Can Science Find God?

[The Happy Humanist]

This question is mainly (but not exclusively!) for the scientists out there.

I have been debating a gentleman in email, who asked me what I would consider as proof of God. I thought about it, and decided that, if a few dozen stars were to suddenly rearrange themselves to spell out "Howdy, it's me! -- GOD", I might be swayed. OK, I would be seriously challenged. OK, OK, I'd be singing Hosannahs and heading for the confessional.

He replied that he doubted it, that astronomers would merely chalk it up to "coinicdence", or swamp gas, or just "unknown." That got me to thinking. I know that Science is supposedly neutral w/r/t God and the supernatural; that is, it doesn't deny they exist, it just isn't set up to study that realm, or magisterium, so it can't say anything about them.

But what about a case like this, where God (finally) shows his hand unmistakably? Am I right in saying that Science would be forced to at least acknowledge that "after significant study, the phenomenon in question seems to be attributable to an entuty called God, through mechanisms currently unknown to us, but which may involve supernatural forces"? Or is my friend right, that there still could be and would be no acknowledgement?

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

[Cephus]

For me, God just set it all in motion. That includes a huge intervening administrative corp to both take his plan and transform potential and energies into material realities. Then they help to in “turning the crank” to evolve mortals who, along the way, discover God, and share the journey with Him.

While you're welcome to your belief, it's no more valid than believing that pink bunnies set it all in motion. Or cereal-toting leprechauns. Or unicorns. You can no more demonstrate that God exists and had anything to do with setting it in motion than a leprechaunist could prove the existence of the Holy Four Leaf Clover.

The “evidence” is within. We stand in the middle of all the “trees” disputing whether or not there is a “forrest”.

It's only evidence if you can demonstrate it and you have completely failed, as usual, to do so. You're posting in the SCIENCE AND RELIGION area but you're talking about little more than magic.

And that's supposed to impress us?

[Ian Parker]

It's only evidence if you can demonstrate it and you have completely failed, as usual, to do so. You're posting in the SCIENCE AND RELIGION area but you're talking about little more than magic.

And that's supposed to impress us?

The origin of life and evolution of unicelluar organisms will always be a bad example to take since the number of organisms and the rate of reproducton is so high. If there is a way to do anything, unicelluars and basic chemistry will find it. What we should really be looking at is.

1) Evidence for direction in the multicelluar era. Intelligence in particular.
2) The Universe which is inherently one shot.
3) Evidence for direction on the smaller canvas of human extistence. The power of prayer and the nature of religious experience.

Looking at unicellulars and chemistry from a completely scientific "crossbench" position. I still find the statistics of the weak nuclear force interesting. Once a given chirality holds, life is fitter following the majority chirality. However is it a matter of chance. On a rerun (exobiological) would we get the same cgirality?

[Bugmaster]

The problem with God is that he's omni-everything; he's infinite. Science demands evidence for any proposition, in proportion to how powerful it seems (which is why String Theory is still not a bona fide theory). Being infinite, God would require an infinite amount of evidence, which we could never hope to accumulate.

However, smaller gods -- such as the various pagan gods, Shivah, or even technologically advanced super-aliens -- are finite, and would thus be more easily accepted by the scientific community.

[Cephus]

The problem with God is that he's omni-everything; he's infinite. Science demands evidence for any proposition, in proportion to how powerful it seems (which is why String Theory is still not a bona fide theory). Being infinite, God would require an infinite amount of evidence, which we could never hope to accumulate.

It would be nice to have ANY evidence. Even a shred. Anything. We're not that picky. That's the problem, there simply isn't any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. None. That makes utterly no sense because something like God couldn't help but leave evidence behind unless he's purposely trying to hide his existence.

And why bother worshipping something like that?

[Jose]

However, smaller gods -- such as the various pagan gods, Shivah, or even technologically advanced super-aliens -- are finite, and would thus be more easily accepted by the scientific community.

As Cephus has pointed out, it's not the size of the god that matters. It's the size, or quantity and validity of the evidence. What we have here is a god who has wiped his tracks clean. No, it's worse than that: he's built a very impressive array of evidence to indicate that he's not managing things in any direct way at all. We have to take his existence on faith.

