Do you have evidence of god’s interaction with nature?

[Star]

I often hear/read claims of supernatural entities like gods affecting our natural world in some extraordinary way. Science only studies nature, but if there’s a god which interacts with nature (even if this god transcends nature), there should still be scientific evidence of this interaction.

Let’s define nature as the universe; everything from virtual particles to black holes to human brains. Science can detect the invisible by just their effect on the observable, and use math to make testable predictions. For example, they can detect dark matter and black holes by their gravity, or use math to predict the first moments of the Big Bang.

The expected evidence depends on the particular theist claim. What is this alleged god’s role in nature? Does he cause earthquakes? Does he split seas? Does he create new species from nothing? Did he flood the Earth? Does he answer prayers? Or did he just “fine-tune� the universe for life at the beginning, and hasn't done anything since?

A challenge to apologists: If your god interacts with the natural world, please explain (1) the interaction, and (2) your supporting evidence. (If your god doesn't interact with nature, then this doesn't apply to you.)

My position is that this evidence doesn't exist, but I’m willing to assess any presented evidence and change my mind, if necessary. I believe everything moves according to laws, and anything we don’t yet understand (e.g. quantum physics) will eventually be understood.

[Star]

It's funny that you should quote Richard Feynman here because you clearly don't even understand what he was referring to.

My argument is that nobody truly understands all of quantum physics, so of course, I don't either. So your counter-argument that I don't understand quantum physics is pointless.

Quantum Mechanics actually refers to two entirely different things.

One is the actual mathematical theory called "Quantum Mechanics". Do you think that Richard Feynman didn't understand the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics?

I understand there's more to physics than just math. Why do you feel the need to tell me this?

And yes, as a matter of fact, I do think he didn't fully understand. As you keep pointing out, and I keep agreeing, there's more to it than just math. Are you saying Feynman had a complete understanding of quantum physics, including what it is, and what it came from, if anything?

Here's another quote from Feynman, which you must be unaware of:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

He one a Noble Prize for his understanding and advancement of this theory. And Quantum Mechanics (the mathematical theory) does indeed state via the Uncertainty Principle that there are built-in restrictions in nature that will not permit a greater precision to be measure. It's not that we just aren't clever enough to know how to go about it.

So you are actually showing that you don't understand "Quantum Mechanics" (the mathematical theory)

Did I deny there was math in quantum physics? I don't recall doing so. You'll have to show me.

The other reference to "Quantum Mechanics" (the one that Richard Feynman was actually referring to in his famous quote) is referring to the actual behavior of nature. And he was stating that if you try to understand this intuitively you will fail because it's not intuitive. And therefore no one can understand the actual behavior of nature. It's not that they can't understand "Quantum Mechanics" (the mathematical theory). That would be absurd. That would be the same as saying that the physicists can't even understand their own mathematical construction.

You are stuck on math for some reason. I didn't say physicists didn't understand the math. I said our understanding of quantum physics is incomplete. One speaks to math, and one speaks to quantum physics as a whole. Thanks for the lecture about how they're different, though. Strawman much?

The very idea that a creator fine-tuned anything can be a misguided notion. If the universe is a manifestation of this God then no fine-tuning would be required. On the contrary the universe could not have been any other way. So no fine-tuning would be required.

And as far as complexity is concerned, that too is entirely a guess on your part. Why would God need to be any more complex than quantum fields?

Fine-tuning is speculation, as is this notion we're god.

It's more complex because this god supposedly either created the quantum fields, or partially consists of them, and with its incredible supernatural power and inexplicable intelligence, is grander than just the non-sentient component of nature itself.

You are misunderstanding Occam's Razor as well. Occam's Razor simply states that if you have more than one working theory that explains something, then choose the theory that is the least complicated. But you don't have a working theory for a godless universe. Therefore you cannot claim to be able to apply Occam's Razor to decide which theory is simpler.

