Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: namaan on 21/01/2012 06:08:58
-
Sorry folks, I tried to restrain myself, but the questions kept coming after a recent response to ns8t ;) I'll try and keep this scientific, well, that of course being the point of this post. So to be clear, the context of the post is the consideration of a scientific theory of God, not an attempt to prove God's existence.
Now I'm not sure how many of you ascribe to the Multiverse theory, but if you do, then please consider: the theory explains an already very complicated universe by theorizing a structure that is orders if not infinitely more complicated then the thing it intends to explain.
Similarly, I read on a Wikipedia article that while applying Occam's razor on the creation of our universe, a theory of God might seem reasonable, but in reality it entails the explanation of the creation of our universe through theorizing a being that is of infinitely more complicated structure than the universe itself. Does this not sound much like the above?
So my question is, why can we have a scientific Multiverse theory, but not a scientific theory of God? As scientists, I'm sure it's easy to side-step many of the order-entailing-design-thus-God's-existence accounts by religious people as mere coincidence. But how many coincidences does it take to have grounds for a scientific theory as such? Again, I'm not saying these accounts should double as proof of God's existence. Nor am I bashing the Multiverse theory. I'm only speaking about an established scientific theory of God, much like the theory of evolution.
To say I believe in evolution masks how obviously true the theory of evolution is to me. And I am well aware that to say the "theory of evolution" masks the large extent to which evidence supports the theory. But if we can be, for example, 99.9% certain about the theory of evolution, why can't we have an established theory of God and be certain/uncertain about it to some degree?
-
The multiverse "theory" is not a theory. It's conjecture.
A scientific theory has to be testable.
-
so how would you have us describing god.
i'd say the question itself is fundamentally flawed.
-
It was alluded to in the 3rd paragraph; the big three Abrahamic religions share a fairly similar conception of God: an infinite being responsible for design and creation of the universe.
-
The multiverse "theory" is not a theory. It's conjecture.
A scientific theory has to be testable.
You're right, neither are testable yet; feel free to call them conjectures.
-
A scientific theory of God would I believe be more related to human psychology and sociology and have no relationship whatever with the universe as a whole or its origins. This does not mean that religion is not a vital part of the development of mankind in fact it puts it in its central place. The universe as a whole is neutral and looks after itself without any input from us or any supreme being because if it didn't the question what made God would be valid ad infinitum.
Creation myths contain not a story about reality but great wisdom about human nature and it is only when these are put in their right place we can understand them properly.
-
How would you differentiate between a God theory and a theory that the universe is a virtual one created by an intelligence like ourselves? We can predict a future in which intelligent life may last for hundreds of billions of years in a dark universe where all the stars have burned out, and such a universe would be no fun - everyone would want to live in a virtual one which replicates the early universe that has been lost. The odds are that we are already living in that long dark phase and that we repeatedly escape into virtual reality to keep oursevles sane.
There is a difference though, because that would still be an intelligence that evolved, whereas God supposedly had all his intelligence right from the off without it ever being created. To have a supreme intelligence simply exist without being built up slowly over time would rely on magic, so we're drifting away from science at that point and cannot maintain the idea that it's a scientific theory.
-
Magic? There is the idea of self existence in the universe as is, in that space, time, matter, all exist maybe from a build up, but an oxymoron, even before that, and before that still, there was something. There was an origin and another continuously, at least maybe. Something has to self exist, rather that something coming from nothing.
A build up is that idea which comes from the current nature of the universe. But we look to the origins.
-
The idea of everything that could happen does happen somewhere in a parallel universe, and every second spawns a zillion "possible" universes... well, I think of that as pure fantasy, and neither science, or even scientific speculation.
And, of course, Captain Kirk visiting a parallel universe, that is just science fiction.
Perhaps it is a good comparison to compare "God" to such fantasy speculations.
-
I assume by multiverse theory, you're talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or something similar? You'll notice the many worlds interpretation is an interpretation, not a theory. Quantum mechanics is the theory, since it provides predictions and testability, which are required of a scientific theory as Geezer pointed out. The many worlds intepretation is just an explanation of the math of QM. It isn't distinguishable from other interpretations which also explain the math.
Of course you can also explain the math by saying "god did it," but the hope when the many worlds interpretation (and others) were developed was that they would someday be testable. "God did it" doesn't really have a hope of ever being testable.
Of course, the many worlds interpretation might be testable through quantum suicide, although for obvious reasons no sane person has tried it, nor would we ever know the results of their experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
-
David Cooper: I don't find this differentiation to be meaningful. How many particles can we simulate in computers today? A few hundred thousand, perhaps a few million (all depending of course on the complexity of your particle system). Might we wager a guess at how many particles there might be in the universe? We aren't even sure at what scale we'll find the smallest such particle, assuming we can see below the Planck scale. Regardless of increases in computing capacity, simulations will only ever look like weak analogues to the real thing. And what if we find that the reductionist view of our universe breaks down in the future, as might be the case if a theory of God turns out to hold water? Then you have a whole other set of emergent design issues that make the idea that merely cosmically intelligent beings creating a universe such as ours, at least to me, and to say the least, unlikely.
Soul Surfer: If I'm understanding you right, I agree to the extend that yes, a theory of God panning out finds greatest relevance first and foremost to human civilization/socioeconomic systems. But without speaking of specific religions, imagine a text representing God's words existed on Earth, hypothetically speaking of course, and it contained statements on the structure of the universe. Might these be relevant to science? Anyway, I for one find no contradiction between science and God, since the religious position that I ascribe to encompasses thoroughly the need for critical evaluation of our reality through science.
Thanks for the background JP (meant sincerely), but I don't say "God did it" and leave the rest to blind faith. Well, my personal views aren't the point here. The point is it seems to me that it should be possible to create a scientific theory/conjecture of God, not that any of you need to be necessarily interested in it. For example, if I'm not mistaken, there's no entity called "evolution" that we can test directly. We create a model that fits the theory, make predictions from the model, and test whether the predictions pan out; that they do quite nicely in the case of evolution of course.
So a common religious position is that the evidence of God is in his exacting design of the universe. So, for example, one might say that a scientific discussion on this might take the form of considering the various forms and occurrences that this design takes throughout the universe. I'm not saying any of you should have some sort of moral responsibility to build such a theory or take part in such discussions, rather I only mean to flesh out for myself and whoever else might be interested in the subject matter the means to approach a theory of God in context to established science.
-
The many worlds theory of quantum mechanics actually has reproducible evidence supporting it; in the twin slit experiment we can see that each particle that reaches the screen has gone through BOTH slits. What we don't see is the versions of the particle that didn't make it through the slits, but presumably they existed at at least some point, in the many worlds theory we say they really existed and their effects live on, but are often unobservable, but in other theories you have to explain them away somehow. But it's probably actually an extra assumption to get rid of them.
-
Namaan the perfect "text" that you describe does and has always existed it is to be found all around is in the properties of the universe itself. Most modern theologians are totally happy with the "two books" approach to theology. The first book whatever written human wisdom and myth exists in their particular religion. The second is the book of nature, life, the universe and everything written all around us. As shown to us by science. It is only groups of restricted closed sects that reject the supreme second book over the first.
-
Always worth a read IMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Anthropic_coincidences
That is all [:)]
-
Always worth a read IMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Anthropic_coincidences
That is all [:)]
I've read about that. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent enough to understand it :P, but to me it says a whole lot of nothing. Empty logic, as it were. Or rather, the principle itself isn't wrong, but it's used and abused well beyond its explanatory capacity (not unlike using Darwin's theory of evolution to "explain" everything from human sociology to the economy).
It only gets a "well, duh" response from me for formalizing an obvious relationship, and doesn't actually do any explaining with regards to exacting universal constants, etc.
-
Magic? There is the idea of self existence in the universe as is, in that space, time, matter, all exist maybe from a build up, but an oxymoron, even before that, and before that still, there was something. There was an origin and another continuously, at least maybe. Something has to self exist, rather that something coming from nothing.
You can imagine stuff existing eternally easily enough (it makes more sense at any rate than having it pop into existence out of nothing), but the idea of God involves more than just stuff existing - it begins with a perfect being with ultimate intelligence and morality. For all of that to exist without having to evolve is asking for more than a little injection of magic. Intelligence involves a complex information system with a lot of representation going on inside it (and if all you start with is a god, the representations don't even have anything to represent) - I know exactly how much complexity is involved in this because I'm building an A.I. system which should be able to demonstrate superior intelligence to that of humans later this year.
_______________________________________________________________
David Cooper: I don't find this differentiation to be meaningful. How many particles can we simulate in computers today? A few hundred thousand, perhaps a few million (all depending of course on the complexity of your particle system). Might we wager a guess at how many particles there might be in the universe? We aren't even sure at what scale we'll find the smallest such particle, assuming we can see below the Planck scale. Regardless of increases in computing capacity, simulations will only ever look like weak analogues to the real thing.
You wouldn't have to simulate them all - only the ones relevant to the person in the virtual world, and there may only be one there as all the other players could be A.I.
And what if we find that the reductionist view of our universe breaks down in the future, as might be the case if a theory of God turns out to hold water?
There's no danger of that - the whole idea of God does not hold water as his qualifications cannot be valid. If God understands everything, there can be no magic to him because he must understand it's entire mechanism. Without magic, he can only create things in natural ways, so if he builds a universe he is doing so in the same way we build things, and he's also doing it within a realm which he did not create and by using powers which he did not create and intelligence which he did not create. He is just an alien being which happens by luck to be in the most powerful position by dint of existing first. He has no superiority over us, just as a person with a brilliant mind is not superior to a mentally handicapped person, so there is nothing about him that justifies any kind of worship of him. If he exists, this builder of the universe, he is qualitatively no different from the creator of a virtual universe who has complete control over what happens within it.
That is why a theory of God will not get anywhere - God is logically impossible.
-
"There's no danger of that - the whole idea of God does not hold water as his qualifications cannot be valid." ?
"he can only create things in natural ways, so if he builds a universe he is doing so in the same way we build things" ?
"and he's also doing it within a realm which he did not create and by using powers which he did not create and intelligence which he did not create" ?
"He is just an alien being which happens by luck to be in the most powerful position by dint of existing first." ?
"He has no superiority over us, just as a person with a brilliant mind is not superior to a mentally handicapped person, so there is nothing about him that justifies any kind of worship of him." ?
Where are you getting these from? You say it as if you've gained some personal access to absolute truth. It's one thing to say there's no evidence for God, but your statements are...strange. If you think people like me who ascribe to a religion are delusional for holding views on a being like God with some level of certainty, then here's a friendly reminder: your statements are awful religious sounding.
Anyway, this will only end up in a discussion about religion specifics and religious logic, something I'm trying hard to avoid. I've had enough of these discussions and arguments in the New Theories section of TNS (a thread called Is There a God? I believe) from way back. I'm really only interested at the moment with anyone's feedback with how a theory of God can be made to "work with" established science.
-
Religion deals with myth, metaphor, and parable in the way it deals with human relationships and the rest of the universe. This is very good for dealing with people and everyday social interactions. Science deals with observations, measurements and mathematical models this is very good for dealing with the universe and practical technology.
Without the concept of someone or something that one would have to give an account of ones actions (God) leaders and individuals tend to go off the rails and start to think that they are God.
Without religion to bind together large groups of people way beyond the size of the hunter gatherer clan in co-operative actions mankind would not have made the vast progress it has achieved in the last 3-4 thousand years.
The vast progress achieved through science has pushed religion into the background over the last one hundred years because it tends to insist on outdated concepts and the only voices that are heard are the voices of extremist cranks getting it a bad name. The re-examination of the basic metaphors in most of the world's main religions and their re-statement in the context of the modern scientific world and not that originated in pre scientific dogma. Could create an environment in which a new sort of religion can grow and reinvigorate the big society where we accept that although we are distinct individuals we all depend totally on each other and the rest of the world for our basic sustenance.
