scientific reasons for believing in god?

That has not been proved at all.

It is impossible to be specific: you can only characterise the evidence.

Perfect! Then you accept first person testimonies and the thread is solved. Welcome to your newfound faith.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that you need specific types of evidence, in which case I'll ask you for a seventh time: What evidence will you accept? Please be specific.

So how does the multiverse create our universe?

just gonna assume you're trolling at this point

not a clue, not even sure scientists really know

I actually would suggest you're the one for trolling. You're demanding evidence but refusing to be specific as to the type of evidence you will accept: You ask a question, then move the goalposts when the question is answered, then accuse others of 'Trolling' when they ask for specifics of what you're looking for. If you are, indeed, curious and not trolling, then I will ask for a tenth time:

What evidence are you looking for? Please be specfic.

I want to know by which methodology he will accept the proof. At that point, we would establish a baseline - Things that we both agree are probably true -

Things you both agree are probably true. Is that a firm base for a scientific enquiry?

Well, we've already established that using a 'scientific inquiry' isn't a sound basis for proving or disproving a being's existence. It's absurd.

If he wants natural evidence, I would probably start with something we both believe is probably true, like the big bang, and build from there.

So, unable to meet his requirement for scientific evidence, you intend to palm him off with the usual illogical, self-referential and superstitious nonsense?

That's what I was looking for - Essentially to prove the absurdity of the question. "Dove soap floats" - We know this because a scientist somewhere took Dove soap, pushed it to the bottom of a tub of water, watched as it rode and made a check on a sheet.

He then repeated this, reported his findings and was independently corroborated. This is why we, scientifically, know that this is a fact.

The existence of individuals is much more problematic: Without visiting Outer Mongolia, one has no way of 'proving' that Outer Mongolia exists or that its capital is Ulan Batuur. We accept that it does because people tell us it does and the idea is within our sphere of experience.

God is beyond most people's experiences. If you then discount all first person testimonies as the ravings of madmen and con artists, you have essentially dismissed any acceptable evidence of God. Of course, you have also discounted all evidence of George Washington, any Pharoah in Egypt and the vast majority of the many billions of people here as well.

So the original posters question is either meaningless just as 'Please provide scientific evidence of Julius Caesar's life' would be as a post(Because you cannot recreate in a controlled environment the birth, life and death of Julius Caesar as the Scientific Method requires for the evidence he's looking for) or it is an actively malevolent attempt to simply say 'Not evidence' again and again and again.

Because I do not believe that the original poster is either malevolent or foolish, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking for an 8th time: What evidence will you accept? Please be specific.

Yes. The context is important though. It was in a thread specifically looking for scientific reasons to believe in deities, though, wasn't it? I think the default sort of useful evidence would be scientific, don't you? I'm not sure eyewitness evidence cuts it in that scenario.



So, not very reliable at all, unless corroborated, then? Or from an unimpeachable source, one with a proven record of telling the truth and not being mistaken? The key question being how to discriminate between contradictory sources.

You're example of an unimpeachable source. Perhaps the person's education and upbringing make it improbable that he would be mistaken. Say, the testimony of a doctor of the wounds which caused a man's death. Or a professional historian retelling an event he has investigated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm assuming you're going to use the fact that the Apostles included both a historian and a doctor. I would have followed up with discussions of the Patrologia. But until we discover what the original poster actually will accept by evidence, it's meaningless. Hopefully, he will respond with what he will accept.

I actually would suggest you're the one for trolling. You're demanding evidence but refusing to be specific as to the type of evidence you will accept: You ask a question, then move the goalposts when the question is answered, then accuse others of 'Trolling' when they ask for specifics of what you're looking for. If you are, indeed, curious and not trolling, then I will ask for a tenth time:

What evidence are you looking for? Please be specfic.

Are you trolling? Scientific reasons for believing in God are....0. I'll take my atheism marinaded in science thank you.

evidenceˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/noun
Give me information which indicates that a belief in god is true. I literally cannot be more specific without actually giving evidence myself.

And if you think a "first-hand account" is evidence, then I would refer you back to my point about UFOs.

evidenceˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/noun
Give me information which indicates that a belief in god is true. I literally cannot be more specific without actually giving evidence myself.

And if you think a "first-hand account" is evidence, then I would refer you back to my point about UFOs.