# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![usmc8408](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/usmc8408/32/12878_2.png) [@usmc8408](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usmc8408)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/321 "2008-11-08T13:45:25Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You are welcome to that view. Personally, I think that objectors to intelligent design are the ones who fail to grasp the nature of their opponents views. This is evident, for example, when they dismiss intelligent desig as mere “[creationist](http://www.idthefuture.com/2008/08/is_id_creationism_william_demb.html) flim-flam,” even though the two are not necessarily equal. Michael Behe, for example, one of the foremost ID proponents, still believes in evolution, though he believes that a designer set it all in motion. And physicist [Fred Hoyle](http://www.faithbasedonfacts.org/main/?q=node/10) is famous for declaring that a superintellect must have monkeyed with the laws of the universe, even though he himself was an atheist. > > It’s precisely for this reasons that I find such discussions to be mostly a waste of time. And yes, I know that this statement will be greeted with further sneers and misrepresentations of what I said. Through the years though, I’ve learned that unbelief is seldom satisfied, and that few people make an honest attempt to understand their opponents’ views before dismissing them as mere “flim-flam.” JThunder…sorry i just can’t accept what you are saying. it’s no secret that many scientists and such have crossed over. so because you name a couple of flip floppers, it doesn’t give any credence to what you’re saying. i’m 32, and there are certain fights from when i was younger that aren’t worth it these days. so because some “super intellects” that once fought for one side, have for whatever reason crossed over…you can’t name them in such a way that implies they have found the truth. Sam Harris has a belief, which i fully believe, where he feels there is no reason why one should respect any sort of unfounded religious claim or belief, because it is “their” belief. like it or not, religion hides behind this vail of absurdity that condemns anyone who has the “nerve” to question or contradict their outlandish unproven beliefs. and by attacking these absurdities, it always ends with a claim of ad hominem and a demand that you go no further, because it’s their belief. so honestly, there is no logical reason why a person should make an honest attempt to understand opposing views that have no kind of foundation anywhere beyond personal belief. now that’s not to say you should not respect them. to me, regardless of how retarded your views may be, i will never cross that line and disrespect you as a human. but if you throw out your nonsense for all to hear, expect the consequences. so i hope i didn’t misrepresent anything you said, if so, please correct me. and know that i’m not bashing you. not that it validates me in any way, but i’m catholic and in my heart i believe in God. some day i hope to be like those guys you spoke of, and end the war and conflict that separates my brain and heart…but it’s a path to understanding i hope ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/322 "2008-11-08T15:27:06Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > FTR, the evidences that I spoke of include, among other things, the classic philosophical arguments for theism – teleological, cosmological, axiological, noological, historical, and so forth. Every single one of these arguments provides plenty of grist for a lengthy debate. They also provide hours worth of discussion, even in a non-contentious atmosphere. [Here’s a start.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8228434&postcount=57) If you have any more “proofs”, let’s have them. I’d be interested in seeing them. Then: Hours of non-contentious discussion! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/323 "2008-11-08T18:11:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You are welcome to that view. Personally, I think that objectors to intelligent design are the ones who fail to grasp the nature of their opponents views. Intelligent design is the old “god of the gaps” argument dressed up with scientific jargon. It’s not science. > [@](#): > > Through the years though, I’ve learned that unbelief is seldom satisfied, and that few people make an honest attempt to understand their opponents’ views before dismissing them as mere “flim-flam.” I understand intelligent design perfectly well. It’s flim-flam. There are two main thrusts to ID. One (Behe’s approach) is to find structures that are “irreducibly complex” and argue that this is evidence that they couldn’t have evolved incrementally. When scientists have shown how these structures COULD have evolved, the ID apologists pick a new set of “irreducibly complex” structures and repeat their claims. Classic “god of the gaps”. The other main thrust (Dembski’s approach) is a mathematical argument that the order we see in life is too complex to have emerged randomly. This argument falls down because it fails to take into account natural processes that allow for complex structures to be built up slowly and randomly over time. Intelligent design has been roundly debunked by the scientific community. Professor Flew seems to be ignorant of the scholarship in the field and has been gulled by the jargon that ID uses to mask its theological agenda. