Is it possible for atheists to think of a strict, formal, 100% scientific, empirical experiment (or a series of experiments) which would prove the existence of God?
If it’s NOT possible then it renders the argument from 'lack of evidence’ invalid because it means that it’s not possible to yield any evidence by definition. No evidence is good enough, everything is natural by definition (although some things are not yet explained). And – corret me if I’m wrong, this also means that everything we can think of is also physically possible: even the most spectacular miracles – if they actually ocurred- should be considered as some kind of manifestation of yet unknown forces of nature.
If such experiment IS possible, then I have the following questions:
- Give an example of such experiment. Remember that positive result is supposed to prove without any doubt the existence of God, not raise the bar and claim it’s some yet unexplained law of nature.
- Can you say that ALL atheists agree this experiment would be satisfactory to prove the existence of God? Or some of the atheists would still claim that such experiment does not prove the existence of God? Or even that it’s not possible at all? Are there divisions among atheists here?
- Suppose ALL atheists on earth agree that the experiment is satisfactory to prove the existence of God. Is it possible to say where the certainity that we’ve just proved God is coming from? It must be coming from a claim that we already have a full, complete understanding of how the world works (or at least some parts of the world), a crystal-clear division what is natural and what CAN’T be natural (thus, would prove the existence of supernatural). Can any/all scientists make a formal claim like this?
Posted: June 28th 2012