• Why doesn’t science prove God exists?

     

    Imagine this…

    • Scientists discover DNA in 1871.
    • Scientists then sequence the human genome in 2003, yielding an immensely long sequence made up of the letters A, C, G, T.
    • This string of letters is then converted into a quaternary (base-4) number (via the correspondence A→0, C→1, G→2, T→3).
    • This number is then converted to a hexavigesimal (base-26) number.
    • The digits are then converted to English letters (via 0→A, 1→B, 2→C, 3→D, etc.).
    • And the result is the entire King James Bible, a book that was compiled in the year 1611, via a complex sequence of writings, translations, additions, deletions, and manuscript discoveries spanning one and a half millennia.

    If that happened, I don’t think a single scientist would doubt the truth of Christianity.  I don’t think any half-reasonable human would.  I would become a Christian (again) in an instant!

    Although that is clearly a contrived example, it certainly serves to establish the fact that science could prove God’s existence, if God really did exist and wanted to prove it.  Instead, Christian apologists just point to certain data they take to be either crazy coincidences or else the direct result of God (the Christian God, of course), all the while ignoring what real scientists say.

    Why are there no scientific observations that unambiguously point to the existence of God?

    This seems significant to me.  Either there is no God, or else there is an (omni-bashful?) God that just doesn’t want his existence to be clear (not to us, at least).  I can’t rule out the latter possibility, though I don’t think there could ever be any reason to actually believe it – no more reason than to actually believe that Jupiter is made of chocolate while you’re not looking at it.

    But do any of the major religions believe in a God that doesn’t want his existence to be clear?  I don’t know of any.  In the words of the Apostle Paul:

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.  (Romans 1:20, NIV)

    Despite this clear proclamation by Christianity’s founding father, there are countless blogs and books by Christian apologists with titles such as Why doesn’t God just make himself obvious to us?, or If I were God, I’d make myself clearer.

    Christians know Paul was wrong.  

    God’s (supposed) existence is so unclear that even Christians doubt it frequently, though at other times they are completely certain they interact with him on a daily basis.

    So why doesn’t science prove God exists?  

    Because it seems that if any God exists, he doesn’t really want it to be clear to us.  And not even Pascal would be worried about such a God…

    acgt-screen_grande

     

    Category: AtheismChristianityGodScience

    Tags:

    Article by: Reasonably Faithless

    Mathematician and former Christian

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • kraut2

      My question: why doesn’t god prove he exists?

      • Foghorn Leghorn

        And ruin the mystery and end all the wars ! Don’t be silly it’s the greatest show on earth it makes money money money money money and thats all that counts… well unless your religious LOL !

        • kraut2

          If god wants to be known, and wants to have a relationship with its creation – why is it hiding behind an outdated edition of his story, that never received a editorial review and was never updated after 2000 years?
          What is stopping it?
          Not only that, but it competes with a few thousand other pretenders to the throne – and nary a word to the present day crowd? Just hints that never lead anywhere, second and third hand interpretations of its will, a coterie of shills in “it” for the money and the power?
          What is stopping it to clearly say what it wants?
          It never had a speech problem those many years ago.
          And it is purported to be all powerful, omniscient and a whole raft of other almost unbelievable claims.
          Whats stopping it?
          This hide and seek it engages in, the whole slew of behavioral problems that are depicted in various books purporting to be inspired by it leads to one conclusion: it suffers severe mental problems – or it just doesn’t exist.

          • Tim Chavura

            God has no problem ‘proving’ his existence – this will be done in a way which shall leave no doubt of his existence. Until then, God reveals himself through a variety of ways, most thoroughly through Jesus Christ.

            Thus, there is revelation. It is not labelled ‘scientific proof’ because it is not. And it need not be. Why *should* this God reveal himself in this manner? On theism, there is no reason to believe that if God exists, there would be hard scientific proof of his existence. Yet, it is still rationale to state, ‘I believe God exists: I know him, personally’, as I do.

