Science and God

1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?

Stumbling blocks:
a) Is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof?
b) Can God be operationally defined?

Specifically, I'm asking: If empirical proof is sought, but "God" is generally seen as Spirit (ie, nonempirical), how do we reconcile? Can this be reconciled?

And if it can't be reconciled, which better reflects Occam's Razor:
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.
II - God can't be scientifically tested for. Period. His existence is still open, and will always be open, to question.

I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?

Stumbling blocks:
a) Is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof?
b) Can God be operationally defined?

Specifically, I'm asking: If empirical proof is sought, but "God" is generally seen as Spirit (ie, nonempirical), how do we reconcile? Can this be reconciled?

And if it can't be reconciled, which better reflects Occam's Razor:
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.
II - God can't be scientifically tested for. Period. His existence is still open, and will always be open, to question.

The scientific method is only as limited as the tools it relies on. A hundred years ago we couldn't have made half of the discoveries on things we now use today widespread (Such as computers, cellphones, surgery, etc.). The slim possibility exists that... IF God exists AND we find tools capable of discerning his existance, THEN science can answer the questions about him to an extent.

And really, the idea that God is "spirit" and that spirit is beyond empirical means is really begging for proof. The term spirit is just a definition of something that may or may not exist. The word "Glok" could be used to define a special rock that grows on Venus that, when rubbed against human skin, melts it. Then again, maybe the term and the idea remain, but the rock does not exist in reality. The term becomes useless. Or has it always been useless?

The big problem with defining God is he's supernatural by definition. By placing him in this real of above and beyond what is nature, by definition God must be beyond empirical proof or natural means. Somehow, he must exist outside of nature. But how can anything that's outside of nature be observed within it? I don't rightly know.

I suspect that the terms "supernatural" is a shoe-in for things that cannot be explain by conventional scientific methods and proofs. If you showed a tv to Michaelangelo, he'd swear it was supernatural. Same with a walkie talkie to Napolean Bonaparte. Perhaps what we deem as supernatural about God is simply just out of our grasp at this point. Or perhaps he doesn't exist as a consciousness as we perceive. Perhaps creation has no need of a god and we create him mentally out of our own insecurities like Freud suggested.

And lastly, I feel that Option II is the best course to take.

What is the scientific evidence for a religion being true. For god being true. For Creationism. There is a creator, and there was a beginning but there is no way of knowing what it is or how or why. Atleast the big bang was based on fact of the universe.

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
What is the scientific evidence for a religion being true. For god being true. For Creationism. There is a creator, and there was a beginning but there is no way of knowing what it is or how or why. Atleast the big bang was based on fact of the universe.

Don't be foolish, Falcon. The whole point of this thread is that the validity of the scientific method for being able to determine a supernatural being is in question. Address is like an adult and stop trying to push off your anti-Creationist agenda. While I do agree with you that Creationism and ID are foolish concepts to hold as "valid" and "sound", at the same time you run off at the mouth and make it a worse mess than it already needs to be.

And I doubt you know which "fact" the Big Bang is based on. Don't go spouting off Big Bang as the ultimate truth, because no real scientist argues that.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Don't be foolish, Falcon. The whole point of this thread is that the validity of the scientific method for being able to determine a supernatural being is in question. Address is like an adult and stop trying to push off your anti-Creationist agenda. While I do agree with you that Creationism and ID are foolish concepts to hold as "valid" and "sound", at the same time you run off at the mouth and make it a worse mess than it already needs to be.

And I doubt you know which "fact" the Big Bang is based on. Don't go spouting off Big Bang as the ultimate truth, because no real scientist argues that.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
The scientific method is only as limited as the tools it relies on... The slim possibility exists that... IF God exists AND we find tools capable of discerning his existance, THEN science can answer the questions about him to an extent.

Is it just the matter of the tools? What about the data collected? Always empirical? My feeling is, tools and data should always reflect the domain being studied. By this is all moot. We will know the proper set of tools to use and data to collect once we define what we're looking for.

The big problem with defining God is he's supernatural by definition. By placing him in this real of above and beyond what is nature, by definition God must be beyond empirical proof or natural means. Somehow, he must exist outside of nature. But how can anything that's outside of nature be observed within it? I don't rightly know.

Spirit, supernature, transempirica; we can call it Level III, a nice neutral term (though Glok wasn't bad). The task: do we define it in such a way that we Can test for it (ie, empirically)? Is that being fair to the phenomenon? Or--while applying strict scientific method-- do we expand the boundaries of what's considered proper scientific tools and proper scientific evidence?

Perhaps what we deem as supernatural about God is simply just out of our grasp at this point. Or perhaps he doesn't exist as a consciousness as we perceive. Perhaps creation has no need of a god and we create him mentally out of our own insecurities like Freud suggested.

That's why we need Science...applied common sense.

I think the greatest challenge to proving the phenomenon is identifying its nature. You can bring things to the table that you believe God had a hand in (whether it be experiences, miracles, prophecies or even just matter from creation itself), but you can't isolate God from what is nature's own operating procedure. Like I said, IF God is supernatural, THEN it would be difficult to pin him down inside of nature. For the same reasons, ghosts are not really proven or disproven by science- there is simply a lack of evidence either way. And it's far harder to disprove something than it is to prove its existance.

