https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/?amp

No.
Not as long as science relies upon a 95% Fudge Factor they call "Dark Matter/Ennergy" for lack of a better descriptor.

Science is just a process for determining what is true.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/
> can-science-rule-out-god/?amp
>
> No.
> Not as long as science relies upon a 95% Fudge
> Factor they call "Dark Matter/Ennergy" for lack of
> a better descriptor.


That is not a logical argument. Before Bernoulli formulated his equation relating kinetic energy, potential energy, and pressure in fluids, the explanation for the behavior of fluids wasn't "God" despite the fact we didn't know yet what the explanation WAS. It just means we didn't know yet. The same is true of dark matter and dark energy: they're placeholders in the equations that we've formulated to describe the motion of stars until we discover something different. That's how the scientific method works.

"That is not a logical argument."

COMMENT: Sure it is! The argument is that as long the what exists according to science remains narrowly determined, science cannot "rule-out" the existence of God.
____________________________________

Before Bernoulli formulated his equation relating kinetic energy, potential energy, and pressure in fluids, the explanation for the behavior of fluids wasn't "God" despite the fact we didn't know yet what the explanation WAS. It just means we didn't know yet.

COMMENT: The Bernoulli equation [actually formulated by Euler] was a mathematical description and conceptual explanation of a known physical phenomenon; i.e. the behavior of fluids. The equation assumes the existence of matter, and the underlying properties of matter that generate fluidity. The explanation of fluidity is simply showing how such properties interact in order to create the phenomenon in question.
_____________________________________

The same is true of dark matter and dark energy: they're placeholders in the equations that we've formulated to describe the motion of stars until we discover something different. That's how the scientific method works.

COMMENT: "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are NOT just placeholders for equations. They are "placeholders" for some as yet unknown ontological "thing" or "property" of the universe that influences the known material world in a profound way, but is not itself part of the known material world. To say that "dark matter" is a placeholder for an equation is like saying that ordinary matter was a placeholder for Newton's laws of motion; or that "water" was a placeholder for Bernoulli's equation. Scientific explanations are not just about the relations of physical properties; they are also about the nature of the underlying reality that generates such properties and relations. In this case, science is, well, . . . in the dark.

Note that AY said that dark energy and dark matter are placeholders. You inserted the word "just", which changes the meaning. They are more than placeholders, but they clearly are placeholders for phenomena we don't understand at all well. The effects are precisely measurable. The causes are unknown, but we needed to put some sort of name on them just to be able to talk about them. Think of the names as "working titles"

Well, AY did not himself qualify his identification as "placeholders." The fact that, as you say, they are "more than placeholders" is precisely my point. And the "more" part is what is at issue. They are "placeholders" for a phenomena that is outside of the current scientific understanding of the material world. They stand for something that is in that sense metaphysical. Science routinely identifies placeholders, but NOT as substitutes for metaphysical entities or properties that lie outside of known physical law. That is why SC original point is well taken.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...science cannot "rule-out" the
> existence of God.


Which god? Whose god? What type of god?

I would laugh my butt off if science were ever to announce, "We found God. But it's nothing like anything any religion has ever imagined."

I don’t think scientists are thrilled with it, but it will have to do until something better comes along. Kind of like how the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, with its weird looping motions, had to do until Copernicus came along.

The odds of dark energy being a permanent fixture aren’t high. Although that doesn’t mean science isn’t kind of like religion. Any institution will mix its own Kool Aid. But at least science actively tries (in principle) to police its bad ideas rather than protect them as in Mormonism.

Three percent of all the people who have ever lived are alive right now. Therefor we can't rule out that some people will never die.

Same quality of argument.

Science could rule god in. Replicate the First Vision at will by other people under laboratory conditions. Have a functioning seer stone that correctly predicts the winning Powerball numbers 2,500 times in a row. At a $40 million minimum jackpot, that'd be $100 billion.

That would be extraordinary evidence of Mormonism's extraordinary claims. Rusty writing notes to himself in bed at 3 am is less extraordinary.

Science could rule god in. Replicate the First Vision at will by other people under laboratory conditions. Have a functioning seer stone that correctly predicts the winning Powerball numbers 2,500 times in a row. At a $40 million minimum jackpot, that'd be $100 billion.

COMMENT: Nothing you have said here "rules God in" from a scientific point of view. All of the described phenomena could exist without God, and could (and would) be just considered mysteries that science could not explain. There is no necessary connection between these phenomena and God.

Suppose, alternatively, that at a scientific convention held with all the great scientists of the world, Jesus descended from the sky in a pillar of light (like the description in the BoM when he appeared to the Nephites) for all to see and witness. He then announced himself as "God" provided a religious sermon, before ascending back into "heaven." Now, to press the point, suppose this occurred every year such that there was no doubt as to the "experience" of the scientists of the world. Would this "rule God in" from a scientific point of view?

Now, it might rule God in *for* scientists on a psychological level; i.e. they might all become believers. However, "God" as a metaphysical entity is still left scientifically unexplained. As such, *science* per se still cannot "rule God in." There is still no laboratory experiment that "reveals" God; there is still no scientific equation that explains God or places God within the realm of science.

