In ‘The Three Body Problem’, we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God’s existence. He goes on to say that ‘Science hasn’t provided any definitive answer’. So I’m curious, <title>.
A definitive answer is impossible unless God makes itself known. There is no evidence for god and thus no scientific answer. God is a belief, belief is not scientific.
There is a bunch of evidence for God
What evidence? I do not believe in leprechauns, pixies, werewolves, jujus, angels, Tooth Faeries, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Brahma, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah, or the Trinity, demons, devils, or Satan. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, empirical, 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 and the burden of proof lies with believers. We can make a case for some unspecified “intelligent designer” or “prime mover” or begetter of “something rather than nothing”? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to “design” of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical “evidence” betrays ignorance of biblical scholarship. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, could 'his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book. As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First Cause, the physicists are closing in, with spell-binding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? Obviously, it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves. In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, could not think of a better way to forgive “sin”. Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it “feels right”. The wife of a former UK prime minister may stand for the” feels right” brigade. She based her belief on “an understanding of something that her head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.” She aspired to become a judge! My’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true. Why is religion immune to the critical standards we apply not just in our courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?
please elaborate.
multiple letters to and from roman officials about the resurrection 500+ witnesses empty tomb alive cardiac tissue growing on catholic hosts
People can be tricked is a simpler explanation. Magicians have entire shows where they trick the perceptions of hundreds to thousands every night. Letters and witnesses could just as easily be justified as aliens rather than god.
No idea what you mean about “alive cardiac tissue on catholic hosts”.
back then, they didnt have 4k resolution footage, so letters and archeological and literary sources are the some of the best proof we can get.
also, back then, ink, a writing station, a quill were expensive and it was extremely hard to forge writing
and alive human cardiac tissue was found growing on hosts in a catholic church
They’re proof that people believed a thing happened. Its not proof the thing happened. Im not saying the letters are forgery, simply they don’t suffice as proof. Why haven’t they showed up in 4k to make the non-believers shut up and save them from hell?
Ddg tells me that catholic hosts refers to communion wafers. Are you saying that there’s cardiac tissue in communion? What source do you have for that claim? Can I genome sequence or clone Jesus then?
they were eyewitness accounts
who gives eyewitness if they BELIEVE it has happened?
eyewitness can only be given if you have seen it happen with your very own eyes
thank you for the response, but i think it needs a little punctuation.
I try to write in columns but lemmy doesnt include all the spaces
that kindof a weird way to write in a thread/forum based system.
I recommend a web search for the “god of the gaps” fallacy. You have discovered a 300+ year old concept.
Since you’re asking science: The scientific method needs to be used to prove, not disprove, the existence of things.
what actual real evidence exists for a god?
the bible doesnt count as evidence.
The letters to and from roman officials discussing the ressurection, 500+ witnesses and the empty tomb
Which one do you mean?
Well I would think the god that makes the most money off of ignorant sonsabitches and the catholic god certainly wins that shit!
Using science to explain God is like using breakdancing to explain engineering.
You need to define what you mean by “god” first. Which god? What are its qualities? What are its falsification criteria?
You can’t just say, “What does science have to say,” because it’s not a singular question about a singular being.
deleted by creator
The God of Christianity is most likely a Canaanite god of the forge who was among other gods, including El and Ashura.
Gods of the forge were often also war gods (swords and armor come from forges), and we see evidence of the ancient Israelites making war with their neighbors on a frequent basis. It follows that Yahweh would therefore rise in cultural importance, and it would eventually assume the roles of its peers in the pantheon.
The early Biblical stories were likely adapted from existing Mesopotamian stories. The parallels between Norse mythology are interesting but not what the current historical consensus accepts.
I saw a similar video to the first commentor and am not familiar enough with norse mythology to judge the validity.
