Is scientific proof of God even possible?

[MikeH]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

Even if God himself came down and shook hands with you, there would certainly be no way to repeat the event, or to test its authenticity. Video evidence? Easily altered with a number of video editing programs. So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

This is kinda like the "What kind of scientific discovery may challenge your faith?" thread, only in reverse.

[PC1]

Science is bound by reality, that is all. It is true that science cannot detect or measure human emotions such as love, for example, but emotions are not in any way inconsistent with science. If a "supernatural event" consists of someone claiming that God talked to them, then science cannot prove whether or not that claim is true. The problem is, the person making such a claim cannot prove that it is true either! What alternative method do you suggest for proving that, for example, God can talk to you? Personal opinion? Faith? Hope? Trust? Guesswork? Ball is in your court.

The Biology department at my university claims science is bound by the scientific method. I could provide an e-mail if you'd like to take it up with them.

A personal supernatural event is reliant (as you say) on faith and the like in terms of empirical evidence. Of course, there are things like the Lourdes River in France where as recently as 1999, some documented healings have occured. (But I don't want to debate about Lourdes, so thats all I'm going to say).

Untrue. A "supernatural phenomenon" is an event/phenomenon that science cannot explain, not one that science cannot detect. For example, if all the water in the oceans disappeared tomorrow, then that would certainly be a supernatural event, but I can assure that science would be able to detect it!

I guess what I meant was science operates in the natural world. Science could detect such an event, but wouldn't know what to make of it. I was more referring to detecting the presence of a God who wouldn't exist in the time/space realm.

If the claim that God created the Earth is true then God has a natural element in the same way that when presented with an egg then the Hen chicken is not supernatural but part of the creation of the egg.

Yes, but the egg and the hen exist in the same plane. God is claimed to exist outside of our realm.

The only supernatural to science is that which is beyond our universe and in which there has been no trespass into this universe in any way. All the Gods to date I know of have had their fingers stuck into man and Earth in differing ways and so clearly taint or are tainted by this universe.

Yes, but how would we know divine "tainting" when we saw it?

The Bible is littered with references to an aspect of God appearing on Earth to people and causing phenomena which can be studied. Today though, all the Gods hide from science but that still doesn't get away from the fact that it is claimed that God and Gods have been involved with Earth. That can be studied.

Theoretically, yes. Practically though, exactly what would you go looking for to find past involvement of God or gods?

The scientific method can answer this question if we're talking about the currently documented Gods without recourse to violence and it will add to our knowledge. It is only from that which we can judge the truth in beliefs.

I humbly disagree.

[The Duke of Vandals]

PC1, you really need to understand what you're stating. The following was written by a prominent atheist biologist. Please read carefully:

• [Theists] are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:
  
  • To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.
  This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.
  
  To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.
  
  Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins ... index.html

So, you see that the claim "god exists" or "[insert name of supernatural event] happened" are both scientific claims and it is to science that we turn for evidence of them. Look at any claim of god or supernatural event and you'll find a claim that requires that at least one (if not dozens) of scientific laws be disproven before we can even consider accepting the claim as possible.

Honestly, what would you say if I told you, "Given normal atmospheric conditions, water only boils at 5000 degrees Kelvin or above." We know this claim is false because we have evidence that water boils at a much cooler temperature. It's false at face value. So, if I state, "I personally believe that water only begins to boil at 5000 degrees due to personal supernatural evidence I've experienced" how does that make the claim true? The fact is that it doesn't. It's still false.

Stating "god exists" is just a lousy discarded hypothesis.

[PC1]

PC1, you really need to understand what you're stating. The following was written by a prominent atheist biologist. Please read carefully:



This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

Dawkins wrongly asserts that the question is, "the presence of a creative deity in the universe". I've never heard an apologist claim that God is in the universe. God created the universe, can manipulate it, but that does not mean he can be detected in it. God is said it be infinite, and the universe is finite (according to the Big Bang the universe is 13.7 billion years old, therefore it is finite).