This hypothetical amplifies science's dismissive attitude toward religious experience and paranormal phenomenon in general. Experiential reports about metaphysical entities or anomalous mental phenomena are left outside the door of science. This is a product of both methodology and a materialist commitment; both of which are necessary for science to progress. This would not change if one hypothetically dramatizes and exaggerates human experiences. Science, by its own terms, is a rigid gatekeeper for "truth," turning away at the door much of empirical phenomena that does not qualify as scientific by its own terms.

The scientists would not be interested in a sermon. They would need God to provide some answers, not preach with some light show.

Besides, God should be able to figure out a way to provide satisfactory actual scientific evidence. Maybe He could explain how they are seeing this non-material being with human eyes so they test it. Maybe He could explain to the scientists how to create pillars of light so they could replicate them. Maybe He could answer questions about unknown areas in science or explain other ways to test paranormal claims. BoJ's suggestions would also contribute to scientific data.

God goes from scientific gap to scientific gap as we learn more. Now it's trendy to put God in other dimensions and dark matter. God is always protected from science by moving Him further and further out of what we know. It seems the metaphysical exclusion claims might be testable in satisfactory scientific ways, but if history repeats, there may not be anything metaphysical needed to explain the gaps.

"The scientists would not be interested in a sermon. They would need God to provide some answers, not preach with some light show."

COMMENT: Well, I think under such circumstances as described, even scientists might well be interested in what "Jesus" had to say by way of a sermon. However, they certainly would long for a scientific explanation of what was going on. I suspect, however, that given the universality of the experience, and its annual repetitions, they would not be inclined to merely explain the experience away as a trick, or a delusion. They would want an explanation as to what natural laws and metaphysical truths were involved that they did not currently understand. But, to put the point in another way, there must be some proposed hypothetical subjective experience such that even the most hard-nosed scientist would step back and reconsider his or her otherwise ridged, scientifically-based, materialist worldview.
_______________________________________________

"Besides, God should be able to figure out a way to provide satisfactory actual scientific evidence. Maybe He could explain how they are seeing this non-material being with human eyes so they test it. Maybe He could explain to the scientists how to create pillars of light so they could replicate them. Maybe He could answer questions about unknown areas in science or explain other ways to test paranormal claims. BoJ's suggestions would also contribute to scientific data."

COMMENT: Yes, presumably God would be able to say something about these matters. But, suppose for whatever reason he chose not to; i.e. he just let the experience speak for itself, without adding any additional explanations. The experience itself, as described, would still be rather remarkable; psychologically compelling; and worldview changing. After all, we do not need to understand the particulars of our experiences (e.g. the specific mechanisms of sense perception) in order to evaluate the meaning and value of such experiences in formulating our worldview.
________________________________________

"God goes from scientific gap to scientific gap as we learn more. Now it's trendy to put God in other dimensions and dark matter. God is always protected from science by moving Him further and further out of what we know. It seems the metaphysical exclusion claims might be testable in satisfactory scientific ways, but if history repeats, there may not be anything metaphysical needed to explain the gaps."

COMMENT: Well, let's at least acknowledge that the gaps in scientific knowledge remain enormous, however slowly shrinking with time. Moreover, arguably some such gaps at least appear to be intractable, simply because of the limitations imposed on human knowledge by evolutionary principles, most notably adaptationism. Such limitations inherently include limited access to reality on the levels of both the very large and very small. For example, we will probably never know whether and what functions and interactions go on in multiple universes, or at the Planck length; or understand how physical systems like brains create consciousness, the self, and subjective experience. These are serious gaps that will probably always be available for exploitation by religion. Moreover, sometimes the very intractable and mysterious nature of such gaps (e.g. consciousness, the self, and mind) invite religious exploitation (e.g. the notion of a soul)

Hope you had a nice day yesterday. HB

Science can't confirm or deny the existence of god or give answers to metaphysical questions.

Science can tell you *how.*

It can't tell you *why.*

Science cannot answer moral or ethical questions nor should it do so.

It's simply a way of looking at the world and trying to explain what you see with logic and reason and natural cause and effect.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2019 10:33AM by anybody.

Science can't even rule out the type of question you just asked.

No matter what science achieves. No matter what new facts exploration unearths, or un-universes. No matter how much science acknowledges its own limitations like the religious never will. This type of question will be brought up as a slam against science.

Even those idiot Mormons know that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And they trot it out all the time as all relgious do as that phrase is all they have as they continue to believe that for which there is no evidence.

Science is exploration.

Religion is believing the unbelievable.

Only the religious are trying to make a contest out of it.

Well said.

"No matter what science achieves. No matter what new facts exploration unearths, or un-universes. No matter how much science acknowledges its own limitations like the religious never will. This type of question will be brought up as a slam against science."

COMMENT: It is not brought up as a slam against science. It is brought up as a justification of religion in the face of science. Moreover, religion *does* acknowledge its own limitations, which is the whole basis for the idea of faith. Why must you (and others) be so defensive of science's superior epistemic position. After all, most theists highly respect science--when it does not overstate the scope of its access to reality.
________________________________________________

"Even those idiot Mormons know that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And they trot it out all the time as all relgious do as that phrase is all they have as they continue to believe that for which there is no evidence."