Which is not to say he couldn't give us evidence. If there were evidence, it would lead to a conclusion...but he gives us no evidence. Nor do the smaller gods.

Hmmm...what would True Christians do if the smaller gods gave us evidence of their existence?

[juliod]

As Cephus has pointed out, it's not the size of the god that matters. It's the size, or quantity and validity of the evidence.

Within the paradigm that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But some "omni-" things do have evidence. I like to compare gravity to god. Gravity is omni-some-thing. For example, Gravity is omniscient within it's own nature. Gravity never has to ask the mass of any object in the universe, even while those masses are changing, or moving at reletavistic speeds. Gravity is also ompipotent. It's power is felt and cannot be nullified by any known or imagined means.

And of course the existance of Gravity is an extraordinary claim. But the evidence is superabundant. One might wonder why the evidence for an omni-everything god would be so.... umm... absent.

DanZ

[Ian Parker]

Which is not to say he couldn't give us evidence. If there were evidence, it would lead to a conclusion...but he gives us no evidence. Nor do the smaller gods.

Hmmm...what would True Christians do if the smaller gods gave us evidence of their existence?

What these last texts are saying is quite interesting. I think there may be just a grain of truth in it. One is assuming that smaller Gods would take the form of super intelligent aliens. There is another sense in which Science is not too averse, and that is the subject of telepathy and time travel. It is perfectly prepared to argue for notions like that.

When you say the evidence is hidden well, yes it is hidden, but not completely. It is very like a time travel timeline where you cannot see backward directed time because the Feynmann diagram is in the ground state. Not completely in the ground state as a long period of evolution gives rise to anomalies to strict causality.

This is an intriguing thought. People turn to Gos when things go wrong. There just could be more in it than just psychology!

[Cephus]

As Cephus has pointed out, it's not the size of the god that matters. It's the size, or quantity and validity of the evidence. What we have here is a god who has wiped his tracks clean. No, it's worse than that: he's built a very impressive array of evidence to indicate that he's not managing things in any direct way at all. We have to take his existence on faith.

It's a lot worse than that. In every single story in the Bible where God is said to have had direct intervention with the universe and we can evaluate that claim, we find that not only is there no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of God or his intervention, we find exactly the opposite to be true. The stories in the Bible are utterly impossible! There was no worldwide flood. The creation stories are bunk. The evidence is overwhelming that they NEVER happened and could not have happened.

So we're left with the only alternative, assuming God is real, that God purposely set out to not only erase all evidence of his interaction, but to set false evidence that proves conclusively he never did a thing. That means God is purposely trying to lead the intelligent astray and send them to hell.

Why worship a sick bastard like that?

[Scrotum]

OK, after months of reading in silence now, i HAVE to say something, all these religious zealots walking around and saying.. argh.. everything they are saying.. oh well.. Anyhow:

But what about a case like this, where God (finally) shows his hand unmistakably? Am I right in saying that Science would be forced to at least acknowledge that "after significant study, the phenomenon in question seems to be attributable to an entuty called God, through mechanisms currently unknown to us, but which may involve supernatural forces"? Or is my friend right, that there still could be and would be no acknowledgement?

There is such a simple answer to this question. If "God" himself would "come down", spell his name or whatever whatnot, ofcourse we would acknowledge it, because it happened. But, Christians on the other hand, would refuse to accept the none-existense of "God", whatever proof they get (*see real world of today).


All the atheist of the world would have no problens saying God existed, if proof for this God would appear, Because they WOULD NO LONGER BE (A)THEIST's.. Theist's on the other hand, would never EVER accept the none existing God because of fear or whatever it could be.


I almost feel sorry for them.

[Ian Parker]

So we're left with the only alternative, assuming God is real, that God purposely set out to not only erase all evidence of his interaction, but to set false evidence that proves conclusively he never did a thing. That means God is purposely trying to lead the intelligent astray and send them to hell.

Why worship a sick bastard like that?

The reason is not that He wants all intellectuals to go to Hell. Anyway belief as assent is not what is required anyway. No the reason is that the Universe is now so well tuned that a large amount of influence is not needed.