Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Crypto2015]

I have been viewing all the discussions on religious debates on this website and some very smart people are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain their version of god or religion or lack thereof. I have looked at a thread that has been going back and forth between two people mainly for over a year and they are still ongoing. How can someone argue with different religions, different sects and people within those groups that believe different parts of those religions. There are people that have strict interpretations and others believe it is just a guideline or allegory. There are people that only believe certain parts of the bible that suits them. There are people that use the Bible only because it gives them an advantage. Take for example Trump, who decides that to get votes he needs to bring a Bible to a rally. The man doesn't even know how to say Second Corinthians. And there are very good reasons for people within those groups to maintain those beliefs as they are very lucrative and I might say, tax free. Once you begin to see that each person decides what he or she wants to believe it starts to become clear that it is we that invented religion and it is we that invented God, not the other way around. If it makes people comfortable to believe in the Bible so be it. But I would say this. Rather than just reading and re-reading the Bible until you have it all memorized, why not read some other non-fiction books?

Then you haven't understood what you have read.

 

[ArtieE]

We have plenty of biblical and extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and burial (see the Talmud, the four Gospels, Tacitus's writings, Pliny's writings, Suetonious's writings, Josephus's writings, etc.).

I would be very interested if you have a link to a site that has collected what the Talmud and Tacitus and Pliny and Suetonious and Josephus etc have said about Jesus' crucifixion and burial.

 

[Crypto2015]

I would be very interested if you have a link to a site that has collected what the Talmud and Tacitus and Pliny and Suetonious and Josephus etc have said about Jesus' crucifixion and burial.

Sure. Here they are:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

https://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

 

[Sapiens]

No. Science cannot tell us anything about the probability of God's existence because probabilities are ultimately based on observations and there isn't a single observation disproving the existence of God. It is not as if you could lift a rock and say: "Aha, God is not here" because God may well be there (actually he is), but we fail to detect him because our observations are limited to the natural plane of existence, whereas God is not.

If your god likes to play childish hide and seek games that would effect the odds, however the basic concept, that science can not prove that there is not god stands.

What's the difference between God and the Tooth Fairy? The difference between the Christian God and the Tooth Fairy is that the Christian God has actually given plenty of evidence for his existence. For example, Jesus' resurrection is the only way to explain the creation and growth of the early church, especially in Jerusalem.

Really? I think not. Your construct can be similarly applied to "prove" each and every religion that has ever secured a toehold in human consciousness. Christianity is no different.

We have plenty of biblical and extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and burial (see the Talmud, the four Gospels, Tacitus's writings, Pliny's writings, Suetonious's writings, Josephus's writings, etc.).

We've been through this hundreds of times now (literally). I think that we approach consensus that the historical record is inadequate to demonstrate an historical Jesus and that what "evidence" there is, is of a more inferential nature.

If Jesus' corpse was buried in the rather small town of Jerusalem, why didn't his opponents prevent the rise of Christianity by simply producing his body?

Perhaps the entire thing is a fairy tale?

Furthermore, Jerusalem was full of people who had seen Jesus alive.

A claim that is unsupported and unsupportable.

Why didn't they contradict the apostles when the latter publicly talked about the miracles performed by Jesus? Why would the apostles and early Christians start a movement based on something that they knew it was a lie, considering that they knew that their only reward would be persecutions, torture, and death?

They likely did not see it as a lie, but that does not begin to make it the truth.

 

[Sapiens]

Then you haven't understood what you have read.

The same observation can be directed at you. Personal "truth" often lies in the eye of presupposition.

 

[Crypto2015]

If your god likes to play childish hide and seek games that would effect the odds, however the basic concept, that science can not prove that there is not god stands.
Really? I think not. Your construct can be similarly applied to "prove" each and every religion that has ever secured a toehold in human consciousness. Christianity is no different.
We've been through this hundreds of times now (literally). I think that we approach consensus that the historical record is inadequate to demonstrate an historical Jesus and that what "evidence" there is, is of a more inferential nature.
Perhaps the entire thing is a fairy tale?
A claim that is unsupported and unsupportable.

They likely did not see it as a lie, but that does not begin to make it the truth.

What makes you think that you can see God with your naked eyes? That would be like like lifting stones to try and catch a glimpse of a neutrino. Imagine how many stones you would have to lift in order to see you first neutrino. Yet, as we all know, neutrinos are as real as you and me. You say that the historical record is inadequate to demonstrate a historical Jesus. This is simply utterly false. The overwhelming majority of historians, Christian or not, agree that Jesus' death by crucifixion is as historical a fact as any other fact of history. I can prove this with quotes. Can you prove your wild assertions?

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][9][55][56]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

 

[Walter Russell]

I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.

