scientific proof of god

Son Goku

Freddie59 wrote:

Yeah that's science alright........a load of b*******s presented in fancy language. Same old $hite - different century. Thye've been trotting that rubbish out for years.

And here we have the crux of the problem.

bonkey, you know you're correct, I know you're correct and anybody here can see from your posts that you're correct.
The problem is that your point, about science not addressing these issues, is just ignored by these kind of people. Instead of you being somebody patiently explaining something, you're just "the arrogant science guy" in their eyes.

Is there a scientific proof of God?
No, of course not. There is no debate, the mere definition of science crushes such a conjecture immediately.

Look at the language of the post above, it has all the trade marks I've seen over and over again of people who just inexplicably hate science.
Making fun of the fact that science uses big words (Ignoring the fact that science needs to because a lot of the things it deals with have no common language term.)and saying it's part of a long standing "tradition of deception".

Freddie59, science is trying to prove God isn't there, you aren't under attack and claims about science being bull**** that has been paddle for centuries are obviously incorrect.
(Hello technology that only appeared in the 20th century)

So man, grow up. Science isn't an angry old professor telling you that you can't go to Church, it's a complimentary discipline, another subject area in the sea of human knowledge.

And thats it.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

Yeah that's science alright........a load of b*******s presented in fancy language.

Er.. ok ... did you actually understand the point I was making?

Freddie59 wrote:

Thye've been trotting that rubbish out for years.:eek:

And what rubbish would that actually be ... ?

Zombrex

There is no actual reason why their cannot be a scientific proof of God, there can be a scientific proof for anything ...

but the OPs original post wasn't it, and since all the evidence suggests there isn't a God it is unlikely a proof would be found since you can't prove something that isn't there.

But if God does actually exist there is no logical reason why that proof can never be found to the standards of science. Like I said before if God exisits then he is just another rule of science, another force of nature, like gravity or electromagneticism.

rsynnott

Wicknight wrote:

There is no actual reason why their cannot be a scientific proof of God, there can be a scientific proof for anything ...

Really? Can there be a scientific proof of ANYTHING, in fact?

Zombrex

rsynnott wrote:

Really? Can there be a scientific proof of ANYTHING, in fact?

Anything that actually exists .. you can't prove scientifically a troll lives under my bed because a troll doesn't live under my bed.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

he might be invisible, and very very small. It's awfully arrogant of you to assume that you *know* exactly what is under your bed wicknight.


after thinking about it for a second, I'm going to add a winky face smiley.. just to show that I'm not trying to attack anybody



see, now it's all in fun.

cgordonfreeman

I hate to burst your theologically based bubble but apparently the universe formed due to the random movement of some quarks which triggered greater particles to be formed (through some complex sub-atomic equations). Again, this is all just hear-say but to be honest, I prefer to know minor truth based on science than a major lie based on nothing...(much).

Your best bet is to challenge Hawking or Kip (whatever his name is) on the whole subject.

Cheers.

larryone

Wicknight wrote:

There is no actual reason why their cannot be a scientific proof of God, there can be a scientific proof for anything ...

but the OPs original post wasn't it, and since all the evidence suggests there isn't a God it is unlikely a proof would be found since you can't prove something that isn't there.

But if God does actually exist there is no logical reason why that proof can never be found to the standards of science. Like I said before if God exisits then he is just another rule of science, another force of nature, like gravity or electromagneticism.

In order to prove the existance of God scientifically, you'd have to come up with a formal scientific definition of God. Nobody has been able to do this, because what God IS is different for everyone. Once a formal scientific definition is reached for God, then you can look at trying to prove it, but until you have this you cannot state anything about God and claim that it is scientific.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

There is no actual reason why their cannot be a scientific proof of God,

I think you'll find there are.

there can be a scientific proof for anything ...

...anything natural, observable, and testable you mean.

For Science to be able to prove (abeit technically the incorrect term....science would have a theory, not a proof) the existence of God, the existence (or lack thereof) of God would have to be directly or indirectly ovserveable (or the observation would have to be at least predictable) as a natural phenonemon in a testable manner.

Furthermore, if science offers a theory for the existence of God, that theory must also allow for falsifiability. In short, if it makes predictions about what must be observed in order for God to exist, it must also make predictions about observations (or lack of observation) which will constitute the refutation of the theory.

If you believe these standards are achievable - that God is a natural, observable phenomenon and/or that any theory about the existence of God will (and can) also include identifiable conditions of failure......then sure, you can argue that the existence of God can be scientifically "proven" (i.e. that we can establish a scientific theory for the existence of God).

In the absence of such things, then the best one can do is speculate that such tests might someday be feasible. Speculation implies that one has - at best - a conjecture, and not a hypothesis or theory.

It is a commonly-held fallacy that science can prove/disprove "anything", and its probably what gives rise to the antipathy that many religious-centric mindsets feel towards science.

On a tangentially-related note, I was delighted to read a Federal Judge in the US has given ID and its proponents a well-deserved kick in the nuts by declaring the decision to require its inclusion in science unconstitutional under the seperation of church and state.