            Jesus’ words are clear for you to read and understand. His message for you, a member of the ‘present-day crowd’, is to repent and believe in him. I did this, and I think you ought to deeply consider it.

            Your objections to the Bible having no ‘editor and update’ are clear examples of anachronism. To reject an ancient text because it wasn’t subjected to modern-day book-writing processes is as reasonable as rejecting Bach’s music because he didn’t have a contract with Sony Classics.

            It’s a pity that some of the petty discussions above have distracted us from the obvious fallacies of James’ argument. If I have time I’ll post later. Primarily, I’d stress God’s nature: A personal being who is not constrained to our space and time, not a naturalistic phenomena which, thus, *ought* to be proven through scientific observation.

            • kraut2

              Where the fuck do you take your arrogance from to lecture me on anything about the fucking christian religion and ask for repentance and belief in the utterly human construct god and jesus?

              “this will be done in a way which shall leave no doubt of his existence”

              That timetable was revised a few times already…too often for even an only a slightly skeptical mind to put a lot of stock in this claim

              The words of your beloved jesus are contradictory and show from internal and external evidence they were written years after the oor bugger had died – if he ever existed – by some who had an interest to create a belief system based on Judaism, but going beyond, a try for reform?

              The reference to an editor: did it not occur to you that I had implied the editor being the god who it was claimed was the originator, but apparently did not see the need to upgrade his books to match the new evidence to bring the whole thing in line with science?
              The mismatch between scientific claims in the OT – the whole genesis debacle in various versions making statements about the solar system, the earth, the development of species etc. that simply did not match with observation surely should have alerted a deity that it was time to get with the times and enter some correction?

              “Primarily, I’d stress God’s nature: A personal being who is not constrained to our space and time”

              You seem to know a lot about a being that apologists either declare unknowable as to its nature or claim they know its attributes – whatever seems to win them a discussion.

              And if he has influence into this world, he has to leave traces of his doing so, if he interferes in nature either this can be shown to have happened – or not. So far anything in nature is testable and open to investigation, he is by interfering in nature of course a naturalistic phenomenon – unfortunately, no evidence of such interference exists.
              If you claim his interference is untestable and leaves no trace – then I have the right to summarily claim he does not exists as there simply is nothing to prove his existence but the imagination in your mind.

              And does it not make you a little suspicious that almost all religions claim revelation of their “source of truth”? A few thousand of them?
              So many truth – so little evidence.

              The history of the bible shows a multiple authorship, a political agenda behind its creation and nothing divine at all.
              Paul had his motives to create a jesus with little reference to an actually having existed person – that wasn’t important to him, obviously.

              The most parsimonious conclusions is that all gods were created by humans for political, economical and security reasons, to make someone responsible for this rather uncaring Universe, where the only ones who can give a shit about this planet and ALL of his inhabitants is us – and no one to save our skin if we fuck it up as the species with the maximum destructive force.

            • Tim Chavura

              There seems to be more anger than reason in your response.

              I believe God is knowable. This is made very clear both by The gospels and the writings we have of the apostles. Further, I see no reason to deny my personal experience of knowing God.

              I might spend a moment later on writing a response for James.

              On repentance. I’m sorry if this was offensive to you. But salvation is available to those who call on the name of Jesus to be saved. This was good news to me and it can be for you. I’m merely repeating phrases from the book you claim shouldn’t be taken so seriously. I took it seriously, I now see it as the word of God.

            • Tim Chavura

              Also, I’m curious to know how you can maintain that Paul made little reference to the man Jesus.

              Can you outline the (what you may call ‘few’) occasions he did refer to the man Jesus?

            • kraut2

              As to that – read some of the material by mythicists and historicists and the dispute by Carrier, Ehrman, Harpur, Price etc. articles like that
              http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm. http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
              Carrier especially in some of his lectures – available on you tube – references the Gospel of Paul and the paucity of references within that Gospel of Jesus as a physical entity.