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

Thats kind of a good point. Does it really have anything to do with whether or not science can detect God though?

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.[/list]

How would we possibly go about determining whether or not Jesus had a father though? That would require DNA, and I doubt we'd ever be able to have any confirmed DNA from Jesus. If there was a Virgin Birth then it was a miracle: why not take the miracle a little further and say that Jesus' DNA resembled that of normal DNA? Why just assume that it would automatically entail that he not have some sort of DNA characteristics of a father? As for miracles, I can point to instances when someone had a debilitating disease, prayed, and had it shortly disappear. Of course its not solid proof, but I don't know how else you could analyze a miracle for proof.

So, you see that the claim "god exists" or "[insert name of supernatural event] happened" are both scientific claims and it is to science that we turn for evidence of them. Look at any claim of god or supernatural event and you'll find a claim that requires that at least one (if not dozens) of scientific laws be disproven before we can even consider accepting the claim as possible.

I will just have to humbly disagree, I feel this comes down to semantics (of science).

Honestly, what would you say if I told you, "Given normal atmospheric conditions, water only boils at 5000 degrees Kelvin or above." We know this claim is false because we have evidence that water boils at a much cooler temperature. It's false at face value. So, if I state, "I personally believe that water only begins to boil at 5000 degrees due to personal supernatural evidence I've experienced" how does that make the claim true? The fact is that it doesn't. It's still false.

Stating "god exists" is just a lousy discarded hypothesis.

That isn't a fair analogy because we have empirical proof that water will not only boil at 5000 degrees. We have no such empirical proof that God doesn't exist. I know my answers might frustrate you, and I apologize. This is honestly how I see it.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Dawkins wrongly asserts that the question is, "the presence of a creative deity in the universe". I've never heard an apologist claim that God is in the universe.

Semantics. Really, that's just a dodge used by theists. Understand that apologists want it both ways: they want to be able to state "god exists" in the scientific sense of the phrase and they want "god exists" to be an article of faith that either doesn't require evidence at all or uses an invalid set of rules for evaluating evidence. To be sure, "god exists" is a scientific question regardless of whether or not you claim he's inside or outside our universe.

Thats kind of a good point. Does it really have anything to do with whether or not science can detect God though?

Of course. As Dawkins went on to say, all alleged "miracles" are subject to the same reasoning. If through some set of even more unlikely events scientists found evidence that god exists outside our universe, do you really think theists would ignore it? Of course not.

At the same time, when science shows us that it's impossible for god to exist, theists try to discredit science.

Imagine for a moment a person trying very hard to lose weight getting on their bathroom scale in the morning. If the scale shows them as being the weight they're shooting for, they conclude the scale is correct and life is good. If the scale shows them to be overweight, they conclude the scale must be broken and that scales aren't a good indicator of general health. Do you think that's an honest way to behave?

How would we possibly go about determining whether or not Jesus had a father though? That would require DNA, and I doubt we'd ever be able to have any confirmed DNA from Jesus. If there was a Virgin Birth then it was a miracle: why not take the miracle a little further and say that Jesus' DNA resembled that of normal DNA? Why just assume that it would automatically entail that he not have some sort of DNA characteristics of a father?

You're going off-topic by worrying about the technology. To be sure, a limitation of technology is not a limitation of science. Consider the sun.

It's millions of miles away. We're stuck on the planet. It's too bright to even look at without filters and even if we could get to it, it would evaporate us. Figuring out what the sun is made of was well beyond our technology for, well... for as long as humans have thought about it on into the 20th century. That's when we figured out we could determine the chemical content of the sun by seeing what energy comes from it. Now, we know what's in it.

What we didn't do is say, "Science can't be applied to the content of the sun. It's impossible. We'll never know so we should just apply folklore."

To be sure, any unknown that has a definite answer that's true for everyone everywhere all the time is a scientific question. So Jesus (had he actually existed) either had a father or he didn't. One or the other. He didn't have a father for me, but not have a father for you. It's only one. That's a scientific difference.