An excellent summation of the issue was provided by one witness in the trial )copied from an article in la times):

To illustrate his point, Miller, an avid fan of the Boston Red Sox, testified that when his team beat the New York Yankees in the 2004 baseball playoffs, a fan might have believed "God was tired of [Yankee owner] George Steinbrenner and wanted to see the Red Sox win."

"In my part of the country, you'd be surprised how many people think that's a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened last year. And you know what? It might be true. But it certainly is not science … and it's certainly not something we can test," Miller said.


(emphasis mine)

jc

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote:

he might be invisible, and very very small. It's awfully arrogant of you to assume that you *know* exactly what is under your bed wicknight.

I can't have a troll under my bed, the dragon would have ate him by now ... obviously!! ...

Mordeth wrote:

after thinking about it for a second, I'm going to add a winky face smiley.. just to show that I'm not trying to attack anybody

Don't get me started ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50571858&postcount=86

Zombrex

larryone wrote:

Nobody has been able to do this, because what God IS is different for everyone.

Because no one has been able, or even because no one is able, doesn't mean it is not possible. The only way it would be impossible to prove God within the bounds of science is if he (it?) didn't exist.

larryone wrote:

but until you have this you cannot state anything about God and claim that it is scientific.

I never did, in fact i don't believe there is a god so it would be pretty silly of me to claim anything about him, scientific or otherwise

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

For Science to be able to prove (abeit technically the incorrect term....science would have a theory, not a proof) the existence of God, the existence (or lack thereof) of God would have to be directly or indirectly ovserveable (or the observation would have to be at least predictable) as a natural phenonemon in a testable manner.

If God exists he is observable. He might not be observable to us, but by the nature of existing he is observable.

bonkey wrote:

In the absence of such things, then the best one can do is speculate that such tests might someday be feasible. Speculation implies that one has - at best - a conjecture, and not a hypothesis or theory.

I never said I had an hypothesis or a theory of how to prove the existance of God. In fact I very much doubt there is a God in the first place to prove.

What i am saying is that if God exists it is possible to prove scientifically he exists, even if God himself is the only one that can actually carry out the observation and proof.

The point I was making is that if God exists he falls with in science. The idea that God lies outside of "science", or that there exists a "science vs God" debate is not understanding what the term "science "means actually means.

bonkey wrote:

It is a commonly-held fallacy that science can prove/disprove "anything", and its probably what gives rise to the antipathy that many religious-centric mindsets feel towards science.

I think you are confusing "science" (the process) with the "scientific community" (the humans doing the process). There is a difference between being not able to prove something and something being impossible to prove. 1000 years ago we could not prove atoms existed, that didn't mean it was impossible to ever prove atoms exist.

Even if God exists it might never be possible in an infinate period of time for humans to be able to prove he exists. That doesn't mean it is impossible to prove he exist. By his very definition God could prove scientifically he exists, and that would be a scientific proof.

bonkey wrote:

On a tangentially-related note, I was delighted to read a Federal Judge in the US has given ID and its proponents a well-deserved kick in the nuts by declaring the decision to require its inclusion in science unconstitutional under the seperation of church and state.

About fecking time .... I was amazed it lasted this long, considering ID doesn't work without a religious starting point, no matter how vage.
[/QUOTE]

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

If God exists he is observable.

Really?

He might not be observable to us, but by the nature of existing he is observable.

A right. This line of sophistry.

If we cannot observe, then we cannot formulate a scientific theory. Therefore, to us it is not scientifically proveable. We cannot scientifically prove it.

Arguing that a theory may exist formulated by beings we do not know, based on observations we cannot make is no more scientific than the notion of a theory of Gods existance.

We can make a conjecture that a scientific theory for the existence of God may exist unbeknownst to us. Of course, we can equally conjecture that a theory foer the non-existence of God may exist unbeknownst to us.

So where does that leave us? Right back where we started - we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God scientifically.

We can hypothesize that there may be a God, and that this God may be observeable in a manner that we do not understand by observers we cannot prove the existence of.

What i am saying is that if God exists it is possible to prove scientifically he exists, even if God himself is the only one that can actually carry out the observation and proof.

Ah right. "If its true, it can be proven....just not by us". In other words...."we cannot prove this".

The point I was making is that if God exists he falls with in science.

If God exists, is a natural phenomenon, causes observeable, predictable and repeatable effects, and meets all the other requirements of science, then yes....God falls within science.

However, the religious understanding of God inherently excludes the possibility that God is a natural phenomenon. So what you're equally saying is that if God exists, its not the God of religious belief.....which still affirms my assertion that the religious God is not scientifically addressable.

The idea that God lies outside of "science", or that there exists a "science vs God" debate is not understanding what the term "science "means actually means.

Could you explain what science actually means, then, seeing as I apparently don't understand it. God - by our current understanding/beliefs - is not a natural, observeable phenomenon. Science - by our current understanding/beliefs - is the study of natural, observeable phenomena.

Therefore, God is not scientifcally adressable.

