Is there scientific proof of the existence of God?

There is also logical proof for the existence of God.

The Law of Cause and Effect - which provides Irrefutable proof of the existence of God.

The Law of Cause and Effect states that everything that happens has to have a cause or combination of causes.

So everything that happens is an effect of a cause or causes, and every cause is itself an effect of a previous cause/s.

This Law of Cause and Effect applies to the whole universe without exception. If there were any exceptions, science would not be possible, because scientific research depends on the fact that we can find a cause or causes for every occurrence. So every effect in nature has to have had a cause. Anyone who denies this is effectively saying that science cannot be trusted.

Of course if we go back far enough in time there must have been a very first cause. Obviously, as a very first cause, it could not have had a cause itself or it would not be the very first cause. But as we have already learned it is scientifically impossible for any natural event not to have had a cause. So how could the very first cause have defied the Law of Cause and Effect by having no cause? There is only ONE possible answer, and that is: ....... that the very first cause could not have been subject to natural law.

In other words, as all natural events are subject to natural law without exception, the very first cause could not have been a natural event, - - - -

it had to be SUPERNATURAL, there is absolutely no other option.

That is the only way the First Cause could evade the law of cause and effect which governs ALL matter and EVERY natural occurrence. Therefore for atheists to deny a Supernatural First Cause is an affront to science because it calls into question the universal validity of the Law of Cause and Effect which science depends on for all its answers.

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/ar%E2%80%A6

There is also mathematical evidence of the Divine origin of the Bible.

http://www.biblemaths.com/

What is more, the ludicrous, alternative, beliefs of atheists, who are willing to defy natural laws to get their ungodly, speculative beliefs to work, are in themselves sufficient proof of the existence of a Supernatural First Cause (God)

The atheist's First Cause is a naturalistic one which defies all natural laws.....

Big Bang: - a 'Singularity', a one-off event where the Laws of Physics DID NOT APPLY.

It magically produced matter, energy, information, the potential for life, intelligence and every other quality that exists in the Universe. All from nothing and by sheer chance .... WOW!

If that is what atheists call 'science'? No respectable, objective scientist should want anything to do with it. http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-hand%E2%80%A6

The reason we also need faith is made obvious by the many of the answers here. You can provide them with mountains of proof, logic, science and reasoned argument and they still won't believe. Because their hearts are set against God, they want to worship the created and not the Creator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV0hUldrYp4&feature...

EDIT.

To: Bill B .... Hi there! I am the 'uneducated idiot'. As you are so educated, please tell us how your Quantum physics explains the origin of INFORMATION in the Universe? Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

Isn't it amazing how atheists dismiss any scientific laws that they don't like by claiming they are not scientific Laws, or that they do not always apply? We see the same thing with the well established Law of Biogenesis, which totally rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists ignore it, and have invented their pseudoscientific 'abiogenesis' as a supposed new law which contradicts the Law of Biogenesis by permitting life to spontaneously generate itself from sterile matter.

Resorting to Quantum physics is a blatant device invented to get round any scientific laws which rule out naturalistic causes. If something is known to be impossible according to natural laws, what you have to do to get round it is reduce the size of the impossible event to a microscopic level or even sub-atomic level, the smaller it gets the less impossible it appears to be.

A similar device is used to get round the natural laws which rule out progressive evolution and the spontaneous generation of life. What you do is propose that the progressive changes are very small, but cumulative. And that they happen over a vast time scale. Or that life began with a tiny 'simple' cell. That way, the impossible appears to be no big deal.

Atheists are master illusionists - if you reduce the shock of your unscientific hypothesis (which most would consider magic) by reducing the magnitude of the proposed event/s, break it down into lots of tiny, insignificant events and microscopic changes over enormous time, couch it all in scientific-sounding retoric, your unscientific proposal gets the illusion of credibility.

To return to Cause and Effect... you obviously don't understand the Law of Cause and Effect because, if you did, you would understand that even random events have a cause. Basically, nothing happens without a reason. There are NO exceptions, however much you might wriggle and squirm to try to evade this truth.

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/ar%E2%80%A6

If anyone wonders who the 'Bill B' is that my edit refers to? He has apparently removed his extremely arrogant answer. He obviously believes if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

There are certain clues. If there was nothing at all, then God theory would not hold up with anyone at all, and I'm not talking about an individual's experience that may or may not prove it to him/her. There are some animals for instance, who see beyond ultraviolet light.

did we even know ultraviolet existed until a short time ago? Yet, certainly, it was always there.

So, in the same way, there are clues left for us to follow. There are certain rules that cannot really be broken in this world: like gravity, for instance....and even using the laws of propulsion, we can circumvent the effects of gravity.

Yet there are instances of people who have levitated. Simon of Cupertino, for instance, did so so often in fact, that his fellow monks were embarrassed and had him incarcerated.

If you look hard enough, you WILL find....but you also have to know intimately, the parameters in which each natural law will work....or you will realize nothing.

I read the link you posted. Very good & very intelligent.