COMMENT: You should NOT so readily allow the "absence of evidence" point, since it is fallacious. After all, the absence of evidence most certainly *IS* evidence of absence. Why? Because the absence of evidence after dutiful looking (in the logical place) affects the probabilities that the thing in question exists; whether it be a subatomic particle, a proposed planet, a nuclear missile, or gremlins in the attic. The absence of evidence for a traditional God, therefore, *is* evidence that no such God exists, its just not conclusive.
____________________________________________

Science is exploration.
Religion is believing the unbelievable.
Only the religious are trying to make a contest out of it.

COMMENT: Agree as to the first statement. Tend to agree as to the second statement. But as to the third statement, it is hardly true that it is religion that is solely responsible for the context between science and religion. It seems to me that most of the noise is coming from the scientifically minded who oppose religion rather than the religiously minded that oppose science. I consider myself a rather strident example of the former.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------

> "Even those idiot Mormons know that "Absence of
> evidence is not evidence of absence."

The aphorism is correctly stated "Absense of evidence is not proof of absence.

First, I did no say what you are attributing to me!

Second: Done & Done correctly quoted this well-known aphorism as thus:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Your attempt to modify it with the word "proof" substituted for the second "evidence" may be better logically, but it is also trivial because even substantive evidence is not "proof" of the non-existence (absence) of some entity or fact.

A lot depends on what you define as "God". But if you are speaking an all-powerful, personal God, like the Abrahamic God, the scientific process has done a great job of making him more insignificant. Although we are not yet at the point of completely eliminating God, I do believe that the scientific process will continue to make the "God of the gaps" less and less believable.

All gods are equally real. Tell us which gods "science" can rule out and why.

If you are talking about the being that created homo-sapien then absolutely not.
Even the ancient cuneiform tablets speak of the Creator of all as a high level being.
Therefore I do not believe that science can rule out the being God!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2019 01:31PM by thedesertrat1.

Science proceeds by formulating hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them. The question you ask, SC, is one that cannot be answered scientifically because there is no generally agreed definition of "God" and hence no hypothesis to falsify.

Believers cheat. They dare scientists to prove there is no God but refuse to provide the predicate. When one God loses popularity or credibility--few today embrace the thunder god--they simply adopt a new one, or the old one with new characteristics, and insist that science disprove its existence.

You might as well challenge scientists to disprove the reality of things we cannot today imagine. It's a fool's errand. You can't falsify an undefined principle.

Science proceeds by formulating hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them. The question you ask, SC, is one that cannot be answered scientifically because there is no generally agreed definition of "God" and hence no hypothesis to falsify.

COMMENT: In my view, the definition of God is not the problem. After all, we can define "God" in the traditional way, simply as an unseen personal Being of superior intelligence who created the world, and all things in it; is concerned about the fate of human beings; hears and answers their prayers; and has a plan of salvation. That is clearly a very straightforward definition of God that science can in principle address, and does address quite regularly. The fact that some religions might disagree with this definition does not in any way affect how *this,* or any other definition of God, can be addressed by science. The fact that such a "God" is not falsifiable is not a definitional issue, it is an evidential issue.
__________________________________________

Believers cheat. They dare scientists to prove there is no God but refuse to provide the predicate. When one God loses popularity or credibility--few today embrace the thunder god--they simply adopt a new one, or the old one with new characteristics, and insist that science disprove its existence.

COMMENT: This strikes me as just factually incorrect. Believers do not dare scientists to prove a negative. They simply point out that the existence of God is not within the purview of science. They most certainly do not adjust their conception of God based upon the dictates of science. The definition provided above still stands as a popular definition of the Christian God after 2k years, regardless of science.
_______________________________________

You might as well challenge scientists to disprove the reality of things we cannot today imagine. It's a fool's errand. You can't falsify an undefined principle.

COMMENT: Scientists may not be able to "disprove" God, but that does not imply that they cannot apply principles of logic and evidence to beliefs in God; pointing out, for example, such things as the problem of evil, and the inconsistency or incoherence of certain claims about the various attributes of God, for example omnipotence and omniscience. Moreover, as noted above, the absence of evidence (for God) is in fact evidence of absence (that God does not exist)!

That said, happy holidays LW!

Henry, let's first look at several of your assertions to see if 1) they represent the consensus of believers, 2) they are definite, and 3) believers "do not adjust their conception of God based upon the dictates of science."


--------------------
> simply as an unseen personal
> Being of superior intelligence who created the
> world, and all things in it;

Do Episcopalians, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, and Shintoists agree on what the "unseen personal Being of superior intelligence" is? Because as I see it, those faiths don't even agree on whether God is singular, triune, or multitudinous. Many of those faiths surely do not assert that God is a "personal being" or even that he has a "will." Your definition is may fit your personal idea of God, but that's about as far as it goes.

Do they agree on how the creation occurred or even what creation means? Have most believers not given up the idea that God was either the sun or the storm, that he created the earth in seven days 6,000 years ago, that he made the sun stand still? How about the notion that the earth stands at the center of the universe?


----------------
> is concerned about
> the fate of human beings;


Do all believers think God cares about the fate of humans? Was that part of the original Indo-European religions? The Greek ones? Does Nirvana "think" or "feel" let alone experience "concern?" Do Christian deists believe God is concerned about human fate?

And has not the advent of modern medicine changed the way Christians felt about healing?


------------------
> hears and answers their
> prayers; and has a plan of salvation.

Do Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists believe in a personal God who hears and answers prayers? Do they believe he has "a plan of salvation?" Do Calvinistic faiths believe that there is "a plan of salvation" as opposed to a predestined list?


