Is there any scientific evidence that Zeus exists? Thor? Ra? or any of the other thousand or so gods?
No, there is not.
That is why this question cannot be answered.
Do you even know what scientific evidence means? - It must be verifiable, reproducible, tested, re-tested, and accepted by multiple scientists.
What experiment can you propose that will meet these requirements?
When someone attempts to "prove" there is a God it's counter productive to the idea of having faith.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." - Saint Augustine
"Seeing is believing" is a (non believer's) approach to life.
Some people are "believers" or have faith while others are not.
This is a very good question to get at the heart of a very misunderstood concept. The modifier of "scientific" on the word evidence limits the concept drastically. Evidence as used in science is that which relates to a scientific theory or proof of some kind. God, philosophy, law and medicine have different kinds of evidence for their own school of thought.
So what is evidence in a court of law is not necessarily evidence to a GP trying different ways to cure an ailment. General Practice being more a combination of art and science, and law having to do more with nebulous concept of what is more likely than not or beyond human understanding to be different.
So you do not snatch the scientific evidence of gravity to prove a philosophic truth of our existence being "proven" by the fact we think. (Cogito Ergo Sum)
I tracked in wilderness for some time. Evidence of the fact that several deer passed through in a certain direction at a run about 2 hours ago is neither scientific or legal evidence.
So no, you do not mix and match different evidence from one area of study and understanding to another. That is unless the discipline combines two as a principal -- General Practice of Medicine. Sociology and other behavioral "sciences" to this day are considered not science by many in science.
I could easy claim that the mere fact of our existence is proof of God. And it is in theology but that does not apply to scientific inquiry.
Where dashingscorpio quotes above, "Faith is to believe...." that describes a psychological process. When I "see what I believe," it's still only believed, not provable to anyone else.
Even the exact implication of a metaphor, instigated by me, is subject to pre-conceptions of the receiver.
Maybe the way out of this is for us to simply accept there is no need for us all to agree. Only a need to listen, to hear, to allow the different understanding.
by Sean Thomas Gartland5 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
by wordscribe418 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
by Obscure_Treasures6 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by Michael Ward4 years ago
What Would You Do If You Were Faced With Completely Irrefutable Evidence That There Was No God?And I mean completely. As irrefutable as 1+1=2. I asked my friend about this and he had a mini-breakdown so I thought I'd...
by rgeter5 years ago
Atheists, what would constitute as reliable evidence that God exists?
by Thom Carnes8 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.