Interesting thought experiment, if God exists, then the scientific method shouldn't work...

[Cleobulus]

as well as it does. It relies on testability, making predictions based on observations and experiments, and also on our understanding of the forces of the Universe, which do not change. Note, our understanding of the forces can change, refining things a bit, but overall our observations are consistent with our understanding of nature.

A God that is personal and intervenes on the workings of the Universe, to answer prayer or perform miracles means that the scientific method would fail to be able to successfully make predictions based on known forces and laws of nature. The reason is because the supernatural intervention would involve suspending those laws and adding an obvious element of unpredictability to our observation of nature.

We have not seen such intervention, nor has there been completely unexplainable miracles that lack a rationalist or scientific explanation.

The Universe as observed today, with our understanding of nature's forces and laws shows us a Universe without this direct intervention. So the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is not observed to exist in or out of this Universe.

But that's not the only type of God out there, what if God is simply the First Cause, as its called, started the Universe off with a bang, and then either chose or couldn't intervene in it after creation. Well, this begs the question, who created God? In addition, even if such a being exists, we can't contact him, nor can we detect him, nor can he do the same. In addition, we don't even know what form this God took. Hell, humans, probably within a few decades would have the technical know how and energy resources needed to kick off a big bang of our own, create a Universe.

Such a Universe, soon after creation, would pop out of our own universe, into its own space. After that, we couldn't interfere with its development further. Would this make human beings Gods? Interesting question, and makes me wonder if we were some alien's 5th grade science experiment from another Universe. So this God wouldn't even be worth worshiping, much less attempting to find them, they could be billions of years dead, from our point of view, assuming our universe was created in this manner.

There are other types of concepts for "God" and these are rather odd, let's look at pantheism, God being everywhere and in everything. Well, the first problem is that this type of God is undetectable, and second, if this God is in everything, do they even have conscious control of their own body, in other words the Universe. If so, we should be able to see some conscious thought involved in the layout of the universe, and yet we don't see this. Again, it seems our universe is not a God, at least a conscious one, and if its unconscious, why call it God at all?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. God intervenes, or so I am told, all the time.

For example, it seems that God is a huge sports fan who regularly picks winners and losers in competitive matches.

But seriously, what if there is a god or gods and they just don't care much? What if Olympus is just too much fun and the boring affairs of earth mortals are long put aside, tin soldiers from a younger deity?

Well that isn't serious either. There is no god outside of our own invention. Unfortunately for us, that invented god is quite active in the world.

[Cleobulus]

3. I still like the idea of the 5th grade God, maybe he got a blue ribbon at the science fair...

for creating our Universe. :D

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I prefer Phillip Pullman's idiot-deity

in his Dark Materials triolgy. A Supreme Being that it seems has been demented for longer than any of the lesser immortals can remember. It might have done something long ago, but that hypothetical is irrelevant.

[Speck Tater]

2. You have not proven that God does not exist. You have proven that God does not intervene.

The idea that God answers prayers is preposterous right from the very beginning, given that those who believe this to be true also believe that God has some kind of eternal divine plan. If their God has such a divine plan then for God to answer a prayer is for God to admit that his divine plan had a flaw which the person praying has uncovered and pointed out to God.

God, therefore, does not meddle in the physical world. However, that does not preclude God influencing people's thoughts or feelings in a subjective way, not measurable by physical measurement or observation, such as inspiring love and compassion, or by providing peace and comfort.

I believe it is possible that God exists, not as the creator of the Universe, but as an epiphenomenon that came into existence after the Big Bang. To some, however, a non-creator God would not qualify as a God. I like to think of it more as "cosmic consciousness", or as something analogous to the "Internet" that connects all our souls together.

[Cleobulus]

5. In that case then love and compassion shouldn't be explanable in science...

nor should many parts of our brains. Yet, oddly enough, there is an explanation for the existence of these feelings, because they are not unique to humans, and neither are the behaviors that result from them. Evolution and observation of our closest living relatives give us answers to these questions. Great Apes, in addition to Dolphins and Elephants, display altruism within their own species, being social animals, this is a good survival strategy to help the group, the young especially, survive. In addition, even above and beyond the Apes and Dolphins, Elephants are altruistic towards other species, even to the detriment of the individual elephant, and even more amazingly, Elephant have extended bereavement periods, and even death rituals, they have even been known to use these death rituals on other species, including humans.

And again, the idea of cosmic consciousness begs the question, why haven't we observed this consciousness, if it is in our minds, influencing them then we should see this influence happen, should we not?