As for miracles, I can point to instances when someone had a debilitating disease, prayed, and had it shortly disappear. Of course its not solid proof,

PC1, if there's no solid proof then you can't point to it. Period. It's that simple. We don't accept any such statements in any other realm of inquiry. You don't accept such nonsense in your day to day life. Why should we accept it for your alleged miracles?

I will just have to humbly disagree, I feel this comes down to semantics (of science).

Well, this is a debate site. You can't just post "I disagree". Admit that you're wrong or explain on what basis you disagree. That's how this works.

That isn't a fair analogy because we have empirical proof that water does not boil at 5000 degrees. We have no such empirical proof that God doesn't exist.

Of course we do.

The phrase "god exists" isn't gibberish. It carries with it several implications. For example, the common Christian understanding of god is a being that created the universe. So, the scientific hypothesis "god exists and created the universe" necessarily implies that "energy can come from nothing". It has to. At the same time, we know the law of conservation of energy is proven. So for your god hypothesis to work, you need to provide evidence of where our understanding of CoE is flawed.... just as I'd have to explain where our knowledge of water is flawed to prove my "5000 Kelvin" hypothesis.

[Cathar1950]

Dawkins wrongly asserts that the question is, "the presence of a creative deity in the universe". I've never heard an apologist claim that God is in the universe. God created the universe, can manipulate it, but that does not mean he can be detected in it. God is said it be infinite, and the universe is finite (according to the Big Bang the universe is 13.7 billion years old, therefore it is finite).

So do claim God is a deity in the Universe and some creation myths even in the Bible indicate El created or formed the world from choas or even the Leviathan. God being some how seperate from the Universe evolved and is not any origianl position. Of course if you define the Universe as everything then God would have to be included or God would be by definition nothing to not be included in the Universe. If God is outside or beyond the Universe then what would be God's relationship to the Universe? Why would it matter and how could even revelation relate? I prefer a relational or social conception of God and the Universe which is why I tend to call myself a Panentheist not to be confused with a Pantheist.
Before you say Dawkins wrongly assert something you need to get aquainted with things you say you have never heard and then maybe you can explain why you believe he is wrong.

[cdcdcd]

cdcdcd wrote:

Science is bound by reality, that is all. It is true that science cannot detect or measure human emotions such as love, for example, but emotions are not in any way inconsistent with science. If a "supernatural event" consists of someone claiming that God talked to them, then science cannot prove whether or not that claim is true. The problem is, the person making such a claim cannot prove that it is true either! What alternative method do you suggest for proving that, for example, God can talk to you? Personal opinion? Faith? Hope? Trust? Guesswork? Ball is in your court.

The Biology department at my university claims science is bound by the scientific method. I could provide an e-mail if you'd like to take it up with them.

As a scientist, I undertand "bound by the scientific method" to mean "not able to study that which does not exist" and/or "requiring evidence before accepting that something exists". In other words, bound by reality. I have no quarrel with your Biology department. However, when you stated "science is bound by the scientific method" I believe you took that to mean that science was unable to investigate supernatural phenomena, and that is not in general correct, as some examples made clear.

BTW, I suspect that with discussion we would end up agreeing on many points. I am not here to automatically disagree with every statement or idea expressed by theists, in fact what I enjoy most is finding common ground. Naturally though, If any particular statement(s) appear wrong, and I can back up my contrary viewpoint with evidence, reason or examples, then I should do so.

[cdcdcd]

God created the universe, can manipulate it, but that does not mean he can be detected in it.

No. You cannot have it both ways.

If you postulate a God that cannot “manipulate the universe”, in other words a God that cannot actually DO anything, then I agree that such a claimed God cannot be detected, by definition! Such a God would be “out of bounds” for science. The problem is, as I’m sure you would realize, that postulation of such a God is worthless. A complete fool can postulate the existence of any “God” of his choosing, provided he is careful to add that his God cannot actually DO anything, and can therefore not be detected. Are we all agreed on this point?