------------------
> That is
> clearly a very straightforward definition of God
> that science can in principle address, and does
> address quite regularly.

It is a vague definition of God that is neither widely shared nor concrete enough to test. As for the notion that science "quite regularly" evaluates such matters, can you indicate a single scientific paper that has addressed the topics you just adumbrated in the context of "God?" Because I don't think that serious scientists investigate principles without definite characteristics that can be subjected to attempted falsification.


------------------
> The fact that some
> religions might disagree with this definition does
> not in any way affect how *this,* or any other
> definition of God, can be addressed by science.

So you acknowledge that your definition is arbitrary. That seems quite a retreat from how you started this post; and it gets us back to the foundational question: why would scientists test propositions that are not generally accepted? If they did what you are now insisting--formulating their own definitions of God and testing them--would that not admit the possibility that some other definition of God might still be true?


--------------
> The fact that such a "God" is not falsifiable is
> not a definitional issue, it is an evidential
> issue.

If that were true, you could provide a single definition to which believers would ascribe. But you cannot, and for that reason we can't even formulate a hypothesis to test let alone find relevant evidence to evaluate. No definition means no evidence.


-----------------
> COMMENT: This strikes me as just factually
> incorrect. Believers do not dare scientists to
> prove a negative. They simply point out that the
> existence of God is not within the purview of
> science.

False. Many believers assert that science, properly understood or as it will unfold in the future, will prove the existence of God.

Moreover, you just said that the existence of God and his attributes is one that "science can in principle address, and does address quite regularly." Now you say that "God is not within the purview of science." That contradiction is a pretty good indication that you have entered an intellectual cul-de-sac.


----------------
> They most certainly do not adjust their
> conception of God based upon the dictates of
> science. The definition provided above still
> stands as a popular definition of the Christian
> God after 2k years, regardless of science.

Patently false. The nature and mechanisms of creation are not at all perceived in the same way as 2000 years ago. That is true of Judaism, Greek religion, the Indian traditions, and Christianity; as well as the many pagan religions that have fallen by the wayside in part because science invalidated them. The truth is that the only way you can proffer a definition is by keeping the attributes so inchoate that they cannot be tested--and, as shown above, even your attempts to devise such a definition fail because you are too specific.


----------------
> COMMENT: Scientists may not be able to "disprove"
> God, but that does not imply that they cannot
> apply principles of logic and evidence to beliefs
> in God; pointing out, for example, such things as
> the problem of evil,

Henry, this paragraph befuddles me. Why would scientists investigate traits of a being whose existence they can neither confirm nor deny? And how exactly are they to define "evil" in terms that are falsifiable?


--------------
> and the inconsistency or
> incoherence of certain claims about the various
> attributes of God, for example omnipotence and
> omniscience.

I hope you wrote this while intoxicated. For how would you suggest falsifying the notion that an unseen and undefined being is "omnipotent?"


------------------
> Moreover, as noted above, the absence
> of evidence (for God) is in fact evidence of
> absence (that God does not exist)!

But you can't possibly know that. You have not provided a falsifiable hypothesis and hence cannot reach a conclusion about what evidence would look like let alone whether it exists.


-----------------
I think you have just proved my point. Science cannot evaluate a proposition that is not definite enough to test. There is no universal, or even general, definition of God let alone of his attributes. Science moves forward and those attributes change, meaning that a successful falsification of a divine characteristic would alter the nature of God. Your process would thus have scientists creating God in their own image.

So you are going too far in two separate regards. You err when saying that God is a definite concept; and then you turn around and say that the absence of evidence for God proves there is no God. Both of those statements are illogical.

All we can really say is that we don't know what God is supposed to be and therefore cannot reach a definite conclusion about his/her/its existence. Which was my point.

PS. Happy holidays to you too, Henry.

Do Episcopalians, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, and Shintoists agree on what the "unseen personal Being of superior intelligence" is? Because as I see it, those faiths don't even agree on whether God is singular, triune, or multitudinous. Many of those faiths surely do not assert that God is a "personal being" or even that he has a "will." Your definition is may fit your personal idea of God, but that's about as far as it goes.

COMMENT: No doubt there is much confusion and diversity about the nature of God. But, as I see it, there is a bottom-line definition that withstands such confusion--especially with lay believers who, I believe, merely subscribe to the basic definition I suggested, without worrying much about the details. In short, religions can disagree about all sorts of properties ascribable to God, but nonetheless have a faith-based view of God that is sufficiently defined to address on the merits in a rational, logical way.
______________________________________________

Do they agree on how the creation occurred or even what creation means? Have most believers not given up the idea that God was either the sun or the storm, that he created the earth in seven days 6,000 years ago, that he made the sun stand still? How about the notion that the earth stands at the center of the universe?

COMMENT: Again, don't confuse the properties of an entity with the essential definition that encompasses that entity. All human beings have a complex set of unique, individuating properties; yet they all can still be defined as "humans" in an essential and useful way, however incomplete.
____________________________________

Do all believers think God cares about the fate of humans? Was that part of the original Indo-European religions? The Greek ones? Does Nirvana "think" or "feel" let alone experience "concern?" Do Christian deists believe God is concerned about human fate?