For this to change, either what science encompasses must change (which is what the board of Kansas did), or our understanding/belief of what God is must change. I'm not predicting that these things will never change. I'm saying that until they do we cannot address the question of God scientifically.

Now...redefining science in order to show that science can/does do something is a typical ID-proponent pice of sleight-of-hand. Its what the BoE in Kansas resorted to in order to allege that ID is scientific. Its also an implicit recognition that science as we currently understand it does not address the question of God as we currently understand it.

I'm guessing that the religious would not be as happy to redefine God in order to allow science to address it as they are to redefine science....but in either case the result is still the same. If you have to redefine anything in order to provide the answer, then you haven't actually provided an answer.

I think you are confusing "science" (the process) with the "scientific community" (the humans doing the process).

No, I'm not. I'm sticking squarely to the process, which involves observeable natural phenomena. A basic, underlying and overriding tenant of religion is that God is supernatural in origin. By definition, this removes God from the scientific framework.

There is a difference between being not able to prove something and something being impossible to prove.

Correct.

God is supernatural, ergo God cannot be explained in terms of natural phenomena. Ergo, the existence God is impossible to prove whilst limiting oneself to predictions and observations based on natural phenomena.

I always think of David Brin's Uplift series on this issue. If we discovered tomorrow that mankind was created (uplifted from apes in Brin's books) by a more advanced alien species....would our various world religions decide that this alien uplifter was our God?

If they did, then they've redefined God from supernatural to natural, and subsequent to this redefinition God is scientifically addressable.

What I would see as more likely is the "God of the Gaps" approach, where (yet again) religion would back away from claims that something previously inexplicable was due to God, and would retract God back to the next inexplicable point (e.g. "but who uplifted the first species"), keeping God squarely out of the realm of the observeable, natural phenomena, and thus out of the realm of scientific addressability.

1000 years ago we could not prove atoms existed, that didn't mean it was impossible to ever prove atoms exist.

Correct. 1000 years ago, however, it was possible to hypothesize that there was a smallest possible building block of matter based on observation. This is what was theorized, and said theory was refined as methodology and technology progressed and was refined.

So 1000 years ago, we could indeed have an atomic theory, and did to a certain extent. The accuracy of the model wasn't particularly high, I grant you, but we can see that this was the case and was known to be the case - anomalous results in various tests which indicated that the prevalent theory at any given time was not complete, or even close to it.

Today, we don't know that a Grand Unified Theory exists, or a Theory of Everything, but we can hypothesize that they may/should exist, and can set about looking for them. Whether or not we find them is a seperate question, and this therefore falls into the "may not be proven, but is not unproveable" category. However, the existence of a supernatural being, who exists outside of our perception is by definition unaddressable by us.

Ultimately, our disagreement stems from the fact that I didn't go to the lengths of qualifying everything to be "by us", "our" and so on in every sentence. I dunno about you, but I find it gets tiring to have to include the same caveats hundreds of times over the space of a thread.

If you want to argue that God can scientifically prove Gods existence, or some variant thereof, I'm not going to argue with you on it. I'll just point out that our science and God's science would differ based on what constituted observeable natural phenomena for both of us.

In short, I won't argue against the reasoning that "some form of science other than ours would be able to prove this". From our perspective it has no bearing on what our science does and does not address.

About fecking time .... I was amazed it lasted this long, considering ID doesn't work without a religious starting point, no matter how vage.

Oh, its not over yet. This was only a federal judge, and only dealing with one specific case. I'm pretty sure the ruling has already been appealed.

Given that you argue that God must be scientifically addresable should God exist, I find it difficult to understand why you don't fully support the notion of the existence God being taught in the science classroom in some form.

jc

joejoem

By the same logic........

If there was nothing there before god created the universe, who created god?

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Really?

If we cannot observe, then we cannot formulate a scientific theory. Therefore, to us it is not scientifically proveable. We cannot scientifically prove it.[/quote]
As I mentioned, something being scientifically provable does not rest on our ability to scientifically prove it.

It has always been possible to scientifically prove the existance of atoms, even if 1000 years ago when we as a species lacked the ability or knowledge to that. But if we had that ability 1000 years ago we would have been able to do it. Something doesn't suddenly flip from being impossible to prove to possible to prove once we actually discover how to do it. Like I said, there is a difference between something being impossible to prove and us not knowing how to do it.

bonkey wrote:

Arguing that a theory may exist formulated by beings we do not know, based on observations we cannot make is no more scientific than the notion of a theory of Gods existance.

I am not arguing a theory may exist, I am arguing that it can never be impossible to prove the existance of something that does exist. Even if an intelligence never actually gets round to forming a theory it doesn't mean the theory cannot exist.

bonkey wrote:

So where does that leave us? Right back where we started - we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God scientifically.

"We" and our current understanding of the universe is irrelivent, just like our understanding of atoms 1000 years ago is irrelivent to if it is impossible to prove they exist or not.

Firstly, you don't actually know that we can never prove the existence of God (except of course if he doesn't exist).