Most of us now accept the evolutionary path that has lead to mankind. I confidently expect that in a few decades the evolutionary path of physical laws that has lead to our and the many other living universes that exist (although we will never be able to see them) will be accepted.
If one wished for an expression of extended metaphor in the context of my preferred religion (conventional Church of England Christianity) I offer one illustration. We tend to express the concept of God in three ways firstly the Father (all the material that makes up our universe) The Son (an idealised representation of our own life) and the Holy Spirit The evolutionary process by which the material develops to create things.
Let me add that I am An atheist and a regular church goer. I go to church because I wish to take time out to think about these things and also because I wish to be associated with a group that tries to behave in a positive helpful and considerate way to others and the environment.
-
To take this from a different angle. In order to answer your question I would first need to make a statement.
Either the universe (or multiverse) was created naturally (by that I mean with no consciousness guiding it) or it was created by God. The latter implying a conscious awareness was necessary for creation.
Given that statement, I'm unsure what set of parameters one would use to devise a God Theory. How would one go about testing whether there is a conscious awareness that existed before the creation of our reality.
Hawking famously (or infamously, depending on your position) said he has proven mathematically that there is no need for a God for the universe to have been created. But just because there was no "need" for a God, doesn't necessarily mean there couldn't have been one anyway. So that does not really help.
Religious people would say that God is unprovable by science because He/She/It exists outside of our reality. Even if we could discover what happened just before the Big Bang, that still would not prove or disprove whether a God was involved.
A scientific theory, by definition (as I understand it) is a theory that can be tested, and those results duplicated by someone else.
Since I cannot imagine how one could test for God, I do not see how there could be a God Theory.
-
First response would be that there isn't - there is a many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) and a multiverse hyposthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29) but as a scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory), you are correct, it doesn't really make the grade.
You can note from the Wikiquote above that some scientists only require a theory to have explanatory aspects and not predictive power and testability. We have lots of words for stuff like that in my opinion - hypothesis, idea, notion, interpretation ... no need to misuse a word with a useful narrow definition.
Multiple histories - the concept of Feynman - does show that thinking of every possible alternative and summing each probability (feynman path integral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_path_integral#Feynman.27s_interpretation))does provide a real world answer that is testable and has immense predictive power.
-
We have lots of words for stuff like that in my opinion - hypothesis, idea, notion, interpretation ... no need to misuse a word with a useful narrow definition.
You're right, I was a bit careless with my words. The title's been changed.
-
You can note from the Wikiquote above that some scientists only require a theory to have explanatory aspects and not predictive power and testability. We have lots of words for stuff like that in my opinion - hypothesis, idea, notion, interpretation ... no need to misuse a word with a useful narrow definition.
I am confused as to your meaning. What word did I misuse and why was it misused?
You mention that some scientists only require a "theory" to have explanatory aspects. Well and good, but such a theory is not a scientific theory, or perhaps a better way of putting it is that such a theory is not acceptable within the system using the scientific method.
Again, to my understanding, a scientific theory by definition is one that uses the scientific method, which does require testability and confirmation from a separate source.
A theory, however, can be anything, as you say from an opinion to an interpretation. A theory is an entirely different animal from a scientific theory, right?????
If I am misunderstanding something here, please let me know where I am going wrong.
-
You're right, I was a bit careless with my words. The title's been changed.
Essentially the same question though, right? To paraphrase in my words, "Can a god be confirmed using science, i.e. the scientific method?" If yes, then my response remains essentially unchanged. How would one go about testing whether there is a higher consciousness involved with creation?
If it cannot be testable, then I do not see how a god can be brought into the realm of science? One could develop a theory to explain it, but as has already been pointed out, a theory is an opinion, a guess, or an interpretation. Which is open to acceptance or denial purely on someone else's opinion on the subject. Hardly useful.
-
Ahaha, Gordian Knot, I think imatfaal was responding to me, hence the confusion. That's why I changed the title.
Anyway, being the abstract, non-rigorous discussion this must be given that its hardly ever approached in a rigorous fashion, let's not worry too much about the title. A title is best left for the end of the book ;)
I'll respond to the other posts in kind when I get some time.
-
Where are you getting these from? You say it as if you've gained some personal access to absolute truth. It's one thing to say there's no evidence for God, but your statements are...strange.
There's nothing strange about it - it's called reasoning. If you want a scientific theory of God, you'll need to start by defining what God is. As soon as you do that, reason will tear it down.
If you think people like me who ascribe to a religion are delusional for holding views on a being like God with some level of certainty, then here's a friendly reminder: your statements are awful religious sounding.
My statements are based on reason - religion tries to use reason too (some more than others), but it uses faulty reasoning (such as claiming that all things have a purpose because some things have a purpose). As soon as a god tries to turn into a scientist to work out what he himself is, he will inevitably determine that he is a natural creature which has no justification for calling itself God, just as the maker of a virtual world who has complete control over everyone within it (in that they have no way of accessing information about the outside of that virtual world) knows full well that he is not a god, regardless of what the people in that virtual world might mistakenly think he is.
Anyway, this will only end up in a discussion about religion specifics and religious logic, something I'm trying hard to avoid. I've had enough of these discussions and arguments in the New Theories section of TNS (a thread called Is There a God? I believe) from way back.
I don't see how you can avoid that when it's a necessary consequence of bringing in the "God" word.
I'm really only interested at the moment with anyone's feedback with how a theory of God can be made to "work with" established science.
It can't: that's the point. If God isn't beyond science (and logic), he automatically becomes part of nature and is in no better position than we are to be a god. He can be an infinite, designer creator and still be nothing more than a natural creature which happens by luck to be in that powerful position.
You aren't going to get anywhere with a scientific theory of some airy-fairy concept like God unless you're going to define it first, and trying to define God will destroy the whole concept because it's a fundamentally irrational idea.
-
One of the problems with the concept of "God" is that it is a moving target.
People believe in the truth of a document created over 2000 years ago. While the Greeks, Egyptians, and other cultures had some forms of science, they clearly didn't have the tools that we have available today.
So people start thinking... well, maybe God was an alien from Mars... well, maybe not Mars, but from a distant star. Or, perhaps man wasn't created from dirt, but that Mankind was seeded on Earth by some alien species.
Or... life is some "Matrix-like" video game?
Clearly these weren't the beliefs or interpretations of the very human authors of the Bible over 2000 years ago.
So, should we assume that the authors of the bible were right about the existence of God, but wrong about him being an alien?
-
The answer to the revised question is now I believe a clear no. With the follow up statement that all current and possible future scientific knowledge gan be fitted into the concept of the major moderate religions as a way to define how we should behave towards each other and the rest of the universe by the reinterpretation of the myths, legends and parables that support the basis for behaviour in the religion.
-
Soul Surfer, Gordian Knot, with respect, I didn't change the title to summarize a two page discussion on fairly diverse issues. I did it simply to show respect to proper usage of scientific terms.
-
Perhaps we should just choose to worship Aldus Huxley's God, Henry.
-
Namaan, you misunderstand me. I'm attempting to answer the spirit of your question , regardless of the title of the thread.
_____________________________
Okay David. I'm a sucker for a challenge.
First though, one question Why is it that the whole concept of God is a fundamentally irrational idea?
Definition of God.
A conscious awareness that chose to set in motion the creation of everything we call reality.
-
Perhaps we should just choose to worship Aldus Huxley's God, Henry.
It's a free country! :) Or at least it is where I'm at...
-
Namaan the perfect "text" that you describe does and has always existed it is to be found all around is in the properties of the universe itself. Most modern theologians are totally happy with the "two books" approach to theology. The first book whatever written human wisdom and myth exists in their particular religion. The second is the book of nature, life, the universe and everything written all around us. As shown to us by science. It is only groups of restricted closed sects that reject the supreme second book over the first.
I agree with the first part, but not so much with the "two books" approach. Not because it's wrong, but because I find it unnecessary, a long-cut as it were. Our approaches are subtly, but distinctly quite different even though I don't reject either book.
The vast progress achieved through science has pushed religion into the background over the last one hundred years because it tends to insist on outdated concepts and the only voices that are heard are the voices of extremist cranks getting it a bad name. The re-examination of the basic metaphors in most of the world's main religions and their re-statement in the context of the modern scientific world and not that originated in pre scientific dogma. Could create an environment in which a new sort of religion can grow and reinvigorate the big society where we accept that although we are distinct individuals we all depend totally on each other and the rest of the world for our basic sustenance.
Agreed, though here again, I'm not sure a reexamination of Biblical metaphors and stories will make it more compatible with established science. If anything, I imagine it will make divisions more glaring, unless of course by reexamination you mean a fundamental rewrite.
The answer to the revised question is now I believe a clear no. With the follow up statement that all current and possible future scientific knowledge gan be fitted into the concept of the major moderate religions as a way to define how we should behave towards each other and the rest of the universe by the reinterpretation of the myths, legends and parables that support the basis for behaviour in the religion.
A similar story; what you say sounds agreeable, but there are important nuances. This topic has already lost some of its focus so I'll try and not get too specific. I'm only going to point out here that most members of the scientific community that is represented by TNS was, I pressume, likely raised in a Christian society. I point this out because even if you yourself may be Athiest or Agnostic, your conception of what God is or can be never-the-less is likely based at least in part by Christianity. Being an Athiest of course means that one does not believe in God, and hence the Abrahamic books are man-made. If so, I would ask that you treat them as such ("not judging a book by its cover", etc.). If you lump all religious books in one homogenous pile, you'll miss important nuances. Not all are about personal salvation, or envision God to be in the image of man, or describe women as being made from the rib of man.
So when you speak of myths and legends, it isn't really meaningful for me because that is not what my "first book" contains. It does have parables of course, but it is even less-so relevant for me given that what it does contain is commands for seeking out knowledge, and commands to not have blind faith in God, as two examples. I'm unable to see a distinction or need for a distinction between science and God due to the contents of my first book.
On a related note, while I'm trying to avoid discussing it directly since it might derail the focus of the thread, I guess I can't help but point this out. Given the above (that my conception of God is likely considerably different from what many might be imagining it is) I would just like to point out that I re-titled the thread at my intellectual expense. The idea that God needs to be brought within the realm of science to me is just ridiculous, but I'm trying my best to keep this discussion scientific -_-
Completely hypothetically speaking for a second (we can think truly hypothetically as scientists yes?) let's imagine that God actually is Infinite, designed and created the universe, and exists/is real. Now, given this hypothetical scenario, how strange does it seem that we are trying to fit God into our little explanatory boxes?
-
God exists as a coping mechanism for humanity
-
I moved this topic since it was never really a science question about physics and astronomy and its also veered into religion and the philosophy of science. This forum will give people a chance to respond with more freedom than in one of the science Q&A fora.
-
Now, about the topic at hand--I think its worth considering what a god(s) theory is trying to show. In essence, by describing a god, you're trying to come up with a theory that explains everything--the god is a first cause of everything in nature. In physics, there are some scientists trying to do the same thing--to come up with a "theory of everything."
The thing is that I don't see how using science to describe god (the first cause of everything) would be any different than using science to describe the theory of everything (also the first cause of everything). If you're restricting yourself to scientific arguments, then the two should be identical so far as science is concerned (or there would be two theories of everything!)
-
I moved this topic since it was never really a science question about physics and astronomy and its also veered into religion and the philosophy of science. This forum will give people a chance to respond with more freedom than in one of the science Q&A fora.
That's really too bad, but I don't come on TNS to just chat. Others may feel free to discuss this amongst themselves. And you aren't wrong that a theory of God must necessarily be a theory of everything. But that doesn't at all help me. The whole point was if the theory of God is the theory of everything, the problem is the scientific establishment, as exemplified by the move of this forum, isn't able to take such a theory seriously by the inherent nature of the discussion; hence the idea can't progress beyond just chatting.
