[namaan (OP)]

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.

[Gordian Knot]

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.

[Gordian Knot]

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.

[namaan (OP)]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

[CliffordK]

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?

[Soul Surfer]

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.

[namaan (OP)]

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.

[CliffordK]

Perhaps we should just choose to worship Aldus Huxley's God, Henry.

[Gordian Knot]

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.

[namaan (OP)]

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 (OP)]

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?

[Nizzle]

God exists as a coping mechanism for humanity

[JP]

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.

[JP]

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!) 

[namaan (OP)]

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.

[imatfaal]

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

[rosy]

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?

[namaan (OP)]

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.

[Geezer]

You keep using the term "theory of god", but no theory is presented.