Scientific search for what is God.

[McCulloch]

I agree that the Big-Bang gives us very little insight into what is God, and the creation event is only a physical reality with very little to teach about the spiritual side.

It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]



In order to argue God into existence in the first place, apologists have to wildly fling things like invisibility, timelessness, spaceless-ness, extra dimensionality, and the like. For those apologists that find this compelling, they take for granted the means to demonstrate the existence of said God just got banned from all empirical methods. You know, those methods we use to demonstrate/verify EVERY other thing in the universe.

There can be no scientific means of demonstrating any agency with attributes that negate what science has at its disposal to confirm or deny.

[JP Cusick]

It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

It would need to be done as are other science projects.

As like they search for life on other planets - because that search comes before there is any proof or evidence.

Einstein use to do that in many of his saying as like = "God does not play dice with the universe." - so he included a God as an aspect of his research.

Science has been looking for a "unified theory" for nearly 100 years and so the search comes long before the fact.

Science searched for the 9th planet of Pluto before there was any 9th planet because if it were already found then there is nothing more to search.

It might even be that the search needs to be done along with the science of Psychology, because the study of God is very much about the strange phenomenon of humanity.

[Neatras]

Einstein use to do that in many of his saying as like = "God does not play dice with the universe." - so he included a God as an aspect of his research.

I think this is especially hilarious, because he attempted to claim that quantum mechanics could not be truly random because that would conflict with his deterministic idea of a universe. Claiming "God does not play dice with the universe" was an attempt at rebuking the uncertainty of quantum mechanics; Einstein was wrong. So when you claim that Einstein presupposed or added God to his research, it led him to the wrong conclusion.

Might want to do some research on what these quotes actually mean in their context. Or maybe do research on scientific fields of study you have not demonstrated any familiarity with it. Or just try not to sound like an expert when your arguments are actually completely divorced from reality; others trusting you to be credible means having a responsibility to know what you're talking about.

As an edit, I'd be remiss to point out that Einstein still doesn't believe in your god, Cusick.

This is a more apt description of what he meant by that quote.

And look at that, a familiar excerpt you haven't addressed despite being pertinent to your particular spin of history and science:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

And here's an even cuter quote you'll enjoy:

The second half of the quote — "does not play dice" — is often misunderstood, too. It's not an affirmation of destiny.

The phrase refers to one of the most important theories in modern physics: quantum mechanics. It describes the weird behavior of tiny subatomic particles. It's also the guiding theory that led to critical technologies like nuclear power, MRI machines, and transistors in computer and phones.

It's true that Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, but the reason was much more nuanced than a flat-out rejection of the theory. After all, Einstein won a Nobel Prize in 1921 for describing the photoelectric effect — a phenomenon that led to the development of quantum mechanics.

The reason for the quote is to express how bizarre quantum mechanics is as a theory. While most of the universe is deterministic and measurable, quantum mechanics says there's a world of tiny particles behind everything that's governed by total randomness.

For example, a major part of quantum theory, called the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle, says it's impossible to know both the speed and position of a single particle at the same time. So in quantum mechanics nothing can be certain, and we can only describe things in terms of probabilities.

Einstein didn't like this one bit. He believed there must be some underlying laws of nature that could define particles and make it possible to calculate both their speed and position.

There's no evidence of the law Einstein hoped for, and all experimental evidence suggests that quantum mechanics is real. So Einstein was probably wrong to reject the idea.

So, even if Einstein was actually presupposing a god (he wasn't) and even if he used that to formulate his beliefs about nature (he didn't), then he'd STILL be just as wrong as he actually was then (and that can be shown using verifiable evidence).

Open shut case, Cusick. Your spin has no place in this particular discussion, and maligning Einstein's quotes even further won't save you any face.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 4 by Neatras]

Your quote:

Quote: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

It's strange that Estn. would say that God does not play dice if the idea of God
is non existent in his mind.

Anyhow, he also said this:

(The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press)
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

"A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels."

[JP Cusick]

Einstein use to do that in many of his saying as like = "God does not play dice with the universe." - so he included a God as an aspect of his research.

I think this is especially hilarious, because he attempted to claim that quantum mechanics could not be truly random because that would conflict with his deterministic idea of a universe. Claiming "God does not play dice with the universe" was an attempt at rebuking the uncertainty of quantum mechanics; Einstein was wrong. So when you claim that Einstein presupposed or added God to his research, it led him to the wrong conclusion.

Might want to do some research on what these quotes actually mean in their context. Or maybe do research on scientific fields of study you have not demonstrated any familiarity with it. Or just try not to sound like an expert when your arguments are actually completely divorced from reality; others trusting you to be credible means having a responsibility to know what you're talking about.

As an edit, I'd be remiss to point out that Einstein still doesn't believe in your god, Cusick.