-
I moved this topic since it was never really a science question about physics and astronomy and its also veered into religion and the philosophy of science. This forum will give people a chance to respond with more freedom than in one of the science Q&A fora.
That's really too bad, but I don't come on TNS to just chat.
Nonetheless - this is a science question and answer forum, we restrict the main fora to questions of testable, falsifiable science.
If you have any further questions/points on the moderators' decision to move the thread please address them via PM to a moderator or administrator.
Others may feel free to discuss this amongst themselves. And you aren't wrong that a theory of God must necessarily be a theory of everything. But that doesn't at all help me. The whole point was if the theory of God is the theory of everything, the problem is the scientific establishment, as exemplified by the move of this forum, isn't able to take such a theory seriously by the inherent nature of the discussion; hence the idea can't progress beyond just chatting.
This is because scientists will, more often than not, treat matters of faith and science as incommensurable; there is no common ground upon which a discussion can agree. The "scientific establishment" (whoever they are) do not exist to answer all questions and right all misconceptions - it exists to answer scientific questions and correct misunderstanding of physical phenomena.
It is no more possible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God scientifically than it is to prove the world is round musically. - Julian Huxley
-
Namaan:
You want a "scientific" discussion of the idea that there might be a god, but any scientific approach requires a clearly defined, testable prediction. An omnipotent god would be in control of the outcomes of your experiments. Within any sensible definitions of "science" and "omnipotent god" it is not possible to unite the two.
That's without dragging in the fact that there are as many interpretations of god(s) as there are believers, even assuming that any one believer's view of their interpretation of god is consistent, which if the believers amongst my friends and acquaintances are typical is pretty unusual (and the bible isn't a good start on that front). So what, exactly, are you wanting to test?
-
While I don't find the Just Chat! forum the most appropriate place for this, I'm not exactly bitter or anything and have no intention of questioning the decision to move the thread. The reason I implied that I don't intend to continue the discussion is simply because the move had more or less given me a rather clear answer to the original question. There's no deeper subtext here, I understand what you are all saying.
The many responses to my original question were pretty much completely unanimous with regards to a scientific approach to God. It's fairly reasonable I think to ascertain from that that an adherence to the scientific process makes it impossible to approach a theory of God.
So I'm not sure why you find the term "scientific establishment" to be insulting in this case imatfaal, an establishment is simply a group of people that establish some sort of foundation. And the foundation of science is the scientific process, which came directly to the fore in response to a theory of God. The unanimity of the responses makes the use of the term quite appropriate I think.
-
You keep using the term "theory of god", but no theory is presented.
-
Perhaps in the US the term "the establishment" is not as loaded with meaning as it is in the UK... I wouldn't know.
In the UK describing someone as part of "the establishment" suggests that they are comfortably ensconced in the current regime (probably doing reasonably well out of it financially), and suggests that they will oppose any change simply because they will be inconvenienced by it and not because they have in any way thought about it.
If you talk to a Brit about a particular opinion being "the establishment view" you're implying (and it will be assumed that you are deliberately implying) that it's an opinion which is held because it is the establishment view, without any intelligent thought. Bear in mind that few of us over here believe that we live in a meritocracy (we don't believe the US is a meritocracy either, but that's a different ballgame), who your parents are and where you went to school and university still has a powerful effect on your life chances generally and more particularly on your chance of becoming part of "the establishment". In fact, this is much less true in science than of almost any field of endeavour (tho' not, of course, entirely untrue).
I think if you wanted to use a term that wasn't going to irritate people, "consensus" view might fit better, or "mainstream" view, depending on which "establishment" (the forum, or "the scientific establishment") you wanted to suggest the views here represented.
It's also probably worth observing that on this website in particular we get a lot of (slightly, or very, obsessive) posters who think they've found some way in which the current scientific model is wrong (typically they believe they've disproved general relativity or thermodynamics, or that they've invented a perpetual motion machine), and when someone points out that their new "theory" is not consistent with experimental results they wail that "the establishment" is out to get them, and that when they are seen to be right, all the people who've said them nay will lose their research grants/jobs/whatever. Of course, that's not how science works, and if someone does show that the whole of the standard model is wrong the scientists currently researching the standard model would jump for joy and then turn right round and work on the new model.
I don't get the feeling you're one of those, you seem to be actually interested in the question you posed and in what other people think about it, rather than using this as a starting point to attempt to pitch your own religious opinions. But maybe that will help explain why you may feel people've been a bit harsh about this.
Not sure this is terribly coherent, but it is at least intended to be helpful.
-
I imagine it's not much different here in the US, though I can't speak for the whole country. I was aware that the term can be potentially off-putting in certain contexts, such as the ones you described (obsessive posters, etc.), but assumed I had provided enough context to make clear what I was trying to say (hence why I said "I'm not sure why you find the term "scientific establishment" to be insulting in this case).
I wasn't speaking about consensus views or mainstream views because views don't make decisions, people do. In this case, I found the word establishment to be the most technically correct given unanimous/consensus views held by those who responded to this thread. There's really no need to attach all the other negative baggage though.
And don't worry, everyone's been helpful :)
-
I couldn't say it any better than Rosy already did.
From a more personal point of view the implication was that scientists as a group (to avoid the establishment area) do not take the theory seriously per se - this is incorrect. many scientists take it so seriously as to spend large amounts of time debating it - but no real scientist can take it seriously as a "scientific theory"
I still think you are trying to be overly proscriptive in saying that "an adherence to the scientific process makes it impossible to approach a theory of God" You might like to google John Polkinghorn if you think this is such an impossibility - although I would agree if you were to insert "falsifiable" before the word "theory"
-
You keep using the term "theory of god", but no theory is presented.
As per my above response to JP, if I actually had a well defined theory of God, it would be tantamount to me saying I had a well defined theory of everything. I'm not quite that ambitious.
I thought it was clear by all my posts that I was not attempting to discuss a particular theory of God here, but only intended to discuss that if such a theory existed, how could it be discussed/approached in a scientific setting? If you would like a potentially more complete answer to your question, then below is a copy of a part of an earlier post that I didn't get a direct response to.
The point is it seems to me that it should be possible to create a scientific theory/conjecture of God, not that any of you need to be necessarily interested in it. For example, if I'm not mistaken, there's no entity called "evolution" that we can test directly. We create a model that fits the theory, make predictions from the model, and test whether the predictions pan out; that they do quite nicely in the case of evolution of course.
So a common religious position is that the evidence of God is in his exacting design of the universe. So, for example, one might say that a scientific discussion on this might take the form of considering the various forms and occurrences that this design takes throughout the universe. I'm not saying any of you should have some sort of moral responsibility to build such a theory or take part in such discussions, rather I only mean to flesh out for myself and whoever else might be interested in the subject matter the means to approach a theory of God in context to established science.
Btw, if what I said about establishment sounds inherently personal, please just ignore it. I only meant it in a non-personal, technically manner. And I'm aware that there are scientists that take God seriously, but to me the gap between an interesting read on science/religion to an actual full-fledged theory on God seemed large enough to make that statement. I basically started the discussion from the logical endpoint of the assumption that such a God does exist; the endpoint being where an actual rigorous theory of everything has to be formulated to describe God and all of reality. It is at this point that it seems that the scientific process would be unable to encompass such a theory. Or I could just be wrong.
-
We don't know if its possible to come up with a scientific theory of everything. We've been trying for thousands of years and haven't done it yet. Some people think we can, while others think the scientific method is inherently limited to creating good models, but not describing underlying causes.
Assuming we do come up with a theory, why are you so insistent that we use the word "god" to describe it?
-
Although discussions such as this are interesting, they seldom achieve much because the fundamental philosophical positions of the correspondents are not defined. Science works by postulating reasons for why things behave as they do. If the reasoning is logically sound, and the premises on which the conjecture is based do not conflict with observations, then it can be said to be a valid theory. Should some conflict arise then the theory is, at best, approximate or, at worst, completely wrong. Good theories enable predictions to be made on how something will behave before it is tried, and hopefully, verified.
Now how does God fit in with this? Basically, He doesn't. There is no relation between this and any belief in God. It is possible that God has set up the universe with patterns for us to discover or it is possible that these patterns have occurred by the nature of the universe itself. It could be argued, in this latter case, that God created the nature of the universe in such a way, rather than creating the universe itself. But how does reaching such a conclusion make any difference to us? In these cases, of a God who creates something then does nothing else, it makes no difference to us whatsoever.
I think we should look at the reasons why people have religious beliefs and see whether having such beliefs are, in themselves, rational. People throughout the ages, and in different parts of the world, have come to differing conclusions regarding their beliefs. These beliefs may have arisen so as to try to form an understanding of a world that was beyond their comprehension (as it still is). This gives comfort to people as it seems in the nature of humans to want to feel there maybe some meaning to their existence. In many cases these beliefs become a religion that may be manipulated by some to obtain power, wealth, status or some other advantages. It is in the nature of a religion that it is believed without the need for rigorous testing of its predictions. What is certain is that religions differ, creation myths differ and the number of supernatural beings change (as do their respective traits and/or powers). Do we conclude that one of these is somehow privileged and "correct" and the others are wrong? And this one just happens to be related to the one we were brought up to believe, or do we conclude that they are all probably creations of man?
It seems to me that any theory of God get nowhere because any time that an observation looks to hard to reconcile, it is easy to say that is just how God has made it so. You can try to look for scientific consistancy or you can stop there and just believe that is the way it is. I think those scientists who believe in God still keep looking, though I am not so sure such a belief is encouraging, especially from religious establishments. It was positively discouraging at times in the past.
Generally speaking I see no reason or advantage to a theory of God, and can see a lot of negatives associated with the whole concept.
-
Tangentially, I saw a car with a bumper-sticker the other day that read;
"Dog is my co-pilot."
-
Tangentially, I saw a car with a bumper-sticker the other day that read;
"Dog is my co-pilot."
Classy Geezer, classy. The age of enlightenment is truly upon us.
-
I thought this thread must have been deleted as there was nothing in the original subforum saying it had been moved - I only found it here because I looked in on the off chance that it had been mentioned, but here it is.
I think Namaan is actually trying to do something worthwhile, though it's doomed to failure. If you read the Qur'aan (Koran), you'll soon see that it attempts to argue its case in scientific and logical ways, and that could lead followers of Islam to think that science and religion could be compatible and that God could be accounted for by science.
The problem comes, however, as soon as you try to define what God is. Let's start with a definition from Gordian Knot:-
First though, one question Why is it that the whole concept of God is a fundamentally irrational idea?
Definition of God.
A conscious awareness that chose to set in motion the creation of everything we call reality.
That runs straight into a problem: the conscious awareness would have to have created itself if it is to be a member of the set of things called "everything we call reality). If it isn't in that set, it isn't real.
Let me go through some of the fundamentals:-
Imagine a primary realm of existence in which an intelligence resides, or a primary realm of existence which is that intelligence. He/it happens to exist and has no purpose in existing - the only things which can ever have purpose are things that are made (or done) to carry out some end which has been calculated in advance by an intelligence. For God to have a purpose, he would have to have been created for that purpose by another intelligence, in which case we've started with the wrong candidate - we must transfer our interest to his creator, and when we find the top creator we have inevitably reached one who has no purpose.
Now, this supreme intelligence and primary being (who is in that position by chance - it's not of his own doing) decides to make things (as he might as well do something with his time and powers to pass the time). He makes a universe (or maybe many of them) and populates tiny parts of it with life. There are now more intelligences in existence, but he regards himself as superior to them. Is he justified in that opinion? What does superior mean? (It has more than one meaning, but we can ignore the one that simply means it has more of something, such as more strength or more material). Is a stone superior to a rock? No: not unless a purpose is involved. If you need something heavy to weigh something down, a rock may be superior to a stone. If you need something that you're capable of throwing, a stone may be superior to a rock. Superiority (of the kind we're interested in) is completely tied up in purpose and otherwise has no role. If God made us for some reason, whether that be to pass the time or to have someone to talk to, we would have a purpose for him, but nothing he does can ever give him a purpose for himself because he wasn't created for a purpose. Superiority cannot have any role to play in a comparison between him and us. Of course, in a world where many people also believe in royalty, they have a false idea about superiority sitting in their heads which backs up their ideas about God being inherently superior too, even though both these ideas (royalty and God) are completely baseless.
