[davidwilliams (OP)]

Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God? I was A2A on a question about turning into an atheist at 13 years of age. It bothered me deeply and I came to question my own beliefs. I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.

[Bored chemist]

Why hasn't science been able to prove the existence of God?

One reasonable possibility is that He doesn't exist.
Also, because religion cheats.
https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/6-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-7.htm

[evan_au]

I'm at a crossroad. Help me through logical answers.

This is a bit more specific than the general question, but you could have a look at:
Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Life-changing Truth For A Skeptical World
by Josh McDowell & Sean McDowell

PS: This probably belongs in the "Just Chat" section...

[alancalverd]

First, determine what you mean by God. Then decide what you would consider proof of existence. Now look for that proof. Or, if you want to be scientific, look for disproof.

So far, I haven't come across anyone whose definition and chosen proof have stood up to scrutiny.   

You could postulate "somebody must be in charge of everything" which may not be disprovable, but he's clearly not on the side of homo sapiens, so I'm an antitheist.

[jeffreyH]

If there is a god who is omnipotent then it doesn't manifest its power. Newton's laws show that nothing is moved out of place without a very reasonable explanation. The laws of Newton would be broken every time god acted. Find the action without a cause and you find god

[pensador]

First, determine what you mean by God. Then decide what you would consider proof of existence. Now look for that proof. Or, if you want to be scientific, look for disproof.

So far, I haven't come across anyone whose definition and chosen proof have stood up to scrutiny.   

God the old guy sat in a chair that can do anything has similarities with many religions, and is clearly bollocks.

Religion makes the concept of god external to the person, allowing priests popes schizophrenics(see old testament) etc to speak on behalf of god and tell people what to do, organising societies, etc.

God the creator has similarities with Big Bang, in the beginning there was light. Playing with this idea and for the purposes of argument, and shear boredom. I would define god as being the universe, with everything in it being a part of said god. This god would be an automaton, responding only to external inputs, and abiding by the laws of physics etc.

The universe clearly exists so by my definition, god is proven to exist. DOH

[Bored chemist]

God the creator has similarities with Big Bang

And one noteworthy difference.
The big bang has evidence.

I would define god as being the universe

OK,
If we can redefine words in order to make  things the way we want them, I propose to redefine "God" too.

God is a pair of whole numbers A and B with no common factor such that A^2 divided by B^2 is exactly two.

The nice thing about this definition is that it allows me to prove that God does not exist
For example
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/proof_square_root_2_irrational.php

The problem is it's obviously a laughable definition, but... that doesn't seem to be a problem here

[pensador]

God the creator has similarities with Big Bang

And one noteworthy difference.
The big bang has evidence.

I would define god as being the universe

OK,
If we can redefine words in order to make  things the way we want them, I propose to redefine "God" too.


God is a pair of whole numbers A and B with no common factor such that A^2 divided by B^2 is exactly two.

The nice thing about this definition is that it allows me to prove that God does not exist
For example
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/proof_square_root_2_irrational.php

The problem is it's obviously a laughable definition, but... that doesn't seem to be a problem here

You might be even more bored than me.

Yes, the big bang claims to have evidence, but it does not constitute incontrovertible proof of the big bang, it is just a theory that will never have incontrovertible proof. The creation of all the matter in the universe in fractions of a second in some hot big bang, is less plausible than Hoyles ideas happening more slowly over an eternity, with no beginning of time. The genesis jackanory creation story taking 7 days could equally cite as evidence, the universe as it stands today. Evidence does not constitute proof.

God as a pair of whole numbers, is smaller than the universe as a god, with us just being a constituent part of said god. We could always assume the sun is god like what the Romans did. Again the sun exists, and is therefore  evidence of this version of god.

As Alan noted, the problem with the concept of god is in the definition. Some religions don't require a god, see Buddhism. Others don't seem to define said god, but just insist it exists. Jehovas witnesses for example when asked to define what god is never come back 

The universe is god, is not a new concept, its called Pantheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism. Science just tries to understand the mind of said god. The universe exists, therefore Pantheist god exists.   

Whole numbers also exist, so your definition of god also works, but they are just a small part of the Pantheist god. This would also apply to some rock star or football player, or egyptian priest reverred as a god. They are all just small parts of the eternal Hoyle universe, that did not start 14 billion years ago, in some laughable (according to Hoyle) big bang.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, the big bang claims to have evidence,

No, it actually has evidence.

but it does not constitute incontrovertible proof

How fortunate, then, that nobody said it was.

The creation of all the matter in the universe in fractions of a second in some hot big bang, is less plausible than Hoyles ideas happening more slowly over an eternity, with no beginning of time.

No.
Because the big bang doesn't conflict with Olber's paradox, but the continuous generation idea does.