[Speck Tater]

15. Good points. I like to believe my theory not because it makes sense, but because it's fun to believe

[Cleobulus]

36. Ah, but then you are simply indulging in fantasy, nothing wrong with that I suppose...

as long as you leave it there and don't let it either interfere with your life or the lives of others.

[wurzel]

11. If God does not intervene, does it matter if God exists?

[Speck Tater]

16. Probably not. In like manner, does it matter that I exist? Probably not. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

17. No it is not 'in like matter'.

You may be insignificant, but you do exist (I presume) and we could conduct repeatable experiments to prove your existence. That is quite different from asserting the existence of a metaphysical being and then, when asked to explain the apparent lack of observable phenomenas that can be attributed to this deity, claim that it does not act in the universe. If an object does not 'act in the universe' it does not exist.

[Speck Tater]

18. Quite true. However...

Suppose.... (and I'm asking for a big (but hypothetical) suspension of disbelief here) just suppose that one day when you die you find yourself, in some non-corporeal form, wooshing down a tunnel to be greeted by a non-material being bathed in light (or what manifests to your non-corporeal "senses" as light or a light-like analog) who envelopes you in warmth and love and welcomes you to your afterlife, or perhaps introduces you to your choices for your next incarnation.

Certainly the existence of such a being does not matter (in the strong sense you describe) to any living human. But to any and all beings in whatever post-life or transitional state there might be after (or between) material incarnations in human form, the existence of such a being does, indeed matter. It's only that, as living humans that being cannot matter to us because it does not affect our lives, and (having had our pre-life memories erased as a condition for accepting earthly incarnation) we have no way to know of its existence.

Does such a being matter?

It's all relative, isn't it?

[DCBob]

4. For those who believe in God, God created and maintains the laws of nature..

and everything else for that matter.

[Cleobulus]

6. There's no evidence to suggest the laws need maintaining...

these aren't human laws, a law, in science, is an explanation of a physical phenomenon that is relatively well understood, such as the law of gravity. Its not a human law, that requires tinkering to perfect it.

And again, this begs the question, where did God come from?

[davidinalameda]

10. great point

[Warren Stupidity]

21. why exactly does physical reality need maintenance?

The argument assumes something unproven: the 'laws of the physical universe require maintenance' in order to position 'god' as the agent providing this activity.

[MineralMan]

7. An old argument. It's a fair one, but I doubt you

can maintain it very long. Pretty soon, you'll make a logical error, which someone will point out to you, assuming you have not already done so. I suppose it's a fun exercise, but this one has been done at length for a long time. Enjoy yourself.

[Cleobulus]

8. Oh I know, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

I think my logic is sound, generally the arguments will result in believers basically denying the observable universe exists as it does, or they will say science doesn't know everything.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. The entire point of a transcendant god is that we can't observe one in...

human terms.

So, why try to explain one in human terms? Allegorical gods, like those of Olympus, come in handy for morality plays, but it was the culture, not the faith, that kept them alive. For the "essence" of God, we are just guessing.

We can't directly observe infrared or X-rays, either, nor can we even imagine space in higher dimensions, but we've eventually discovered an entire light spectrum we can't see and have speculated on those higher dimensions. Why argue over points that are ultimately unprovable one way or the other. Some day they might be provable, but that day is not now.

You speak of physical laws and constraints, but not of how those laws evolved. You also ask who created God if he is the first cause, but if there is no God, who or what created the matter or energy to expand into the universe? These are all the same question, and no one has satisfactory answers.

My religion accepts God as likely an amorphous intelligence or power pervading the cosmos, but doesn't define God any further than that, since it's all guesswork. We have no divine truths, and we find the divine paths to the truth far more interesting-- even if we never arrive at our destination.

[Cleobulus]

13. Define observe, I'm observing infrared right now, I happen to be outside...

on a deck, on a netbook, and the sun is sending infrared rays to me right now. Its not too hot, but I can definitely feel it. I can even measure it with a thermometer, quantify it, I can even take out a prism, a simple piece of glass and separate out the infrared from the rest of the spectrum and measure it more directly. Give me an hour to set up a thermometer and prism and I can tell you exactly how much infrared radiation is hitting the surface of the Earth in my location, at least when there are breaks in the clouds.

Give me a few hours, and a trip to the store, and I can do the same for x-rays, would you like to know how much x-ray radiation is in my ambient environment? I'm sure there's a few radioactive isotopes around here. I could use photographic plate, build a Geiger counter, etc. Many options, with varying degrees of accuracy.