So where is this going? Well, there is nothing about God that can make him qualify as anything more exciting than an alien being which happens to have existed first and which happens to have access to all the levers of power (and to have made sure that we cannot access them). "God" needs more than that to qualify as God, because all we have to go on otherwise is that he's the big chief alien, and that is insufficent to justify his claim to be God. Taking on the name "God" doesn't do it either - I could call myself God, but no one would take that as evidence for me being God.
So, what we need is some kind of definition of God which sets out something about him which would actually qualify him as God. Being here before someone else isn't good enough - our parents are not more divine than us through existing before us, and we are not more divine than our children either. Having access to more power doesn't make anyone more divine than anyone else either: mass-murdering dictators are very powerful as people go, but they are certainly not more divine. Morality might be seen as a factor, but people are riddled with faults which aren't of their own doing - they have no free will and are simply driven by their desires and the attempts of their intellect to make them do the best thing at all times. If they had been made perfectly (like an artificial intelligence system which uses a correct morality formula to govern its behaviour) they would express perfect moral behaviour at all times, but that would not make them more divine.
I'll leave it to you to come up with suggestions as to how "God" might try to qualify as more than just a natural alien being, but I can tell you for free that there is nothing that can succeed. If he tries to qualify using magic, he will have to understand how that magic works in order to qualify as God, and by understanding it he destorys it's magical nature. If he tries to qualify by being supernatural, he has to make an arbitrary divide of nature into supernature and nature, and then the leaky barrier between the two will burst and reunite them - if things can interact, they must be part of the same system or they would have no mechanisms to allow them to interact, and that system in which all interacting things reside is by definition nature. God has to be part of nature, and that automatically opens him up to scientific study - even if we can't access him to study him, he can study himself and become a scientist. If he understands how he works, he will inevitably be forced to describe himself as a natural being, but if he can't, he fails to qualify as God due to a lack of essential knowledge.
God is logically impossible, as I said before. All he can ever be is a powerful alien being which happened to exist first, and that isn't something you should base a religion on.
-
I thought this thread must have been deleted as there was nothing in the original subforum saying it had been moved - I only found it here because I looked in on the off chance that it had been mentioned, but here it is.
Odd. The redirection post was there when I moved this thread... more weirdness due to the forum upgrade and downtime, I suspect...
-
Assuming we do come up with a theory, why are you so insistent that we use the word "god" to describe it?
I suppose the short answer to that is that if such a theory is developed, then it will require a being like God to exist to fully explain reality. So why not call it a theory of God?
But I'm not insisting anything in particular, and it doesn't really matter what you call the theory. If an infinite designer, creator God is real and exists, then whatever path scientific progression takes, it must, if correct, approach an understanding that God is real and exists. This must be the case because it is reasonable to imagine that a design created to infinite capacity would likely leave its trace in the creation. This trace takes on in things like exacting universal constants, etc.
-
If there is an ultimate theory of everything that can be approached scientifically, then there is going to be only one theory that gets approached. I agree with you there. But we really have no idea if science can even get to such a theory. Assuming it's so without evidence is already pushing the bounds of good science.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that we can get to a scientific theory of everything, there is scientific justification that it's a "god," i.e. a being as we understand it.
If you do assume there is a scientific theory of everything and that that scientific theory of everything is god, then you've left the path of science so far behind that what you're postulating can't really be considered scientific anymore. If you find scientific proof of this, it would be another story, but at the current point in time, you're way beyond what can be scientifically claimed.
Indirect evidence like finely tuned constants isn't any help in this regard, since there are other reasons they could exist that way (see the anthropic principle). Plus, observing something then later on coming up with a theory to match it isn't particularly good science: good science involves coming up with theories that make new predictions and then testing those theories.
-
Tangentially, I saw a car with a bumper-sticker the other day that read;
"Dog is my co-pilot."
Classy Geezer, classy. The age of enlightenment is truly upon us.
We always aim to please [;D]
(Our pastor thought it was hilarious!)
-
Although discussions such as this are interesting, they seldom achieve much...
I agree wholeheartedly, with the caveat that the specific discussion that is unlikely to achieve much is the same one I've been trying to avoid. It might be hard to believe, but atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on finding religious debates to be largely a waste of time. It is one of those phenomena where everyone who enters the intellectual pool does so with their views finalized before hand. At that point, all that's left to be found is an excess of ego, suppositions, and time.
Having said that, I find the other discussion (on a scientific approach to a theory of God) to be both important and, crucially, wholly distinct from the first.
So I assume you'll understand if I don't respond to much of the rest of your post that really is mostly dealing with the first discussion. I've heard all these arguments, and frankly speaking, I wouldn't entertain them even if this were a religious forum. We humans are endlessly versatile in rationalizing and re-rationalizing our beliefs when faced with facts and information that stands contrary to our attitudes. So even if either of us thought that they had come up with some masterful bit of logic and reasoning that they supposed would be capable of completely routing the basis of the other's argument, if it stood fundamentally in contrary to the others' basic attitudes about the argument, it will have no capacity to convince or impress. I'm no expert, but I should know at least that much with my psych studies.
Which brings me to a misunderstanding some still seem to be having about this discussion. An existential argument is not a good or relevant response to the question at hand. What's being discussed is assuming an existential argument of God to the affirmative, how can this idea be brought into science? Well, I already gathered a tentative answer to this of course: science as it is currently conceived as per the scientific process, can't encompass a theory of God (or as you would rather like to say [I assume], it makes an idea of God impossible). I will look forward to any argument that specifically addresses this.
-
Have you watched the Zeitgeist Film? (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/)... Well, at least the first one, it now appears as if they've made four. But, at least the first one discusses religion.
Anyway, the film points out that Christianity has borrowed many concepts from other religions, perhaps to appease the locals.
Is it any surprise that Jesus's birthday is a couple of days after the Winter Solstice, and around the New Year?
Easter and Jesus's rebirth is aligned with the Spring Equinox.
While dates vary, some people put the Age of Pisces as beginning at 0AD, and the birth of Christ. Coincidence?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chromeautoemblems.com%2Fimages%2FChrome%2520Christian%2520Jeaus%2520Fish%2520Emblem.JPG&hash=98e96de0e0bda6e28e23089a06e87804)
So, what happens with the end of the Age of Pisces, and begging of the Age of Aquarius? Which nobody seems to agree on its beginning either, but it is often set at about 2000 AD.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_IBVPgalgRAk%2FTJEi9ZM9YKI%2FAAAAAAAACbE%2F4cTqmNgWXM0%2Fs400%2FDarwin%2Bfish.jpg&hash=2a73610a89bc834f7767ef3a0c096325)
Anyway, if you wish to apply science to God... Perhaps one should just use the scientific method to analyze the way religion itself works. What each religion takes from other religions. The basic meaning of their symbolism.
-
It might be hard to believe, but atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on finding religious debates to be largely a waste of time. It is one of those phenomena where everyone who enters the intellectual pool does so with their views finalized before hand.
I'm sorry, but I believe that is complete nonsense.
Scientists are those who, by definition, seek knowledge. If they have preconceived ideas, they are really crummy scientists. Knowledge is not that which someone else dictated.
Is the Universe mysterious? Yes.
Was it created by a god, several gods, an infinite number of gods, a gigantic mangleworzel, or an infinite number of gigantic mangleworzels, or something else? I do not know, and I'm sure any scientist, regardless of your categorization, will jump right on it just as soon as somebody coughs up an experiment that they can test.
Those humans who seek to define god hope to set themselves apart from the rest of humanity.
-
../
Was it created by a god, several gods, an infinite number of gods, a gigantic mangleworzel, or an infinite number of gigantic mangleworzels, or something else? I do not know, and I'm sure any scientist, regardless of your categorization, will jump right on it just as soon as somebody coughs up an experiment that they can test.
.../
There is only one Mangelworzel! An infinity ? Blasphemy! Fetch the comfy chair Cardinal Fang!
It might be hard to believe, but atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on finding religious debates to be largely a waste of time. It is one of those phenomena where everyone who enters the intellectual pool does so with their views finalized before hand.
This is seriously insulting Namaan - so is everyone who has contributed to this thread is so blinkered and set in their ways to be unable to change their views? Geezer is completely correct (did I just type that?) but any scientist who enters an arena with completely preconceived and immovable ideas should hand in their notice and see if there is work at the nearest council office. We might set a very high threshold for changing our minds on certain questions (I will need more than a group of Swiss and Italians who cant use a stopwatch to dismiss SR for example) - but if one's mind is truly closed to change then one is nothing more than a bigot and has no claim to rationalism or science
-
It might be hard to believe, but atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on finding religious debates to be largely a waste of time. It is one of those phenomena where everyone who enters the intellectual pool does so with their views finalized before hand.
Unlike the Catholic Church, who maintained an open mind when Copernicus, and later Galileo, suggested that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, not threatening excommunication and imprisonment for those who dared to question the Bible. ?????????????
Unlike the Catholic Church who did not deny the existence of sadists and paedophiles among some nuns and priests. ????????????
Unlike the Puritans who did not burn 'witches'.
If ever there were closed minds, the church has to be the biggest offender.
-
Please stop blowing up misunderstandings out of all proportion. A stroll around religious discussions at TNS finds witting intentional, witting underhanded, and quite often unwitting underhanded insults to intelligence that generally paint those who ascribe to a religion as delusional believers in a non-existent entity that is such nonsense as to deserve regular mocking, all nonchalantly of course. I find no problem in ignoring all these insults only because I find it worth a meaningful discussion. Granted, some of the cynicism in my posts is probably a response to these insults.
So if you can't read past to the last paragraph, then I have nothing else to say except the following. I have friends who are atheist or of other religions, and if ever a religious discussion comes up, then speaking in a personal capacity, I find it to be a terrible waste of time for the reasons mentioned. And while you might have a point that scientists are ideally supposed to be these ever-skeptical beings, reality is wanting. This ideal ever-skeptical being of yours doesn't exist since we are only humans. And humans don't remain ever-inquisitive children till old age.
Given these natural limitations, I'm sure as scientists you all try to the best of your humanly capacity to consider every idea in its own right, but there never-the-less remains several problems for me with discussing religion:
1) It frankly isn't relevant to the question as I've already pointed out a few times.
2) I've never come across an existential argument on God that I've found to be very well thought out or convincing. You are free to think that this is due to my inability to reason at your level, or that I'm just in a state of denial.
3) In my experience, existential arguments take a lot of time to make, much less time to break down, and achieve relatively little. Being in business, I'm unable to ignore the investment vs. tradeoff issue with this.
So no, I don't think that "everyone who has contributed to this thread is so blinkered and set in their ways to be unable to change their views" - you're just putting words in my mouth. I started this thread with very specific intentions. We have the rest of the internet to discuss the existential argument, though you're unlikely to find me there (unless I were to dig up my older posts).
-
Namaan, coming into the discussion rather late I misunderstood the point of the thread (I think). I think it is unusual, though not impossible, for a non-believer to apply scientific principles to developing a theory of God. Most people in science have an idea and then try to see whether this idea fits all the known facts and is self consistant. Being human, the effort needed to undertake such a task requires, and reinforces, some degree in belief that the idea is correct. Nonetheless, some scientific approach could be developed to look at concepts from a hypothetical position. Is this what you are expecting?
From my perspective it hard to know where to start. What God are we trying to scientifically justify? Is it a particular one or rather the more general concept of the universe being in the control of an intelligence? I think specific God-qualities, as defined by most religions, fall down when subjected to any scientific study. At least, it seems to me that for most religions, many things that were previously held to be indisputably true have been proved wrong, although a large number of people still believe in the old ideas whilst some are happy to modify their view to fit in with modern interpretations. I would point out the ideas of natural selection versus the idea that God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago as one example. I think a staring point would be to pick an example of the features that the God, that we are trying to have the theory about, possesses.