Secondly, even if that was true just because we cannot prove the existence of God in a scientific manner doesn't mean it is impossible to prove the existance of God in a scientific manner. It just means we can't do it, just like the ancient Greeks couldn't prove theory of atomic structures. That didn't mean that a theory of atomic structures was impossible, or even taht observing atoms is impossible, it just meant they couldn't do it. If God exists then God can quite easily prove he exists, in a completely scientific manner (he is God after all).

bonkey wrote:

Ah right. "If its true, it can be proven....just not by us". In other words...."we cannot prove this".

I don't recall ever saying we could ....

bonkey wrote:

If God exists, is a natural phenomenon, causes observeable, predictable and repeatable effects, and meets all the other requirements of science, then yes....God falls within science.

I would shorten that to "If God exists God falls within science" ... the other stuff is your assumptions of what God should do based on what other things do. It is unnecessary.

bonkey wrote:

However, the religious understanding of God inherently excludes the possibility that God is a natural phenomenon. So what you're equally saying is that if God exists, its not the God of religious belief

No I'm not, you are because you are getting bogged down in the definition of "natural phenomenon" ... I am not even sure what your defintion of natural phenomenon is ... do you mean something that occurs naturally? Is a computer a natural phenomenon? If not, does that mean a computer cannot be observed?

bonkey wrote:

Could you explain what science actually means, then, seeing as I apparently don't understand it.

There are a few definitions but the ones I like the best are -

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Phenomena being something that exists or happens.

bonkey wrote:

God - by our current understanding/beliefs - is not a natural, observeable phenomenon.

Again you are going to have to define what you mean by "natural" ... anything that exists is part of nature. How can something exist and not be part of nature, if that were the case the definition of nature would be meaningless as it is an all encompasing definition.

bonkey wrote:

For this to change, either what science encompasses must change (which is what the board of Kansas did), or our understanding/belief of what God is must change.

No, only your very limited definition of "natural" has to change, a definition I don't really understand.

bonkey wrote:

Now...redefining science in order to show that science can/does do something is a typical ID-proponent pice of sleight-of-hand. Its what the BoE in Kansas resorted to in order to allege that ID is scientific.

The issue of ID and the BoE in Kansas has nothing what so ever to do with the issue of if it is impossible for a proof of God to exist. Neither has changing the definition of "science"

bonkey wrote:

A basic, underlying and overriding tenant of religion is that God is supernatural in origin. By definition, this removes God from the scientific framework.

But "supernatural" doesn't actually mean anything, it is a buzz word for things we can't explain, like UFO is taken to mean "aliens" when all it actualy means is unidenitifed flying object which could mean anything flying and unidentified.

I don't really know why but people really seem to like the idea of "supernatural", probably because they like the idea of something magical. But in reality nothing is super-natural and the definition of super natural doesn't actually make sense.

Imagine you have a set of everything that exists. Some people would say that something super natural (like God) falls outside that set. But logically that is nonsense, the set just gets bigger to include everything.

Its like saying the number infinity + 1 is a number greater than infinitity, when in reality it isn't, it is still infinity.

God only exists outside of science if you define everything that fits inside science and then go "sh1t we forgot to include God" (the infinity + 1 bit) ... but it doesn't work like that, science is the study of everything and everything is a set of everything.

The natural world includes everything that exists, not everything that exists to our current understanding and anything else is super-natural.

bonkey wrote:

So 1000 years ago, we could indeed have an atomic theory, and did to a certain extent.

Ok, a million years ago ... 10 million years ago ... at what point did it become impossible for a theory of atoms to exist? Even before humans or life on earth existed it was possible to prove atoms existed. It was never impossible to prove scientifically the existance of atoms. Why? Because they existed.

bonkey wrote:

If you want to argue that God can scientifically prove Gods existence, or some variant thereof, I'm not going to argue with you on it. I'll just point out that our science and God's science would differ based on what constituted observeable natural phenomena for both of us.

Our "science" and God's "science" would be exactly the same. Science isn't a thing, it is a system.

bonkey wrote:

In short, I won't argue against the reasoning that "some form of science other than ours would be able to prove this". From our perspective it has no bearing on what our science does and does not address.

What "our" science does at this exact moment in time is irrelevent to the question, just as what "our" science could do 10 million years ago is irrelivent to the answer to the question "Can you prove scientifically the existance of atoms" The answer to the question doesn't change depending on our advances. It was possible 10 million years ago to prove atoms exist scientifically, just as it was possible 100 years ago.

bonkey wrote:

Given that you argue that God must be scientifically addresable should God exist, I find it difficult to understand why you don't fully support the notion of the existence God being taught in the science classroom in some form.

As soon as someone actually comes up with the scientific proof of God or at least a sound theory for his existance, I will give the Wicknight stamp of approval to it being taught in a science classroom.

To flip around what I said before, just because something is possible doesn't mean it is actually true.

It is possible to prove scientifically that centre of the milky way is made of cheese and has little mice living in it. Doesn't mean it actually does.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

As I mentioned, something being scientifically provable does not rest on our ability to scientifically prove it.

