Scientific evidence for god by "New generation for god"
So, there's this article by "New generation for god" on their wordpress website titled "5 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXIST". Well, this should be fun even disregarding the missing words throughout sentences in the article and the title. You can find the article here.
It took me a wile to find out whether they were a comedy site or actually serious. I can't find any explanation that this is sarcasm anywhere on the site, though, and their paypal donation seems to work as well.
I'm going to try to represent their opinion as honestly and accurately as possible. If you have doubts about my summary of their position go ahead and read their article. It's not very long.
I'm writing it out as a response to them. Double quotation marks are citations.
1.Their position: Suffering in the world is not a counterargument to the existence of god, but a consequence of our god-given free will and sin.
Answer: This is nonsensical on so many levels. First of all: even if this were true this would not be scientific evidence for god, but merely a counterargument to one argument against god. Second, even if our free will would lead to pain because of our decisions as opposed to his "divine plan for humanity" with "life in perfect health" this would not explain suffering independent of our actions merely because of influences from nature. Third, human suffering existed even in populations that never heard of the christian god. In their mind, suffering is a result of "bad decisions about our relationship with our Creator". If I don't know about god I can't make such a decision, even if free will is granted. I could find more counterexamples to this statement. Personally, I don't think free will exists; if you want to know more about my opinion simply watch Sam Harris speak on this topic on youtube or read his book; I pretty much share his views. 2. Their position: Eradicating poverty is not the job of the church, it's the responsibility of all.
Answer: Well, sure it is. You also say "we fulfill our role to love our neighbor as God command us to do". Have you read the bible, which you guys are generally so crazy about? Does it say 'amass large sums of money and use it to enrich your priests and build huge pompous monuments"? No, I think the citation you're looking for is Matthew 19:24 "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God", or 2 Corinthians 9:7 "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver". Yeah, not giving money to the poor while stashing billions away seems a little contradictory to those statements, wouldn't you say? Oh, and that thing again where even if this were true, this is no evidence for god at all. Do you find the title of your article to be laughable already?
3. Their position: The fact that we can't see god is no contradiction to his existence, because god is spirit, not matter.
Answer: I agree, it isn't. By design, god is not falsifiable. There is just no reason to believe he is there, just as there is no reason to believe in Russel's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster. By the way, the word you were looking for is "measure" or "verify". We also can't see magnetic fields, but we can measure them and integrate them into our currently most accurate model of the world by extensive testing and verification. I find it especially amusing how you give solid percentages, in numbers, of how much "brain perfection" we have lost over the years by choosing pride over our relationship with god. Where the fuck do you get your data from? I'll just go out on a limb and say you pulled it out of your ass. 4. Their position: Because god is a person, not a thing, we don't need evidence for his existence to assume he's there, you just go talk to him.
Answer: Being able to talk to god in a way that can be reproduced and observed would actually constitute evidence. Unfortunately, that hasn't been done, although it seems to be rather trivial from your standpoint. Unfortunately, I can't really decipher what the rest of the mumbojumbo on the bottom is supposed to mean, exactly. I assume it means to say something along the lines of 'unconstrained investigation is good', although it for some reason throws love towards god in as a constraint in the same paragraph. I would agree with investigation to find out facts about the world; our most rigorous attempt at that is called science. Your world view seems not to be bound by your own advice, though. I would advise you to find a more competent translator if you want to maintain a website in English. 5. Their position: Genetics, maths, chemistry and other scientific advances are a perfect creation by god and don't contradict his existence. Only by reading sources from the religious as well as the atheist side of the argument we can work out the truth about our world.
Answer: Many of our scientific findings directly contradict nonsense written in the bible. You can shout that genetics is a perfect creation by god all you want, but in the end, if you take god away from that model of our world genetics and all the other advances science has brought us still work exactly the same. I am fully willing to read religious sources. I have done so. None of it makes sense. None of it can be turned into a functional model of our world that can be tested and make predictions. It's unnecessary nonsense from the beginning of civilization and is responsible for so much suffering that it is worth it to fight against it tooth and nail.
None of your points do even attempt to be evidence. We could grant all of them and you'd still not have proven god exists. This is the most illogical bullshit I've read in quite some time (and I've read quite a lot).