The point is that while we may not be able to see these things with our own eyes, we can measure them quantify them, even reproduce them. With the right tools and knowledge, anyone can do so.

As far as our imagination goes, of visualization, as it were, yes our brains have difficulty intuitively imagining things beyond 3 dimensions. However, we also have a mental toolkit, in addition to things such as good old fashioned pen and paper or more advanced tools such as computers, and that ever important thing, math, to help us conceptualize dimensions beyond our own visualization. We have the tools both within ourselves and as products of our imaginations to discover a lot about the basics of the Universe. Its amazing really, what we have discovered.

As far as the beginning of the Universe, basically that one millisecond before the expansion, there are a lot of hypotheses floating around, but the one thing we should never do is think its unsolvable, if we have learned anything so far in our scientific pursuits, its that nothing is ultimately unsolvable. To stop the inquiry and proclaim that "this is God, or God did this" answers precisely nothing, its a cop out, and nothing more. In science you should never be afraid to say "I don't know." but you should always qualify that with "But I would love to find out."

[Warren Stupidity]

20. The poster appears to be playing a semantic trick on 'observe'

restricting the meaning to 'visible to the human eye' in order to make a vastly spurious equivalence argument with the unobservable, in any sense of the word, deity.

Religious arguments should stick to 'because'.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Why is defining terms a trick? I compare the knowledge of...

a transcendant god to the knowledge of higher dimensions-- neither of which we have the ability to observe at the moment. Or understand, define, describe, or any other like term you prefer.

You don't like my comparing the inability to see ultraviolet with the inability to see God? You have to do better than just simply say it's spurious.

Anti religious arguments should stick to accepted norms of reasonable debate.

[Cleobulus]

30. Because we can observe those higher dimensions indirectly...

or predict their existence based on other observations?

Can we do the same with an unknowable god, a transcendent god?

[TreasonousBastard]

50. As well as we can with unknowable transcendant dimensions...

since we can't prove those predictions or even indirectly observe other dimensions.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Yeah that.

"We can't directly observe infrared or X-rays, either," That is, as one of my favorite podcasts says, "Totally Bogus".

We can in fact directly 'observe' infared and X-rays, we just cannot 'see' them, while we can neither directly nor indirectly observe this purported metaphysical being, in any sense of the word, pun intended. Instead we are told to accept 'on faith' that the being exists, or we are given well worn and weak arguments for why the only possible answer to some unknown must be 'god'.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. we never even guessed that X-rays existed until we had the technology to...

observe them.

But, so what...

You can quibble all day long with these silly sideshows, but the point is that science is only good when it can measure things-- without something to measure, it's no different than religion.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. And the point is? We've discovered ways to find the full spectrum and...

we don't know what happened at the birth of the universe.

Isn't that what I said?

Missing, of course, any discussion of the concept of a transcendant god being ultimately unknowable, and any further discussion of the invention of anthropomorphic gods and their uses.

[Cleobulus]

29. Here's something, if a transcendant god is unknowable then all assumptions...

of its existence are pure speculation and aren't worth pondering about. The default assumption should be that such a god doesn't exist until proven in some way that can be measured.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. Why? You might have a point if you define "god" as the typical anthropomohphic...

being, but since you haven't defined "god" at all, it's perfectly reasonable for the default to be for some sorts of gods to exist.

the universe has a structure-- why not assume someone or something gave it that structure and then attempt to prove or disprove it? That's every bit as viable as assuming the structure just existed somehow.

[Cleobulus]

14. By the way, you just gave me an idea, an experiment I could try on myself...

not dangerous, obviously, but since we are talking about unseen electromagnetic radiation, I wonder if I can measure UV light using nothing more than my body and a simple camera.

UV light is easily blocked, so I have a pretty good farmer's tan, I where a t-shirt what can I say? :)

This means there are parts of my body that haven't been exposed to UV radiation, and parts that have. Also, using the knowledge on how my body tans, and how quickly it can burn when exposed to UV light, I have a basis of measurement, based on my own experiences. Perhaps a study in contrasts between the two areas of my body could give me a measure of how much UV radiation I'm exposed to from day to day.

I could also be more specific, and expose a previously unexposed part for a set time each day, let's say for an hour starting at noon, and measure the changes in pigmentation from day to day. This could give me a baseline to work from. Oh, I'm sure it won't be as accurate as other instruments that are designed to detect, measure, and even see UV light, but it would give me a general idea as to how much I'm exposed to. Hmm, this time of year would be ideal, the Summer Solstice is almost here, and the directness of sunlight will not be this great for another year.