You would need to have your Theory of Everything in hand before you could even apply Occam's Razor. And then you would still be stuck with Stephen Hawkin's question "What breathes fire into your equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

So even if you had a working Theory of Everything, you still wouldn't have an explanation for the universe. All you would have is a mathematical description of the behavior of a universe that you can't even account for.

Let me get this straight; you're proposing a theory that the universe is part of sentient god as an alternative to a naturalistic explanation, but we can't apply Occam's Razor because because science doesn't yet have a working theory in which to compare it? This is your problem, not science's.

A god theory will be more complex because, in addition to explaining nature, a supernatural entity must also now be explained, particularly an intelligent god that can control nature using methods science is yet unaware of, deepening the rabbit hole.

There's no accepted theory of everything yet, but there are many working theories, all of which are naturalistic explanations. And you may not have known, but there are already a few contenders for the theory of everything, and some physicists think they're getting close, such as proponents of string theory. It's complex, yes, but nothing as complex.

Well, I will grant you that our conversation on this matter is rather useless since before you could even begin to discuss the issue properly you would need to understand mystical theories of a God that are compatible with all known science first. Such mystical theories exist. But that's a whole other topic as well.

We are the evidence that this sentient God exists. And again, this may require that you understand various Eastern mystical views of God before you can understand why we are the evidence for God.

You are shifting the burden of evidence back to me. It's not my prerogative to understand "various Eastern mystical views" when I ask for scientific evidence. If you want me to understand, and even accept your far-fetched view we're god, you'll have to explain it.

[Divine Insight]

You are stuck on math for some reason. I didn't say physicists didn't understand the math. I said our understanding of quantum physics is incomplete. One speaks to math, and one speaks to quantum physics as a whole. Thanks for the lecture about how they're different, though. Strawman much?

Quantum Mechanics as a mathematical theory is complete. That was the whole issue behind the Einstein-Bohr debate. And so clearly you are understanding this if you think this is some sort of strawman argument.

Because this god created the quantum fields (supposedly) using its incredible supernatural power and inexplicable intelligence.

That's your view because you are viewing God from the anthropomorphic POV.

There is no need for a God to have used any inexplicable intelligence to have become this universe.

Let me get this straight; you're proposing a theory that the universe is part of sentient god as an alternative to a naturalistic explanation, but we can't apply Occam's Razor because because science doesn't yet have a working theory in which to compare it? This is your problem, not science's.

I'm not proposing any scientific theory. Where did you get that idea?

I also have no problem with the scientific community and the scientific community has has no problem with me that I am currently aware of.

You are the one who has proposed a hypothesis that the universe can be explained entirely by natural laws. So it's up to you to back up that theory.

I never suggested that a God would "explain" anything in a scientific sense. I simply point out that it cannot be ruled out like you are attempting to do using Occam's Razor which, in this case doesn't even apply.

A god theory will be more complex because, in addition to explaining nature, a supernatural entity must also now be explained, particularly an intelligent god that can control nature using methods science is yet unaware of, deepening the rabbit hole.

That's your unwarranted imagination. Not mine.

There's no accepted theory of everything yet, but there are many working theories, all of which are naturalistic explanations. And you may not have known, but there are already a few contenders for the theory of everything, and some physicists think they're getting close, such as proponents of string theory. It's complex, yes, but nothing as complex.

String Theorists have been promising to marry General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and they haven't even been able to do that much. So claiming that they are getting "close" to anything is an extreme stretch.

With the discovery of Quantum Mechanics physicists have "lost their balls" in the Newtonian sense of a clockwork billiard-ball type of universe. Now they are grasping at strings. But they haven't been able to make that work yet, and there is no guaranteed that they ever will. In fact, there are actually very good reasons given by many physicists who have worked in string theory for why string theory may ultimately be futile. See Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics". Also, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" where he explains why Loop Quantum Gravity is actually a better candidate than String Theory.

You are shifting the burden of evidence back to me. It's not my prerogative to understand "various Eastern mystical views" when I ask for scientific evidence. If you want me to understand, and even accept your far-fetched view we're god, you'll have to explain it.

