Scientific evidence for Christianity

The Pixie

Well-known member
A poster on another thread claims he used the scientific method to the God portrayed in the Bible exists.

Because I did what every scientist has done for centuries---- I used the tools, information, materials, etc.... to follow the scientific method.
the evidence I obtained has resulted in my being convinced that God is exactly whom he describes himself as in the bible.

I would like to invite him to talk us through some of that.

For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, it is broadly building a hypothesis based on observations, and then evaluating the hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and testing those predictions. The more predictions that are tested and confirmed, and the bolder the predictions, the more certain we can be that the hypothesis is right, or is at least a good model.
 

5wize

Well-known member
A poster on another thread claims he used the scientific method to the God portrayed in the Bible exists.



I would like to invite him to talk us through some of that.

For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, it is broadly building a hypothesis based on observations, and then evaluating the hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and testing those predictions. The more predictions that are tested and confirmed, and the bolder the predictions, the more certain we can be that the hypothesis is right, or is at least a good model.
I called him out on that and asked him for his research notes into his full-emersion studies of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.... as the proper comparisons to eliminate placebo and confirmation bias.

He doesn't have them. He's not so scientific.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
A poster on another thread claims he used the scientific method to the God portrayed in the Bible exists.



I would like to invite him to talk us through some of that.

For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, it is broadly building a hypothesis based on observations, and then evaluating the hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and testing those predictions. The more predictions that are tested and confirmed, and the bolder the predictions, the more certain we can be that the hypothesis is right, or is at least a good model.
It's not complicated.

When reading Journal articles, some scientists actually want to know for themselves if the author's claims are true or not. Sometimes out of curiosity, and others because they'd done something similar, but it didn't work.

So....
They examine the Journal article, work through the details of the experiment, check the data, and then using the same equipment, procedures, instruments, etc..... perform the experiment.

Now, a skilled scientist, with previous experience will know where the pitfalls are, and look for the data referencing such in the journal, or other reports dealing with a comparable experiment.
An unskilled, or less-experienced scientist will not be readily looking for such, and just focus on the data itself.

One thing I've never heard of is a scientist who'll run back to the previous author, after only one or two trials, and claim he's a fraud.

They'll continue to perform the experiment, looking closely at their procedures, the data, the equipment used, room conditions, instruments, etc....

They then document their findings--- including nuances--- and present them to the original author, or peer review process, so such can be corroborated.
Note that they won't talk to non-experienced, non-scientific types about it, who have no experience, or expertise on the specified field of study.

So, when someone like the atheists here tells me they've "done christianity before", but are not able to describe to be their experiences, I find myself scratching my head, wondering why not.

and I'm led invariably back to my studies in physics---- they can't describe it because they didn't actually do what Jesus said. They did what they believed was christianity, but not what it actually is.
they may have indeed grown up in a church, or attended a group, maybe even read the bible--- or "much" "some" "part" of the bible-- but not enough to have actually learned or done what is stated we're to do, to know.

You see, when a scientist does experiments, they're actually interested in learning the truth regarding that topic of interest. They're not trying to win an argument, or prove someone else wrong--- they want to know the truth.
And as Truth is always at the heart of scientific inquiry, there's not supposed to be any room for pettiness, or one-upsmanship.

This is why I find myself so curious about people who tell me they did not have my experience with what they call christianity, and I keep telling them it's about Jesus, not an institutional religion.

Scientific inquiry is about learning. It's about seeking understanding. Gallileo did not seek to prove he could be better than anyone else--- he wanted to understand what he was investigating.

Same with Copernicus.
Same with Newton, Euler, and the others.

So..... if you want to "do what scientists" do.... then start reading.
Start taking the time.
Read.
Learn.
Document
make inquiry--- not for the sake of berating/belittling-- for the sake of learning to understand.

As God is a person, and Christianity is not a philosophy, don't try to debate this from your perspective.
Take this from the perspective that you're engaging a real person (from the perspective that you've never met them before).


We who have met God, and Jesus, and whom God and Jesus have introduced themselves to..... we came at this not having a clue how it "was supposed to be done." We came, as "scientists" making inquiry, so we could better know the truth whereof we were instructed.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
It's not complicated.
...
We came, as "scientists" making inquiry, so we could better know the truth whereof we were instructed.
You have said a lot of words, but utterly failed to answer the question. I am not asking what scientists do, I am asking what scientific evidence you have, Steve.

You made the claim. You specifically stated that you have evidence obtained via the scientific method. But when challenged, you have nothing. No actual evidence at all.

Because it does not exist, does it? It is all just a fantasy in your head.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
You have said a lot of words, but utterly failed to answer the question. I am not asking what scientists do, I am asking what scientific evidence you have, Steve.

