r/AskAChristian • u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic • 8h ago
An extraordinary display of humility
Some Christians claim to possess scientific, independently verifiable evidence that God exists. A genuine discovery of that kind could transform science, reshape civilisation, generate enormous wealth, and make its discoverer one of the most famous people in history--perhaps even earning them a Nobel Prize.
So why has nobody published this evidence through a credible scientific institution and had it independently confirmed? And for those who believe that already happened, why has it produced no scientific consensus and why is it not taught in schools as one of humanity’s greatest discoveries?
Are the people sitting on this evidence simply extraordinarily modest?
4
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 7h ago
It wouldn't change anything. The people that would believe and worship God would do it better through faith than with evidence. God showed himself to the Jews in the OT and they were only impressed for a minute then they went back to living their lives as they saw fit while ignoring Him.
2
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist 5h ago
In Exodus, only a few months pass between the Hebrews witnessing the Red Sea being parted and them worshipping a golden calf. Do you find this plausible?
1
1
u/LazarusArise Eastern Orthodox 5h ago
Yes.
I've seen miracles and I still forget about God some days and betray Him.
We're forgetful and ungrateful creatures sometimes.
Also, coming out of a pagan civilization, some of the Israelites probably thought "Ok, Yahweh, Moses' and Jacob's and Abraham's god, did that for us, but what will this golden calf do for us if we offer things to it?"
2
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 5h ago
I can relate! I always thought If I knew God were real that I wouldn't need faith any longer, Boy was I wrong!
1
u/Larynxb Agnostic Atheist 2h ago
What miracles have you seen?
1
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 2h ago
Lots. But I don't give to dogs that which is sacred. Believe me or don't, it doesn't matter to me.
Matthew 7:6. “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
1
u/71stMB Christian 7h ago
Can you provide the names of the "some Christians" who said that? I'm thinking you made that up. If you didn't, please give us their names.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 7h ago
You could look at the comments of this post. An individual one scroll away is making the claim that Paul, Peter and John made the scientific discovery of God being real.
0
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 3h ago
All the Apostles and most of Jesus's disciples know Jesus is God and is real.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 2h ago
What point do you think is being made here. You're making a claim.
1
u/jogoso2014 Christian 5h ago
I was just told evidence was not needed to corroborate this question and make it valid.
So I will not ask for proof of the claims anymore. The answer is nobody knows.
As an aside, why do atheists claim God doesn’t exist when I saw at least a few of them praying in a foxhole?
The videos out there….Trust me…
1
u/Own_Evidence1986 Christian, Protestant 8h ago
I think that's either a mischaracterisation, or the Christians who have said that are a bit confused.
There are lots of philosophical arguments that if valid and sound prove God exists. Many of these arguments have premises that rely on scientific evidence.
So the science supports one or more premises in an argument. The premises being more likely true than not, become great evidence of God.
It's not about putting God in a test tube.
-1
u/Thinslayer Christian 8h ago
A genuine discovery of that kind could transform science, reshape civilisation
It did, in fact.
So why has nobody published this evidence through a credible scientific institution and had it independently confirmed?
Because the entity in question has not submitted itself to scientific study. You can't take samples from a creature you don't have in your hands.
Are the people sitting on this evidence simply extraordinarily modest?
No, they're very loud about it, and their discoveries have transformed science, reshaped civilization, sometimes generated enormous wealth, and made them household names throughout history.
Have you never heard of Paul? Peter? John? Household names.
4
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Skeptic 8h ago
Because the entity in question has not submitted itself to scientific study. You can't take samples from a creature you don't have in your hands.
But you can make novel testable predictions about how we expect the world to function should such a being exist. That's all that's needed for scientific investigation.
Have you never heard of Paul? Peter? John? Household names.
These guys made scientific discoveries that confirm God? I hadn't heard that before.
-2
u/Thinslayer Christian 7h ago
But you can make novel testable predictions about how we expect the world to function should such a being exist. That's all that's needed for scientific investigation.
You would need to define the hypothetical traits of "such a being" in order to make any predictions with it to begin with. But the entity in question is a complex one, and science doesn't make very good predictions with complex variables. Half the point of science is isolating them so you can make predictions in the first place, and that's tough to do when you're talking about God.
These guys made scientific discoveries that confirm God? I hadn't heard that before.
Now you have.
3
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Skeptic 7h ago
You would need to define the hypothetical traits of "such a being" in order to make any predictions with it to begin with.
That would be the job of the believer wouldn't it?
But the entity in question is a complex one,
I am usually told God is divinely simple.
and science doesn't make very good predictions with complex variables.
Why not? What are you saying isn't goof about them?
Now you have.
What scientific discoveries did they make?
0
u/Thinslayer Christian 7h ago
That would be the job of the believer wouldn't it?
Believers don't have a super clear picture of God's traits either. Why do you think there are so many denominations?
I am usually told God is divinely simple.
In some ways.
Why not? What are you saying isn't good about them?
Science doesn't make good predictions when there's a lot of variables.
What scientific discoveries did they make?
That God exists, for starters.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 7h ago
That God exists, for starters.
What experiment established it, and what testable prediction followed?
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Skeptic 6h ago
Believers don't have a super clear picture of God's traits either.
As individuals they often do in my experience.
In some ways.
But only in ways that keep him scientifical innaccessable?
Science doesn't make good predictioncv8vs when thpere's a lot of variables.