If you want to claim that the universe can be explained entirely by natural laws then the burden of evidence is on you.

It's not my job to teach you Eastern mysticism. I'm simply point out that there exist mystical views that are completely compatible with my views, as well as not being in conflict with any known science.

And science cannot rule them out, which you are obviously attempting to do with Occam's Razor.

Sorry, but Occam's Razor cannot be applied until you come up with a working theory of your own. You haven't demonstrated that your imagined "explanation" is any simpler than any other explanation.

What breathes fire into your equations and gives them a universe to describe?

Stephen Hawking and I are anxiously awaiting your answer to this question.

[Star]

Quantum Mechanics as a mathematical theory is complete. That was the whole issue behind the Einstein-Bohr debate. And so clearly you are understanding this if you think this is some sort of strawman argument.

You're misrepresenting my words again. I said that our understanding of quantum physics is incomplete. I didn't say anything about the math being incomplete, but I find it peculiar that later in your post you reference the well-known mystery of why quantum physics doesn't play nice with classical physics. If our understanding was complete, this wouldn't be an issue.

Also, is quantum mechanics deterministic or not? (Scientists are interested in this question.)

Do quantum mechanics exist in every universe? (Even Lawrence Krauss admits he doesn't know.)

What is the role of the observer in affecting outcomes? (This has never been answered.)

What are quantum mechanics? (We don't even know what they are.)

So much for our complete understanding. Let's move on now.

[Star]

There is no need for a God to have used any inexplicable intelligence to have become this universe.

I realize this is your unsubstantiated claim, but what's the evidence and your detailed description of how exactly it happens? If it's not inexplicable, then explain it for us. This is what I'm asking for but not getting.

I'm not proposing any scientific theory. Where did you get that idea?

Again you're misinterpreting my words. Sorry Divine, but this is getting old fast.

I didn't call it a "scientific theory," I called it a "theory." I'm the first one to say that such a theory is anything but scientific. Please go back and read what I really wrote. Theories are just explanations, and aren't necessarily scientific, especially when it comes to the supernatural.

I also have no problem with the scientific community and the scientific community has has no problem with me that I am currently aware of.

Not with you personally, but they definitely would have a problem with your claim, seeing as how you don't have evidence.

You are the one who has proposed a hypothesis that the universe can be explained entirely by natural laws. So it's up to you to back up that theory.

It wasn't a hypothesis I proposed. Many big names in physics have already proposed it.

I never suggested that a God would "explain" anything in a scientific sense. I simply point out that it cannot be ruled out like you are attempting to do using Occam's Razor which, in this case doesn't even apply.

It doesn't need to be a "working theory." The principle states: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." This is basically a translation from William of Ockham himself. So you are simply incorrect.

I notice you keep mentioning Hawking, so you must respect him, as do I.

From A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking:

"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

And this published statement from a University of California website is interesting: "In physics we use the razor to shave away metaphysical concepts."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G ... occam.html

String Theorists have been promising to marry General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and they haven't even been able to do that much. So claiming that they are getting "close" to anything is an extreme stretch.

With the discovery of Quantum Mechanics physicists have "lost their balls" in the Newtonian sense of a clockwork billiard-ball type of universe. Now they are grasping at strings. But they haven't been able to make that work yet, and there is no guaranteed that they ever will. In fact, there are actually very good reasons given by many physicists who have worked in string theory for why string theory may ultimately be futile. See Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics". Also, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" where he explains why Loop Quantum Gravity is actually a better candidate than String Theory.

So? This isn't the subject of debate.

That's your view because you are viewing God from the anthropomorphic POV.

You're the one who keeps calling it "God". Honestly, you're doing a poor job explaining what your god actually is. Various POVs are caused by various theist claims, which IMO is more your problem than ours.

[Star]

What breathes fire into your equations and gives them a universe to describe?

Stephen Hawking and I are anxiously awaiting your answer to this question.

I don't know.