One question screams out loud. Is there any scientific theory that can be put forward that the Vatican can't simply say, "IT WAS GOD DID IT"?!

Even when irrefutable evidence is given, balanced on the scale of the bible (ie Genesis), the religious views alter to cover the base's.

So, which is it? Did the stories of the bible actually occur? Or did science, exploration and the tales of previous theory occur? And if the answer is the second, will the religious claim that to be God's work again, without thought for their original theories?

What is so wrong with finding that it isn't God's work, since it means Hell can't exist?

Sorry, none of the material in the article is evidence that God exists. It's argument and opinion, sure. But evidence? No.

Even if it was evidence of a supernatural force, it still wouldn't specifically be evidence for the Biblical God. Remember that there have been thousands of deities proposed throughout history... all of that could have been down to one (or several, in the case of polytheistic religions) of them.

For something to be evidence of God, it would have to be an event, structure (including biological structures) or phenomenon that could have no possible natural causation. Furthermore, there would also have to be some sort of evidence to indicate exactly which deity is responsible.

The article you posted provides neither form of evidence.

Thanks for the interesting question and article though.

Yeah, I stopped when I got to this:

"We actually have faith in untestable propositions every day of our lives. Rather than being based on lack of knowledge, our faith is usually based on very real experience. For instance, as you read this response, it is likely you will be sitting in a room which will be part of a larger building. Can you see the architect and the builder? Have you met them? How do you know they exist? You know the building had a designer and a builder because in your experience you observe that buildings do not make themselves. They all have a designer and builder. So, you believe by faith that the designer and builder exist, or have existed, because the building exists and your faith is based on knowledge. But the existence of the designer and builder is not scientifically testable! It would be irrational to assume there was no designer or builder just because you can’t observe them right now."

It's not faith. There are plans for the building in your local authority offices, there'll also be records of the architect and the construction company employed to carry out the work. Show me the plans for Earth, the variety of life, the universe. Who constructed it all?

When will creationists understand that there's a very big and very real difference between inanimate objects and living organisms? By this reasoning: my parents made me, So They Must Be God!!!!!!! omg.

This is one of the worst arguments for the existence of a deity and, to be honest, the need to prove it at all shows (by definition) a distinct lack of faith.

probability- test # 1 when something goes wrong,shout out Goddamitt. If it gets any better than low probability for the existence of God. however if the situation tend to worsen,probability high.

Fact -scientist have determined the exact location in the brain where the need for knowledge of God exist. this area has high neural activity when test subject is in prayer. Read it in science digest.

The answer is no.

I read the whole article. Ever heard of a straw man argument? The article was full of them, and the author admitted he based his arguments on his faith in the Bible as a historically accurate document. Also a self-referential argument. Not a superb answer, I'm afraid. Not an answer at all, in fact.

Thanks for the good question!

The article provides an excellent answer to this question. For many people the information contained in this article will settle once and for all the incredibility of neo-Darwinism. The following statement, if true, (and I believe it is) deals a death blow to macro-evolutionary theory.

"The observable phenomenon of genetic entropy (continual accumulation of genetic errors through mutations) falsifies Darwinian evolution because it reveals an inexorable loss of genetic information and not a gain, the latter being essential for evolution to work."

I believe that in our lifetime that we will see the theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) tossed into the junk heap of bad science along with theories like; Flat Earth, geocentrism, cold fusion, spontaneous generation, and bloodletting.

Obviously we have a LOT of people who can not reason as most of the " answers " proved. What constitutes " scientific " proof? Well one positions defines the proof as "repeatable and falsifiable", others claim that it must be "reasonable" , whatever that means. lol IN fact the scientific evidences for God are of both categories. The LAW of Statistical probabilities, a LAW, not a theory, the LAW of thermodynamics, And other scientific LAWS show conclusively that there MUST be a God. For example the principle of Occam's razor declares that an infinite regression is impossible, this means that by SCIENCE the universe MUST have a beginning. Thus the LAW of thermodynamics declares that something cannot come from nothing without a cause. This cause is GOD. That the universe has order and reason and that it is populated with reasoning creatures ( more or less lolol) is evidence that this "cause" must also be a intelligent and reasoning creature. The atheistic religious position of so called science, falsely so called i might add, since science has NO RIGHT to exclude the possibility of God "a prior" nor to make further assumptions as the ONLY possible explanation accepted, is pure bias and bad science. The fact that in the BIBLE alone are prophetic passages that have been exactly precisely fulfilled and the statistical probabilities of even a small NUMBER being fulfilled exceeds the probabilities by many factors is clear SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that there must be a GOD. There is a form of evidence which is dismissed by science as mere testimonial, but which is used daily in the courts to decide the guilt and innocence of men as a matter of LIFE AND DEATH! this is historical or testimonial evidence. The Bible asa well document historical account of jesus life and death and RESURRECTION , with a known chain of custody and provenance , as well as massive amounts of manuscript support is a considered by Simon Greenleaf ( see his "Witness of the Evangelists" web site) as irrefutable evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus a mathematical probability which is also beyond any chance possibility. This singular fact alone stands a proof of God. And this FACT is so well recognized by any unbiased reasoning man ( and some biased ones) that they have repeatedly and often times ludicrously sought to find alternative explanations for this irrefutable historical fact! Simon Greenleaf, as the preeminent scholar and almost sole creator of the judicial rules of evidence has by his own study of those facts been convinced and converted to Theism and faith in the Living God of the Bible.