Something to think about, I'd have to see if I can eliminate some of the variables that would be inherent in the experiment. Thanks for the idea!

[TreasonousBastard]

26. It would be a lot easier to just get a meter that reads it.

[Cleobulus]

28. Because it would be easy? Its called challenging yourself to do something new...

humans do it all the time, its how we grow, intellectually, and it has a satisfaction all on its own. Of course it would be easier to use a meter, that's not the point.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. People get tans all the time, so that's nothing new, but you can't tell from the tan...

how much UV A,B,or C is getting to you. And you can't tell what sky conditions give you what dosage.

[BurtWorm]

12. That's a lot like Daniel Dennet's argument for 'determinism' in Freedom Evolves

and again its opposite. He says a lawless universe would be more detrimental to freedom than the present deterministic one, where every action has a predictable but not unlimited range of reactions.

[Cleobulus]

37. I'm not too familiar with his work, seen a view videos of him...

basically talking about his theories of the mind and such, fascinating stuff. Need to find some of his books.

[rug]

22. Lol.

". . . the forces of the Universe (interesting capitalization) . . . do not change . . ."

Black holes must be anomalies.

"Hell, humans, probably within a few decades would have the technical know how and energy resources needed to kick off a big bang of our own, create a Universe (there's that capitalization again)."

I can't wait until 2050 to see the universe humans created.

This is sophomoric drivel.

[Cleobulus]

27. Says the guy who apparently failed middle school science class...

Black holes are gravity gone wild, so much so that apparently the KNOWN laws of physics break down at the singularity. This simply means that we don't know what precisely happens at the singularity, nothing more than that.

Oh, and in 2050, uhm, you wouldn't, it'd last in this universe, maybe a few picoseconds, I'll have to review the math. Oddly enough what we know about the universe at this time actually provides the means for creating a universe ourselves. The problems involved are technical and it will require a lot of energy. Of course, just because we could do it doesn't mean we will.

[rug]

38. Let me know how that creating a universe thing works out

after you review the math.

:rofl:

[Cleobulus]

40. I'm glad you find your ignorance of science amusing. n/t

[rug]

41. It's you I find amusing.

So earnest.

[Cleobulus]

43. Your right, I shouldn't be so earnest in arguing with the willfully ignorant and stupid. n/t

[rug]

45. That's "You're", not to sound willfully ignorant.

[Cleobulus]

42. moved

[struggle4progress]

23. This is a strange and bizarre view, whether or not you have any religious beliefs

If one assumes, merely for the sake of an argument, something like "Someone beyond space and time created our universe," then it is unclear (at least to me) how one could know what restrictions apply to the abilities of that hypothetical Someone

And talk of other "universes" is scientifically incoherent, unless one uses carefully some special technical meaning of "universe." The common meaning of "our universe" is something like "everything we can observe," so that "other universes" means something unscientific, like "things we can't observe" -- and the idea that we could "create a universe that then popped into its own space" seems to be a metaphysical speculation that we could "create" something that we couldn't observe: such speculations obviously can have no scientific content. In any genuine scientific theory about "other universes," the "other universes" must be in some sense observable and so must actually be "part of our universe" -- the discussion becoming clouded (and so in great danger of becoming silly nonsense) by the fact that "universe" is being used in multiple ways, "universe" in "other universes" being some specialized technical term, and "universe" in "part of our universe" being the usual reference to "everything we can observe"

[Cleobulus]

31. Uhm, you should read up on the latest theories in Cosmology...

and on the Quantum level and smaller. Some observations that scientists have been observing for years, both in outer space, and subatomic level, are puzzling, and the latest theories to explain these observations involve, get this, interactions with other universes.

Also, our universe, at approximately 14.6 billion light years across is actually much larger than this, what we can observe is limited by the speed of light reaching us. The universe and space time are expanding, sometimes at great speed, and what we see is only as far as the age of the universe, not its actual size. So to limit our universe to what we can observe is a misnomer, since we already know its much larger than what we can observe.

[struggle4progress]

32. By definition, science only considers the observable

You are, of course, welcome to engage in metaphysical speculations about the "universe" containing matter beyond the Hubble limit, but it will not be science: it will be metaphysical speculation

[moobu2]

33. Wouldn't it be better described as Theoretical physics

rather than metaphysical, whatever? I think so.

