From a recent comment on the multiverse post:
Can you prove God exist ? If yes, the game is over. If no, keep calm & let science do the job.
Can you prove God doesn’t exist ? If yes, the game is over. If no, keep calm & let science do the job.
I’ll respond more fully with a complete post, but here’s the short version: You have made a category error. God is immaterial, and science deals with the material. Therefore, asking “science” to deal with the immaterial is like asking someone what the color blue weighs or what the number 3 smells like.
I’ll say this as gently as possible: I encourage you to consider how you got this far without realizing how fallacious your argument was. Does your circle of influence also believe that your argument was sound? Do the things you read support it? If so, I encourage you to expand your horizons, as you have been seriously misled on a really obvious point.
P.S. There is a ton of evidence for God’s existence: Cosmological, teleological, logical, moral, etc. But deep down you don’t even need that. Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Here’s a little more:
Everyone relies on eyewitness testimony for their beliefs, even Darwinists.
The demand of some atheists for scientific evidence for God’s existence is born of either disingenuousness or a lack of understanding. They can’t use empirical testing to prove that only empirical testing qualifies as evidence, as that is a circular reference.
They also make a category error. You don’t use a scale to weigh the color blue, because colors don’t have weight. In the same way, you don’t use methods designed to test material things if you want to determine the truth about immaterial things.
Christians can point to all sorts of evidence for the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus and the accuracy and reliability of the Bible: Cosmological, teleological, logical, moral, historical and more. If they want to debate the evidence, that is fine. But skeptics really tip their hands when they insist that only empirical evidence is permitted, or that we have no evidence or that they have the same amount of evidence for their Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Also consider their typically dismissive reaction to the evidence of the testimony of eyewitnesses or reliable sources. They often insist that they only trust empirical evidence and not that of eyewitnesses, but that would mean they’d have to create their own test equipment and replicate every single experiment before they trusted the results. They obviously don’t do that. They use their judgment and experience to determine who they think is trustworthy and they rely on their conclusions. So even with their scientific evidence they are constantly relying on the evidence of eyewitnesses or what they deem as reliable sources.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE – Just for the record, the vast, vast majority of historical scholars, including skeptics, agree that a person named Jesus really lived and was killed on a Roman cross, that his followers believed he rose from the dead, that his brother James was a converted skeptic, and that a man named Paul went from persecuting the faith to spreading it, and that he wrote most of the letters attributed to him in the Bible. When that many experts agree on something, we have a term for those views: Facts. And it isn’t illogical to draw the conclusion that the best explanation for those facts is the physical resurrection of Jesus. Those facts don’t necessarily prove Christianity, but they soundly refute the “Jesus didn’t even live,” and “Christians have blind faith” arguments and more. They are compelling reasons to give Jesus serious consideration.
Biblical faith is trusting in what reason has assessed.
*Not a real book, just a catch-phrase for the silliness masquerading as reasoning on the Interwebs.