Can the existence of God be proved through scientific inquiry? (page 5)

PSacramento

We cab choose to believe or not but only 'God' can prove his own existence to humans. So the amount of debate about whether he exists, proves that either:

You are quite right, only God can prove that God exists.

He does not have the ability to prove his existence.

He does not exist outside of believers minds.

He has decided that humans are not worth proving his existence to.

He prefers to keep us guessing because he's shy.

There are other possibilities but in his continued absence we can only surmise.

IF and this is a big IF, God sees that faith is the KEY attribute that he looks for then proving his existence in a way that doesn't require faith may be outside his "master plan".

It could be that God proving his existence beyond doubt is NOT the point of God actually exisiting.

Revelation warns us that even after 1000 years of knowing God and Jesus, when Satan is let lose again, many will still follow Him against God.

There may be indeed a very good reason why an allknowing being chooses to not make its precense known in a 100% proved and factual way so as to convince ALL that he exists.

Perhaps that upon his "revelation" beyond any doubt, things will change forever and that may not be in the best interest of human evolution.

Perhaps the pinacle of human evolution is "to be with God" and that comes not view God revealing himself ( doing the work for us) bit by us "finding him".

caliber - Sorry for any offense, but your manner of posting on the first page of this thread is indistinguishable from trolling. If you start a post on a forum full of right-wingers with "I would like to know how a bunch of rural hicks think about this subject" you're not really fostering constructive discussion. The same goes for your introductory sentence. Further, most of your early responses were gleeful little one-liners that erected new strawmen and didn't actually contain any new information.

bohm - I agree with you that God or anything supernatural is not scientific because it has no explanatory power and is does not make testable predictions. But I think you get off track with your "cheese moon" example. If this did happen to the moon, it would be very strange. It may imply that something "beyond the universe" is acting in the world. However, that's as far as one could go. The universe may be a simulation running on a super-intelligent alien's computer. Or any other crazy idea. We could say "the moon is now cheese" but explaining how or what supernatural things caused it is impossible. How would you know that turning the moon to cheese is something God would do? How does his supernatural causation work to influence the universe? How do you know it's any particular God, and not a supernatural pickle? (since no one knows what a supernatural pickle would do)

If someone came up with a robust way to describe supernatural agents, their motivations, how they act, and their relationship with the universe, then you could study them scientifically. Basically, the supernatural would become "natural".

God could prove himself by some sort of personal revelation, but this would not be testable, and it's really hard to tell the difference between mental illness and some supposed supernatural communication.

notverylikely

IF and this is a big IF, God sees that faith is the KEY attribute that he looks for then proving his existence in a way that doesn't require faith may be outside his "master plan".

Maybe, my friend, but if so, God shouldn't run his love like the CIA, where everyone is on a need to know basis.