Walter Rusells book "A New Concept of the Universe" went virtually ignored by mainstream science. What Russell put forth was a theory of the method used by the creator to create the universe while filling in the gaps of current scientific theory and correcting theoretical errors, all in a way that could be tested by scientific methods.

Russell was clearly ahead of his time and would be today also. His story is proof in my mind that science, alot like religion would rather maintain their egos and status quo than accept to be corrected by a man with lesser credentials.
Funny though that there was no hesitation to use his knowledge to create the atomic bomb when other aspects of his knowledge could have been used to free the world from coal and oil.

 

[Crypto2015]

Walter Rusells book "A New Concept of the Universe" went virtually ignored by mainstream science. What Russell put forth was a theory of the method used by the creator to create the universe while filling in the gaps of current scientific theory and correcting theoretical errors, all in a way that could be tested by scientific methods.

Russell was clearly ahead of his time and would be today also. His story is proof in my mind that science, alot like religion would rather maintain their egos and status quo than accept to be corrected by a man with lesser credentials.
Funny though that there was no hesitation to use his knowledge to create the atomic bomb when other aspects of his knowledge could have been used to free the world from coal and oil.

Interesting.

 

[Sapiens]

What makes you think that you can see God with your naked eyes? That would be like like lifting stones to try and catch a glimpse of a neutrino. Imagine how many stones you would have to lift in order to see you first neutrino. Yet, as we all know, neutrinos are as real as you and me. You say that the historical record is inadequate to demonstrate a historical Jesus. This is simply utterly false. The overwhelming majority of historians, Christian or not, agree that Jesus' death by crucifixion is as historical a fact as any other fact of history. I can prove this with quotes. Can you prove your wild assertions?

You can prove that a majority of rice bowl defending historians will suggest that there was a historical Jesus of one sort or another, but you lack the ability to actually demonstrate a historical Jesus. That is entirely dependent on a special pleading that is outside the classic historical test that requires two contemporaneous cross references.

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][9][55][56]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Even wiki can't save you there.

BTW: Turning over rocks looking for god is not to be taken literally, it is apocryphal, sorta like Jesus.

 

[Crypto2015]

You can prove that a majority of rice bowl defending historians will suggest that there was a historical Jesus of one sort or another, but you lack the ability to actually demonstrate a historical Jesus. That is entirely dependent on a special pleading that is outside the classic historical test that requires two contemporaneous cross references.
Even wiki can't save you there.

BTW: Turning over rocks looking for god is not to be taken literally, it is apocryphal, sorta like Jesus.

First you started by saying that there is no historical evidence for Jesus. Then I showed you that the overwhelming majority of historians agree on the fact that Jesus' baptism and Jesus' crucifixion are historical events. Now you aver that we must apply "special" rules for Christ and that the opinion of the vast majority of historians is not enough for you. Why don't you just admit that you don't care about the evidence and that nothing will alter your irrational faith in the atheistic world view?

 

[Sapiens]

First you started by saying that there is no historical evidence for Jesus. Then I showed you that the overwhelming majority of historians agree on the fact that Jesus' baptism and Jesus' crucifixion are historical events. Now you aver that we must apply "special" rules for Christ and that the opinion of the vast majority of historians is not enough for you. Why don't you just admit that you don't care about the evidence and that nothing will alter your irrational faith in the atheistic world view?

Evidence for a historical Jesus is lacking, you can not come up with even one of the required two contemporaneous cross references no matter how hard you pray or appeal to authority.

"Admitting" to that would be a lie and we atheist scientists work very hard to always tell the truth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

... sorry, couldn't help it..

 

[Crypto2015]

Evidence for a historical Jesus is lacking, you can not come up with even one of the required two contemporaneous cross references no matter how hard you pray or appeal to authority.

"Admitting" to that would be a lie and we atheist scientists work very hard to always tell the truth.

Do you think that historians do not take into consideration that in order for a fact to be considered historical you need at least two contemporaneous cross-references for it? It seems pretty obvious to me that they do, since they know more about what is historical than you or me. That's why the fact that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are considered a historical event by the overwhelming majority of historians, atheists or not, is very, very significant.

Don't hide behind science and do not attribute science to atheism. Many of the most prominent scientists in history were (and are) Christian.

 

[Sapiens]

Do you think that historians do not take into consideration that in order for a fact to be considered historical you need at least two contemporaneous cross-references for it? It seems pretty obvious to me that they do, since they know more about what is historical than you or me. That's why the fact that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus are considered a historical event by the overwhelming majority of historians, atheists or not, is very, very significant.

Don't hide behind science and do not attribute science to atheism. Many of the most prominent scientists in history were (and are) Christian.