              I have been an atheist for a good fifty years now, and religion just interest me enough to respond when its adherents make claims as to the influence of their divine entity into the natural world, wanting to have it both ways: the influence is there but evidence can never be found because of magic. Nature doesn’t work that way

              Please do not expect from me an erudite discussion of the historicity vs. the mythical origins of jesus. That whole topic interest me only when I can read short and concise arguments either way. For me it is just a waste of time to argue about the intricacies about theologies of religions which are to me, as evidenced by their multiplicity, all man made constructs.

            • Tim Chavura

              I have read some of this material and material by those in opposition to it. I would prefer to keep the arguments concise and within this page – IE. no links to external sites.

              You argued the following point, ‘Paul had his motives to create a jesus with little reference to an
              actually having existed person – that wasn’t important to him,
              obviously.’

              Can you specify, in your own words (and obviously with scripture reference), how you maintain this? What *are* the references to [the man] Jesus in his writings?

            • Dana Zikas

              Totally agree!
              I find the “conversation” about biblical textual analysis, mythicism, etc endlessly facinating, yet I’m a lifelong non-believer.

            • kraut2

              “There seems to be more anger than reason in your response.”

              The anger is directed at you, and you do not have to apologize for being offensive – I can take care of that,

              What annoys me is the implicit assumption that I have not heard your spiel about salvation before, that evangelicals and fundamentalists always seem to assume atheists fell ready made from wherever. The vast majority in the US and likely in Europe as well came from a religious background, as was in my case. I was fortunate enough to discard the baggage of religion when I was fifteen or sixteen, having found behind religion nothing of worth, a faith grounded in faith of faith.

            • Tim Chavura

              “I was fifteen or sixteen, having found behind religion nothing of worth, a faith grounded in faith of faith.”

              I would have discarded that too.

            • Dana Zikas

              If the NT—the gospels and Pauline epistles—are sooo clear, how to explain 30,000+ sects of christianities??

            • Tim Chavura

              Good to hear from you, Dana. I hope you’re well.

              My
              experiences teaching at Christian and Catholic (and an Orthodox) schools
              have clearly indicated to me that the central points of Christianity
              are constantly maintained throughout all denominations of Christendom.

              The
              variants relate more to issues which are dealt with ‘in house’. That
              is, they make very little difference to people ‘becoming Christians’.

              CS Lewis called this ‘mere Christianity’. That is, Christianity in its essence, what is held universally throughout the church.

              Deviation from this puts one on a road to that which Xians have traditionally labeled a cult.

              The
              Pauline letters wouldn’t be the root cause of a multitude of
              denominations. There are a multitude of reasons stemming from cultural
              differences and various interpretations which explain these deviations.

              Anyhow, my point above was knowing God personally through Jesus Christ.

              Again, I warmly encourage you to examine the Gospels. Start with Mark, if you want.

              Hope you have a great day!

              Tim Chavura

    • Peter White

      Many Christians believe that science does prove that god exists. I keep seeing ads and links in discussions about supposed ‘proof’ of god.
      http://godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_of_the_supernatural.html
      http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879
      http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx
      It’s all nonsense but believers eat it up.

    • Joe G

      Strange that long-time atheist Antony Flew saw the evidence for God in DNA. And guess what? Your position cannot explain the existence of DNA.

      • Foghorn Leghorn

        In 2003 Flew was 80 years. My father was a brilliant man himself and at the age of 75 he started to make choices & decisions that where child like when he turn 77 he was a child again. One doctor said to us about or fathers choices was it is the simply beauty of life and our creator’s creation of man because we come in as babies and if we live long enough we go out like babies not knowing about our birth nor our death only the life in between. In my father’s case he was a tough nosed Roman Catholic Church every Sunday and all it;s rituals. One Sunday he came home around he was around 60 and never went back. THIS IS ALL FLEW really had to say >> Flew also said: “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species… [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”[27]

        • Joe G

          Attacking Flew is a sure sign of desperation.