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/324 "2008-11-09T12:09:45Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Yes, of course, but actually that’s part of the problem, this interface between God and the world that is knowingly physically ours. The interface is as problematic to explain as God Himself (similar to some spiritual “soul” that interfaces with our brain chemistry). > > Not familiar with it but I’ll read his essay when time allows.I’m not a theist but my position is that by the definition of what God is supposed to be, His existence can’t be proven by science. God is the unknowable Origin Of Everything. God was the Maker of Atoms. When atomic structure was understood, God was Maker of the Protons, then Maker of the Quarks, etc. So if String Theory turns out to be widely accepted, God will become the Maker of the Strings. No matter how far down you go, the faithful will see God as the last turtle. 🙂 > Lots going on in those last two sentences. > > Cognitive dissonance is a whole theory about the human mind’s need to \*resolve \*such conflicts rather than to continue to hold them simultaneously, but IANAP. > > Faith and reason \*are \*mutually exclusive, which is why there is no conflict in having both. > > I don’t happen to be religious, but I don’t think people who believe in God _per se_ are idiots or unreasonable people. The ones who are nuts are the ones who use religion as an excuse for antisocial behavior, are intolerant of other ways othinking, or who retreat into it so far that they fail to face certain realities. If God is the last turtle,who created the place for the turtle to be? A being requires a place to be, if it is not in existence (or somewhere )it is nowhere. Monavis ---
**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 9, 2008, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/325 "2008-11-09T12:19:23Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If God is the last turtle,who created the place for the turtle to be? A being requires a place to be, if it is not in existence (or somewhere )it is nowhere. Nonsense ! It’s Turtle Gods all the way down ! ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/326 "2008-11-09T15:07:19Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If God is the last turtle,who created the place for the turtle to be? A being requires a place to be, if it is not in existence (or somewhere )it is nowhere. Either I have no idea what your point is, or you mine. Human knowledge, no matter how complete, will always go down to some level…and then stop. If string theory turns out to be a TOE, and we then ask, “How did the strings get there?” then the faithful’s answer will always be God. When asked where God came from, they will look towards the heavens and say that there are some things we can never know. Well, you don’t need a God to say that there are some things you’ll never know. You can go directly from the earthly facts of science to the unknowable (or at least unknown) without inserting a god in the middle of it all. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/327 "2008-11-09T17:42:37Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > [Here’s a start.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8228434&postcount=57) > > If you have any more “proofs”, let’s have them. I’d be interested in seeing them. Then: Hours of non-contentious discussion! I looked at the link and saw that you objected to “highest temperature”. If all molecules in the universe were moving at the speed of light (I know, there’s a “relative to what?” issue here), wouldn’t that be considered the upper bound for tempurature? Not that it changes any of those proofs, just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/328 "2008-11-09T18:05:44Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I looked at the link and saw that you objected to “highest temperature”. If all molecules in the universe were moving at the speed of light (I know, there’s a “relative to what?” issue here), wouldn’t that be considered the upper bound for tempurature? > > Not that it changes any of those proofs, just a thought. Temperature isn’t about speed, though, it is about energy. Kinetic energy of the constituent particles, in fact. If kinetic energy is one-half mv squared, then velocity is only part of the equation. And if Einstein was correct, and mass increases with velocity, then there is no upper bound on energy, hence no upper bound on temperature. There might be other things to take into account though, because I’m certainly not a physicist. I’m open to correction. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/329 "2008-11-09T21:25:03Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Temperature isn’t about speed, though, it is about energy. Kinetic energy of the constituent particles, in fact. If kinetic energy is one-half mv squared, then velocity is only part of the equation. And if Einstein was correct, and mass increases with velocity, then there is no upper bound on energy, hence no upper bound on temperature. > > There might be other things to take into account though, because I’m certainly not a physicist. I’m open to correction. So I guess the question that gets to the heart of the matter is: Does the universe contain a finite amount of energy? ---
**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 9, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/330 "2008-11-09T21:59:58Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Temperature isn’t about speed, though, it is about energy. Kinetic energy of the constituent particles, in fact. If kinetic energy is one-half mv squared, then velocity is only part of the equation. And if Einstein was correct, and mass increases with velocity, then there is no upper bound on energy, hence no upper bound on temperature. > > There might be other things to take into account though, because I’m certainly not a physicist. I’m open to correction. It’s discussed in [this](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/807/what-is-the-opposite-of-absolute-zero) Straight Dope column; there is a highest temperature, the Planck temperature. It’s when each particle has so much energy that it collapses into a black hole. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/331 "2008-11-11T11:37:28Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Either I have no idea what your point is, or you mine. > > Human knowledge, no matter how complete, will always go down to some level…and then stop. If string theory turns out to be a TOE, and we then ask, “How did the strings get there?” then the faithful’s answer will always be God. When asked where God came from, they will look towards the heavens and say that there are some things we can never know. Well, you don’t need a God to say that there are some things you’ll never know. You can go directly from the earthly facts of science to the unknowable (or at least unknown) without inserting a god in the middle of it all. My question is not where God came from, but who or what created the place from which he came. Place must come before ‘a’ being, if God is “a” being then there had to be a place for Him to be, unless God is place. If there is no place than it is nowhere,if something isn’t in existence then it doesn’t exist. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![mbedell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mbedell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbedell)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/332 "2008-11-11T23:04:27Z")
Sorry guys couldnt keep away. Some responses to comments made earlier. _"As I said before, knowing for sure that there was a God and what he wanted wouldn’t change my morality–better to rot in hell than serve a bloodthirsty tyrant, if for example we’re discussing the Old Testament “God”._ Saddam Hussein is/was a tyrant. If God is that cruel, why do we still exist and still living in sin? If you read the old testament, then you know the story of the Pharaoh. Indeed, God would only reveal HIMSELF to those who believe in HIM and it comes with understanding and wisdom. \*"Edgar Cayce once said, “To the skeptic, no proof is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” I could not have said it better myself. So I will ask again, if somebody found scientific evidence of God, would it inspire you to worship him as a supreme being/diety? Would it support your ability to relate to HIM in human terms? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/333 "2008-11-11T23:13:19Z")
And again, if the existence of the Christian God were proven to my satisfaction, I sure as hell wouldn’t worship him. And he would have some 'splainin to do. What’s with the Saddam comparison? I don’t get it - Iraqis still existed. And the Pharaoh? The one who wanted to let Moses’ people go, but God made the Pharaoh change his mind? What does that demonstrate? That God is capricious? ---
**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 11, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/334 "2008-11-11T23:34:24Z")
> [@mbedell](#): > > If God is that cruel, why do we still exist and still living in sin? Because he’s cruel ? > [@US military dominance](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-dominance/471863/32): > > If you read the old testament, then you know the story of the Pharaoh. Indeed, God would only reveal HIMSELF to those who believe in HIM and it comes with understanding and wisdom. No, it comes with gullibility. Religion opposes understanding and wisdom; it is a force for ignorance, blindness and madness. And the story of the Pharaoh is a good example of why if the God of the Bible is real, he’s a monster. > [@US military dominance](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-dominance/471863/32): > > "Edgar Cayce once said, “To the skeptic, no proof is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” > > I could not have said it better myself. In other words, the believer is insane. As for the skeptic; that’s never been tested, because in all of history there’s never been any proof. Not a shred. > [@US military dominance](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-military-dominance/471863/32): > > So I will ask again, if somebody found scientific evidence of God, would it inspire you to worship him as a supreme being/diety? Would it support your ability to relate to HIM in human terms? No, and no. I oppose the worship of anything, and regard it as disgusting and destructive. And I have no desire for a relationship with a spirit thug. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/335 "2008-11-11T23:36:30Z")