I suspect that the abstract God we will end up defining will be so "hands-off" that it would make no material difference whether he exists or not. Such a God may be indiscernable from the natural universe itself.
So the question is what God are we trying to work with?
-
Please stop blowing up misunderstandings out of all proportion.
I think you will find the millions who have suffered from religious persecution would not think things have been blown out of proportion.
....... A stroll around religious discussions at TNS finds witting intentional, witting underhanded, and quite often unwitting underhanded insults to intelligence that generally paint those who ascribe to a religion as delusional believers in a non-existent entity that is such nonsense as to deserve regular mocking, all nonchalantly of course. .......
......... We have the rest of the internet to discuss the existential argument.....
I don't wish to be rude, but if this is your opinion, why do you post here? Why not go to a forum such as this one (http://fundiesvatheists.lefora.com/), where members are more disposed, nay, perhaps even welcome and revel in such arguments. This is a science forum, pure and simple, not a science vs religion forum.
I have made my choice, nobody, but nobody influenced me in my choice and I am happy with my choice, as I presume you are with your choice. If I had any doubts about my choice, I would seek to address them. I do not impose my choice upon others and respectfully request that they do not impose their choice upon me.
All of us here are capable of making our own decisions. We really don't want or need anyone to try to convert us. Those of us who believe, will doubtless continue to believe, those of us who don't, will continue to disbelieve. Let's just leave it at that.
-
I don't think Namaan is trying to convert anyone here - he's simply looking for a way to include God within science, which is a very sensible thing for an intelligent religious person who believes in science to try to do. However, since he isn't interested in reading any arguments that point out why it will ultimately fail, he's doomed to follow the slow track instead, and he's already got stuck at the second step. Step one was to come up with the idea of building a scientific theory of God. Done. Step two is to define what God is supposed to be. Not done. If it turns out that God is an infinite, designer, creator, natural alien being, then it isn't anything that most of us would recognise as a God. There could theoretically be such a being out there (though I'm not so sure about the infinite part), and if we could have a conversation with it it would be very keen for us not to think it was stupid for thinking it was God.
So, can we please get past the second step: define your idea of God so that we can tell what the theory is actually supposed to be a theory of.
-
However, since he isn't interested in reading any arguments that point out why it will ultimately fail...
A tad presumptuous; I've been reading and trying my best to consider every post in this thread. But I do have a life and job outside TNS, and the 'teams' aren't exactly balanced in numbers. It'll take some time to provide a cogent response to each person. But I was about to respond to your last post anyway. Please consider again for a second my third point on why I avoid existential arguments on God: "In my experience, existential arguments take a lot of time to make, much less time to break down, and achieve relatively little."
With respect, I will present your last post below as case in point (with my comments in bold text in square brackets):
I thought this thread must have been deleted as there was nothing in the original subforum saying it had been moved - I only found it here because I looked in on the off chance that it had been mentioned, but here it is.
I think Namaan is actually trying to do something worthwhile, though it's doomed to failure. If you read the Qur'aan (Koran), you'll soon see that it attempts to argue its case in scientific and logical ways, and that could lead followers of Islam to think that science and religion could be compatible and that God could be accounted for by science.
The problem comes, however, as soon as you try to define what God is. Let's start with a definition from Gordian Knot:-
First though, one question Why is it that the whole concept of God is a fundamentally irrational idea?
Definition of God.
A conscious awareness that chose to set in motion the creation of everything we call reality.
That runs straight into a problem: the conscious awareness would have to have created itself [Why? There is no evidence for non-existence to be found anywhere. Evidence, by definition, exists. What if we invented the concept of non-existence? As such, if there is no non-existence, and ever was only existence, then no need for self-creation.] if it is to be a member of the set of things called "everything we call reality) If it isn't in that set, it isn't real.
Let me go through some of the fundamentals:-
Imagine a primary realm of existence in which an intelligence resides, or a primary realm of existence which is that intelligence. He/it happens to exist and has no purpose in existing [How do you know this? Do you have evidence for this statement? Or if we're just considering hypotheticals, on what basis are you making an assumption of a lack of purpose?] - the only things which can ever have purpose are things that are made (or done) to carry out some end which has been calculated in advance by an intelligence. For God to have a purpose, he would have to have been created for that purpose by another intelligence [More assumptions. Again, how do you know this? What if there was only ever existence and only ever a self-subsisting infinite God? If we're just assuming and supposing after all...], in which case we've started with the wrong candidate - we must transfer our interest to his creator, and when we find the top creator we have inevitably reached one who has no purpose [And we've come full circle. On what basis do you gather that the creator at top has no purpose?].
Now, this supreme intelligence and primary being (who is in that position by chance [You know this how?] - it's not of his own doing [Same, what is the basis for these assumptions? Please don't just say reasoning again, I'm clearly not finding your reasoning very impressive.]) decides to make things (as he might as well do something with his time [How are you assuming that time is experienced in his realm?] and powers to pass the time). He makes a universe (or maybe many of them) and populates tiny parts of it with life. There are now more intelligences in existence, but he regards himself as superior to them [You say it as if you've had a chat with him. Without getting too specific, this is hardly the only possible interpretation.]. Is he justified in that opinion? What does superior mean? (It has more than one meaning, but we can ignore the one that simply means it has more of something, such as more strength or more material). Is a stone superior to a rock? No: not unless a purpose is involved. If you need something heavy to weigh something down, a rock may be superior to a stone. If you need something that you're capable of throwing, a stone may be superior to a rock. Superiority (of the kind we're interested in) is completely tied up in purpose and otherwise has no role. If God made us for some reason, whether that be to pass the time or to have someone to talk to, we would have a purpose for him, but nothing he does can ever give him a purpose for himself because he wasn't created for a purpose [Repeat of more assumptions]. Superiority cannot have any role to play in a comparison between him and us. Of course, in a world where many people also believe in royalty, they have a false idea about superiority sitting in their heads which backs up their ideas about God being inherently superior too, even though both these ideas (royalty and God) are completely baseless.
So where is this going? Well, there is nothing about God that can make him qualify as anything more exciting than an alien being which happens to have existed first and which happens to have access to all the levers of power (and to have made sure that we cannot access them) [All assumptions and suppositions. You don't know that he's like an "alien being which happens to have existed first". You don't know that he just "happens to have access" to power as if it were a random and pointless affair, and you have no basis to say that we cannot access power - have not humans harnessed the power of nature through an understanding of science? This is made possible by a consistent display of the universal laws. GR and SR are fundamentally based on the assumption that the laws that apply here, apply everywhere. That's quite the foundation for access to power from where I stand.]. "God" needs more than that to qualify as God [Far more], because all we have to go on otherwise is that he's the big chief alien [Perhaps from where you stand.], and that is insufficent to justify his claim to be God [Again, perhaps from where you stand.]. Taking on the name "God" doesn't do it either - I could call myself God, but no one would take that as evidence for me being God.
So, what we need is some kind of definition of God which sets out something about him which would actually qualify him as God. Being here before someone else isn't good enough - our parents are not more divine than us through existing before us, and we are not more divine than our children either. Having access to more power doesn't make anyone more divine than anyone else either: mass-murdering dictators are very powerful as people go, but they are certainly not more divine. Morality might be seen as a factor, but people are riddled with faults which aren't of their own doing - they have no free will [You have no free will?] and are simply driven by their desires and the attempts of their intellect to make them do the best thing at all times. If they had been made perfectly (like an artificial intelligence system which uses a correct morality formula to govern its behaviour) they would express perfect moral behaviour at all times, but that would not make them more divine [Why not? What is your basis for reaching this conclusion?].
I'll leave it to you to come up with suggestions as to how "God" might try to qualify as more than just a natural alien being, but I can tell you for free that there is nothing that can succeed. If he tries to qualify using magic, he will have to understand how that magic works in order to qualify as God, and by understanding it he destorys it's magical nature. If he tries to qualify by being supernatural, he has to make an arbitrary [Why arbitrary? Because "God has no purpose"?] divide of nature into supernature and nature, and then the leaky barrier between the two will burst [How do you know this?] and reunite them [On what basis?] - if things can interact, they must be part of the same system or they would have no mechanisms to allow them to interact, and that system in which all interacting things reside is by definition nature [An arbitrary definition, but let's work with it. Do you somehow know what the full set of "things" are in the universe? This would be necessary, of course, to know what nature is by your definition]. God has to be part of nature [You know this how?], and that automatically opens him up to scientific study - even if we can't access him to study him, he can study himself and become a scientist [Which is meaningless when considering the idea of an infinite, creator, designer God who understands himself and the universe to infinity]. If he understands how he works, he will inevitably be forced to describe himself as a natural being, but if he can't, he fails to qualify as God due to a lack of essential knowledge.
God is logically impossible [Hardly convinced of this.], as I said before. All he can ever be is a powerful alien being which happened to exist first [Assumptions repeated.], and that isn't something you should base a religion on.
There was a point to this exercise, and it wasn't to attempt to route your argument at every step. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised, in fact expect, that you will be capable of producing a counter-argument to all my comments above. But that's just the point isn't it? We're discussing something about which we really have no clear knowledge of.
When you ask me to clearly define God, the question misses the premise of the discussion. If I knew what God was exactly, a being I define abstractly as being infinite, designer and creator, it would really be tantamount to defining in finite terms an infinite being. We can't draw an infintely long line, but we can imagine and discuss the concept of a line of infinite length quite coherently; mathematicians more so than most. The analogue to an equation for a line might be the abstract terms that I've been using all along: an infinite, designer, creator God.
But I will entertain the possibility of greator rigor. Let's start simple and get back to the point on design. If God has designed his creation to infinite capacity, then the design should leave its trace on the creation in the form of things like exacting universal constants, emergent/non-reducible systems, etc. I am aware, of course, that most of these are taken as mere incidences of concidence by the mainstream view on science. So going full circle back to my first post, how many such coincidences are needed, in what form, under what assumptions, etc. before the overall-package of data can be scientifically recognized to be potential evidence of intentional design?
-
Indirect evidence like finely tuned constants isn't any help in this regard, since there are other reasons they could exist that way (see the anthropic principle).
The anthropic principle again? Well, this should be relevant to my above post too. And peppercorn mentioned it earlier, and here was my response:
I've read about that. Perhaps I'm just not intelligent enough to understand it :P, but to me it says a whole lot of nothing. Empty logic, as it were. Or rather, the principle itself isn't wrong, but it's used and abused well beyond its explanatory capacity (not unlike using Darwin's theory of evolution to "explain" everything from human sociology to the economy).
It only gets a "well, duh" response from me for formalizing an obvious relationship, and doesn't actually do any explaining with regards to exacting universal constants, etc.
Do let me know if I'm missing something, but I'm unable to see anything substantive in this principle aside from formalizing a set of correlations between universal fine-tuning and existence of conscious life to observe the fine-tuning. Even if we were to consider a correlation vs. causation argument here, I find it quite removed from an existential argument. In other words, if A is correlated with B, not only does that not tell us which caused the other, but it is removed from an explanation of where A and B came from.
-
The anthropic principle is often part of theories of everything that describe many (or infinite) universes, each of which has different parameters. The hope is that these theories will be testable at some point, and if we can observe these other universes, we'll have some confirmation that the anthropic principle is the reason for the fine-tuning.
But at the moment, there's not really evidence for it.
-
It strikes me that the answer to the revised topic of this thread is, "yes." You can bring a creator god into the realm of science by coming up with hypotheses and testing them, just as you would with any proposed theory. If you want to "prove" god exists, you would have to come up with a hypothesis that rules out non-god theories, test it, and find out that yes, god exists.