Alternatively, if you postulate a meaningful God that CAN “manipulate the universe”, in other words a God that can actually DO things on Earth, then science is entitled (and duty bound) to detect and study whatever it is you claim your God can do. For example, if you claim that prayers to your God have a beneficial effect beyond what would be expected from chance alone, then science can and should investigate that claim. If you claim that God can temporarily alter or suspend accepted scientific laws, then by definition of the claim, this is the business of science to investigate.

[PC1]

Semantics. Really, that's just a dodge used by theists. Understand that apologists want it both ways: they want to be able to state "god exists" in the scientific sense of the phrase and they want "god exists" to be an article of faith that either doesn't require evidence at all or uses an invalid set of rules for evaluating evidence. To be sure, "god exists" is a scientific question regardless of whether or not you claim he's inside or outside our universe.

Perhaps. If God doesn't exist in the universe, exactly what would you practically go about looking for to prove God one way or another?

At the same time, when science shows us that it's impossible for god to exist, theists try to discredit science.

When has science done so? According to NAS:
"Science can neither prove nor disprove religion." And "many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science."

This is the overwhelming stance that scientists take. You'd only find dissent from more extremist types such as Dawkins.

You're going off-topic by worrying about the technology. To be sure, a limitation of technology is not a limitation of science. Consider the sun.

It's millions of miles away. We're stuck on the planet. It's too bright to even look at without filters and even if we could get to it, it would evaporate us. Figuring out what the sun is made of was well beyond our technology for, well... for as long as humans have thought about it on into the 20th century. That's when we figured out we could determine the chemical content of the sun by seeing what energy comes from it. Now, we know what's in it.

What we didn't do is say, "Science can't be applied to the content of the sun. It's impossible. We'll never know so we should just apply folklore."

To be sure, any unknown that has a definite answer that's true for everyone everywhere all the time is a scientific question. So Jesus (had he actually existed) either had a father or he didn't. One or the other. He didn't have a father for me, but not have a father for you. It's only one. That's a scientific difference.

OK. I know the Jesus example is getting at a larger point that science should be able to tell us whether or not these recording religious events actually happened. This may be theoretically possible. Practically though, will such a thing ever be determined?

PC1, if there's no solid proof then you can't point to it. Period. It's that simple. We don't accept any such statements in any other realm of inquiry. You don't accept such nonsense in your day to day life. Why should we accept it for your alleged miracles?

I wasn't trying to claim miracles as proof for God, I was responding to the Dawkins quote regarding miracles.

Well, this is a debate site. You can't just post "I disagree". Admit that you're wrong or explain on what basis you disagree. That's how this works.

Your original quote said this, "So, you see that the claim "god exists" or "[insert name of supernatural event] happened" are both scientific claims and it is to science that we turn for evidence of them. Look at any claim of god or supernatural event and you'll find a claim that requires that at least one (if not dozens) of scientific laws be disproven before we can even consider accepting the claim as possible."

If you start with the assumption that there exists an omnipotent God who created the universe, surely it follows that such a God could likewise manipulate the universe without constraint to the laws of physics or energy.

The phrase "god exists" isn't gibberish. It carries with it several implications. For example, the common Christian understanding of god is a being that created the universe. So, the scientific hypothesis "god exists and created the universe" necessarily implies that "energy can come from nothing". It has to. At the same time, we know the law of conservation of energy is proven. So for your god hypothesis to work, you need to provide evidence of where our understanding of CoE is flawed.... just as I'd have to explain where our knowledge of water is flawed to prove my "5000 Kelvin" hypothesis.

As I stated above, a God who is created the universe, and therefore has the power to control it, would not have to be held hostage to the very laws he established.

[PC1]

No. You cannot have it both ways.