COMMENT: It is hard to get anywhere with definitions if one sets a standard that "all" must agree on a definition in order for it to apply and have usefulness as a concept. My proposed definition was obviously Western in orientation, which notwithstanding anomalies, generally meets the basic criteria I suggested. And my point is that that definition, even if not strictly universal, provides a window in which religion can be evaluated from a scientific and evidential perspective. Isn't that precisely what Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and many others have done?
_________________________________________

It is a vague definition of God that is neither widely shared nor concrete enough to test. As for the notion that science "quite regularly" evaluates such matters, can you indicate a single scientific paper that has addressed the topics you just adumbrated in the context of "God?" Because I don't think that serious scientists investigate principles without definite characteristics that can be subjected to attempted falsification.

COMMENT: There are thousands of examples where scientists address religion in one way or another; perhaps most notably biology in its evaluation of Intelligent Design; or cognitive science in its insistence, with evidence, that a religious soul is unnecessary. Richard Dawkins has made a career in applying scientific principles to religious faith. And the definition of God that is the subject of such commentary is much as I suggested. Of course, there are no laboratory experiments involving God, but one can still apply the facts and evidence of science to the central belief in God as the creator of the material world, and non-material intelligent agent who operates to some extent in the material world.
________________________________________

So you acknowledge that your definition is arbitrary. That seems quite a retreat from how you started this post; and it gets us back to the foundational question: why would scientists test propositions that are not generally accepted? If they did what you are now insisting--formulating their own definitions of God and testing them--would that not admit the possibility that some other definition of God might still be true?

COMMENT: All definitions are "arbitrary" to some extent. Objectivation of a definition is through use and consensus, some definitions obtaining more objective favor than others. This is how language works. Notwithstanding that, you can identify a working definition that is useful in a context, and evaluate its implications and relationship to facts and evidence. There is no consensus as to the details of the multiverse in cosmology, but cosmologists can still discuss and evaluate the existence of a "multiverse" from a very basic definition; i.e. the idea that our universe is only one of many universes. That bare definition is workable as a starting point for discussion--on a scientific level!
________________________________________

--------------
> The fact that such a "God" is not falsifiable is
> not a definitional issue, it is an evidential
> issue.

If that were true, you could provide a single definition to which believers would ascribe. But you cannot, and for that reason we can't even formulate a hypothesis to test let alone find relevant evidence to evaluate. No definition means no evidence.

COMMENT: But I provided you with a definition! Once I did that, consideration of evidence is applicable. And if it turns out that God by that definition is not falsifiable by evidence, it does not follow that such definition is incoherent or meaningless for purposes of discussion and evaluation. After all, a theory that is not falsifiable does NOT mean that there is no evidence for or against it. It just means that there is no evidence even in principle that would conclusively show it to be false. Many scientific theories are non-falsifiable, for example String Theory, but nonetheless scientists have still spent years and careers trying to establish its truth.
__________________________________________


-----------------
> COMMENT: This strikes me as just factually
> incorrect. Believers do not dare scientists to
> prove a negative. They simply point out that the
> existence of God is not within the purview of
> science.

False. Many believers assert that science, properly understood or as it will unfold in the future, will prove the existence of God.

COMMENT: But that does not mean that such theists demand that science prove otherwise. It just means that they think God is a natural, rather than supernatural, entity, that may one day become in the purview of science.
______________________________________________

Moreover, you just said that the existence of God and his attributes is one that "science can in principle address, and does address quite regularly." Now you say that "God is not within the purview of science." That contradiction is a pretty good indication that you have entered an intellectual cul-de-sac.

COMMENT: No. I didn't say that. What I said was that religion is in the purview of science, but that science cannot "prove" religion false. I cannot prove String Theory false, but it is still within the purview of science!
____________________________________________

----------------
> COMMENT: Scientists may not be able to "disprove"
> God, but that does not imply that they cannot
> apply principles of logic and evidence to beliefs
> in God; pointing out, for example, such things as
> the problem of evil,

Henry, this paragraph befuddles me. Why would scientists investigate traits of a being whose existence they can neither confirm nor deny? And how exactly are they to define "evil" in terms that are falsifiable?

COMMENT: It is not a matter of investigating God. Science cannot do that. All I have said here is that science can apply its facts, logic, and evidence to God claims. Falsifiability is NOT a prerequisite for scientific interest or evaluation, as I have shown above.
_________________________________________


> and the inconsistency or
> incoherence of certain claims about the various
> attributes of God, for example omnipotence and
> omniscience.

I hope you wrote this while intoxicated. For how would you suggest falsifying the notion that an unseen and undefined being is "omnipotent?"

COMMENT: Again, you are confusing scientific interest and the application of scientific facts and evidence with the falsifiability of competing theories. The fact that any theory, religious or otherwise, is not falsifiable has nothing to do with whether scientific facts and evidence are applicable to that theory, or whether that theory can be considered from a scientific perspective.
______________________________________________

> Moreover, as noted above, the absence
> of evidence (for God) is in fact evidence of
> absence (that God does not exist)!

But you can't possibly know that. You have not provided a falsifiable hypothesis and hence cannot reach a conclusion about what evidence would look like let alone whether it exists.

COMMENT: This is a comment about the evidence for God, based upon the definition of God that I provided. *That* definition entails that God is active in human and world affairs. A scientific view of such matters does not provide the slightest support for such a thesis; i.e. there is an absence of evidence for God as supernatural being interested in and affecting human affairs. That absence of evidence *is* of itself evidence that such a God does not exist, because if such a God *did* exist, one would expect the world to be quite different than it is. Now, this may be arguable, but it is precisely the point of the problem of evil.