What you can't do is to look at existing observations and try to figure out what kind of god fits those details and call that your "theory of god." Looking at existing observations is a good place to start when formulating a new hypothesis, but it's not scientifically sound to use existing observations as evidence that your new theory is right.
The fine tuning of constants is a good example. You can look at them and say "that's evidence of god," or "that's evidence of the anthropic principle at work," but neither of these are sound scientific theories. They might lead to testable hypotheses (in the case of the anthropic principle, we could look for other universes or parts of our universe where the parameters aren't fine-tuned).
-
Please consider again for a second my third point on why I avoid existential arguments on God: "In my experience, existential arguments take a lot of time to make, much less time to break down, and achieve relatively little."
With respect, I will present your last post below as case in point (with my comments in bold text in square brackets):
Thank you for your response - I always find it very useful to get a view like that of how other people think. I will respond to your bold objections in the following quotes (of mine) because they are demonstrably invalid:-
That (Definition of God = A conscious awareness that chose to set in motion the creation of everything we call reality) runs straight into a problem: the conscious awareness would have to have created itself [Why? There is no evidence for non-existence to be found anywhere. Evidence, by definition, exists. What if we invented the concept of non-existence? As such, if there is no non-existence, and ever was only existence, then no need for self-creation.] if it is to be a member of the set of things called "everything we call reality) If it isn't in that set, it isn't real.
You've jumped in in the middle and split the argument, then attacked the first half in a completely irrelevant manner while ignoring the whole point. Here is the point again:-
Things that are not real don't exist.
"Everything we call reality" is the set of all things that exist.
Something-which-sets-in-motion-everything-we-call-reality must be a member of the set of all things that exist, otherwise the something is not real and cannot have done what has been claimed.
Imagine a primary realm of existence in which an intelligence resides, or a primary realm of existence which is that intelligence. He/it happens to exist and has no purpose in existing [How do you know this? Do you have evidence for this statement? Or if we're just considering hypotheticals, on what basis are you making an assumption of a lack of purpose?] - the only things which can ever have purpose are things that are made (or done) to carry out some end which has been calculated in advance by an intelligence. For God to have a purpose, he would have to have been created for that purpose by another intelligence [More assumptions. Again, how do you know this? What if there was only ever existence and only ever a self-subsisting infinite God? If we're just assuming and supposing after all...], in which case we've started with the wrong candidate - we must transfer our interest to his creator, and when we find the top creator we have inevitably reached one who has no purpose [And we've come full circle. On what basis do you gather that the creator at top has no purpose?].
Again you jump in in the middle of the argument and ignore the explanation that follows the proposition. The word "purpose" specifically relates to things made/modified or actions performed by an intelligence in order to achieve some end. Something which has not been created in order to achieve some calculated goal has quite simply not been created for a purpose. A stone which has been made by frost-shattering of rock was not made for a purpose. It may be possible to use that stone for a purpose, but then it is the usage of it which has the purpose rather than the stone. Now, I can understand your difficulty with this if you've started out with a belief that God created everything for a purpose, because then it is hard for you to imagine anything not having a purpose as you just take it as a given, but there is one clear exception, and that is God himself who was very clearly not created for a purpose. If you want to say that God has a purpose, you need to explain what intelligence created him and for what end. Clearly you must refuse to do this because you cannot have him being created by another intelligence or by himself, so he cannot be given a purpose.
Another important point you should consider about purpose is this: if I make something for some purpose, I do not magically acquire any degree of divine status for that object by creating it, and God is in exactly the same position - he cannot give us a purpose any more meaningful than we can give purpose to the things we make. Furthermore, if we use science to create complex living things (and we may do just that in the future) which are equivalent to ourselves in capability and feelings, they will not be inferior to us through being our creation. They will have a purpose in that they will have been created by us for a reason (or many reasons), while we may have no purpose if we are just evolved creatures, but neither of us can be more divine than the other. They could even be more intelligent than us, but neither they nor us would have any qualifications for being divine.
Now, this supreme intelligence and primary being (who is in that position by chance [You know this how?] - it's not of his own doing [Same, what is the basis for these assumptions? Please don't just say reasoning again, I'm clearly not finding your reasoning very impressive.])...
The supreme intelligence and primary being is in that position by chance because it is not of his own doing - he didn't create himself but just happened to exist (infinitely or otherwise - it doesn't matter which). He cannot take the credit for existing or for being powerful or for being the first to exist or anything else unless he created himself, which we both seem to agree he did not do. I'm not finding your reasoning at all impressive - you really should have got all my points first go.
...decides to make things (as he might as well do something with his time [How are you assuming that time is experienced in his realm?]...
It doesn't matter whether it does or not, but he can't have a purpose for his own existence and he can't give himself one by creating us either. Finding a reason for him creating us is your problem and not mine.
...and powers to pass the time). He makes a universe (or maybe many of them) and populates tiny parts of it with life. There are now more intelligences in existence, but he regards himself as superior to them [You say it as if you've had a chat with him. Without getting too specific, this is hardly the only possible interpretation.]. ...
Are you objecting to the idea that God needs to be superior to us in order to qualify as God? If he doesn't regard himself as superior, what can he be other than just a bog-ordinary (even if exceptionally powerful) alien being? The key thing about gods is that they must be superior - no one would waste time worshiping them if they weren't. Without that inherent superiority he is just an alien which we can potentially make contact with and hold conversations with him about everything. We may not be capable of understanding everything that he can understand, but he will only expect us to be able to handle those ideas which we can reasonably process, just in the way we communicate with animals of lesser intelligence to ourselves. We certainly don't expect them to worship us on the basis of things which are beyond their understanding - that would just make us look silly.
... Is he justified in that opinion? What does superior mean? (It has more than one meaning, but we can ignore the one that simply means it has more of something, such as more strength or more material). Is a stone superior to a rock? No: not unless a purpose is involved. If you need something heavy to weigh something down, a rock may be superior to a stone. If you need something that you're capable of throwing, a stone may be superior to a rock. Superiority (of the kind we're interested in) is completely tied up in purpose and otherwise has no role. If God made us for some reason, whether that be to pass the time or to have someone to talk to, we would have a purpose for him, but nothing he does can ever give him a purpose for himself because he wasn't created for a purpose [Repeat of more assumptions]. Superiority cannot have any role to play in a comparison between him and us. Of course, in a world where many people also believe in royalty, they have a false idea about superiority sitting in their heads which backs up their ideas about God being inherently superior too, even though both these ideas (royalty and God) are completely baseless.
A repeat of incorrect claim of assumptions. These are not assumptions - they are logically argued points and fully correct. You cannot give your God a purpose in existing without giving him a creator. Without a purpose, it is pointless to compare him with us. We have a purpose if he made us for a reason, and it would be possible to compare us with some of his other creations and to wonder which are superior. If they were all perfect creations then none of them could be superior to any others, but that's unimportant. What matters is if we want to compare ourselves with God: we are perfect because he made us (he couldn't have done an imperfect job because he's a perfect creator - any imagined faults in us must be fully intended, which incidentally doesn't give him much of an excuse to send anyone to hell). He on the other hand is not comparible in terms of superiority because he wasn't created for a purpose, just as it is pointless to compare ourselves to stones and ask whether we're superior to them.
So where is this going? Well, there is nothing about God that can make him qualify as anything more exciting than an alien being which happens to have existed first and which happens to have access to all the levers of power (and to have made sure that we cannot access them) [All assumptions and suppositions. You don't know that he's like an "alien being which happens to have existed first". You don't know that he just "happens to have access" to power as if it were a random and pointless affair, and you have no basis to say that we cannot access power - have not humans harnessed the power of nature through an understanding of science? This is made possible by a consistent display of the universal laws. GR and SR are fundamentally based on the assumption that the laws that apply here, apply everywhere. That's quite the foundation for access to power from where I stand.].
He didn't create himself so it isn't by his doing that he has access to the power that he has. I didn't say we can't access power, but we don't appear to be able to access all the power that this God creature has access to for making universes and such like. If I have made an assumption here, it is the result of assuming that God would want to retain power over us rather than sharing it with us as equals. If he is actually prepared to allow us to do all the things that he can do, then that would show that he regards us very much as equals, if our intelligence can be boosted up to the required standard.
"God" needs more than that to qualify as God [Far more], because all we have to go on otherwise is that he's the big chief alien [Perhaps from where you stand.], and that is insufficent to justify his claim to be God [Again, perhaps from where you stand.]. Taking on the name "God" doesn't do it either - I could call myself God, but no one would take that as evidence for me being God.
You agree that he needs more to qualify as God, but what is that more? The reason people are able to hold the idea of God in their heads is that they haven't fully thought through what it is they're trying to imagine - there are elements of magic tied up in it which they are in awe of, and yet the magic must be false. Strip away the magic, and all you have left is an ordinary, natural being like ourselves. Your theory of God, if you ever start to build it, will actually be a theory that there is an alien out there who is so powerful that he created the universe we live in and that he created us too. That last bit makes him a little bit different from a normal alien, of course, because he would be an alien who also created us, but the only new factor is one that will take us into a long diversion into discussing the difference between natural and artificial.
[I've had to split this into two posts due to word-count limit...]
-
[Ctd.]
So, what we need is some kind of definition of God which sets out something about him which would actually qualify him as God. Being here before someone else isn't good enough - our parents are not more divine than us through existing before us, and we are not more divine than our children either. Having access to more power doesn't make anyone more divine than anyone else either: mass-murdering dictators are very powerful as people go, but they are certainly not more divine. Morality might be seen as a factor, but people are riddled with faults which aren't of their own doing - they have no free will [You have no free will?] and are simply driven by their desires and the attempts of their intellect to make them do the best thing at all times.
No one has free will. God could not have free will either. Either we do random things (and we struggle to make decisions when they are random) or we do what we hope is the best thing. No one has ever been able to describe an act of free will, and that is not surprising because there is no such thing.
If they had been made perfectly (like an artificial intelligence system which uses a correct morality formula to govern its behaviour) they would express perfect moral behaviour at all times, but that would not make them more divine [Why not? What is your basis for reaching this conclusion?].
If people have no free will, their behaviour is neither their fault nor to their credit. A perfect being simply follows moral rules (computational morality can do this with a simple morality formula), while an imperfect being may not always follow them, but if perfect calculation and execution of morality makes something divine, I have created a genuine God through software.
I'll leave it to you to come up with suggestions as to how "God" might try to qualify as more than just a natural alien being, but I can tell you for free that there is nothing that can succeed. If he tries to qualify using magic, he will have to understand how that magic works in order to qualify as God, and by understanding it he destorys it's magical nature. If he tries to qualify by being supernatural, he has to make an arbitrary [Why arbitrary? Because "God has no purpose"?] divide of nature into supernature and nature,
Arbitrary in the same way that a creator of a virtual world would be making an arbitrary divide of nature if he claimed he was in a different realm from the contents of the virtual world he had created - they are manifestly part of the same system, with the latter additionally being in a subsystem of the main system. There is a divide, but not one that splits one away from being part of nature.
...and then the leaky barrier between the two will burst [How do you know this?] and reunite them [On what basis?]
It bursts as soon as you have an interaction across it, such as God communicating with us or visiting us.
- if things can interact, they must be part of the same system or they would have no mechanisms to allow them to interact, and that system in which all interacting things reside is by definition nature [An arbitrary definition, but let's work with it. Do you somehow know what the full set of "things" are in the universe? This would be necessary, of course, to know what nature is by your definition].
Science is the study of nature. Science is the attempt to study and explain of all the things that exist. Nature is the sum total of all things that exist, including your God if he's real in any form. Now, you can argue that God is beyond reach and can't be studied by science and that this could make him separate from nature and beyond science, but that would be wrong - he can easily turn scientist and study himself.
God has to be part of nature [You know this how?], and that automatically opens him up to scientific study - even if we can't access him to study him, he can study himself and become a scientist [Which is meaningless when considering the idea of an infinite, creator, designer God who understands himself and the universe to infinity].