Hence, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

However... IF God is not really above and beyond nature but is somehow within it and can be defined by observations IN nature, THEN it stands to reason that God can be divined. But how? That's another question. Four hundred years ago you couldn't so much as imagine the concept of quantam physics, yet today we dabble in it all the time. It may come to be that we as human beings acquire technology so advanced that we can start solidifying stances on things. I think basically at this point that it's premature to say that we can divine his existance or discount it at this point- we do not possess the means to detect him properly... should he exist.

depends on one's definiton of god. If one is to believe that it is the Jewish/Christian god........should be simple to prove it scientificly. The very basis of their definition of god is that god can easily interact with our physical world, from it's very creation to the end of time. If something interacts with our physical world, it can be detected.......leaving data to be researched, tested, and retested via the scientific method. Just because the last 4,000 or so years these groups have claimed their god exists yet it has yet to be detected doesn't mean that it won't in the future..............ofcourse 4,000 years of leaving no evidence certainly does not bode well for it's probability. In the last 4,000 years it has left the exact same amount of evidence for it's existence as the easter bunny......

God isn't a math problem we can figure out. Or a science project. So no, I don't think you can scientifically test for God.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think the greatest challenge to proving the phenomenon is identifying its nature.

In the mystical literature (eg, Kabbalah, Zen Buddhism, etc), God is said to be both immanent (in nature) and transcendent (beyond nature). As you pointed out, if we try and identify His immanence, how do we distinguish it from "nature's own operating procedure?" Will that require a tech so advanced we can't even imagine it? If we go for His transcendence, well, then, are we back at square one, no matter how advanced our (physics-based) technology?

Evil Dead: it does not bode well for the Big Bearded White Guy.

God isn't a math problem we can figure out. Or a science project. So no, I don't think you can scientifically test for God.

It's not a matter for thought. Anything in this universe that interacts with the physical world can be detected. If something can be detected, it can be recorded. If something can be recorded, it can be researched. There is no room for opinion on the matter......the matter does not deal will opinions...

Originally posted by Evil Dead
It's not a matter for thought. Anything in this universe that interacts with the physical world can be detected. If something can be detected, it can be recorded. If something can be recorded, it can be researched. There is no room for opinion on the matter......the matter does not deal will opinions...

Yes, we can detect things in the physical world that interact with other things... to a degree that our knowledge and tools allow us. There's still some problems in quantum physics where subatomic particles are seemingly random and independent of cause and effect (Though I believe it's because we can't examine anything much more elusive than subatomic particles that could be EFFECTING them, nor could we observe the neccessary changes at that point). And again, if God operates less directly like it says in say, the Bible and more subtlely (Like God basically enforces the seemingly nature laws of the world), he would be impossible to detect outside of nature itself.

And again, if God operates less directly like it says in say, the Bible and more subtlely (Like God basically enforces the seemingly nature laws of the world), he would be impossible to detect outside of nature itself.

we're not really talking about the sub-atomic world here........the bible as you just referenced has god parting an entire sea.....has god causing plagues........has god speaking in loud booming voices which are easily recordable by even the worst of the recording technology we have today.

There are many claims of god's interactions with the physical world......referred to as miracles. All of these claims could be easy to gather data from and research.............except for the fact that none of these supposed interactions happen anymore. I guess god died 5,000 years ago.......or never existed at all.

Kind of like some kid talking about how good he is at basketball. He's the best. He's played for years, never missed a shot. Finally you corner him on a court and challenge him and he says, "I don't feel like playing ball anymore for the rest of my life". Those are Christians. Alot of talk about all these huge miracles that supposedly happened........challenge them and it's , "god doesn't feel like playing ball anymore for the rest of his life".

^There is more then just the god of the bible. That god is limited.

Actually, my reference to the Bible was because God in there regularly interacts with the world and is detectable. But I don't really give that a whole lot of credit. What I was hinting at was that God may be indistinguishable from nature because he operates solely through it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Actually, my reference to the Bible was because God in there regularly interacts with the world and is detectable. But I don't really give that a whole lot of credit. What I was hinting at was that God may be indistinguishable from nature because he operates solely through it.

What if nature is God?

That's what I'm implying. See, when people think of God, they think anthropocentrically, and they expect God to be human, with a unique personality and form. However, I gravitate towards the idea that nature as it's bound is god. God is not really "supernatural", but rather "all natural". In this sense, god is not all-powerful and unlimited, but rather the definer of everything. The first mover, the enforcer of natural laws, and perhaps - in the most subtle way possible- the guiding force behind all things.

I say this because the old world view of god as trascendant of nature does not make sense. Even outside of this planet, things operate under rules. You don't go into space and suddenly chemical reactions cease to be. There's still light, and gravity. There IS order throughout all things. So IF God existed, THEN I would argue that God is not a singular being but the very centerpiece of nature itself.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...but the very centerpiece of nature itself.

Nicely phrased.

Sounds like you appreciate some form of pantheism as a possible means toward empirical validation, whereas biblical God is outside/separate and beyond. The perennial philosophy says both (sans anthropomorphism), and the final frontier for exploring both His Immanence and Transcendence is consciousness.

Consciousness (in broadest terms) is itself a bugaboo from a scientific-empirical POV. We can correlate behavior and physiological processes, but it is immediately real only subjectively.

That takes one helluva sense of humor. Ergo: God must exist.

Yeah consciousness and the mind works fits for strict empircism.

Btw, who was it who said "God is in the details"?