Another way to put it is as follows: Does the fact that God is not evident in human affairs (from a scientific point of view) make the probability of the existence of God less that it would be if in fact we could see scientific evidence of such involvement? If the answer to that question is yes, then the absence of such evidence is evidence that God does not exist.

You are asserting that science should address the reality of a God whom you describe. But your definition is yours alone. You claim it is general, but it excludes billions of people, probably a majority of the global population. In addition, you assert that your definition must be so general that God cannot be evaluated by testing the specific propositions of the religions you purport to encompass.

What scientist would ever investigate THAT? You have explicitly ruled out concrete historical and dogmatic traits that might be tested with the scientific method. And why would any researcher accept what is ultimately the assertion of a single human being? Reaching conclusions about your God tells us nothing about others' God.

No employed scientist would ever waste time on such a wild goose chase.

"You are asserting that science should address the reality of a God whom you describe."

COMMENT: I didn't say science should do anything. All I said was that the facts and evidence of science can be applied in one way or another to the concept of God, as traditionally defined, or defined in any way you want. Definitions of God do not create a problem for science in evaluating religion.
_______________________________________

But your definition is yours alone. You claim it is general, but it excludes billions of people, probably a majority of the global population. In addition, you assert that your definition must be so general that God cannot be evaluated by testing the specific propositions of the religions you purport to encompass.

COMMENT: Again, you are misrepresenting my comments. I only offered a definition of God that generally meets the Western concept of God, as in Christianity. Never did I say, or imply that the definition of God "must be so general" such that God cannot be evaluated by testing specific religious propositions. Where on earth did you extrapolate that from? Not me. Remember, it was you that started this discussion by excluding scientific evaluation based, not on facts or evidence, but definitions. It is I that have maintained that science has something to say about religion; and that religion cannot escape such scrutiny because of multiple definitions of God. Any coherent definition of God can be assessed by the standards of science. I only provided one very common one; never claiming that it was the only one possible.
____________________________________________

What scientist would ever investigate THAT? You have explicitly ruled out concrete historical and dogmatic traits that might be tested with the scientific method.

COMMENT: How did I do that?
___________________________________________

And why would any researcher accept what is ultimately the assertion of a single human being? Reaching conclusions about your God tells us nothing about others' God.

COMMENT: Look, nobody said that there was a "research program" for science to study religion--other than historical, cultural, or psychological. However, if a scientist, like Dawkins for example, is presented with some definition or idea of God, there is nothing preventing him from applying scientific facts and evidence to such an idea, which is exactly what he claimed to be doing in The God Delusion. That is all I am saying.

And, to get back to the original point, this has nothing do with any general problem in defining God, as you alleged in the post that started all this. After all, Dawkins, and others, had no problem writing their books because of definitional concerns.

You said God does not retreat from science. I brought up the age of the earth and other ways in which science has forced believers to adjust their definition of God to account for what is now known. Your reply was that the definition of God should be so general that it is not dependent on specific historical and dogmatic propositions.

Thus you write: "there is nothing preventing [a scientist] from applying scientific facts and evidence to [God]." Yes, Henry, there is. The obstacle is your defining God in a way that is unamenable to scientific examination.


---------------
Finally, you write, "to get back to the original point, this has nothing do with any general problem in defining God. . . After all, Dawkins, and others, had no problem writing their books because of definitional concerns."

Henry, I hold you to a higher standard than Dawkins and the other hucksters merely trying to make a buck. Unless, of course, you decide to write a book--in which case we should do it together.

Rest assured that I would insist on nothing more than 70% of the royalties.

Henry, I hold you to a higher standard than Dawkins and the other hucksters merely trying to make a buck. Unless, of course, you decide to write a book--in which case we should do it together.

COMMENT: Well, you have got me there, in that I do hold myself to a higher standard than Dawkins to be sure. But, he *is* a scientist, after all, and a renowned one at that; and does apply science to religion. And, what about the multitude of other biologists, biochemists, and geneticists, who have gone out of their way to apply science to dismiss creationist ideas? The only religious definition they seem to care about is God as a creator-designer. That definition encompasses a lot of religions, right?
__________________________________________

Rest assured that I would insist on nothing more than 70% of the royalties.

Does that mean you will write 70 percent of the book?
That would probably be wise, because if there is one thing I have learned from the Board its that few people, if any, care much for my ideas; and the ones that do mostly think I am nuts---and they're probably right! You, on the other hand, are a pillar of the community! So, start writing!

There's a difference between scientists who ply their trade regarding genetics, for instance, and then make the concomitant point that the Genesis account of creation is patently false; and those who set out to disprove that account directly. The former are more serious scientists, and more credible, than the latter for the reasons I presented above.

And yes, I accept your offer to write 70% of our book in exchange for my only taking 70% of the royalties. You negotiated an excellent bargain!

Science can only test things that are true whether or not you believe in them. It automatically fails, by design, to test phenomena that are true only if you believe in them. It’s not a matter of being too hard, it’s a matter of “not my job”. The real question is whether science SHOULD test the latter. Because then it wouldn’t really be science. It would be something else.