> [@mbedell](#): > > Saddam Hussein is/was a tyrant. If God is that cruel, why do we still exist and still living in sin? How would not existing be more cruel than suffering? God is cruel and there is plenty of OT evidence of his wickedness. > [@mbedell](#): > > If you read the old testament, then you know the story of the Pharaoh. Indeed, God would only reveal HIMSELF to those who believe in HIM and it comes with understanding and wisdom. Believing in something that has not been revealed is the opposite of understanding and wisdom. > [@mbedell](#): > > "Edgar Cayce once said, “To the skeptic, no proof is sufficient. To the believer, none is required.” > > I could not have said it better myself. That’s simply false. Proof (sufficient evidence) is always sufficient to skeptics; it’s belief with lack of evidence that’s insufficient. > [@mbedell](#): > > So I will ask again, if somebody found scientific evidence of God, would it inspire you to worship him as a supreme being/diety? Would it support your ability to relate to HIM in human terms? _Some_ scientific evidence isn’t necessarily enough to form conclusions. Claiming that God exists is a fantastic claim and requires fantastic evidence before a reasonable person is to accept it as true. There is none, btw. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/336 "2008-11-12T01:04:26Z")
> [@mbedell](#): > > So I will ask again, if somebody found scientific evidence of God, would it inspire you to worship him as a supreme being/diety? It depends upon the properties that God turns out to have. Is he deserving of worship? Suppose we discover scientific evidence that the gods of the Aztecs are real. Would you worship them? Would you offer them human sacrifices? How much physical evidence would it take for you to abandon Christ and worship Tezcatlipoca? ---
**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 13, 2008, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/337 "2008-11-13T13:02:52Z")
Wow, I’m impressed. I step away for a few days and the debate is still right here where I left it. 300 posts is quite lengthy and the “soul” tangent is probably marginally related to the OP at best - basically if it is reasonable to acknowledge a spirit it is not unreasonable to acknowledge God (platypusses and manacors aside). But this only addresses a small face of reason and logic, not the scientific bits the OP was talking about. So I would like to take the spirit arguement to it’s own thread and continue there. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/338 "2008-11-13T13:22:12Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is just wrong, unless God lives in a completely separate ‘supernatural’ universe that cannot interact with this one at all. But then what would be the point? > > No, the most basic idea of all religions is that God _can and does_ interfere with this universe. If a god’s actions are either non-objective, non-repeatable, or non-observable, then that god is capable of interacting with the world but his actions are not amenable to scientific investigation. -FrL- ---
**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 14, 2008, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/339 "2008-11-14T00:58:42Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If a god’s actions are either non-objective, non-repeatable, or non-observable, then that god is capable of interacting with the world but his actions are not amenable to scientific investigation. > > -FrL- If God’s actions are non-objective, then he is not interacting with the real world. If he is interacting with the real world, his interactions are objective. If his actions are ‘non-repeatable’, then he’s not much of a god, being unable to do anything twice. Unless you just meant that he refrains from acting on cue, which just makes him an uncooperative god, which is certainly possible - but if he took any actions that altered the world, those alterations would be repeatedly observable. If he avoids actions that do not leave observable marks…that rules out most of the things he’s claimed to have done, and many of the things one might praise him for doing. If his actions are non-observable, then he’s not interacting with the real world. Even alterations to thoughts and moods are observable, via secondary effects (like changes in behavior). Unless you meant that he _avoids_ being observed, in which case he is a god in hiding, which is theoretically possible. However, the above fact still applies - any real effect he has on the world will cause alterations which are observable, which makes such effects themselves ‘observable’ as well, via secondary effect. Summation: If he’s doing anything, and doing it to the real world (including doing it in ways that might effect people’s behavior) then he is sufficiently observable to be subject to scientific study. If on the other hand he is a noninteractive ineffectual god in hiding, his actions are not amenable to scientific investigation - because there would be no actions to study. ---
**Author:** ![GregE625](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b77776/32.png) [@GregE625](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GregE625)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043/340 "2008-12-07T10:17:12Z")
“I admire aethists. Aethism takes a lot of faith!” – Jerry Seinfeld [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/470043.md?page=18)