[Cleobulus]

35. Yes, and whether it will ultimately fit into and modify the standard cosmological model...

no one is sure of yet.

Its theoretical, and there are competing theories out there about this type of stuff, the question is whether any one of them will withstand the test of time and scientists, or if all of them will be replaced by a better theory or theories.

[Cleobulus]

34. Its not metaphysical when it can be measured objectively...

and its not unobserved, its trying to explain what HAS been observed.

Here, let me give you an example with black holes. Now, black holes cannot, by definition, be observed directly, but we can observe their interaction with other objects and first infer that they exist, and then calculate things such as their mass, diameter of the event horizon, etc.

Its the same thing when trying to calculate how many dimensions there are and universes as well. There have been some unusual observations at both the subatomic and cosmological level that allows for people to infer that other universes exist outside our own, but that their interaction with this one are only present on those levels.

I'm not saying that's the only correct answer, just where the theories are leading, the predictions based on said theories haven't been conclusively proven wrong yet.

[struggle4progress]

44. I think you are confusing yourself with words: mass IS curvature of space-time,

and a "black hole" is nothing except a certain extreme curvature of space-time locally -- in other words, it IS simply a very strong gravitational field. The name "black hole" refers to the fact that these very strong gravitational fields are expected by theory to have "event horizons."

Strong gravitational fields should be observable using phenomena such as accretion discs. An event horizon should be observable when charged particles accelerate to the horizon

But if there really are event horizons in the universe, we do not do any science beyond them -- it doesn't matter at all what a theory might predict about "what happens on the other side of an event horizon," unless there is an actual way to probe "the other side of an event horizon"

[humblebum]

46. None of this really makes sense because the Scientific Method

that is used in the hard sciences today is based upon the model of Logical Positivism as it was defined out of the Vienna Circle. Simply put, the Scientific Method is not even capable of evaluating anything concerning metaphysics, emotions, values, religion, intuition, etc. It cannot even make a statement about such things and yet some are guilty of intellectual dishonesty by claiming that Science can prove or disprove God or diety or anything of that nature.

[Cleobulus]

48. You would have been fine if you stopped at metaphysics and religion...

which by definition, are basically stuff made up that is "beyond science's reach". As far as the rest is concerned, well, scientists in various fields have been studying all those things for years. Neither is testable, provable or observable, so they are just assertions with no facts.


Emotions are relatively understood, as far as to how they are produced, and where within the brain, even love has been examined this way. Emotions are results of electrochemical reactions in the brain to various stimuli, not much more than that. To argue that emotions are someone how beyond the purview of scientific observation or theory is false.

As far as our values are concerned, well, there's a basis for that as well that can be explained using evolution. As we have observed in our closest living relatives, the other great apes are capable of laying fault on individuals for wrongs committed against them, comfort each other in tough times, defend each other, and punish those who violate the rules. In other words, while its simpler than ours, the great apes have a code of ethics or morality. Looking at that, its makes things clearer when you extrapolate for human beings and our social structures, from tribal, as in the past, to global today. The basis for our ethical and moral values has its roots in our closest ancestors, we used our bigger brains to codify these rules, give them a stamp of authority, and also to define, more precisely, who is in the tribe and who is not.

These values actually have a basis in scientific study of emotion as well, emotions such as love, compassion and empathy seem to be instinctual, inherited by our ancestors. And as I mentioned above, we see the actions, and the emotions, played out in non-human apes.

For intuition, I don't see how you can say its beyond scientific analysis. Intuition is simple the use of previously acquired knowledge to facilitate quick decisions on something else. Call this basic, but its something scientists use all the time, and its not like its existence is beyond our understanding.

[humblebum]

54. I think you are mistaken as to the way intuition and emotion are applied here

We are discussing things that can be used as scientific evidence to prove an hypothesis. Intuition and emotion cannot be used as objective evidence. They would be purely subjective.

[demigoddess]

47. God invented science and wants us to learn from it and use it.

just not to blow up the world and pollute the Gulf of Mexico

[Cleobulus]

49. Then who invented God? n/t

[TZ]

55. Um honestly

I really don't see what one has to do with the other. In fact, your statement is definitely NOT scientific. You can't prove a negative, btw.

[Cleobulus]

56. Of course you can't prove a negative, that's the point...

There is no evidence that a god exists that interferes in the world, and its useless speculation that any being was a first cause because it brings up the question as to where such a being came from. Without evidence, there is no reason to assume such a being exists.