Has any "real" scientist ever seriously attempted to find "real" scientific evidence for the existence of the Christianity God?
- Anonymous5 months agoFavorite Answer
There's no evidence when something doesn't exist.
- SBR32277Lv 75 months ago
That is not really how real science works. Most scientists don't go "looking" for evidence, they examine the evidence that is already here to learn what that evidence means. It's like a crime scene, you don't go "looking" for evidence, you examine the evidence that is already there and attempt to understand the story it is telling.
- PaulLv 65 months ago
No, because science is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. Supernatural/spiritual realities lie totally outside the realm of science, and science therefore cannot make any valid statements, pro or con, concerning such realities.
- PubliusLv 75 months ago
No. Real scientists know that science can't say anything about whether God exists or not. That's more than you can say for atheists.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 5 months ago
They would have to be willing to consider spiritual evidence. Instead most take the working presumption of scientific naturalism (assuming things have only natural causes) as an absolute even though it is unsubstantiated.
- DavidLv 75 months ago
Many have, and many have been convinced such by their scientific discoveries.
- Annsan_In_HimLv 75 months ago
Is the US National Academy of Sciences "real" enough, and "scientific" enough for you?
It said, "Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral." - (from page 28 of Victor J. Stenger's 'God, The Failed Hypothesis')
But read "Who Made God? In search of a theory of everything" by Edgar Andrews, where this scientist explains the hypothesis of God, and takes Stenger to task, in the process. Prof. Andrews is an expert in large molecules, BSc, PhD, DSc, FinstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys.
- The First DragonLv 75 months ago
That would not be possible because scientific truth and spiritual or philosophical truth are different, and the methods of proof are different.
- Simon TLv 75 months ago
No. Because it is not falsifiable.
Any scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable - and then you test it and fail to find it false. (Or find it false and go back to the drawing board.)
If we falsify a deity, then the believers just drag the goalposts and change that deity such that the falsification becomes voided.
Believer: The Greek Gods live on top of Mount Olympus.
Scientist: But I have walked all over the top of Mount Olympus and found nothing. I have disproved your belief.
Believer: Ah, but the gods confused you and made you walk in circles around their home!. My belief is valid.
Scientist: I have taken satellite pictures of Mount Olympus, and there is no building on the top. I have disproved your belief.
Believer: Ah, but the gods changed the photo image to make it look barren!. My belief is valid.
Scientist: I have dragged a 50 mile rope over the top of Mount Olympus and it did not get snagged on any temple. . I have disproved your belief.
Believer: Ah, but the gods magically cut the rope, took it around the temples and magically mended it!. My belief is valid.
Scientist: Sod this for a lark, if you are just going to play silly-buggers and redefine your gods each time they fail a test, I'm off to work on something worthwhile.
Believer: My belief has been vindicated!!!!!!
- Anonymous5 months ago
Your question shows your openness (rather lack thereof) for any evidence. When you put REAL in quotations, you're qualifying scientists. For instance, Michael J Behe is a renowned Chemist, yet his work in biochemistry and evolutionary mechanisms led to a theory of intelligent design. Would you consider his theories and observations as evidence for an intelligent designer?
Moreover, your question shows an ignorance to what science really is. Science is the discipline of using the scientific method. This requires something to be testable and reproducible. Astronomy, forensics, and history are not sciences as nothing observed can be tested/reproduced. The best we can do is look at recorded observations and come to theories.
Science (itself) comes from a philosophy and logic. Without philosophy and logic, we wouldn't have science. A person can use both philosophy and logic to reason for the existence of God based on the historic observations. It is difficult to jump from historic observations to the Christian God with out looking at documented history and religious texts, but looking at the creation of the universe, we can postulate that some external force stated the creation of the universe. Given that the universe shows evidence of fine tuning, it's reasonable to say that there's intelligence behind it.
So, in your world, you might reject any evidence for a god as well as reject any scientist who postulates a god, but that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence for god. It just means that you're limiting options to hold a worldview.