From our perspective, yes it does.

It has always been possible to scientifically prove the existance of atoms, even if 1000 years ago when we as a species lacked the ability or knowledge to that.

I think you're confusing the truth that atoms existed and the scientific theory that asserts their existence.

just like our understanding of atoms 1000 years ago is irrelivent to if it is impossible to prove they exist or not.

Its irrelevant to whether or not atoms actually exist, but its highly relevant to our ability to scientifically address said existence.

Firstly, you don't actually know that we can never prove the existence of God.

I've never said that we will never be able to do this. I have said we cannot do this.

My choice of tense is not and has not been random or arbitrary.

It just means we can't do it, just like the ancient Greeks couldn't prove theory of atomic structures.
That didn't mean that a theory of atomic structures was impossible,

Can we please pick a better example? The Greeks had an Atomic Theory. It wasn't fully correct and they knew it, but then we know our current theories aren't fully correct either.

The Greeks, used observeable phenomena to posit the existence of a smallest possible block of matter. This prediction has subsequently held up and in a repeatable manner with sufficient reliability that it can be accepted scientifically as a Theory.

God is different. God is not observeable. There is no falsifiable prediction of how God could become observeable. There is no observation, investigation, experimentation, etc. which we can formulate to back up the idea that God exists. Therefore, without redefinition, we cannot scientifically address God.

you are getting bogged down in the definition of "natural phenomenon" ... I am not even sure what your defintion of natural phenomenon is

Wicknight...this term is used incessantly in the definition of what science is. It is core to the entire argument. I mean what science understands it to mean. If you don't understand what that meaning is, then I suggest to you that you are demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what science is by definition. How can you argue what science can and cannot do and be confused by a term which is central to the definition of same?

There are a few definitions but the ones I like the best are -

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Interestingly, if you do a google on that term, you'll find it difficult to find a link where that term is not immediately followed by :

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena

The exceptions to this are generally where the quote you've provided includes "natural" within itself in the first place.

If you were following the Kansas BoE fiasco, incidentally, you should be aware that it was the dropping of the term "natural" from almost exactly that quote which gave them the leeway to include ID on the curriculum. The dropping of that term was furthermore central to the judge's decision that they had acted incorrectly.

Again you are going to have to define what you mean by "natural" ...

I've told you what I mean by it - the same meaning that it has when used in conjunction with the definition you've offered.

If you want to know more, then google your own definition and you'll have no problems finding out what my meaning of the term is based on the hits you get from the first page alone.

Indeed, I'd be very interested in knowing where you found your definition without a "natural" qualifier.

No, only your very limited definition of "natural" has to change, a definition I don't really understand.

Its a fairly standard definition used in explaining what science is and is not, which has been discussed to death since the ID debate picked up steam some years ago. I'm amazed that you don't understand it. I'm even more amazed you can claim to understand what science is and is not without having come across such a standard term to the point that you don't understand my use of it.

The issue of ID and the BoE in Kansas has nothing what so ever to do with the issue of if it is impossible for a proof of God to exist. Neither has changing the definition of "science"

As already mentioned, the issue of ID and the BoR in Kansas has everything to do with it, given that they changed the definition of science to drop the "natural" requirement in order to allow 'science' to address religiously-founded concepts.

There's that term again - natural. It was dropped by KBoE. It was used by the judge in the ensuing court case as a decisive factor in his ruling. It's been used by the scientific community for as long as the ID debate has existed, and far longer. its used as a central distinction of what is, and is not, science for about as long as the scientific method has been formally recognised.

Its like saying the number infinity + 1 is a number greater than infinitity, when in reality it isn't, it is still infinity.

To a non-mathematician, that might be so. To a mathematician, of course, infinity, isn't actually a number in the standard sense, so when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, the confusion comes from a proper lack of understanding of the central terms....which is pretty much what I've been saying here too.

science is the study of everything

You've already posted your preferred definition of science and you'll note that they didn't use the word "everything" in there. Thats not a mistake or an oversight. There's good reason why more restrictive language was used.

Ok, a million years ago ... 10 million years ago ... at what point did it become impossible for a theory of atoms to exist? Even before humans or life on earth existed it was possible to prove atoms existed. It was never impossible to prove scientifically the existance of atoms. Why? Because they existed.

Before life existed, did atoms exist? Yes.

Could it be proven? No, because no-one could perform the proof. Could it be theorised (as science understands a theory to be)? No, because there was no-one to do so.

Take your own preferred (but incomplete) definition of science:

observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation.

Observation, identification, description, investigation and explanation....you're telling me that these do not require an observer, and identifier, a describer, an investigator, or an explainer?

By your chosen definition, science only exists in the presence of a scientist....and yet you also argue that in the absence of a scientist its all still there!!!!

What "our" science does at this exact moment in time is irrelevent to the question, just as what "our" science could do 10 million years ago is irrelivent to the answer to the question "Can you prove scientifically the existance of atoms"

There is a distinction between "might it be possible for this to be someday explained by a theory by someone" and "can you explain this by a theory". As I pointed out earlier - my use of tense is not accidental.