          • kraut2

            Quoting Flew in his dotage his a sign of panic.

            • Joe G

              I didn’t quote him. Obviously you are just an angry little baby

      • kraut2

        1. how can a position explain anything?
        2. Can you explain the existence of god aside from the typical religious contradictory mumbo jumbo?

        • Joe G

          That is what positions do, explain things. Evolutionism is a position tat alleged explains the diversity of life. As for “and then there is this” – that is all speculation.

          • kraut2

            A position doesn’t explain anything about science – a position is a stance you take regarding a theory or hypothesis.
            “Evolutionism” is a term used by creationist. It is not a term used in science. The use of this term is a label that identifies you. Your position is creatonist. That explains something about you, but not the crap you seem to espouse.
            The theory of evolution is not a position but a theory that has not been been falsified yet.
            And then there is this is a not speculation it is a hypothesis and the search for the mechanism for how chemicals found a way to build structures that self replicate and maintain those structures against the flow of entropy by utilizing energy from the environment – for a while.

            • Joe G

              Are you nuts? Ernst Mayr used “evolutionism” in “What Evolution Is”. There isn’t any theory of evolution, If you think I am kidding try to find it, then come back and tell us who authored it, when and where we can read it. Natural selection has been found to be impotent

            • kraut2

              Typical creationist – as usually 50 to 100 behind actual science.
              The term evolutionist was used during the Victorian age and denotes a belief in the.increasing complexity and advancement of species through evolution, something that no present day biologist would subscribe to.

              the ending “ism” also denotes an ideology, either secular or religious – and that is why the term lacks any credibility today.

              Other than that – you typify why it simply a waste of time to argue with creationists – they just lack the basics or make shit up with statements like “There isn’t any theory of evolution”, usually using definitions that suit their agenda and nothing else. The truth be damned.

              Keep the faith – that is all you have. And it ain’t much in the big scheme of things.

            • Joe G

              Typical evoTARD- evolutionist is still used today. Evolutionism was used by Mayr to describe the modern synthesis.

              You have serious issues, kraut- and you are too ignorant to discuss anything.

    • Even if that happened, and we found the King James Bible embedded in human DNA, I still wouldn’t believe in Abe’s god. I’d think somebody was pulling our leg, but that wouldn’t prove the existence of the Abrahamic god. Especially if it was the KJV cuz that was made centuries after Jesus and Moses and millennia after marine life crawled onto land. It would be more likely to prove evidence of not only time travel, but temporal tampering of our DNA by mischievous people from the distant future in an alternate timeline.

      If we found evidence in DNA that man was made from clay, and then woman was made from man’s rib, then maybe that would prove Abe’s god. However, what we find is that the X chromosome has changed relatively little compared to the Y chromosome, and that the Y was originally a proto X chromosome. You cannot have the Y without the X having first existed. This means the female gender existed before the male gender did, long before primates even evolved. There was never a moment where a god made man out of something separate from other species, and then made woman out of man. Homo sapiens evolved over time from other primates, which evolved from other mammals which evolved from other animals, perhaps amphibians eventually which came from early marine life which came from multicellular organisms which came from single celled organisms which came from amino acids which came from proteins which came from carbon molecules which came from atoms which came from stars that exploded.

      The King James Version of the Bible didn’t get “Creation” even remotely right, when compared to the story that the universe itself shows as evident. Therefore, science HAS proved that the Abrahamic god, as described in ancient texts, cannot and does not exist. IF there is a god of some sort, which I doubt, we now know it is not the Abrahamic god. This is not an opinion. This is evident.

      Evolution and Creation cannot coexist. THAT is how you read DNA. Either we read the human genome wrong, or the bible is wrong. I’m going with the human genome.

    • Pingback: История протестантизма в России — rolikiru.ru()