One more point, many of these nay sayers, seem incapable of rightly defining faith except as a most ignoble and blind sort of concept once espoused by a man long dead and in error. Faith in Scriptures is "evidence" and "substance" (Heb. 11:1) of a knowledge not gleaned by mere intellect, but revealed by God himself as a sure knowledge of who He IS: his nature and substance and person hood. AS such it is neither blind nor unreasoned. But is seeing of the realm of spirituality and of that being who dwells therein. If that beggarly and ignoble arrogance called "science" wishes to limit its vision to mere mud and rain, then it will be their loss and NOT ours.

I found your web site video interesting and refuting of the common paradigm of science, but still wrong in assuming that the creation is the creator. That all reality is merely a mental creation of observation may be true but the One doing that observing is not man but God.

Luk 4:32 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.

1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY> Heb 1:3 Who [Jesus] being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; .." THE ENTIRE CREATION EXISTS AND HAS ITS BEING IN GODS UPHOLDING OF IT IN REALITY BY HIS OWN WORD (JOHN 1:1-14) AND BY HIS OWN POWER. HE ALONE IS THE FIRST CAUSE AND SOLE CREATOR OF REALITY. And only when he is imputed into the quantum equations as the single binding and source factor of it will they finally have a unified field theory. It is a factor out side of reality and yet Intimately involved with reality as HIS creation.

I have often heard Quantum Physic Scientists claim that they believe they found that God does exist. An interesting video that I came across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n426PazcFXE

I've been a Christian and teacher of Christian doctrine, theology, religious thought, etc. for almost 50 years, and while that is an interesting article, the truth of the matter is that there cannot be scientific proof of the existence of God because that would create a scientific conundrum. There isn't any because there cannot be any.

The term "scientific proof" is a popular expression among scientific and religious laypersons alike. If you're a scientist or a theologian dealing with the subject you would use the more precise term, namely "empirical evidence." This type of "proof" consists of information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. This is a central concept in science and the scientific method, namely that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, i.e., dependent on such evidence or consequences that are observable by the human senses.

It is illogical for persons on both ends of this debate to ask if there is such a thing as "scientific proof" or "empirical evidence" of God. As I mentioned at the outset, scientifically speaking that would create a conundrum, a paradox that cancels out the possibility of applying the scientific method altogether. How so?

Science is that disciplined methodology dependent on data that can be "observed," and "registered," that which can be "gathered," and last but not least "made subject to verification by testing."

However, for the God of the Bible to qualify as being God he cannot be any of these things. That which qualifies as bring observable, which can be gathered by human power, which can be made subject to our control and testing would disqualify the subject as being God in the first place. God cannot be observed, transcends our ability to physically (and often mentally) grasp. God is not subject to our control and testing. In fact, the opposite is true.

With all due respect and appreciation for what you may be trying to do, it is inadmissible theologically speaking and heretical to suggest that God could ever qualify to be made subject to any form of human examination and testing. God is not that which must be proved by some standard we as humans invent. On the contrary, God is the only One who is truly real. We pale in significance. If anyone's existence in the universe has to be proven it would be that of us puny humans when compared to everything else out there that exists in the cosmos.

Because of this Christians should never try to speak of God as "something" that can be subject to human whim or that would have to measure up to some standard of proof we ourselves invent.

I'm not here addressing any atheist or anyone else who demands such "evidence," for they don't know God, who God is, or what God is. But if you claim that you do, you must stop trying to force God into the mold that others demand God to be fit into because, frankly, there is nothing big enough to fit God into.

Let them argue with us and demand evidence of God. If they wish to make fun of us and claim that God therefore cannot exist because God cannot be proven by the scientific method, then let them. It is a "scarecrow" argument anyway because God can't ever fit into those demands without losing the very essence of what and who God truly is as well as breaking the rules of the methodology of science. It's a trick question if you stop and think about it.

Lastly, it is not "childish" to present arguments of reason or open-minded thinking made by non-believers and atheists and critics. This is different from the teasing of the cynical, those with bigoted hatred and prejudice against others because of their creed. If you write something on a public Internet forum you are inviting the public, regardless of religious creed or lack thereof, to make their comments. You create a paradox for yourself when you ask for comments but then demand that certain comments NOT be made or withheld.

If all we Christians want to hear are things which back up our faith, then there is a place where that happens all the time. It's called "church." Outside of church it is best to allow and welcome all people to freely express themselves. Well thought-out objections, made respectfully, widen the mind, can deepen faith, and create friendships while building bridges of tolerance which embrace the dignity of every human. Hopefully no believer in God will ever belie their claim to such by making that impossible in the future.