As soon as someone actually comes up with the scientific proof of God or at least a sound theory for his existance, I will give the Wicknight stamp of approval to it being taught in a science classroom.

On what grounds do you exclude God from the "everything" that you claim science addresses? Please bear in mind that you insist this everything is also independant of our current ability to address it scientifically.

It seems to me that you've been arguing that while we cannot prove or disprove God's existence at present, it most certainly is a scientific question, and yet here you are saying now that even though it is a scientific question, it has no place in the science class and it was ridiculous to ever even suggest otherwise!

It is possible to prove scientifically that centre of the milky way is made of cheese and has little mice living in it.

No. Its not.

Firstly, science still doesn't deal with proof, it deals with theories.

If we continue to ignore that distinction, however, it is still impossible to form a theory (or "prove", if you insist on continuing with the mislabelling) for what you describe. You can form a conjecture. Perhaps a hypothesis. But a theory (or a proof)? Nope. Not possible.

jc

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

No. Its not.

Firstly, science still doesn't deal with proof, it deals with theories.

If we continue to ignore that distinction, however, it is still impossible to form a theory (or "prove", if you insist on continuing with the mislabelling) for what you describe. You can form a conjecture. Perhaps a hypothesis. But a theory (or a proof)? Nope. Not possible.

jc

Spot on.

The endeavour of science is the formation and systematic attempts of discreditation of a testable hypothesis by emperical means.

If anyone can explain exactly how you can construct a testable hypothesis based on emperical observation on the existence of God, then by all means steam forward with it.

Anyone who attempts to bring Science into a god debate or god into a science debate is just plain silly.

bonkey

psi wrote:

The endeavour of science is the formation and systematic attempts of discreditation of a testable hypothesis by emperical means.

And only once we have tested our hypothesis repeatedly with observation matching prediction can we suggest that it can be considered to be a Theory....which is often mislabelled as us considering that it is proven.

This, incidentally, is why something like the nonsensical assertion that 'the centre of the galaxy is mice and cheese' cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense.

jc

GuanYin

bonkey wrote:

This, incidentally, is why something like the nonsensical assertion that 'the centre of the galaxy is mice and cheese' cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense.

jc

And "scientific sense" are the key words.

If you set your own boundries for observation and then go looking for something, then yes, you could probably prove the centre of the universe is made of cheese - but it wouldn't be scienctific enquiry by any definition of the word.

This is another problem with much so-called science - especially that employed by skeptics (onmost matters) and in the creationism debates on both sides.

If you set an experiment up to look for an answer, the chances are you'll find it. Thats why science aims to disprove or debunk its own work. If you observe something you are looking for, you tend to stop looking. This can lead to an awful lot of inaccurate reporting.

Science counters this by trying to exhaust all possibilities, it keeps looking, long after its found an answer - to make sure its the right one- To paraphrase A.C. Doyle "once you discount all other possibilities, whatever remains is the truth*"

*(in the context of science, this is for a given value of truth).

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

I think you're confusing the truth that atoms existed and the scientific theory that asserts their existence.

I think you are confusing an actual scientific theory existing with the possibility that one could exist.

There is no scientific theory for the proof of God (there probably never will be), just like there was no scientific theory for the existance of atoms 10 millions years ago (that we are aware of). That doesn't mean that one is impossible.

bonkey wrote:

Its irrelevant to whether or not atoms actually exist, but its highly relevant to our ability to scientifically address said existence.

But our ability to formulate a theory has nothing to do with the possibility that said theory can actually be formulated.

bonkey wrote:

I've never said that we will never be able to do this. I have said we cannot do this.

Sorry I took that to mean "cannot" as in it is not possible, rather than we cannot based on our current understanding of the universe.

bonkey wrote:

The Greeks, used observeable phenomena to posit the existence of a smallest possible block of matter.

Not really, the Greeks used logic to come up with the idea of the "atom" and their atom was very different that the modern idea of the atom. Their "atom" also didn't actually exist.

bonkey wrote:

Therefore, without redefinition, we cannot scientifically address God.

Again with the "we" ... we can't do a lot of things, that doesn't mean they are impossible ...

bonkey wrote:

If you don't understand what that meaning is, then I suggest to you that you are demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge of what science is by definition. How can you argue what science can and cannot do and be confused by a term which is central to the definition of same?

I am asking for your definition and you are telling me your definition is sciences definition? What does that mean??

Everything that exists falls inside the natural world, does it not? Can something exist and yet fall outside the set of the "natural world?"

Therefore if God exists he is part of the natural world, because anything that exists is, by definition, part of the natural world. Therefore you arguement that God can exist but fall outside of the natural world doesn't make sense (see my point about infinity + 1), in my point of view.

But I am completely willing to listen to an arguement that it does actually make sense if you have one.

bonkey wrote:

I've told you what I mean by it - the same meaning that it has when used in conjunction with the definition you've offered.

You haven't actually ... unless you mean where you said "natural phenomona" and using that as a defintion of natural is a bit cyclical.

