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?

[Nyril]

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

Yes. When we see things like windows that have the virgin Mary in them, we're dubious because the picture is often marginal, and explained by simple corrosion. I saw an excellent picture on landoverbaptist of the virgin mary on the underpass in which they show how it looks much more like a woman's naughty bit than the virgin mary. Every crying state submitted to inquiry has been shown to be a fraud (I can't say every statue has been shown to be false, because they won't let us examineevery statue).

However, the thing that would most likely sell it for me would be healing. Snap his fingers, and instantly everyone has all their limbs, fingers, eyes, etc. No more AIDS, no more genetic diseases, all mentally retarded people are fixed. All of that at once would likely convince me.

[The Happy Humanist]

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

Yes. When we see things like windows that have the virgin Mary in them, we're dubious because the picture is often marginal, and explained by simple corrosion. I saw an excellent picture on landoverbaptist of the virgin mary on the underpass in which they show how it looks much more like a woman's naughty bit than the virgin mary. Every crying state submitted to inquiry has been shown to be a fraud (I can't say every statue has been shown to be false, because they won't let us examineevery statue).

However, the thing that would most likely sell it for me would be healing. Snap his fingers, and instantly everyone has all their limbs, fingers, eyes, etc. No more AIDS, no more genetic diseases, all mentally retarded people are fixed. All of that at once would likely convince me.

Oh, yeah, there's probably a million things His Lordship could do, without even showing his face! But the point is, would Science be convinced, and could it acknowledge same.

[Cephus]

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

Of course it would. Science acknowledges what is real. If God were shown to be real, then science would acknowledge God. There is no big conspiracy against God, there simply isn't any evidence to support the existence of God.

Funny, isn't it?

[The Happy Humanist]

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

Of course it would. Science acknowledges what is real. If God were shown to be real, then science would acknowledge God. There is no big conspiracy against God, there simply isn't any evidence to support the existence of God.

Funny, isn't it?

OK. It's just that I'm not a scientist, and I wanted to be comfortable saying it, in case it ever comes up. Science is always surprising me with what it can and cannot do. I've heard many times that "Science cannot say anything about the supernatural," but I guess what we're talking about here is a case where the supernatural interacts with the natural in such a way as to provide undeniable empirical evidence. Which of course has never happened...

[Cephus]

OK. It's just that I'm not a scientist, and I wanted to be comfortable saying it, in case it ever comes up. Science is always surprising me with what it can and cannot do. I've heard many times that "Science cannot say anything about the supernatural," but I guess what we're talking about here is a case where the supernatural interacts with the natural in such a way as to provide undeniable empirical evidence. Which of course has never happened...

It can't say anything about the supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural can never be detected, studied, etc. How convenient! Any time the supernatural interacts with the natural in such a way that it might leave evidence, it stops being supernatural. However, in every single case, without exception, that a religion reports such interaction, it turns out to be false.

The Bible claims God created the universe in 6 days? No go.
The Bible claims God caused a world-wide flood? Nope.
The Bible claims the dead came back to life? Try again.

So where are all these 'proofs' that anything the Bible, or any other religious book, say are true? Science is still waiting to see them.

[ST88]

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

Of course it would. Science acknowledges what is real. If God were shown to be real, then science would acknowledge God. There is no big conspiracy against God, there simply isn't any evidence to support the existence of God.

That answers that specific question pretty well, but I'm curious as to what you think would might actually be proof when it happens. What form do you think it would have to take for Science to take notice?

[steen]

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

Of course it would. Science acknowledges what is real. If God were shown to be real, then science would acknowledge God. There is no big conspiracy against God, there simply isn't any evidence to support the existence of God.

That answers that specific question pretty well, but I'm curious as to what you think would might actually be proof when it happens. What form do you think it would have to take for Science to take notice?

Something that went directly against established Scientific Theories or Natural Laws.

If we suddenly saw a change in planets/suns that were not caused by any outside agent detectable, resulting in a deliberate pattern, f.ex. Or sudden overturing of natural law principles (The scientific ones, not the political ones), such as gravity reversal, changes of chemical proterties, events completely opposite of previously well-established patterns in Scientific Theories, f.ex.

In short, if something suddeenly completely turns established natural laws or scientific theories on their head, then something caused it. If we see the evidence that the effect was caused by somebody/supernatural powers, then it proves its existence. Whether this supernatural power is God or not, that becomes a bit trickier, of course.

[Bro Dave]

It really quite humorous, if you step back and consider this: God probably does not want the kind of high profile being suggested! It really works counter to what He has set in motion. Were we to have that “proof” that God is “closer than your breath”, but on an obvious material level, I suspect we would immediately dump every single problem on God’s lap, and refuse to make any effort to resolve them. We tend to like the easy way out, and that does not move us towards wisdom. Few would grow at all.

If God just wanted to entertain us with some parlor tricks, it would be a pretty simple affair, since even our magicians can WOW most of us.

As I’ve mentioned before, with science its an “every” approach; Everyone has to experience the same results, or we do not agree. With God, its an “each” approach; We are unique, and God approaches us as individuals. That means our very limited abilities will produce very limited views of God. So, we argue with each other about whose view is “right”. Absurd! God is INFINITE, and therefore all our views are all WRONG! It is our intent by which we are ultimately judged, not by the accuracy of our version of Diety.

So, no, I do not think science is going to discover God; At least not until we all have grown wise, and that will take a very long time.

IMHO

Bro Dave

[QED]

It really quite humorous, if you step back and consider this: God probably does not want the kind of high profile being suggested! It really works counter to what He has set in motion.

So why all the fuss that's supposed to have gone on two-thousand years ago? If we consider the Old Testament as well then we have a running commentary (a bit like the directors notes in the DVD's extras section) of the whole of existence up until a fixed point in our past history. Then it all goes very quiet I don't know if anyone else thinks (like me) that we got pretty close to the biggest catastrophe for mankind at the height of the cold-war, and if ever we were in need of some direct intervention from our father -- we could have done with it then.

As for science finding god, there is a science-fiction scenario that has us all running around like lab-rats in a vast cosmic experiment. Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev proposed type I, II & III civilizations based on their technological capabilities. But what upper limit might there be on technology? A type XVII civilization might create universes like ours just for kicks for all we know. So even if science did figure out that there must have been a creator (finding encoded copyright messages etc.) we couldn't safely say he was god -- or could we?