And look at that, a familiar excerpt you haven't addressed despite being pertinent to your particular spin of history and science:

And here's an even cuter quote you'll enjoy:

So, even if Einstein was actually presupposing a god (he wasn't) and even if he used that to formulate his beliefs about nature (he didn't), then he'd STILL be just as wrong as he actually was then (and that can be shown using verifiable evidence).

Open shut case, Cusick. Your spin has no place in this particular discussion, and maligning Einstein's quotes even further won't save you any face.

I was really just sticking to the thread topic - in that modern science must first include the possibility of a God into the search before there can be a proper scientific quest to find the truth.

For science to just say that there is no God - is thereby shirking its duty to research the possibility.

Einstein has turned out to be correct about quantum mechanics in that it is not so uncertain as it was theorized in the time of Einstein.

In the old idea of quantum mechanics nothing could be certain, and that science can only describe quantum mechanics in terms of probabilities. ~ Thereby came the famous quote = "God does not play dice with the universe."

What we have today based on the modern perception of quantum mechanics is the theory of multi-verses and parallel universes which is thereby God working through wonders and it is not God playing dice with the universe.

[McCulloch]

I was really just sticking to the thread topic - in that modern science must first include the possibility of a God into the search before there can be a proper scientific quest to find the truth.

Scientists have for generations included the possibility of a god. They eventually found that the God hypothesis did not help them at all.

For science to just say that there is no God - is thereby shirking its duty to research the possibility.

Science does not say that there is no God. However, science does show that there is no evidence supporting the idea that there is a god.

What we have today based on the modern perception of quantum mechanics is the theory of multi-verses and parallel universes which is thereby God working through wonders and it is not God playing dice with the universe.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics, even if true, does not validate God's existence.

[Divine Insight]

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

I believe this question should indeed be taken seriously by scientists. And I have in fact taken this question quite seriously from a scientific perspective. However the question is nowhere near as straight-forward as it first appears to be.

In science before we can ask questions about something we must first have a meaningful and coherent definition of just what it is we are asking to investigate. In this case the concept is called "God". Therefore the very first thing we need before we can make any further progress is a meaningful definition of what we mean by "God".

Apparently this very definition is different in different religious paradigms.

For example, based on the definition of "God" in various Eastern Mystical religious paradigms that assume pantheism we quickly discover that this type of God is simply beyond the reach of science. In short, there is no scientific method of inquiry that could determine whether this type of God exists or doesn't exist. This type of God is as far removed from the scientific method of inquire as is the concept of subjective experience. Other than our own subjective experience there really is no scientific means of objectively studying subjective experience. So subjective experience is basically beyond the reach of science. All we can say about subjective experience is that we personally have one. We can't even verify that anyone other than us has one. In short, we can't even scientifically prove or disprove solipsism. In a similar way we cannot prove of disprove the existence of a pantheistic non-intervening God. In fact, such a "God" would be no different from our subjective experience in many ways.

However, the moment we move on to other religions that claim to have a God that is defined as being an intelligent sovereign entity that is separate from us use fully capable of communicating with us is clear ways such as speaking from clouds, etc. Then this type of God is within the realm of the objective scientific method. All we need to do is search for and confirm the existence of this objective entity. Thus far there has been no evidence that such an entity exists.

More importantly, there actually exists plenty of evidence that all tales of such Gods are necessarily false due to the self-contradictory nature of those tales. So not only do we have no evidence for such a God, but we can show that all rumors of such a God are necessarily false. So it's extremely unlikely that such a God actually exists.

Of course in this case it's difficult to prove a negative. Although this is not true in all cases. Logic can be used to prove a negative. We see this used in Mathematics all the time. All that is required to prove a negative is sufficient information to show a self-contradiction in the description of the object in question. In the case of the Abrahamic religions we have ample proof from the tales of this God that this God cannot exist as describe by these religious tales written in Holy Books.

So in this case, certain Gods have indeed already been proven to be false rumors. No science required. They can be shown to be false by their own self-contradictory dogmas.

[Peter]

I agree that the Big-Bang gives us very little insight into what is God, and the creation event is only a physical reality with very little to teach about the spiritual side.

It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

Science is constantly searching for gods as it is for everything else that has any impact on reality. The fact that science hasn't yet found a trace of anything godlike should be informative.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

The first step would have to be agreeing as to what is meant by GOD.

For example, Intelligent Design as an idea can be examined from a scientific position by taking those two words -

'Intelligent' and 'Design'

and then agreeing that in order to have intelligence and be creative, the GOD would also have to be conscious and self aware.

So then one could look for evidence of self aware creative consciousness in the universe to see if such exists which could be attributed to Intelligent Design and thus an Intelligent Designer.

Then one could say 'This is what is meant by GOD' and see where that might scientifically lead.