You made the claim. You specifically stated that you have evidence obtained via the scientific method. But when challenged, you have nothing. No actual evidence at all.

Because it does not exist, does it? It is all just a fantasy in your head.
Do what Jesus said, and you'll be able to answer that question for yourself.

I have the same evidence that every other Jesus follower has had for millennia.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
I have the same evidence that every other Jesus follower has had for millennia.
Yes, and that would be no evidence. That's why you keep dodging when asked for it. An actual scientist will acknowledge when replication fails. They will not just insist that everyone else must be doing it wrong, and that they need to go back and try again with a whole heart, and keep trying for the rest of their lives until they get the same result. An actual scientist will look at the evidence against their view as well as that which they think supports it, and will acknowledge their mistakes and accept that they might be wrong.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Do what Jesus said, and you'll be able to answer that question for yourself.

It's glaringly obvious you have no answer to the question yourself. Why did you brag about having scientific evidence for your Christian beliefs when the simple fact is you don't?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
It's glaringly obvious you have no answer to the question yourself. Why did you brag about having scientific evidence for your Christian beliefs when the simple fact is you don't?
Because Steve wants his beliefs to sound authoritative, important, real.
 

Andy Sist

Active member
Because Steve wants his beliefs to sound authoritative, important, real.
One common phenomenon seen in almost every Born-Again is a desperate and continuous effort to argue what he/she now accepts is REAL and THE TRUTH. This is done more to convince themselves he/she made the right decision to be "Born Again" than to convince others. This particular BA seems to have a rather horrific and chronic case of it. Virtually every post is about self-reinforcement of his belief he did the only possible right thing and that any other ideas must be wrong. Sad really.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Yes, and that would be no evidence. That's why you keep dodging when asked for it. An actual scientist will acknowledge when replication fails. They will not just insist that everyone else must be doing it wrong, and that they need to go back and try again with a whole heart, and keep trying for the rest of their lives until they get the same result. An actual scientist will look at the evidence against their view as well as that which they think supports it, and will acknowledge their mistakes and accept that they might be wrong.
As stated hundreds of times before, if you actually want evidence, you have to do what Jesus said.

Complaining about this only makes you irrelevant.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
It's glaringly obvious you have no answer to the question yourself. Why did you brag about having scientific evidence for your Christian beliefs when the simple fact is you don't?
If you don't care, then don't engage.

When reading Journal articles, some scientists actually want to know for themselves if the author's claims are true or not. Sometimes out of curiosity, and others because they'd done something similar, but it didn't work. So.... They examine the Journal article, work through the details of the experiment, check the data, and then using the same equipment, procedures, instruments, etc..... perform the experiment. Now, a skilled scientist, with previous experience will know where the pitfalls are, and look for the data referencing such in the journal, or other reports dealing with a comparable experiment. An unskilled, or less-experienced scientist will not be readily looking for such, and just focus on the data itself.
 

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
As stated hundreds of times before, if you actually want evidence, you have to do what Jesus said.

Complaining about this only makes you irrelevant.
Being vague like this makes you irrelevant. As does your complete failure to address the content of my post.

Tell me something Jesus said to do, that I haven't already done, and that you did prior to getting a response from God, and I'll do it.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
A poster on another thread claims he used the scientific method to the God portrayed in the Bible exists.



I would like to invite him to talk us through some of that.

For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, it is broadly building a hypothesis based on observations, and then evaluating the hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and testing those predictions. The more predictions that are tested and confirmed, and the bolder the predictions, the more certain we can be that the hypothesis is right, or is at least a good model.
It might be hard to use the scientific method for studying God because you would need a test group where God does not exist in order to compare it to the group where he does exist. IOW an omnipotent entity who transcends time and space cannot be excluded from one group of test subjects while another contains him.

Although, I have read about observational studies testing prayer for curing medical illness and it did not find a difference in results. One group had family praying and another group had nobody praying. The outcomes were the same suggesting prayers for actual diagnosed illness is the same in both groups.

Does that mean God does not exist? Not sure what it proves other than our prayers are not always answered and that could be a good thing. Nevertheless, if we pray according to his will then scripture says it is supposed to happen. I guess the trick is knowing his will which is easier said than done.
 
Last edited:

Komodo

Well-known member
Steve is not (as requested) showing scientific evidence for Christianity; he is attempting to show that those who have challenged his claims (that there is a simple way of knowing that God and Jesus are real) are not following the scientific method. He does not succeed. (I've numbered my claims for convenience, so that if Steve wants to dispute any of them, he can say "#6 is wrong, because...")

When reading Journal articles, some scientists actually want to know for themselves if the author's claims are true or not. Sometimes out of curiosity, and others because they'd done something similar, but it didn't work.