If you postulate a God that cannot “manipulate the universe”, in other words a God that cannot actually DO anything, then I agree that such a claimed God cannot be detected, by definition! Such a God would be “out of bounds” for science. The problem is, as I’m sure you would realize, that postulation of such a God is worthless. A complete fool can postulate the existence of any “God” of his choosing, provided he is careful to add that his God cannot actually DO anything, and can therefore not be detected. Are we all agreed on this point?

Yes we are.

Alternatively, if you postulate a meaningful God that CAN “manipulate the universe”, in other words a God that can actually DO things on Earth, then science is entitled (and duty bound) to detect and study whatever it is you claim your God can do. For example, if you claim that prayers to your God have a beneficial effect beyond what would be expected from chance alone, then science can and should investigate that claim.

I suppose that is true. Yet this is a sketchy realm. It assumes certain things about the nature of God. First, it assumes that God is going to leave his work lying around for someone to detect. Wouldn't that defeat the "faith" concept? Similarly, do these claimed supernatural phenomena have anything to say about where they are coming from? We often hear of miracle healings that arrive from prayer. But you does science investigate this claim? It seems like it would either 1) prove it to be within the expected realm of medicine or 2) say that it makes no sense that this healing occured. If #2 proves to be the case, then what? How do you determine if it was a freak healing or from God?

If you claim that God can temporarily alter or suspend accepted scientific laws, then by definition of the claim, this is the business of science to investigate.

That's a good point. You guys have certainly established the theoretical possibility of such a thing. But practically, where do you begin to look for such manipulation? Would you be able to detect a past manipulation with the accepted laws of the universe?

[cdcdcd]

Alternatively, if you postulate a meaningful God that CAN “manipulate the universe”, in other words a God that can actually DO things on Earth, then science is entitled (and duty bound) to detect and study whatever it is you claim your God can do. For example, if you claim that prayers to your God have a beneficial effect beyond what would be expected from chance alone, then science can and should investigate that claim.

I suppose that is true. Yet this is a sketchy realm. It assumes certain things about the nature of God. First, it assumes that God is going to leave his work lying around for someone to detect.

Again, I say, you cannot have it both ways. If you postulate a God that can influence events on Earth by suspending or altering natural laws, but are then careful to add that God only DOES these things in a manner that cannot in practice be detected, then what you have in fact done is to very carefully postulate an entity which inherently cannot be detected. Such a postulation has no value. Again, any fool can postulate ANY God of their choosing in that way, and you would be defenceless to argue that your God is any more credible than theirs. I am trying very hard to be fair on this, what do you think?

Wouldn't that defeat the "faith" concept?

Can you explain that concept, as "faith" means differenct things to different people.

Similarly, do these claimed supernatural phenomena have anything to say about where they are coming from? We often hear of miracle healings that arrive from prayer. But does your science investigate this claim? It seems like it would either 1) prove it to be within the expected realm of medicine or 2) say that it makes no sense that this healing occured. If #2 proves to be the case, then what? How do you determine if it was a freak healing or from God?

The example, as I understand, is that prayer is offered to a sick person, and then that person "miraculously" recovers from their sickness.

We know from experience that people do sometimes make amazing recoveries from sickness, irrespective of whether prayer was given. Therefore science cannot usually draw any conclusion from an individual case of "miraculous" healing, and neither can the theistic believer. Science should not and does not state in advance, and with absolute authority, that prayers do not assist healing. If conclusive evidence was found to show that prayer assists healing, then scientists would not conclude "it makes no sense that this healing occurred". Science is most definitely NOT in the business of denying what it sees, but instead seeks to explain and understand what it sees. As individual "healing" cases provide little evidence either way, serious studies have been undertaken involving large numbers of patients, often financed by "believers". As yet, no positive evidence has been found.

But practically, where do you begin to look for such manipulation (of scientific laws) ? Would you be able to detect a past manipulation with the accepted laws of the universe?

This is a good question, and I hope to return to it. I find your debating style and genuine honesty and curiousity in seeking truth to be a "breath of fresh air" on this forum. No doubt there will be some points where we "agree to disagree", and that's fine.