It isn't meaningless - he may not need to study himself if he knows it all already, but he can still study himself scientifically to check what he is. How can I know that he's part of nature? Well, if he exists, he's part of the system things that exist and which are by definition part of nature. You may object to that definition and try to create some independent realm for God to reside in or to be which is not part of nature, but it would be an artificial divide and demonstrated to be false as soon as you have an interaction between the two systems - interactions between them automatically require them to be part of the same system as they could not have any means of interacting otherwise.
God is logically impossible [Hardly convinced of this.], as I said before. All he can ever be is a powerful alien being which happened to exist first [Assumptions repeated.], and that isn't something you should base a religion on.
If you don't follow the reasoning properly, of course you aren't going to be convinced, but an A.I. system (these are on the way - I'm building one) will determine that God is logically impossible, just as it will determine that "a thing which doesn't exist" is logically impossible.
From here on the quotes are all yours:-
There was a point to this exercise, and it wasn't to attempt to route your argument at every step. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised, in fact expect, that you will be capable of producing a counter-argument to all my comments above. But that's just the point isn't it? We're discussing something about which we really have no clear knowledge of.
We're discussing something which can actually be ruled out through the application of reasoning. The fact that you can object to reasoned arguments and fail to take them on board does not negate the purpose of demonstrating that God is logically impossible: it merely illustrates why people are incapable of settling such arguments because most of them do not respect reason whenever the argument is complex, even when each step can be shown to be correct and the way they lead into each other can also be shown to be correct - they'll just keep jumping back and forth making invalid objections and claiming it's a draw.
When you ask me to clearly define God, the question misses the premise of the discussion. If I knew what God was exactly, a being I define abstractly as being infinite, designer and creator, it would really be tantamount to defining in finite terms an infinite being. We can't draw an infintely long line, but we can imagine and discuss the concept of a line of infinite length quite coherently; mathematicians more so than most. The analogue to an equation for a line might be the abstract terms that I've been using all along: an infinite, designer, creator God.
The infinite part isn't a problem - you can have an infinite being if you like, but being infinite won't magically turn it into a God. Your definition, if we take your thread title as a definition, falls short of describing a God that can't just be a natural alien creature. If you are to have a theory of God, you need to add something to it that makes it a theory of something more than a natural creature. You could make up a new word if you like and then make a theory of a thing with that property, but until you define that word and make the thing meaningful, it isn't going to be a theory of any substance.
But I will entertain the possibility of greator rigor. Let's start simple and get back to the point on design. If God has designed his creation to infinite capacity, then the design should leave its trace on the creation in the form of things like exacting universal constants, emergent/non-reducible systems, etc. I am aware, of course, that most of these are taken as mere incidences of concidence by the mainstream view on science. So going full circle back to my first post, how many such coincidences are needed, in what form, under what assumptions, etc. before the overall-package of data can be scientifically recognized to be potential evidence of intentional design?
It now sounds as if what you want to do is make a statistical judgement as to whether a God (or a natural being) created the universe based on various things about the way the universe works. Now, even if every single factor pointed towards an intelligent designer, it would not tell you whether a God made the universe or if a natural being outside of the universe made it, so you will not be addressing the God question at all.
To address the God question, you need to ask yourself how likely it is that a being could exist as a perfect reasoning machine and with perfect morals and with every other possible kind of perfection without any of that being engineered. The answer is not going to be zero, but it will be beyond astronomically unlikely that such perfection would be the original state of this creature. Intelligence is messy in its design - there is no beautiful symmetry about it, as anyone who has programmed any component of it (in the course of A.I. development) will be able to tell you. It involves a whole stack of complex components which must interact in tightly constrained ways in order to produce sensible output. God would have to be such an information system, and they don't just ping into existence complete or exist from the off without a much more modest beginning.
-
Have you watched the Zeitgeist Film? (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/)... Well, at least the first one, it now appears as if they've made four. But, at least the first one discusses religion.
I have, but I skipped the religous section -_- For one thing, I'm not Christian, so criticism of Christianity isn't really relevant. And the more general criticsim of religion I've heard enough times to not find very interesting. But good to know they've made two more than I've watched. Granted, the end of the 2nd one was pretty rediculous. Do I have your recommendation for the 3rd and 4th?
Anyway, if you wish to apply science to God... Perhaps one should just use the scientific method to analyze the way religion itself works. What each religion takes from other religions. The basic meaning of their symbolism.
It might be interesting, but perhaps not so much for me. The 'religion' you speak of and suggest analyzing isn't anything I'm interested in, nor is symbolism as you might be imagining it.
-
Wow phillosophy, I've not had this much De Ja Vu since the invasion of the creationists, it's like I'm reading the same hand over and over right down to the same arguments and placid style.
Science must be a religion for these people so they can distort and control it.
I'm so glad I am an independent with my own views.
My response to the original post although the reading has been enlightning is this: reverse your question and you get the same logical answer. In other words can religion accept there is no God and only Science?
Now lets move back on to Science and get off the flat sea on the back of a turtle... 8
-
Science must be a religion for these people so they can distort and control it.
Thanks for the completely non-contextual post Airthumbs :) (the emoticon is in account for the placid style). Btw, the reverse of the title question is: Can Science be Brought Within the Realm of an Infinite, Designer, Creator God? Which of course is a completely different question from what you suggested.
-
I'm sorry about the non contextual input but I was answering your question. :) I still believe I have done so, inversely, reversely, however you want. Science + God = Illogical madness. Science by definition cannot exist within a framework that includes a fictional character, with no evidence to support it's existence whatsoever. Only a creationist would ask such an illogical question as they would feel it is rhetorical, in my opinion........ :o
-
Science + God = Illogical madness. Science by definition cannot exist within a framework that includes a fictional character, with no evidence to support it's existence whatsoever. Only a creationist would ask such an illogical question as they would feel it is rhetorical, in my opinion........ :o
I think you're being unfair - it's a fine question to ask, and particularly when it comes from someone whose background is in a religion like Islam which has a holy book that goes to considerable lengths to attempt to impress people with its scientific knowledge and extensive reasoning. I consider it to be the most serious holy book of them all because it doesn't just run away into the realms of magic. If you read it and fail to pick up the many faults, it would be all too easy to end up believing that science and religion are fully compatible, because it repeatedly insists that they are and tries to back up its assertions with lengthy explanations. If you start out by thinking of God as nothing more than a fictional character, of course you're most likely going to see it as an illogical question because you've already made up your mind that there is no God, but that's not going to help anyone who hasn't made up their mind yet or who believes God is real - from their starting point it is not a stupid question at all.
-
Namaan, coming into the discussion rather late I misunderstood the point of the thread (I think). I think it is unusual, though not impossible, for a non-believer to apply scientific principles to developing a theory of God. Most people in science have an idea and then try to see whether this idea fits all the known facts and is self consistant. Being human, the effort needed to undertake such a task requires, and reinforces, some degree in belief that the idea is correct. Nonetheless, some scientific approach could be developed to look at concepts from a hypothetical position. Is this what you are expecting?
I'm not exactly a non-believer, but yes, that is more or less what I was expecting.
From my perspective it hard to know where to start. What God are we trying to scientifically justify? Is it a particular one or rather the more general concept of the universe being in the control of an intelligence? I think specific God-qualities, as defined by most religions, fall down when subjected to any scientific study. At least, it seems to me that for most religions, many things that were previously held to be indisputably true have been proved wrong, although a large number of people still believe in the old ideas whilst some are happy to modify their view to fit in with modern interpretations. I would point out the ideas of natural selection versus the idea that God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago as one example. I think a staring point would be to pick an example of the features that the God, that we are trying to have the theory about, possesses.
I suppose you could consider it the general concept of God. So you're saying that we need to start by defining God? I think my response to David should be relevant:
When you ask me to clearly define God, the question misses the premise of the discussion. If I knew what God was exactly, a being I define abstractly as being infinite, designer and creator, it would really be tantamount to defining in finite terms an infinite being. We can't draw an infintely long line, but we can imagine and discuss the concept of a line of infinite length quite coherently; mathematicians more so than most. The analogue to an equation for a line might be the abstract terms that I've been using all along: an infinite, designer, creator God.
I suspect that the abstract God we will end up defining will be so "hands-off" that it would make no material difference whether he exists or not. Such a God may be indiscernable from the natural universe itself.
So the question is what God are we trying to work with?
Avoiding an argument on whether or not it would make a material difference, I will keep the significance of a need for a clear definition in mind, thanks.
-
I think you will find the millions who have suffered from religious persecution would not think things have been blown out of proportion.
Are you holding me responsible for crimes done in the name of religion?
I don't wish to be rude, but if this is your opinion, why do you post here?
Can't say I thought about it too much, though I wouldn't reconsider if I had the chance. If I said I think God is correct, let's discuss it, you would have a point. But perhaps I hadn't made it sufficiently clear in the beginning, but the premise of this whole thread was the assumption that an infinite, creator, designer God is real and exists. Given this assumption, my understanding dictates that we are now discussing science, not religion. At least not 'religion' as its typically defined.
Why not go to a forum such as this one (http://fundiesvatheists.lefora.com/), where members are more disposed, nay, perhaps even welcome and revel in such arguments. This is a science forum, pure and simple, not a science vs religion forum.
As much as I try my best to avoid pointless argumentation, I don't need to go to a forum to raise my self esteem with people agreeing with me either.
I have made my choice, nobody, but nobody influenced me in my choice and I am happy with my choice, as I presume you are with your choice. If I had any doubts about my choice, I would seek to address them. I do not impose my choice upon others and respectfully request that they do not impose their choice upon me.
All of us here are capable of making our own decisions. We really don't want or need anyone to try to convert us. Those of us who believe, will doubtless continue to believe, those of us who don't, will continue to disbelieve. Let's just leave it at that.
It's unfortunate that you've reduced me to someone who's here just to try and 'convert' you.
-
One interesting topic that has not come up yet is that there is a subset of archaeologists who, while not attempting to find scientific proof of God, they DO concentrate on trying to find scientific proof of historical and miraculous events that are mentioned in the bible.
Such things such as why the Nile turned red, how the sea of Galilee was parted, what was the star that appeared over Bethlehem; all of these and many more have been theorized. Most of these archaeologists are serious scientists that are attempting to take the stories in the bible and find the historical reality behind them.
It seems to me that if there is any way to bring god into science, deriving scientific proof of his/her/its actions is as close as science is capable of getting.
-
Proving that there is red mud in the Nile river doesn't mean that it was in fact God or anything supernatural that caused the Nile to flow red. Quite the contrary, all it indicates is that the stories could have been based on true events, and there are some very non-supernatural explanations for the the stories.
Keep in mind, Christianity has also stolen ideas and stories from other religions, so red mud in the Nile might not have even occurred at the same time as the struggle between Egyptians and Hebrews, but could have been stolen from quite a different story.
-
Clifford I agree. I was stating information, not putting my spin on that information.
And I have always considered the Christian God a plagiarist since he stole so many pre-Christian myths and put it in His bible claiming them to be his.
-
The anthropic principle is often part of theories of everything that describe many (or infinite) universes, each of which has different parameters. The hope is that these theories will be testable at some point, and if we can observe these other universes, we'll have some confirmation that the anthropic principle is the reason for the fine-tuning.
But at the moment, there's not really evidence for it.
That makes sense, but it doesn't really explain why this principle is brought in when considering existential arguments; in fact it seems irrelevant to such arguments. Maybe I'm not getting it but even if there were many or infinitely many universes and this would allow for one of these many to be coincidentally fine-tuned such that it produces conscious life to examine the fine-tuning, I don't see how that at all explains anything existentially. All it seems to accomplish is to add a layer of complexity to the existential argument and having now to explain where all these other universes, including ours, came from.
I find it reasonable to apply Occam's razor here...why would explaining where many or infinitely many universes came from be easier then explaining where one came from?
