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, .</p>

Which one do you mean?

what actual real evidence exists for a god?

the bible doesnt count as evidence.

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.

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.

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.

There are zero "gods". Any and all are fantasy created by humans.

Stop trying to figure it out.

...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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Science has not provided a definitive answer that im not god.

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

It’s the point of the thread.

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.

Correct. Pointless

The letters to and from roman officials discussing the ressurection, 500+ witnesses and the empty tomb

There is a bunch of evidence for God

Youve awoken the smug reddit atheists

"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

more opinions than answers

God is omnipotent, so he exists on a completely different level than the universe
apples to oranges

please elaborate.

multiple letters to and from roman officials about the resurrection
500+ witnesses
empty tomb
alive cardiac tissue growing on catholic hosts

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.

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

That is just assigning God special properties and then claiming done.

Not opinion.

Fact.

Wake up.

plenty of proof for God.

No, definitely not. You're an idiot. Now, get lost.

Not opinion.

Fact.

Wake up.

plenty of proof for the sun being the center of the solar system

No, definitely not.

He is omnipotent and he created the universe. it would be pretty illogical to think the creator must conform to creation?

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"?

Presupposing the result is not an argument

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?

Rofl

that was just a summary image

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