Also, with continuous generation you need some sort of pan universal time keeper to make sure that "new matter" is made at the right rate.
I can see you contemplating  calling that "God".

The genesis jackanory creation story taking 7 days could equally cite as evidence, the universe as it stands today

Not really.
Genesis  doesn't make sense.
"And the evening and the morning were the third day."
But the first  and second days must have had mornings and evenings- that's pretty much the definition of "day".

But the  failings of bronze age goat herders' myths aren't important here.

The universe exists, therefore Pantheist god exists.

Least useful tautology since "brexit means brexit".

[pensador]

WTF

The thread is about can science prove the existence of god. This depends on definition of said god. Your god is clearly an absolute belief in the hot big bang theory whereby you take as incontrovertible proof the CBR. The CBR could equally be evidence for a cold slower beginning to the universe. Once the temperature rises to about 2.75K cold baryogenesis ceases  The only reason Hoyles ideas ended is because he popped his clogs and did not have a viable explanation for the CBR. The idea is not completely dead.

The fact of the matter is the universe exists, and has evolved to what it is today. From the pantheist point of view this is evidence for the pantheist god, which answers the question can science prove the existence of god. ie The definition of god depends on how god is defined from the Pantheist viewpoint you are already a part of god.

If you chose to have a god as an imaginary character that left no historical evidence and most likely never actually existed, not mentioning any names, that is up to you. You can take the born again religious view and invite said being into your life or accept a Pantheist viewpoint. If you want a god have one, define it how you like, if it is an object, it can be proven to exist, if it is imaginery it cant be proven to exist.

Like Alan wrote above proving the existence of god depends on the definition.

[Bored chemist]

proving the existence of god depends on the definition.

And redefining it as a means to answer the question is pointless.

If I choose a definition that makes God exist then He exists.
If I choose a definition that makes Him not exist, then He doesn't exist.
So what?
Neither option actually tells us anything.

[pensador]

proving the existence of god depends on the definition.

And redefining it as a means to answer the question is pointless.

If I choose a definition that makes God exist then He exists.
If I choose a definition that makes Him not exist, then He doesn't exist.
So what?
Neither option actually tells us anything.

That is the point, people that believe in a god do not generally have a plausible definition of the god they believe in, they just believe one must exist, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

People in general like to believe in things and be part of a community, regardless of evidence to the contrary, or different interpretations of claimed evidence.

Communities/societies built around a religious belief which is self reinforcing, and likely imprinted into peoples subconscious at an early age. These communities have leaders who reinforce the belief. Groups of people working together are often more succesful than individuals, who do not believe what they are told.

Speculation
If we take a ficticious character as a god with no supporting evidence other than the word of an emperor from a failing empire, with multiple religions and beliefs. We might form a council with all the religious leaders from different groups and arrive at a common acceptable religion based on the common religious ideas at that time. We might enforce the religion by nailing disbelievers to crosses or feeding them to lions etc. Cerca 325AD end of Roman empire, Emperor Constantine convened a council to form a new religion, to control his empire. He was a sun worshipper why would his new religion not have festivals based on equinoxes? Does the Roman empire still exert an influence today via its religion?

[lunar7]

One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

[Bored chemist]

One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

No.

[pensador]

One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

Define what your god is?

Is it maybe the quantum vacuum, zero point energy, dark energy, dark ? ?

[pensador]

One only needs to look at the world around them to see that only God can create life.

No.

Please define your understanding of god, that enables you to answer No.

God might be defined as the quantum vacuum perhaps from which via baryogenesis everything in the universe may have appeared. (in a big bang related sort of way, creating all of life in the universe )

[alancalverd]

Does the Roman empire still exert an influence today via its religion?

Philistines, Romans, the Inquisition, Communism, Fascism, even the British Empire....all came and went. We're still here. And, if modern-day antisemites are to be believed, we're still in charge of everything. The answer seems to be in having a faith that doesn't seek to convert or conquer others, or even argue very loudly for our precepts. It would be nice to be ignored for a few thousand years, but as Topol pointed out "If you look at a map, Israel is about the size of Yorkshire. If you look at a newspaper, it's bigger than Russia."   

[jeffreyH]

This god apparently caused the big bang then. OK. Well let's work with that conclusion. For billions of years mankind didn't exist. This dude, or dudette, who is all powerful, just didn't bother to use his or her supreme powers to do much at all for most of the time. What then? The supreme one just got bored?

Or maybe, using Occam's razor, life was a slow and incremental process that just took that long to develop. Still, maybe I am now damned to an eternity in eternal suffering. I doubt it.

The only real miracle is that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet.

[lunar7]

When we think the way the Universe works; the fundamental constants; the way Science works. There must be a God.

[pensador]

The only real miracle is that we haven't destroyed ourselves yet.

I suspect that has more to do with good luck, or not as the case may be