What I am interested in particularly is not your definition of nature or natural, but the logic of how something can exist yet fall outside of the set of "natural world"

bonkey wrote:

I'm even more amazed you can claim to understand what science is and is not without having come across such a standard term to the point that you don't understand my use of it.

My definition of natural phenomona includes everything that exists. Yours apparently doesn't, in that something can exist yet not be part of natural phenonoma. I am simply asking you to explain that logic. I fail to see why that is such a big deal, and why you have spend the last 3 paragraphs avoiding the issue.

I exculded the word "natural" from the defintion because, aside from it actually being unimportant to the defintion itself, you obviously have a very different definition of the word that I do, so using "natural" in that defintion would only lead to more confusion.

bonkey wrote:

There's that term again - natural.

I have no problem with the word Bonkey, I take issue with your definition that it doesn't include everything that exists, and the follow on logic that because it doesn't include everything, science does not include everything even things that exist, but exist outside the set of the "natural" (which in my mind doesn't make sense)

bonkey wrote:

To a non-mathematician, that might be so. To a mathematician, of course, infinity, isn't actually a number in the standard sense, so when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, the confusion comes from a proper lack of understanding of the central terms....which is pretty much what I've been saying here too.

Exactly ... because infinity isn't a standard number does that mean you cannot use it in mathematics? Nope. Mathematics expands to fit these concepts. Maths is a process, not a group of things. Every number or concept of a number that can exist is included, by definition, in the process of mathematics.

You don't have a set "things maths can know" and another set "numbers that fall outside of maths" because that doesn't make sense. By its definition maths includes everything to do with numbers, even things we haven't thought of yet. Likewise with science. Your argument is similar to saying that the concept of infinity falls outside of mathematics, and therefore maths cannot tackle the subject.

bonkey wrote:

You've already posted your preferred definition of science and you'll note that they didn't use the word "everything" in there. Thats not a mistake or an oversight. There's good reason why more restrictive language was used.

Not they said "natural", which to me includes everything but to you obviously not. So I ask you again, if your definition of natural excludes things that can exist, how do you define natural.

bonkey wrote:

Could it be proven? No, because no-one could perform the proof. Could it be theorised (as science understands a theory to be)? No, because there was no-one to do so.

Again you are confusing the ability to do it with the idea that it is not possible. Is it possible to provide a proof that atoms exist? Yes. That fact never changes

I right now sitting at my desk cannot provide the proof. Does that mean it is impossible to do so? Not at all. It just means I can't right now do it.

bonkey wrote:

By your chosen definition, science only exists in the presence of a scientist....and yet you also argue that in the absence of a scientist its all still there!!!!

Cause it is. The possibility something can be discovered doesn't disappear just cause no one is actually doing it right now.

Does the theory of atomic weight disappear when all the scientist who understand it go to sleep? If they all died in a massive bus crash does that mean it would be impossible to ever provide proof of atomic structures again?

If there was an nuclear holocaust tomorrow and all human information is lost does that mean it suddenly becomes impossible to know the speed of something falling on Earth?

You just have to go out and do the experiment again. And even if no one ever did the experiment again in the history of the universe, it is still possible to discover.

bonkey wrote:

There is a distinction between "might it be possible for this to be someday explained by a theory by someone" and "can you explain this by a theory". As I pointed out earlier - my use of tense is not accidental.

I said there is "no reason why there cannot be a scientific proof of God" ... you said there are ... now you are saying there are right now ... sorry but I am not talking about right now.

bonkey wrote:

On what grounds do you exclude God from the "everything" that you claim science addresses?

I am not excluding him, you are, thats the point

You are saying that God can exist but fall outside the set of natural phenomona. I am saying that doesn't make sense, because by definition natural phenomona is the set of everything that exists.

bonkey wrote:

Please bear in mind that you insist this everything is also independant of our current ability to address it scientifically.

Are you saying its not? Are you saying that anything we cannot current understand or observe doesn't actually exist?

bonkey wrote:

It seems to me that you've been arguing that while we cannot prove or disprove God's existence at present, it most certainly is a scientific question, and yet here you are saying now that even though it is a scientific question, it has no place in the science class and it was ridiculous to ever even suggest otherwise!

I am saying that if God exists he falls with in the realm of natural phenomona (by definition since he exists), which falls under the realm of science and therefore there is no logical reason why scientific method cannot prove the existance of God, even if it is just God in a lab coat observing himself and proving he exists.

People are claiming that God some how falls outside of "science". I am saying that is an incorrect idea of what "science" is if people believe something can exist and yet fall outside of science. Its is like saying you can have a number that has no place in mathematics. Simply by being a number it falls into mathematics, just as by simply existing something falls into the realm of science.

bonkey wrote:

No. Its not.

Yes, it is .. the simplest way would be to just go there with the question "is the centre of the milky way made of cheese" .. you will get your answer pretty quick.
[/QUOTE]

bonkey

psi wrote:

And "scientific sense" is the key word.

