Could you use consensus to prove that god is real the same way believers prove that AGW is real.?

Question

For proof of AGW, most people claim there is a consensus, but can't provide any other evidence. Even if there was a consensus, is that really a good reason to believe things? The fact that most Americans voted Republican in 2004 - that really is a consensus. Is that a good reason to believe that George W was the best candidate?

Or is it better to think for yourself sometimes?

Answer 1

Hmmm...Pastafarians...hmmm.  I think I've heard of them.  Eat a lot of Italian food, wear their hair in a spaghettilocks, big fans of Tony Bennett and the Wailers?

Answer 2

global warming has a chart for proof, God has no chart

Answer 3

Jesus said "I come so that those who think they know will be made blind and those who are blind will be made to see". i dont  think it proves God is real if a lot of people say so. Proof is an individual decision based on wheather or not you believe that Jesus is the son of God and you have to read the book of Mathew Mark Luke or John and then search yourself for the answer. It is much better to think for yourself. People can lead you the wrong way.

Answer 4

No.  Consensus is not proof.

But, without evidence, there is no scientific consensus.  So the claim that there is no evidence is simply not credible.

These people won't say that global warming is real, and mostly caused buy us (which is what they say), without evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Here's a nice summary of the evidence, from the National Academy of Sciences.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Answer 5

Well, I believe gods are man made and so is AGW.

Answer 6

Your question is based on a false premise.

You've been around long enough that if you think the only evidence supporting man made global warming is the scientific consensus, you've got blinders on.  The consensus is just an indicator of the strength of evidence supporting man made global warming.  The consensus itself is not proof.

I used to be in denial like you, but I learned that you can't ignore the evidence forever.  Eventually you have to take the blinders off.

Answer 7

Has the consensus of twelve peer's ever sent a innocent person to the electric chair? You can use a consensus to persuade whole nations. Hitler did, along with some others.

Answer 8

Scientists use repeatable experiments and reliable data to come up with their 'consensus'. All you could get would be a 'consensus' that a certain amount of people 'believe' in GOD. Not that there is a "god".  There is NO proof ! You could get a 'consensus' among the clergy,but that still doesn't prove a thing!

Answer 9

Leading Bible experts all agree God exists.  By today's standards, that's irrefutable proof he does exist.  Those who disagree are all heretics who most likely profit from "sin"...or so the arguments go.

Answer 10

Global warming is a scam and the oil Co. are getting rich . The more they push GW the higher the price of gasoline.

Answer 11

Climate scientists have formed a consensus, true, but there is evidence.  Gobs of it.  You could use the consensus process to prove that people believe in God, though.  I'm agnostic in regards to my belief in a higher power, but the evidence I've sorted through -- and in my leave of absence from Yahoo I sorted through a lot -- I've decided there is proof aplenty that human impacts have impacted our world climate and our future, and to sit back on our laurels is nothing short of planetary suicide, albeit a long, slow death.  More like being on life support, in a coma, but still alive.  

Please check out a few of the websites below.  There are dozens of good university research centers, government research programs throughout the world, and private programs, too.  Take your pick.  The brainpower is all over this thing, and the debate has been settled on whether global climate change exists.  The battlefront now is what we can do, how we can change the way we do business before that decision is forced upon us.

I think for myself, all right.  But I think for my 3-year old grandson, too, for any other grandchildren I may have one day, and for their children.  It's just the right thing to do.  For me.

Answer 12

Good try at some logic, but we arrive at the two in different ways.

Scientists independently do research, experiments and reach conclusions.  Then, after the fact, they get grouped into a consensus view.

The religious sit alone and think.  From within their own minds they construct a consistent narrative.  It happens that because all our minds are similar we are subject to the same bias.  The most common bias is "Is this all there is, there must be something more" and "This is way too complicated, it must have been created"

And so because of our human failings, most of us come to the same conclusion - there must be a God.  And when we group together and tell each other similar stories, it becomes a self-reinforcing consensus view.

Science saves us from this.  Scientists only proceed from rigorous, mathematically robust, reproducible results.

Scientists can only agree to be part of the consensus because to do otherwise would fly in the face of the observable truth.

Religionists can only agree to be part of the consensus because to do otherwise means to be ostracized.

Answer 13

It's amazing that the word consensus is used to somehow justify something...as if it imparts some magical validity through its use.

I've noticed that scientists don't say that "a consensus of scientists believe that E=MC2."  Or that that moon orbits the earth, based on a consensus in the scientific community.

The word consensus has nothing to do with facts and truth.  It is an anathema to science.