If you have the goods, show us, otherwise admit your faceplant of a claim.

 

[Crypto2015]

If you have the goods, show us, otherwise admit your faceplant of a claim.

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][55][56]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[55] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[55] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassmentChristians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[72] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[73][74][75] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[73][75][76]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[77] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[78][79][80]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Regarding multiple independent attestations of contemporaneous persons, you have the the attestations of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Pliny the Young, Josephus, Thallus, and Lucian (I may have forgotten some).

 

[gnostic]

Regarding multiple independent attestations of contemporaneous persons, you have the the attestations of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Pliny the Young, Josephus, Thallus, and Lucian (I may have forgotten some).

Paul never met Jesus.

Authentically, Josephus only mentioned James being the brother of Jesus, give no detail of Jesus said, taught or do. The other thing written about Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities is interpolation by some Christians, therefore not written by Josephus.

A lot more is mentioned about John the Baptist than about Jesus, and Josephus don't even mention any connection between John and Jesus. Josephus make no mention of John baptising Jesus.

And Josephus don't mention anything about John's execution being the result of any deal for an exotic dance; according to Josephus, Herod executed John for political motivation, fearing rebellion.

Tacitus only mention Christians of his time as being followers of Christ. He doesn't say anything about Jesus himself, let alone Jesus' life story. Likewise with Pliny the Young.

I cannot comment on Lucian and Thallus because I have not read anything either one of them have written.

Jesus may exist historically, but other than the gospels, no one outside can give any detail about his life or his teachings.

As to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we don't know who wrote those gospels. Names were added to these gospels in the 2nd century, so the real authorship are not known.

 

[paarsurrey]

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][55][56]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[55] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[55] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassmentChristians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[72] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[73][74][75] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[73][75][76]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[77] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[78][79][80]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Regarding multiple independent attestations of contemporaneous persons, you have the the attestations of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Pliny the Young, Josephus, Thallus, and Lucian (I may have forgotten some).

What is this nearly? Please give in percentages.
Regards

 

[Sapiens]

"There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[11] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][55][56]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[55] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[55] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassmentChristians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[72] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[73][74][75] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[73][75][76]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[77] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[78][79][80]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Events_generally_accepted_as_historical

Regarding multiple independent attestations of contemporaneous persons, you have the the attestations of Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Pliny the Young, Josephus, Thallus, and Lucian (I may have forgotten some).

Your wasting time and space with testimony and appeals to authority ... I asked for your take on the evidence. Do note that none of these are contemporaneous: Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Pliny the Young, Josephus, Thallus, and Lucian.

Wiki is grand, it now reads" "... the only two events, despite the lack of contemporaneous cross-reference, that are subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][11][55][56]"

 

[Crypto2015]

Paul never met Jesus.

Authentically, Josephus only mentioned James being the brother of Jesus, give no detail of Jesus said, taught or do. The other thing written about Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities is interpolation by some Christians, therefore not written by Josephus.

A lot more is mentioned about John the Baptist than about Jesus, and Josephus don't even mention any connection between John and Jesus. Josephus make no mention of John baptising Jesus.

And Josephus don't mention anything about John's execution being the result of any deal for an exotic dance; according to Josephus, Herod executed John for political motivation, fearing rebellion.

Tacitus only mention Christians of his time as being followers of Christ. He doesn't say anything about Jesus himself, let alone Jesus' life story. Likewise with Pliny the Young.

I cannot comment on Lucian and Thallus because I have not read anything either one of them have written.

Jesus may exist historically, but other than the gospels, no one outside can give any detail about his life or his teachings.

As to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we don't know who wrote those gospels. Names were added to these gospels in the 2nd century, so the real authorship are not known.

Paul met the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:8). Both of Josephus's passages are authentic, although one of them seem to contain interpolations. It is noteworthy, however, that those interpolations do not render the passage invalid. Most scholars support this view and therefore accept the fact that Josephus mentions Jesus two times in his "Jewish Antiquities". Also, just because Josephus does not mention something (i.e., a connection between John the Baptist and Jesus), it does not mean that that something didn't happen. Actually the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is nearly universally recognized as a historical event.

Tacitus (56 AD to 117 AD) on Christ:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

Notice that Tacitus hated the Christian movement. Hence, this is evidence from an adversary. As you can see, Tacitus mentions Jesus and his life story.

Suetonious (69 AD to 122 AD) on Christ:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

This is also mentioned in Acts:

"And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them" (Acts 18:2)

He also wrote:

""During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,[43] a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."

Pliny the Younger (62 to 113 AD) on Jesus:

"They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up."

 

[Crypto2015]

What is this nearly? Please give in percentages.
Regards

I don't have percentages. Follow the quotes in wikipedia and you may find them.