scientific reasons for believing in god?

Cool story, bro/a.

As God created the laws of science and logic, his being is free from the restraints of science and cannot be proved using science and logic

I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.

Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.

So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.

Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.

But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.

Wouldn't scientific evidence aka physical, tangible, visible, audible proof of God's existence

defeat the purpose of belief?

Also there "is" something called the "god particle."

I'm gonna ignore your question and answer my own one which arised from the title.

Societies that are religious can effectively ensure everyone in the society is following rules, and reproduces. Religion and fear in God polices people to behave in ways beneficial to the society, and this is what 99% of the Bible points towards. For example, the 7 deadly sins are coincidentally the 7 things that ruin relationships / business partnerships / families. Societies that use religion come out as more stable, they tend to grow in numbers, and are therefore stronger.

So belief in God is a consequence of the evolution of society. Religious societies tended to survive more than atheistic ones, and hence conquer most of the Earth.

Another theory is that there is a "God Gene" in people, which is a consequence of evolution of genetics. The idea is, a belief in God forces a person to a) generally act more responsibly in a group and thus ensure it's survival and b) believe his life has a meaning, and therefore not kill himself out of existentialism.

But should you believe in God's actual existence? Only if you're retarded. Once you see that it is (a very respectable) trick to change people behaviour, you open a pandora's box you cannot close and undo your enlightenment. No wonder atheists were killed before they could spread their heresy and make society collapse.

clearly every single point you made is ridiculous, so i am not going to try and prove you wrong because you'll just say "what is evidence/??? be clear buddy =) "

so, please give me another example of what you would class as evidence and we'll go from there

But that's not the issue though. And why would it defeat the purpose? You can still believe in something while there's evidence for it.

The God particle has nothing to do with proving God's existence...

Belief is not having physical, tangible etc proof. But still having faith that it exists.

Knowledge is having physical, tangible proof.
Once you know there's no point to believe. Because you're not believing...you're...knowing...get it?

religion=belief
science=knowledge.

the two don't go together.

You're confusing belief specifically with faith. Why is there no point in believing if you have evidence? Plenty of religious people say they have evidence for their God through holy texts or otherwise and they still believe. Why, according to you, is belief in something without evidence so important?

When did I emphasise the importance of belief. I simply stated the difference between belief and knowledge.

If someone asks you where something is and you said, "I believe so."
That means it's not a fact you are confident in.

If you say, "I know it's here." Unless you're pathologically arrogant, you know it's there because you had ocular proof. You saw it. You don't need ocular proof to know there is a God because you BELIEVE there is one is simply my point. I'm not confusing anything.

What does your 3rd sentence even mean? Are you referring to the prophets who wrote it?
And most religious people have never seen God nor do they claim to The ones who claim it are considered prophets...obviously...because they're special. Most "religious people" go on belief/never having seen or heard in physical form, but still have confidence it's there.

If we start from the premise that our human senses are fallible; our eyes often fail us, we hear things incorrectly, should we not then exercise the greatest caution in regards to human testimony?

I am always reminded in these conversations of Thomas Hobbes who once asked what is the difference between saying "I dreamt God spoke to me" and "God spoke to me in a dream."

Just out of curiosity, is the o/a distinction there supposed to encode that you call girls 'bra'?

Faith is clearly not the same as everyday "belief". The former is belief in something for which most would say it's impossible to even obtain evidence. Belief used in the mundane sense is mostly a case of talking about something which is likely and evidence COULD be found for it, if necessary, that's the point. If someone asks me if my friend is in the library and I say "I believe so", I could actually find out and physically prove or disprove this.

And I would have thought that the last point was obvious. Many religious people do see their holy texts as "evidence" for God. They don't necessarily need to have seen God to believe this.

'metaphysics' is a higher level science.

time can move backwards and forwards in the quantum

Yes you can find out what you believe, how though?
By walking towards it and lifting up a mattress or what have you and confirming its existence when you see it there.

You cannot do that with God. No one has or will. That is the purpose of prophets and Jesus and the Messiah, to represent God who will not be seen ever. He's not your car keys you left under the couch that you have to believe is somewhere and then crawl around to discover the location to know that it is in fact there. That's all I'm saying, I never stressed my particular beliefs. Just pointing out the lack of logic in the OP title. There can be no scientific evidence of God. That's why the two worlds so timelessly clash.

Very few con artists would be willing to die for their con. What this means is that they were either a very large group sharing a similar insanity(Very unlikely) or they were not.

An interventionist god must leave a trace in the physical world by definition and this can be tested to disprove or prove his existence. The most obvious examples of this are miracles and the effectiveness of prayer. A deity could very easily provide scientific, physical proof for his existence. If he refuses to do so then he cannot blame people for not being convinced he exists.

A con artist is someone who knows what is true, but says otherwise.

If my hearing failed me, but I don't know it failed me, and I heard someone shout my name, I would be utterly convinced that someone called my name. But my conviction should not be the determining factor as to whether or not the event occurred.


Now what David Hume points out as being one of the biggest issues is the conflicting nature of most religious beliefs. We have millions of people speaking with complete and utter conviction and who are willing to die for their beliefs, claiming that they hold the truth in regards to God, and many of these beliefs conflict one another. Are we to assume they are all right because they are numerous and hold their convictions so dearly, even though they conflict with one another?

Erm like you said, gods or the Jewish and Christian God, leave "signs" of their existence through miracles and yes, answered prayers.

Which for thousands of years, gods have done and God has done.
So he exists, to those who believe, even if their prayers haven't been exactly answered, or if they've never experienced "miracles." People who pray for whatever and it comes true, should then KNOW He exists. People who just keep praying without immediate results still BELIEVE.

But the issue here is what scientists, mainly atheists who turn to science, DON'T believe in God, because they "can't see him or prove he's here."

Is that not the argument?