the other or the present time version of themselves. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Your friends and relatives will think so. Your co-workers and those who count on you, not just for your effency but your charm and wit, your personality, they shouldn’t be able to tell the difference either. Each and every chemical reaction that took place before and would have been taking place now is, in fact, taking place now. > > But is that you? Or did you cease to exist when Meat-Bag-Curt ceased to exist? Meat-Curt ceased when the meat ceased. Now, the the question is was he ever separate from Mech-Curt ? As I see it, the answer to that is if Meat and Mech have the chance/time to think independently and develop into individuals. At that point, they become different versions of the same person. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > I guess what I’m on about is, if you remove God and religion from the equation, if you remove any sembalance of an afterlife from the equation, if you focus only on an athietic point of view, it is possible that there is a uniqueness to each of us that cannot be broken down to simple enough terms to ever be reproduced. Perhaps it is a soul, perhaps it is a spirit that is undetectable, perhaps when we expire it also expires, perhaps it simply rejoins some extra-dimentional cosmic energy that cycles around the universe dishing out life. But there’s no reason to believe any of that. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > And two, I’m not convinced there is enough information from either side of the arguement that, when held up to the light of consequence, I would be willing to put good money up against. However, given that light of consequence, if I’m going to err, I will err on the side of caution when wagering that which may or may not be able to be simplified enough to be adaquately explained. Erring on the side of caution means not believing wild, claims that have zero evidence to back them up. I can’t, for example, **prove** that Obama isn’t actually a disguised lizard alien out to steal our oceans who’s softening us up for the invasion; but given the lack of evidence, assuming that he’s not is the side of caution. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > But I fail to see where the dogma of any mainstream world religion requires it’s faithful to abandon science and devote themselves solely to the pursuit of apologetics. Plenty of religions have or did have anti-science positions they demand that their followers uphold. and to the extent that they don’t, it’s because holding onto them in the face of science relentlessly proving them wrong got too embarrassing. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > So yeah, I guess you could call it taking Pascal’s Wager, but it’s more a recognition of scale and acknowledgement of insignificance that leads me to faith. Hardly. Faith is arrogance; you are asserting that the universe works the way you want it to work, because you say so. It most certainly **isn’t** any “recognition of scale and acknowledgement of insignificance”. More of a denial of them. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > The short answer is, yes I will err on the side of the ignorant. > But, then again, so will you, so will we all. > So it’s all good. No I won’t, and no, it’s not. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > You still fail to understand. > > Everytime I see a process that I fail to understand I think “God did it.” > > AND > > Everytime I see a process that I understand fully I think “God did it.” How very convenient. So God always gets the credit. :rolleyes: > [@nd\_n8](#): > > And I thank God every day for the opportunity to understand a little more. No, that’s all due to human effort, and due to the believers being beaten back from their relentless efforts to impose ignorance. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Of course none of this addresses my paradox of individuality if all functions are truely bio-chemical. There’s no such paradox. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > And none of it addresses a hypothetical where our awareness ends at a limit below our understanding and, were that awareness to go to the logical next step of existance it could be that our understanding of “God” is simply understated. That doesn’t even make sense. And our not understanding something is zero evidence for God anyway. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > And I willingly accept the abuse, it comes with the territory as a believer. Ah; the compulsive need of the believers to think themselves persecuted, no matter how much power they have. You aren’t inviting abuse by believing; **that’s the mainstream**. That’s like me claiming that I’m being oppressed because I’m straight and right handed. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > By your standards those without faith are just as ignorant as those with faith. In the end we will both stand in the same light. Wrong. The faithful are, by nature more ignorant; and there isn’t any “light” to stand in. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > If I believe in God (in God mind you, not in the man made dogma of some German fellow in Rome or the rantings of some other fellow in Westboro KS) and He does not exist, what harm have I caused myself? What harm have I caused others? Operating on a delusion screws up your judgement; you will cause harm without meaning to. And so does accepting the very idea that faith is a valid reason to believe something; you say that you hurt no one, but then you’d have faith that was so, wouldn’t you ? And how many people, **really** believe in some sort of generic God that has no other qualities than being God, anyway ? And even assuming you directly harm no one, by doing so you validate ( in their minds ) the believers who do. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Does this lady suffer because of her belief in God or because of something another human said to her? Same thing; that’s where she got the idea of God, someone told her. And her belief in God is what’s encouraging her to believe in something so self destructive and irrational. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > A belief in a continuing soul, a belief in a creating God, these things do not have to burdon us. Yes, they do. They promote and excuse both irrationality and extreme ruthlessness. “Kill them all and let God sort them out” is a straightforward extrapolation of those beliefs. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Men have twisted peoples beliefs around for thousands of years though. One of the easiest way to manipulate someone is to manipulate their faith. Cause a rational person to believe that you speak with a higher authority than is found in this world and you can cause them to become an irrational killing machine. > > This has happened more often than not. Because that’s one of the main purposes of religion. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Individual faith only hurts you if you let it. Faith is hurtful by it’s nature. It is, in itself, damage. ---
**Author:** ![geniios](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@geniios](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geniios)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/271 "2008-11-07T03:21:32Z")
Oh no I think you did a stupendous job and I am indeed quite proud of you! Rest assured it was a stupid exchange and in my book you proved it. > [@dehacker](#): > > Slightly tangential to the topic at hand, but I’ll bite on the off chance you aren’t jerking my chain. > > The exchange stemmed from his claim that I was rebutting an assertion he did not make. Of course I replied that it wasn’t a rebuttal if he didn’t make the assertion, and I never claimed it to be a rebuttal. I only made the statement in question because it supported my position. > > It was a stupid exchange, because he never specified what I supposedly claimed he said, and I just let it continue down the rabbit hole in hopes of demonstrating to him how ridiculous the whole thing was, but I failed miserably as you can see. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/272 "2008-11-07T03:47:34Z")
> [@geniios](#): > > Oh no I think you did a stupendous job and I am indeed quite proud of you! Rest assured it was a stupid exchange and in my book you proved it. He proved it? Not to open up a can of worms, but **dehacker** is the one that started the exchange and **x-ray vision** is the one that admitted it was silly and said he was done with it. I don’t see what **dehacker** proved or what there is to be proud of him for (no offense to you, **dehacker** ). ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/273 "2008-11-07T03:51:07Z")
How do you figure I started the exchange? He was the one that initiated the whole “I never said that” silly business. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/274 "2008-11-07T03:58:51Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > How do you figure I started the exchange? He was the one that initiated the whole “I never said that” silly business. He left is opinion that there would still be debates regarding God’s existence even if there was some evidence that god exists and you started a debate over it. That’s you starting the exchange. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/275 "2008-11-07T04:05:30Z")
This is a thread about Scientific evidence for God’s existence, thus a debate about the acceptance of said evidence seems rather germane to the topic, don’t you think? The debate we were having wasn’t silly, it was central to the OP. The “I never said that” - “I never said you said that” exchange was the stupid part. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/276 "2008-11-07T04:23:45Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > This is a thread about Scientific evidence for God’s existence, thus a debate about the acceptance of said evidence seems rather germane to the topic, don’t you think? No, I don’t; it was an opinion given based on his experiences with atheists comments that I agree with (and I’m an atheist). The OP is not about whether or not debates would continue if there was some evidence that god exists. As he explained, some in this thread have already admitted that no amount of evidence would convince them that God is real so I think that suffices as evidence that “some evidence that god exists” definitely wouldn’t stop the debates. > [@dehacker](#): > > The debate we were having wasn’t silly, it was central to the OP. The “I never said that” - “I never said you said that” exchange was the stupid part. Actually, that wasn’t the stupid part. It seemed you were creating a straw man so he stated that he never said that. You may not have intended it to seem like a straw man so you stated that you never said that he said that. That’s done here all the time; nothing stupid about it. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/277 "2008-11-07T04:47:17Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > No, I don’t; it was an opinion given based on his experiences with atheists comments that I agree with (and I’m an atheist). The OP is not about whether or not debates would continue if there was some evidence that god exists. As he explained, some in this thread have already admitted that no amount of evidence would convince them that God is real so I think that suffices as evidence that “some evidence that god exists” definitely wouldn’t stop the debates. Just because you happen to agree with a position doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any debate about it. This is a debate forum, or did I just dream that part? If you want to take up the claim that someone has said they would deny the existence of a being despite scientific evidence for it, then I will say what I said to him – back it up with a cite. Remember though, it isn’t just that they would argue whether the being qualified as “God”, it is that they would deny it exists. > [@Fantome](#): > > Actually, that wasn’t the stupid part. It seemed you were creating a straw man so he stated that he never said that. You may not have intended it to seem like a straw man so you stated that you never said that he said that. That’s done here all the time; nothing stupid about it. Again, cite that I created any strawman. I argued my position that was contradictory to his with statements that supported my conclusion. We can debate those statements and/or conclusions if you like, but if you want to assert I committed a strawman fallacy, you need to back it up or back off. I was very specific in post [224](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10410144&postcount=224) in trying to layout what I thought his argument was in the hope of getting some clarification just in case I had misconstrued his position, but he didn’t choose to address it. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/278 "2008-11-07T05:15:23Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > Just because you happen to agree with a position doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any debate about it. Uh, that’s not all I said. Nice try though. > [@dehacker](#): > > This is a debate forum, or did I just dream that part? Oh boy. This doesn’t mean that any tangential debate breaking out is appropriate, which is why **tomndebb** stepped in, and why he’ll probably step in again due to us going on about it now, so I’ll make this my last post regarding this and let you get in the last word. > [@dehacker](#): > > If you want to take up the claim that someone has said they would deny the existence of a being despite scientific evidence for it, then I will say what I said to him – back it up with a cite. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Irrational is irrational. If someone came up with “scientific proof” that gravity is imaginary and we are really being held down by the ankles by invisible goblins, I wouldn’t buy that either. **nd\_n8** stated : \*"No metaphysical miracle will persuade them. No scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals, independantly replicated and confirmed on dozens of seperate occations while never, not even once, producing results to the contrary can ever change their minds."\* To which **erislover** replied: _Probably I am one of those people, for reasons I just explained._ Will that do? > [@dehacker](#): > > Remember though, it isn’t just that they would argue whether the being qualified as “God”, it is that they would deny it exists. Uh, no. It’s about whether the being qualifies as God. If David Blaine claimed he was God, the posters above wouldn’t deny that he existed; they’d deny he was God. > [@dehacker](#): > > Again, cite that I created any strawman. I can’t prove a straw man was your intent. It evidently seemed like one to **x-ray vision** and it seemed like one to me. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/279 "2008-11-07T05:56:36Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Uh, that’s not all I said. Nice try though. **Fantome** , obviously you and I disagree whether or not a debate about the sufficiency of scientific evidence of God’s existence belongs in a thread about scientific evidence of God’s existence. I have no problem with that. What I **do** have a problem with is you calling me out for it because you don’t think it belongs in the thread. Leave that to a Mod, or take it to the pit. > [@Fantome](#): > > **nd\_n8** stated : > \*"No metaphysical miracle will persuade them. > > No scientific evidence, accepted globally, published in hundreds of peer reviewed journals, independantly replicated and confirmed on dozens of seperate occations while never, not even once, producing results to the contrary can ever change their minds."\* > > To which **erislover** replied: > > _Probably I am one of those people, for reasons I just explained._ > > Will that do? [This post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10374546&postcount=33) by **erislover** , just a few above the one you cite, is why I don’t think it meets the conditions laid out. I read that as stating that he would be questioning the beings definition as “God”, not questioning its very existence itself. However, **erislover** can be the final judge of what he meant. > [@Fantome](#): > > Uh, no. It’s about whether the being qualifies as God. If David Blaine claimed he was God, the posters above wouldn’t deny that he existed; they’d deny he was God. Here I think you are agreeing with me. I have been saying all along that people wouldn’t deny existence, they would debate identity. > [@Fantome](#): > > I can’t prove a straw man was your intent. It evidently seemed like one to **x-ray vision** and it seemed like one to me. A straw man fallacy would be easy to demonstrate if it existed. Intent doesn’t enter into it. ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/280 "2008-11-07T06:04:38Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > There is proof (high degrees of certainty) that macro evolution occurs and we’re still having debates. I doubt any degree of evidence for God/gods would stop the debating regarding His/Her/their existence. Are you sure? I understand that in the past, philosophers argued relentlessly about the existence of x-rays (and sandwiches). But when the proof was presented that they exist, the debates stopped. Why do you think it would be different if the gods revealed themselves to us? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=15)