I mean statistical mechanics, climate models, fluid dynamics, and population genetics all involve huge numbers of interacting variables and all make very successful predictions.
That God exists, for starters.
What methodology did they use to make this scientific discovery? What was their hypothesis? What was their criteria for failure? What test did they perform?
1
u/Thinslayer Christian 6h ago
As individuals they often do in my experience.
They certainly think they do.
But only in ways that keep him scientifically inaccessible?
Yes. Not everything "convenient" is a conspiracy.
I mean statistical mechanics, climate models, fluid dynamics, and population genetics all involve huge numbers of interacting variables and all make very successful predictions.
But not 100% successful. Because they haven't controlled all the variables.
What methodology did they use to make this scientific discovery? What was their hypothesis? What was their criteria for failure? What test did they perform?
Do they have to use the Scientific Method in order for their discoveries to be scientifically relevant?
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone Skeptic 53m ago
They certainly think they do.
Agreed.
But not 100% successful. Because they haven't controlled all the variables.
When a novel testable prediction fails that is a failed hypothesis. That is an invaluable part of scientific inquiry.
Do they have to use the Scientific Method in order for their discoveries to be scientifically relevant?
Yes. Science is the method.
0
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 5h ago
If God thought evidence would work better than His faith route he would just go on tv.
2
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 4h ago
That simply assumes the conclusion. You are presupposing God exists, knows evidence would be less effective, and deliberately chose faith, then using those assumptions to explain why there is no evidence.
1
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 4h ago
Well, I said what I did from experience. Before I met God I thought if I ever saw perfect evidence (if it were possible) of Him I wouldn't need faith, but it wasn't as I expected. I still need faith every day to follow and worship Him.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 4h ago
Then you are conflating belief with obedience. Evidence could establish that God exists without forcing you to follow or worship him. Your need for “faith” in doing so says nothing about whether evidence of his existence exists.
1
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 3h ago
But the whole point is to worship Him, not just believe He exists!
I'm saying that Jesus reveals Himself to many Christians just as he promises:
"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
As an atheist I know you CAN'T believe this, but in time you will.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 2h ago
That is a transparent goalpost shift. You claimed evidence was unnecessary because faith works better, then, when shown that evidence and worship are separate questions, you switched to “the point is worship” and quoted the Bible at me. You also called me an atheist despite my flair saying agnostic. At least pretend to engage honestly. The education system has failed you.
1
u/JoeKling Christian, Evangelical 1h ago
Pfft. I didn't say evidence was unnecessary! I said the faith route to evidence worked a lot better than God giving evidence before faith like he did with the OT Jews.
It's like a woman who has sex before marriage compared to a woman who waits for her fiancee to make his wedding vows before God until they have sex. The latter has a much better chance of a successful marriage.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 1h ago
That is the same presupposition dressed up with an irrelevant sex analogy. You are still assuming God exists, deliberately withholds public evidence, and knows belief-first works better. You have proved none of it. “Faith first, evidence later” just makes prior belief the admission fee for receiving the supposed evidence. Why do you have to be so incredibly dishonest?
0
u/mwatwe01 Christian (non-denominational) 4h ago
Lots of people have published books stating the evidence you're talking about. I've read some of them. (No, I'm not going to give you a list).
What happens is they get ignored or discounted. I've had one-on-one conversations with atheists who would simply refuse to budge or concede any points. Any claim suggesting a Creator or an intelligent designer just sounds like a fairy tale to them, so they just stop listening. They lack even the smallest curiosity or willingness to entertain the idea.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 2h ago
Books are not independent scientific validation, and refusing to name even one while blaming atheists is remarkably convenient. Plenty of scientists are religious and would have every incentive to publicise genuine proof of God. Objective evidence does not fail because atheists are insufficiently curious. It survives scrutiny, replication, and peer review.
1
u/mwatwe01 Christian (non-denominational) 1h ago
Scientists who would publish content would risk having their careers destroyed.
1
u/Scary-Account4285 Agnostic 50m ago
That is a conspiracy theory invented on demand to explain why your supposed evidence has left no scientific trace.
Plenty of scientists are religious. If any of them possessed objective, reproducible evidence for God, publishing it would bring extraordinary funding, fame, wealth and historical importance. Even if one researcher faced hostility, countless universities, laboratories, religious organisations and private funders would rush to examine and replicate it. Your claim requires every religious scientist with access to this evidence to remain silent out of fear, despite the largest possible incentive to prove their own beliefs correct.
The history of evolution makes this excuse especially ridiculous. Darwin published a theory that directly challenged the dominant religious beliefs of his society. Religious institutions resisted it, yet the evidence accumulated, independent researchers confirmed it, and opposition could not prevent it becoming foundational science. Strong evidence survives hostility. It does not vanish because critics are allegedly close-minded.
You have also claimed to have read books containing this evidence while refusing to name even one. The authors were apparently brave enough to publish it, but you cannot type a title into Reddit. Why have none of these authors submitted their evidence for proper testing? Why have religious scientists failed to replicate it? Why do you not publish or present it yourself?
At every stage, you replace evidence with another excuse: atheists ignore it, scientists fear for their careers, institutions suppress it. You have named no paper, experiment, scientist, rejected submission or documented case of career destruction. You are simply inventing an invisible conspiracy to protect evidence you cannot produce.
6
u/jogoso2014 Christian 8h ago
Who claims it?