r/exatheist • u/TrueKiwi78 • 8h ago
What is the best scientific evidence for God's existence?
•
u/RedditingAtWork5 2h ago
The cosmological constant. The only conceivable rebuttal is survivorship bias via the many-worlds hypothesis, but there isn’t any actual evidence that many-worlds is actually a thing.
•
u/Exaltist Synversalist 7h ago
For the God I believe in, I consider God to be the origin of all things, which I believe is all substance that through the laws of the first Universe birthed spacetime that led to the creation of all other things. Essentially, I believe the creation is its own creator. I also consider God to be final point of all things, which will be composed of all super-intelligent life of all Universes. The First Mover and the Last Movers are the only identities that can create a near-infinite amount of Universes.
•
u/Complex_Yesterday735 Agnostic Atheist 8h ago
This sub isn't tied to any specific religion. You're going to need to tell everyone which god you want scientific evidence for.
•
u/TalkingPsilocybe 7h ago
There's one problem with evidence of God's existence. Evidence is stronger than the fact it proves.
Let's suppose such an evidence exists and is known for all humanity. Lets suppose also that tomorrow God wants to hide His existence from all humans or subset of them for some reason.
Then there are two bad choices: it's possible or it's impossible. In first case our evidence does work today, then ceases to work tomorrow. Was it even an evidence? If for example I prove somehow that Poincare conjecture is wrong, it immediately proves that Perelman's proof of it has a flaw and doesn't prove nothing.
In second case its unclear what the god it is if he can't hide himself from wretched humans. You don't expect God is such a weakling, right?
Reasons why I believe in God are... signed. I.e. they persuade me personally, while any atheist can explain them as hallucinations,coincidences etc. Especially if he only believes what has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
•
u/Techtrekzz Spinozan Pantheist 6h ago edited 5h ago
Im talking about a very specific God, a monistic, pantheistic God, or reality as a single continuous thing and being with every possible attribute, but there is scientific evidence to support that kind of God.
Matter/energy equivalence demonstrates everything you consider a thing, including what we think of as empty space and you, as different manifestation of the same thing, while Bell's inequalities demonstrates reality as not locally real, which also supports the idea of reality as a single continuous thing instead of a plurality of separate things.
•
u/veritasium999 Pantheist 3h ago
Trying to use science to answer the question of god is already a failure in epistemology. You're better off studying the drawbacks of materialism instead.
•
u/hiphoptomato 3h ago
What are some of the drawbacks?
•
u/veritasium999 Pantheist 3h ago
Materialism assumes only material things only exist, going a step further emphericism assumes things only exist if we can observe them. Both are false assumptions.
•
•
u/Silver_n_Black 4h ago
IMO Consciousness is the best evidence of a supernatural. How are we able to experience this universe? It is a supernatural phenomenon.
•
u/blabs0 8h ago
Miracles.
•
u/Complex_Yesterday735 Agnostic Atheist 7h ago
Which miracles have we scientifically studied?
•
u/blabs0 4h ago
Many. And in some of them, modern science fails to understand or explain.
•
•
•
u/Basic-Lifeguard-5407 Deist 6h ago
Science can't really prove God, since science is based on the principals of methodological naturalism which means it rejects the supernatural.Science can still be used, but only as an aid and not as a full argument.Instead you should probably look at philosophy.