I just listened to a CD about God narrated by Lee Strobel, a former atheist turned Christian and he said that he believes modern science can prove God. One argument he gave included the cosmological argument given by a philosopher named William Craig in the following form; whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist and therefore, the universe has a cause. Strobel also asserted that human consciousness must have a source.
Science, as is now, cannot fully prove or disprove a creator, no one knows where the universe came from and it is impossible to know with the information we have and techniques we can utilize as of now, but, one day, science may advance far enough to uncover the truth, whether that is a divine creator or some other instance
Because science cannot deal with anything supernatural, a creator could not be directly proven by science. However, science can indirectly prove a creator, or prove itself wrong, and thus prove a creator. I do believe in a creator, but I still don't really think that science will ever prove a creator, as Satan will always be trying to make people think otherwise.
I'm sure once they prove that there is an infinite amount of universes than I'm sure they can then say without a doubt there is a god. O f course we know there is currently. On a different topic they should change the limit on words for opinions to a lower number.
But we cant because its an invisible man who lives in an invisible place thats in the space between spaces. There is no way to go there and find or not find god. Its a made up place. Its like saying the next universe and everything in it is made of chocolate. You cant disprove it but its so implausible that you wouldnt believe it unless you were irrational and really wanted to believe it. But how can we prove something does or doesnt exist when we cant see it or get to it to prove its status of existence? We cant!
Since the invention of gods, mankind has been seeking for the slightest real evidence that their god exists without results.
Many theist have philosophical argument that are highly flawed at best but also tend to pose a real issue to them. If they were not so flawed, they would equally prove the existence of other gods outside their faith and not necessarily their own.
My philosophical argument about the non-existence of gods is based on the fact that so many gods have been worshiped around the world. If any one of those gods would be real, then what is attributed to them would also be consistent around the world. For instance, Prometheus (Greek god/titan) was said to have given mankind fire. The stories about him are written in some detail that is consistent to that region. Funny thing is, outside that region, mankind was able to use fire without him and have no record of him much less in detail. To think that a god is instrumental in a part of human life, at least some note would be made in other lands yet nothing till people from other lands visited them. Clearly the only reason for such a variety of gods would be that each made up their own.
A real funny thing is that Christian should have real evidence. The Ten Commandments. They would be made of stone so not subject to rot, rust, fading, or any factor that other material would face. They would be kept in an ark of gold. Seeing that gold does not deteriorate, it would protect the stone from erosion factors. They would be of utmost value so would not be misplaced or left behind. They are protected by god so could not be stolen. After all, a person supposedly tried to touch the ark and was struck down and they would have believed in the god. Clearly a non-believer would not be able to handle it in any way. All this would be true so there would be no reason why they can not be shown as evidence. That is unless they didn't exist or were faked back then. Seeing that they were written by the hand of god, they would not show any evidence of tool marks even on the microscopic level and the stone would be consistent with it's alleged origin. In other words, don't try to fake it as you did that silly shroud. Showing of false evidence, in my opinion, is showing of a false god.
Another funny thing is that according to a few sites, about 33% of scientists believe in God. You would think that with so many scientist of faith, one would find valid evidence over the thousand or so years yet no. Odd that science has found more evidence that shows that god does not exist in the last hundred years or so and theists have come up with nothing but books of fables that are far from consistent.
Absolutely nothing can prove whether there is some form of omni-benevolent being, aside from such a creature visibly proving its own existence. Science could possibly, in the future, provide evidence towards the existence of godly creatures and the like, but the existence of proof can only stem from the source in this case. Don't get evidence and proof confused, they can be the downfall of many arguments.
Being agnostic at the time I'm writing this, I believe science can support the possibility that a Creator exists, but not prove it as fact. I need 25 more words so I'm just writing this useless junk. Filler filler filler filler filler filler blah blah blah blah. The letter Q
As long as god is used to explain what has not been explained yet no.
As long as christian and other religious people continue to say ok you figured that out but what about this that must be god then we figure that out and there continue to do this it is impossible with out ultimate knowledge of all things.