Such a matter could be one of culpability. If science accepted the reality of the eternal soul, it would have a lot to answer for.

First you define God. And no fair changing your definition after the game has started. And no fair making God so broad that any definition will fit. The operative word is "define". Then we'll talk.

I suppose they may have a strong case to rule out god if they can just provide a piece of code that can turn into a living creature. or make a glass light bulb that can make baby light bulbs. Show us some pond scum that can turn into a bird. All this should be easy enough for a scientist?

> I suppose they may have a strong case to rule out
> god if they can just provide a piece of code that
> can turn into a living creature.

They already have.

Say what? A living creature? No chance.

A "living creature" is an organism that is a self-sustaining, autopoietic physical system that incorporates its energy by some metabolic process that tapes into its environment. (And presumably is able to reproduce.)

In no way has science even come close to creating such a creature, much less creating one out of "code" (Whatever that even means.) The most it has done is clone an *existing* creature from pre-existing" DNA. That is a far cry from providing a piece of code that they can turn into a living creature.

If you are not careful, you might grossly mislead people by such comments.

> The most [science]
> has done is clone an *existing* creature from
> pre-existing" DNA.

Precisely. That is the challenge that macaRomney posed when he asked for "a piece of code that can turn into a living creature."


------------------
> If you are not careful, you might grossly mislead
> people by such comments.

And you should be careful not to read greater complexity into one poster's questions than he intended. My point is that a person doesn't understand the state of science, he cannot even get the questions right.

For me, God is the representation of that which is still a mystery. It is the unknown, and the gears that make everything work the way the universe does. My own view of "God" isn't of a being, but an inspirational construct. But then again, I don't worship God. I admire God as the inspiration to keep growing as a human being.

Each new point of knowledge and learning deepens the appreciation of how amazing the universe is, and God, the endless inspiration, opens new paths to dig even deeper.

Science doesn't need to rule out God. I truthfully think science and God are part of the same whole. Science is that which is being accomplished, what has been learned, and the foundation to build upon. God is the inspiration and not-yet-understood-parts to keep striving toward.

I don't have the 'science' to prove it, but please take my word for it that ghawd is a just a big (in the eyes of the beholder) slinky, going downhill (or downhell) until it hits flat ground. Then it's 'good night, Alice'.

Whose god? Thor, Odin, Zeus, Minerva? The gods of the ancient Egyptians? Or perhaps the Abrahamic god?

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whose god? Thor, Odin, Zeus, Minerva? The gods of
> the ancient Egyptians? Or perhaps the Abrahamic
> god?

All of them are just metaphors, embodiments of the laws that govern nature, which is far too vast, mysterious and impersonal for us to form a personal relationship with,

> All of them are just metaphors, embodiments of the
> laws that govern nature, which is far too vast,
> mysterious and impersonal for us to form a
> personal relationship with,

That is your gloss. It is not at all what believers in the various deities thought.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > All of them are just metaphors, embodiments of
> the
> > laws that govern nature, which is far too vast,
> > mysterious and impersonal for us to form a
> > personal relationship with,
>
> That is your gloss. It is not at all what
> believers in the various deities thought.

it's not MY gloss, it's a cosmology I've cobbled together from the wisdom I have heard expressed by geniuses and cosmologists I respect and trust,

"One could define god as the embodiment of the laws that govern nature. However, this is not what most people would think of as God. They mean a human like being, with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe, and how insignificant and accidental life is in it, that seems most implausible.
I use the word "God" in an impersonal sense, like Einstein did, for the laws of nature."
Hawking, Is There A God, Brief Answers to the Big Questions d

"Myth has always served different cultures as a way to relate to a cosmos which is otherwise far too vast, hostile and mysterious for us to form a personal relationship with." Joseph Cambel, the Power of Myth

“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God, one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.” Sagan

“Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.” Sagan

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.” Sagan

"I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things." Einstein

You are taking gods that people really believed in, that in some cases have extensive literary or mythological systems surrounding them, and then expropriating select ideas to fit your own cosmology. That is most assuredly a "gloss" over the actual people and their recorded beliefs.

As I have said before, you might as well call your God "fruit loops" because that usage would bear about as much fidelity to the original as do your references to actual religions and actual believers.

Words have definitions. If you choose to steal the words and deny the meanings, you are engaging in meaningless discourse.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are taking gods that people really believed
> in, that in some cases have extensive literary or
> mythological systems surrounding them, and then
> expropriating select ideas to fit your own
> cosmology. That is most assuredly a "gloss" over
> the actual people and their recorded beliefs.
>
> As I have said before, you might as well call your
> God "fruit loops" because that usage would bear
> about as much fidelity to the original as do your
> references to actual religions and actual
> believers.
>
> Words have definitions. If you choose to steal
> the words and deny the meanings, you are engaging
> in meaningless discourse.

I use the word god as Spinozza/Einstein/Sagan/Hawking/Kaku defined it, in the non-personal sense of the word, to mean the laws that govern nature, aka, Logos, in the sense that the ancient Greeks defined it, to mean,

"the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. It was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos ("logos spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the Universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Stoics

"In the begining was the Logos. The Logos was with God and the Logos was God." John 1:1 in the original Greek.

Logos is translated as "Tao" in Chinese versions of the Bible.

That works as a synonym too.