-
What you can't do is to look at existing observations and try to figure out what kind of god fits those details and call that your "theory of god." Looking at existing observations is a good place to start when formulating a new hypothesis, but it's not scientifically sound to use existing observations as evidence that your new theory is right.
Could you elaborate on this? I mean, I think I get what you're saying, sort of like looking at an ominous dark cloud and betting your pal that it's gonna rain and then saying "I told you so!" as if were anything special? If so, then that isn't how I'm approaching it. I'm not thinking to myself "the universe looks awfully fine-tuned, if there was such a thing as a creator God, what sort of being must it to account for this fine-tuning?". The specifics of my approach are probably beyond the scope of this forum. That's not meant to contain any insulting subtext; it's reasonable from my perspective to assume that it won't make for appropriate discussion on a science forum, and I respect that.
The fine tuning of constants is a good example. You can look at them and say "that's evidence of god," or "that's evidence of the anthropic principle at work," but neither of these are sound scientific theories. They might lead to testable hypotheses (in the case of the anthropic principle, we could look for other universes or parts of our universe where the parameters aren't fine-tuned).
Is it reasonable to expect then that if there existed a well-formulated "theory of God" before the scientific observations of universal fine-tuning took place, and that made predictions about universal-fine tuning, etc. then such observations could then be used as supporting evidence?
Also, there is another idea that's been hovering around me for some time; the idea of emergent/non-reducible systems. By that, I don't mean conceptual emergence, as in "emergent technologies" or "emergent meta-information", etc. Rather, I mean to refer to a hypothetical 'force' in the universe that acts in opposite direction to the 'reductionist forces' such as strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational which act 'bottom-up'. If, hypothetically, evidence of such a top-down force were produced, would this in your understanding be in anyway capable of lending support for the idea of intentional design?
-
Lets move out of the realm of religious mythology. Personal experience, bolstered bu the information in two books I read at a relative young age that open up the "veil" of mythology common to all religions that hint at the reality of just exactly what the term "God" refers to.
The two books are "Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature" a book by the Harvard University psychologist and philosopher William James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience) and i"Cosmic Consciousness" by the Canadian Psychiatrist, Richard Maurice Bucke, also writing in the late 19th-early 29th century time period.
Joseph Campbell, a Professor at Vassar? had a couple of Public Broadcasting System series about 20 years ago that did an in-depth investigation into this subject. It is of the same caliber as the books - very high - and very accurate according to my personal experience.
Please, unless you have investigated this personally, all the conjecture adds nothing to this subject. First educate yourself, then practice the suggestions for 6 months, see what the results are and then make up your mind.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."
--------- William Paley (1743-1805)
-
...
Richard Maurice Bucke, also writing in the late 19th-early 29th century time period.
Stone me! And I thought I was a slow writer and he was one hell of an old git to boot!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Flol%2F10.gif&hash=6ec91e8a6973558a9092ab9ab4cf5ba4) Sorry JB, I just couldn't resist that FOG!
-
JimBob does make a cogent point. One of the flaws I believe many God believers make is that they do not wish to look beyond anything other than their flavor of God. Gods have been around for millennia. For hundreds of years before Christ whole nations believed in Norse Gods. Were they all wrong? Before them there were Egyptian Gods. Before them there were Sumerian Gods.
In order to talk competently about God, I believe one has to be educated in the history of Gods thru-out human history, as well as all the Gods various nations currently adhere to. My conclusion from that study is that we humans make God in our image, not the other way around.
-
My conclusion from that study is that we humans make God in our image, not the other way around.
I couldn't agree more.
-
Odd, I guess I'm supposed to appreciate the patronizing? I've been trying to intentionally avoid a discussion on the specifics of religion, etc. yet here you all are making assumptions of what I know and don't know.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."
--------- William Paley (1743-1805)
This works both ways of course:
"2:6 Remember that those who have chosen denial in advance, it is all the same to them whether you apprise them (of the consequences of their actions) or apprise them not. They will refuse to acknowledge the truth."
-
Odd, I guess I'm supposed to appreciate the patronizing? I've been trying to intentionally avoid a discussion on the specifics of religion, etc. yet here you all are making assumptions of what I know and don't know.
. Jimbob's post was very much on religion in general - and sometimes gaps in knowledge are quite apparent .
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."
--------- William Paley (1743-1805)
This works both ways of course:
"2:6 Remember that those who have chosen denial in advance, it is all the same to them whether you apprise them (of the consequences of their actions) or apprise them not. They will refuse to acknowledge the truth."
Strange quote when you consider the next line
"2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom." That's rather condemnatory for a supposed forgiving god - the obvious reading of the words is that you get one chance, and after that you are doomed to burn with no possibility of repentance. Nice - that's why I tend to loath the misandric rantings of those in bronze age Judea and medieval Mecca
-
Western gods tend to be forgiving on many things, but not when it comes to worshipping them. This has always struck me as odd. Why are supposed Supreme Beings so insecure?????
-
Strange quote when you consider the next line
"2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom." That's rather condemnatory for a supposed forgiving god - the obvious reading of the words is that you get one chance, and after that you are doomed to burn with no possibility of repentance. Nice - that's why I tend to loath the misandric rantings of those in bronze age Judea and medieval Mecca
You're not really leaving me with much choice. Let me explain, then, why I've been avoiding the use of "Islam", "Qur'an" and "Muslim" (i.e. the "specifics of religion" as I have been putting it). First off, the correct translation for that verse along with the translator's comments in square brackets is as follows:
God (His Law of Cause and Effect) has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and on their sight there is a veil. And theirs will be a tremendous suffering. [Khatm or Taba’ from God, seal on the hearts, is a natural consequence of one’s deeds. Blind following, adamancy, being unjust due to selfish interests and arrogance render the human perception and reasoning unreceptive to Divine revelation. Thus, one loses sensitivity and the ability to perceive reality. It is easy to see how damaging this fall from the high stature of humanity can be, a tremendous suffering that is built-in as the logical consequence of such attitude. 4:88, 17:46, 18:57, 40:35, 45:23, 83:14]
Now, I hear you say where did the "(His Law of Cause and Effect)" come from? And why is it in parentheses - seems like a rather convenient way to make it more compatible with modern thought. And further, how do I gather that the above is the correct translation? The problem here lies in the fact that I'm using a translation that is in some respects quite different from prevailing ones. For example, I could also give verses like this:
21:30 Are the disbelievers not aware that the heavens and earth used to be one solid mass and We exploded them asunder? And that out of water We made every living thing? Will they not, then, acknowledge the truth? [Here is a clear allusion to the Big Bang theory. Numerous celestial bodies came into being and started swimming along in their orbits. Almost all modern astrophysicists believe that this Universe has originated as one entity from one single element, hydrogen that, in stages, became consolidated with gravity and then broke apart into celestial bodies. 21:33, 24:45, 36:40, 79:30]
41:11 Likewise, He is the One Who designed well the Sky when it was Smoke (Nebulae of gas). And He said to it and the earth, "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We do come, obedient." [Thumm = Afterward, then, so, likewise, similarly, in the like manner. The Cosmic bodies coming into their orbits willingly or unwillingly indicates their being inherently subservient to Divine laws, unlike humans who have been granted free will. 3:82, 13:15]
51:47 And it is We Who built the Universe with power, and certainly, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. [Samaa = Sky = Heaven = Allegorically the Universe. Bi-Ayidin = With both hands = With power. The expansion of the Universe was first proposed by the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre and the Russian scientist A. Friemann. In 1929, it was observed for the first time by the American astronomer Edwin Hubble. The Qur‟an had given us this knowledge 14 centuries ago! 55:5, 36:38-40]
I'm hearing someone say that these are just lucky guesses (i.e. fall down to the stopped clock principle) and/or convenient reinterpretations of the original verses to fit modern science and/or simply vague enough in detail to give it the "ah-ha!" quality.
I could argue in return that the Qur'an declares itself timeless (as is relevant here), internally consistent, free of contradictions, and crucially an autoderivation (made up the word to mean self-derived) as such the context for any verse is every other verse in the Qur'an, and that the message and context of the Qur'an is, again, not found within a single verse or even a partial set of verses, but in the whole Qur'an. So breaking down a single verse out of context doesn't convincingly show anything. But then you might naturally find it unreasonable for me to expect you to read the whole Qur'an to make a single point. I could also argue that in order to understand why some verses have been translated differently would require the development of relevant historico-liguistic and contextual understanding of the message of the Qur'an, the history of how it was scribed, the circumstances in which the first 'Islamic histories' were recorded, and culture and historical traditions of Islam (in particular the tradition of Hadith and its relation to the Qur'an). But then you might say that this is just a convenient end-all argument that says that your translation is incorrect and the use of some of the nonsense ascribed to Islam found in the Hadith to be unqualified.
Do I think that western translators mis-translated the Qur'an intentionallly, or that it is western propaganda, or otherwise some sort of conspiracy? Certainly not. It would be unreasonable to hold to account western translators and even many Muslim translators since Muslims by and large don't possess an accurate account of their own history. I know this both experientially as well as anecdotally being born in Pakistan to a Muslim household. I was surprised to recently learn, for instance, that most Muslims in Pakistan actually and sincerely believe that certain men from around 13-14 centuries ago lived for up to 300 years. This would be inspite of them having obtained a university or masters degree. They also believe that a whole range of other fanciful strange events were actually part of their history, much like Jesus having walked on water or performing various "miracles" for his people of Christian faith. It's when actual history is tainted with all these fables and fabricated stories that a crucial context for the understanding of some verses is muddled. On a side note, there is a clear reason why it seems the religious books seem to have borrowed/plagarised from each other, and it's the same reason the Qur'an refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book".
And all this just brings us back to square one. I find your presenting of prevailing Qur'anic translations as well as any from Hadith as evidence against Islamic reasoning to be misdirected, and you will naturally find a request to brush up on accurate Islamic history and the Qur'an itself to be unreasonable so we're getting no where. All this, again, is not to suggest that I think everyone here has just made up their minds and can't think critically from the other side. I just don't find it to be a fruitful discussion, which is why I was trying to approach a question that I was interested in without bringing in these religious arguments.
-
Strange quote when you consider the next line
"2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom." That's rather condemnatory for a supposed forgiving god - the obvious reading of the words is that you get one chance, and after that you are doomed to burn with no possibility of repentance. Nice - that's why I tend to loath the misandric rantings of those in bronze age Judea and medieval Mecca
You're not really leaving me with much choice. Let me explain, then, why I've been avoiding the use of "Islam", "Qur'an" and "Muslim" (i.e. the "specifics of religion" as I have been putting it). First off, the correct translation for that verse along with the translator's comments in square brackets is as follows:
God (His Law of Cause and Effect) has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and on their sight there is a veil. And theirs will be a tremendous suffering. [Khatm or Taba’ from God, seal on the hearts, is a natural consequence of one’s deeds. Blind following, adamancy, being unjust due to selfish interests and arrogance render the human perception and reasoning unreceptive to Divine revelation. Thus, one loses sensitivity and the ability to perceive reality. It is easy to see how damaging this fall from the high stature of humanity can be, a tremendous suffering that is built-in as the logical consequence of such attitude. 4:88, 17:46, 18:57, 40:35, 45:23, 83:14]
You continue to protest that you are being forced to do this or quote that - but you introduced the koran. The fact that you need to find an alternative translation speaks volumes - and no I do not think they are lucky guess, they are deliberate re-interpretations.
.../snipped
And all this just brings us back to square one. I find your presenting of prevailing Qur'anic translations as well as any from Hadith as evidence against Islamic reasoning to be misdirected, and you will naturally find a request to brush up on accurate Islamic history and the Qur'an itself to be unreasonable so we're getting no where. All this, again, is not to suggest that I think everyone here has just made up their minds and can't think critically from the other side. I just don't find it to be a fruitful discussion, which is why I was trying to approach a question that I was interested in without bringing in these religious arguments.