So....
They examine the Journal article, work through the details of the experiment, check the data, and then using the same equipment, procedures, instruments, etc..... perform the experiment.
(1) To make sense of this, in the context of Steve's argument, we would translate "Journal articles" into "personal testimonies about how the author found Jesus"; (2) similarly, "the details of the experiment / the data" represents "the details of the narrative; the sequence of steps which led to finding Jesus"; and (3) "using the same equipment [etc.] perform the experiment" represents "take the same series of steps taken by the author."

(4) In Steve's case, "the details of the narrative" are very sparse. He says he asked God if He was real, or if it was all made up BS. (5) So that is all the "scientific tester" needs to do to confirm or not confirm Steve's hypothesis, that there is a simple way of knowing that God and Jesus are real: ask the question that Steve asked. (6) He can't claim that there are additional "details of the experiment" which the tester is overlooking, because he gave us no such additional details. (7) He can't claim that there are differences in "equipment," because we all have the same relevant equipment in performing this experiment: a brain and a tongue with which to ask the question, "God, are you real?"

(8) So when an atheist uses that same "equipment" (brain and/or tongue) to perform the "experiment" (asking God if he is real) as described in Steve's "Journal Article," the atheist is doing everything which Steve demands of anyone who wants to follow the scientific method. (9) And if the atheist receives a null result (no detectable response from God), that counts every bit as much as a failure for Steve's hypothesis as Steve's own story counts as a success for the hypothesis.

Now Steve goes on to say...

Now, a skilled scientist, with previous experience will know where the pitfalls are, and look for the data referencing such in the journal, or other reports dealing with a comparable experiment.
An unskilled, or less-experienced scientist will not be readily looking for such, and just focus on the data itself.

One thing I've never heard of is a scientist who'll run back to the previous author, after only one or two trials, and claim he's a fraud.

They'll continue to perform the experiment, looking closely at their procedures, the data, the equipment used, room conditions, instruments, etc....
...but of course (10) he does not give the slightest hint of what "equipment used, room conditions, instruments" are or represent in the case of accepting or rejecting the Steve Hypothesis (that one can tell that God and Jesus are real by asking if they are real), and it's not at all likely he will do so now. Does he mean "you have to do it at a low point in your life, as I did"? or "you have to do it in a crowded room, as I did"? If so, then obviously not all of us can perform the experiment. If not, I don't know what he's suggesting.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Steve is not (as requested) showing scientific evidence for Christianity; he is attempting to show that those who have challenged his claims (that there is a simple way of knowing that God and Jesus are real) are not following the scientific method. He does not succeed. (I've numbered my claims for convenience, so that if Steve wants to dispute any of them, he can say "#6 is wrong, because...")


(1) To make sense of this, in the context of Steve's argument, we would translate "Journal articles" into "personal testimonies about how the author found Jesus"; (2) similarly, "the details of the experiment / the data" represents "the details of the narrative; the sequence of steps which led to finding Jesus"; and (3) "using the same equipment [etc.] perform the experiment" represents "take the same series of steps taken by the author."

(4) In Steve's case, "the details of the narrative" are very sparse. He says he asked God if He was real, or if it was all made up BS. (5) So that is all the "scientific tester" needs to do to confirm or not confirm Steve's hypothesis, that there is a simple way of knowing that God and Jesus are real: ask the question that Steve asked. (6) He can't claim that there are additional "details of the experiment" which the tester is overlooking, because he gave us no such additional details. (7) He can't claim that there are differences in "equipment," because we all have the same relevant equipment in performing this experiment: a brain and a tongue with which to ask the question, "God, are you real?"

(8) So when an atheist uses that same "equipment" (brain and/or tongue) to perform the "experiment" (asking God if he is real) as described in Steve's "Journal Article," the atheist is doing everything which Steve demands of anyone who wants to follow the scientific method. (9) And if the atheist receives a null result (no detectable response from God), that counts every bit as much as a failure for Steve's hypothesis as Steve's own story counts as a success for the hypothesis.

Now Steve goes on to say...


...but of course (10) he does not give the slightest hint of what "equipment used, room conditions, instruments" are or represent in the case of accepting or rejecting the Steve Hypothesis (that one can tell that God and Jesus are real by asking if they are real), and it's not at all likely he will do so now. Does he mean "you have to do it at a low point in your life, as I did"? or "you have to do it in a crowded room, as I did"? If so, then obviously not all of us can perform the experiment. If not, I don't know what he's suggesting.
It must really suck to lack the courage to take the time to read the bible, learn what is necessary to do what Jesus said, and then take the time that the rest of us Jesus followers have been doing for 1987 years.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "personal testimonies" and everything to do with you taking responsibility for your own actions.

That you actually think it's about testimonies demonstrates just how huge your biases and preconceptions are.
 
Top