> I use the word god as
> Spinozza/Einstein/Sagan/Hawking/Kaku defined it,

Then say you do. Stick with that definition and allude to those men. But don't assert without foundation that the rest of your list of people you think are cool were using the words the same way. You have no evidence in support of that assertion and much against it.


-------------
> in the non-personal sense of the word, to mean the
> laws that govern nature, aka, Logos,

NOT "aka Logos." The Greeks and later Christians who accepted Logos did not state anywhere that it meant "the laws that govern the universe." Either prove your contention (which you can't) or resign yourself to looking silly.


-----------------
As for your definition. . .

> "the active reason pervading and animating the
> Universe. It was conceived as material and is
> usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics
> also referred to the seminal logos ("logos
> spermatikos"), or the law of generation in the
> Universe, which was the principle of the active
> reason working in inanimate matter.

Can you indicate where the Greeks defined that "reason" as meaning science or scientific discoveries? Because modern science, and particularly the discoveries you call God, did not exist at the time.


-------------------
> Humans, too,
> each possess a portion of the divine logos."

Here you stumble further into the morass, for you don't see that the spark of "divine logos" that informs humans is a reference to the spiritual mysticism that was spreading throughout the region from India to the Roman world. That "spark of divinity," which is how it is usually termed, means the fragments of God that got bound up in matter in the form of individual animate lives after God shattered in a cosmic cataclysm. That fragment was what drove Indians to personal extinction (nirvana) and the Greeks to the Mystery Cults. In other words, it was nothing like the science that you say logos meant.


---------------------
> Logos is translated as "Tao" in Chinese versions
> of the Bible.

You keep asserting this in different forms. You said earlier that the word "Tao" was translated as "logos" in English versions of the Daodejing. I am sure someone somewhere did what you say, but a single or a couple such usages do not establish any sort of equivalence. I therefore challenge you to find five translations of the Daodejing that use that definition. Not one, not two, but five. Given that there are hundreds of translations in English alone, the field is ripe.


------------------
Kori, there is nothing wrong with your underlying ideas. They stand up on their own and don't require the strained legitimization of other people's authority. Specious searches for authentication merely look your argument appear weaker than it is.

Like I said, I use the word, 'god', the same way Einstein used the word and Spinoza before him and Sagan and Hawking after him and the way cosmologists like Michio Kaku use the word today.

It doesn't matter to me that my neighbors might use the word to mean Santa Claus for adults. That's not what I mean and it's not what people I respect mean when they use the word.

To me, and many others, it is synonymous with the words, Logos, Tao and Great Spirit. They are all metaphors for the eternal mystery that is responsible for our existence.

"when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2019 06:01PM by schrodingerscat.

> To me, and many others, it is synonymous with the
> words, Logos, Tao and Great Spirit. They are all
> metaphors for the eternal mystery that is
> responsible for our existence.

That statement evinces little respect for the people who actually created those concepts.

bullshit.

No, not bullshit.

Laozi and the Confucians were locked in intense intellectual and political conflict. The Confucians advocated education and what passed at the time for science. Laozi retorted that the natural man was ethical and that socialization and education and science drove him away from his innate, proper nature. The result was a distorted, materialistic, and violent society. That is the essence of Taoism: hostility to education and science.

But hey, what do Laozi and Zhuangzi and Liezi (ever heard of him? No?) know about Taoism, right? They would have done so much better if they had had you to explain the Tao to them

Like I said, I use the word, god, in the same sense that Einstein/Hawking/Sagan/Kaku use the word, but WTF did those geniuses know?

Why do you do this to yourself?

Defending your reliance on modern physicists, assuming arguendo that that is reasonable, does not translate into a justification for your misuse of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi.

"But WTF do those geniuses know?"

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you do this to yourself?
>
> Defending your reliance on modern physicists,
> assuming arguendo that that is reasonable, does
> not translate into a justification for your misuse
> of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi.
>
> "But WTF do those geniuses know?"

I don't know near as much about Laozi, Zhauangzi or Liezi as you do, but I've been a Zen Buddhist for a very long time.
I believe the wise men had it right, we are all one.
I believe in the Singularity.
I believe in super symmetry.
I believe E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2.
But I believe in Einstein's god,
only one that does play dice with the universe
Only the dice are loaded
In favor of energy slowing down long enough to matter
And matter speeding up fast enough to return to energy
And where we exist,
In the balance,
life is good
and god is
what we call
God Particle for short

Please remember to rinse the teapot and put it back on the shelf when you’re done tempestificating. :)

I bet your spellcheck 'bout had a heart attack when you wouldn't correct 'tempestificating'!!

To tempestificate: <infinitive> The act of making a mountain out of where not even a molehill exists.

There is nothing to rule out.

Hold my beer.

Yup. Scientists be like "we don't know how it happened therefore a god did it."
Yup.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yup. Scientists be like "we don't know how it
> happened therefore a god did it."
> Yup.

Yup. Scientists be like, "Well, our math is off by 95%, but let's just call it 'dark matter/energy' and everybody will think we still know WTF we're talking about, even though 'Dark Matter/Energy is just a fudge factor to make our math work out. But yeah, there's this 'God Particle' thing that's responsible for creating all forms of subatomic matter out of this universal super symmetry smashing field of energy, we'll just call it the "Higgs Boson" or "God Particle" or just, god, for short.

So you get to define god any way you want ? God is now a Higgs Boson ?