Scientific proof of God

Here's a fun one! Headed up "Scientific Proof of God" it has one of the most shameless wriggles I've yet come across.

Here we go, and I quote: "Using the current narrow scope definition there is no scientific proof of God." That seems pretty unambiguous. One would expect the argument to end there. But no! There is no end to the shameless manipulation of these people. Instead of accepting the truth that they have stated so clearly, they go ahead and change the definition of science! Here is possibly the prize line I've come across so far:

"To know what evidence really supports the existence of God, we need to base our statements on the old classic definition of science to eliminate the disqualification of the evidence."

Can these people really not see how ridiculous this makes them look? Notwithstanding the fact that they then don't give an "old classic definition of science" to base their "proof" on, they just quote some stuff about the difference between a criminal and a civil trial, this is essentially saying "We know our evidence is bogus, so we're going to create our own rules so we can then say our bogus evidence is admissible." It's farcical. But someone's writing it, someone's funding it, and someone's reading it - and it's making us all look more stupid as a result.

Their "scientific evidence" boils down to this hodge-podge:

1. It's impossible to prove God doesn't exist


2. Intelligent design (as they admit, not scientifically meaningful)


3. Scripture - in particular Jesus' fulfilment of OT messianic prophecies; Jesus' quotations from the OT; historical confirmation of the OT.

Not a great deal of science there, under any definition, "new" or "old, classic" (whatever that may be).

So this whole page is just bogus, and worse, it's dishonest. It's designed to manipulate people's ideas by being misleading. Again, why does God need these people to lie for Him? Surely he can do better than that?