I don't claim to know.

I don't need to know.

You are fallaciously shifting the burden of evidence to me in order to setup an argument from ignorance.

[Divine Insight]

Ok Star,

You're really addressing the Abrahamic apologists anyway, so have at it. I will actually agree with you concerning their claims of supernatural interventions.

Although, in truth, no one who supports science should even use the term "supernatural" because in science this term is meaningless. Science doesn't yet have a complete picture of nature and therefore science is not in a position to say what might be supernatural.

[Star]

Ok Star,

You're really addressing the Abrahamic apologists anyway, so have at it. I will actually agree with you concerning their claims of supernatural interventions.

Although, in truth, no one who supports science should even use the term "supernatural" because in science this term is meaningless. Science doesn't yet have a complete picture of nature and therefore science is not in a position to say what might be supernatural.

Like I said, it all depends on the claim. I only know that you claim nature, including us, is a sentient god. You refer to it as "god" in the singular, so I assume you only believe in one.

It's usually the theist who makes the non-scientific claim. I believe everything is natural, and I never claim there's anything above or outside of nature, so IMO the inherent problems with using the terms of others isn't my burden to bear.

Back to the topic: If your god is natural, then science can study it, and scientific evidence is possible, so where's this evidence? If there isn't any, why not?

[Divine Insight]

Back to the topic: If your god is natural, then science can study it, and scientific evidence is possible, so where's this evidence? If there isn't any, why not?

What exactly are you looking for or expecting to find?

Your own subjective experience is the evidence for the existence of this god.

It's the only evidence you need and you are exposed to it on a continual basis.

And the answer to this riddle is in the question that the mystics have been asking for eons. Who are you?

Answer this question without any ambiguity or doubt and you'll have all the evidence you need.

Nothing further will be required.

[Goat]

Back to the topic: If your god is natural, then science can study it, and scientific evidence is possible, so where's this evidence? If there isn't any, why not?

What exactly are you looking for or expecting to find?

Your own subjective experience is the evidence for the existence of this god.

It's the only evidence you need and you are exposed to it on a continual basis.

And the answer to this riddle is in the question that the mystics have been asking for eons. Who are you?

Answer this question without any ambiguity or doubt and you'll have all the evidence you need.

Nothing further will be required.

And, here is the answer that mystics reject. I am me. Who else would I be? I am the sum total of my genetics and my experiences.

[Star]

Back to the topic: If your god is natural, then science can study it, and scientific evidence is possible, so where's this evidence? If there isn't any, why not?

What exactly are you looking for or expecting to find?

Your own subjective experience is the evidence for the existence of this god.

It's the only evidence you need and you are exposed to it on a continual basis.

And the answer to this riddle is in the question that the mystics have been asking for eons. Who are you?

Answer this question without any ambiguity or doubt and you'll have all the evidence you need.

Nothing further will be required.

Let's recap from the beginning.

I started a thread asking 1) if your god interacts with nature, what the interaction is, and 2) what your scientific evidence is.

You answered the call, but you're asking me what I'm hoping to find. Answer the question in 1, and I might be able to give you examples of what I might expect to find.

If your god doesn't interact with nature, and is just nature itself, then what am I supposed to say? The evidence in such case would be all around us, but you haven't provided a shred of evidence supporting it. I've heard similar claims that god is just energy, but these baseless assertions don't get us anywhere. These gods of yours are supposed to be sentient and posses powerful utility to affect change and/or create.

Thus far, I've only seen a variation of the "god of the gaps" argument, a form of argument from ignorance, which requires a burden shift, ie. "You can't tell me how everything works, therefore my god did it." (Or in your case, "...therefore my god is everything.)

Have you noticed how the gaps gods are always the particular god of the theist making the claim? Gods manifest in human minds based on faith-based beliefs and preconceived notions. You're more of a deist, so this god of yours is the god I'm being made to feel ignorant of. Meanwhile, Hindus, Christians, and Wiccans have different views, evidence and objectivity be darned.