But it wasn’t trying to argue that Christianity was actually related to norse mythology, just that based on the depictions of Loki and his behavior as a insecure God, if he were to defeat odin and thor and go start over somewhere he would act a lot like old testiment depiction of God. Which honestly could make a pretty good foundation for a fantasy story if someone wanted I guess
Sure, and I think it speaks to two things: these ideas seem to arise from human nature itself, and they travel! There’s some other less-accepted ideas about how much of the NT Bible is influenced by Greek classics, but it’s an idea that’s not without evidence.
Science has not provided a definitive answer that im not god.
Youve awoken the smug reddit atheists
There is one interesting connection that I have found.
In 1999, researchers in New York fired very powerful lasers at each other. When they intersected, they caused an electron and a positron to spring out of the vacuum.
If light can cause the creation of matter, then there’s the possibility, however slim, that a hermit sitting on a hill blazed out of his gourd on some divine bush could have been given some sort of insight that perhaps he was linguistically incapable of accurately communicating.
I’m not saying that this definitively proves anything. I just find it interesting that a hermit on a hill 7,000 years ago could have somehow deduced in any way that light was one of the fundamental particles of the universe, or that matter could be made from light.
I think you’re giving Genesis more credit than it deserves. It doesn’t say God used light to create anything. In most translations, it just says God created the Heavens and the Earth without specifying how. It says at first the Earth was dark and formless, until God commanded light to exist, creating day and night and evening and morning.
I’d be much more impressed if Genesis told us that the entire universe was compacted into a hot dense state ~14 billion years ago, and that during its earliest moments it passed through a decoupling of the four fundamental forces, then went through a brief moment of incredibly rapid expansion, etc. etc. … but it doesn’t. Instead it incorrectly states that the Earth predates the stars, that day and night predate the Sun, that life on land predates life in the seas, and more. If a divine entity was capable of relating the origin of the universe and life on Earth to an ancient author, there’s no reason it couldn’t do so in a way that’s unambiguous to modern scientifically-literate readers.
I think it’s far more likely there’s no connection at all, and people only see one there because they specifically went and tried their hardest to find one, no matter how tenuous.
deleted by creator
Okay, but the question I am being asked is what are the most convincing arguments for their being a god?
And my response is, is that science has redone a thing that God was claimed to have done, and it created matter.
If you are not a biblical literalist, if you can accept the idea that the Bible is correct, but not flawless in its data communication, then it has at least the tiniest little spider’s web strand of reason that says that the hermit Moses, seven-odd-thousand years ago, received some sort of divine revelation that contained information that was later proven to be scientifically true, which lends at the very least a mote of dust worth of credence to the existence of God.
I’m an atheist, but my argument for a god of some sort is that we probably don’t exist out of nothingness
Yes but that generally just shifts the questions one layer lower. Where would God come from then? I know the typical answer is God has always existed but if God doesn’t need a reason to exist then really the universe doesn’t either.
We can’t know, so I don’t bother asking
It’s the point of the thread.
Correct. Pointless
God is omnipotent, so he exists on a completely different level than the universe apples to oranges
That is just assigning God special properties and then claiming done.
He is omnipotent and he created the universe. it would be pretty illogical to think the creator must conform to creation?
Special pleading.
…what started off as a legitimate question has now become an extremely interesting (and amusing) social experiment. Keep the nonsensical, non-scientific answers coming, folks.
more opinions than answers
There are zero “gods”. Any and all are fantasy created by humans.
Stop trying to figure it out.
“stop trying to figure it out”
you want us to stop science?
and I want proof for your claim and an answer, not an opinion
Ha. Loser.
You don’t need science to know there are no “gods”. Just need to stop being a gullible moron.
Again, an opinion, and an utterly wrong one at that.
there is plenty of proof for God,
try to be more open minded
Not opinion.
Fact.
Wake up.
plenty of proof for God.
No, definitely not. You’re an idiot. Now, get lost.
there is a lot of proof, you have a choice to either listen and then have a conversation or to plug your ears and go lalalalalallalaala
I think the latter isnt very scientific
can you provide proof for your “fact”?
Not opinion.
Fact.
Wake up.
plenty of proof for the sun being the center of the solar system
No, definitely not.