If you set your own boundries for observation and then go looking for something, then yes, you could probably prove the centre of the universe is made of cheese - but it wouldn't be scienctific enquiry by any definition of the word.

After seeing someone use the term on slashdot, I like to refer to such approaches as scientism rather than science.

I can jsut see the Shopping Channel ad now...

Scientism...all the power of Science, but none of the annoying restrictions.
But wait...there's more!
If you buy into Scientism today, you can believe whatever you like and ridicule science at the same time absolutely free.
Buy your Introduction to Scientism today for the unbelievably cheap* price of $99.99, and your world will never be the same

*Scientismically true


/me changes channels....

jc

bonkey

My definition of natural phenomona includes everything that exists.

A minute ago, your definition didn't even include the word "natural". Progress!

Yours apparently doesn't,

I'll say it one more time: its not my definition. Like all other aspects of science, I am adopting the standard understood meaning of the term with respect to science.

How you can possibly argue that your meaning is more correct is beyond me because what you're basically saying is "I don't know how the scientific community define one of the boundaries of science, but this is how I've defined it to be and their meaning appears to be different.....so I'm right".

I have stated that my understanding is based on the accepted meaning of the term. I've told you how to find this. You now have (as you did before this post) all the information you need to find out what I mean when I use the term.

I'm not willing to become your proxy/teacher because you want me to transcribe the information I've told you how to find.

You claim to understand science. This term is central to any such understanding, and it does not include "everything". There is no shortage of information discussing the distinction, especially since the ID arguments rise in popularity.

That you are unaware of the distinction (going so far as to define the supernatural as only a "buzzword") and cannot understand what I'm using the term to mean based on my clarification that I'm using the standard scientific meaning of the term only shows your lack of detail regarding relevant scientific terminology.

It hardly is supporting of your case that you are insisting your definition of is right with regards to what science is when it disagrees with the scientific understanding of same.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, it is .. the simplest way would be to just go there with the question "is the centre of the milky way made of cheese" .. you will get your answer pretty quick.

[/QUOTE]

You said it could be scientifically proven that the centre of the galaxy (milky way) was mice and cheese. Now you're saying that it is possible to prove that it is, because if you go there, you will see that it is.

You have offered an unsubstantiated claim. Scentifically, that is at most a conjecture. Proof or theory, it ain't.

Perhaps you mean that "of course it can be determined whether or not the centre is made of mice and cheese". I've never disputed that. Scientifically, we can formulate a test which will allow us to determine the truth or falsity of the statement. We now have a hypothesis which we can test. Once that is tested, verified, shown to be repeateable, and shown to be consistent enough, we have a theory....which some people will mislabel as a proof.

I said that its impossible to prove that the centre is made of mice and cheese. I've also said that we shouldn't be talking about proof, but rather about theories when it comes to science, and that it is categorically impossible to formulate a scientific theory that says there are mice and cheese at the centre.

Now...lets apply that to God. Can we form a falsifiable test? Can we form a hypothesis? Or is all we have a conjecture, that God might exist, but we've no way of proceeding frmo there?

I suggest the answer is obvious, as is the distinction to your fictional mice an cheese.

jc

GuanYin

Wicknight.

Your argument is very well thought out, reasoned and presented. It is however, inherently flawed.

By your argument, "if god exists, he is a natural phenomenon, therefore science can prove his existence".

The first part of this is true. However, the second part is a paradox. In order to test his existence, he must first exist. If he does not exist, there is nothing to test.
No scientific hypothesis can be generated around these conditions.

What may be put forward is speculation and conjecture, but no valid line of scientific enquiry can prove or disprove the hypothesis that he exists as we need to already know he exists in order to test the hypothesis.

If thats too confusing, try construct a scientific experiment to test the existence of a duck. I'm not being dismissive or rude, I mean this as a valid point.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

A minute ago, your definition didn't even include the word "natural". Progress!

My definition of "science" didn't include the word 'natural' because, obviously, your definition of what falls under natural and my definition are different, so my definition of science with the word natural would mean something different to you. I did it to avoid confusion ... obviously that didn't work

bonkey wrote:

I'll say it one more time: its not my definition. Like all other aspects of science, I am adopting the standard understood meaning of the term with respect to science.

Ok ... what is the standard definition of natural phenomenon that can exclude things that do exist?

bonkey wrote:

I have stated that my understanding is based on the accepted meaning of the term. I've told you how to find this. You now have (as you did before this post) all the information you need to find out what I mean when I use the term.

You still have not provided me a definition of the term natural phenomenon

bonkey wrote:

I'm not willing to become your proxy/teacher because you want me to transcribe the information I've told you how to find.

Still waiting ...

bonkey wrote:

You claim to understand science. This term is central to any such understanding, and it does not include "everything". There is no shortage of information discussing the distinction, especially since the ID arguments rise in popularity.

Still no definition of what you mean by "natural" phenomenon ...

bonkey wrote:

It hardly is supporting of your case that you are insisting your definition of is right with regards to what science is when it disagrees with the scientific understanding of same.

Still .... waiting ..... *gasp* ...

bonkey wrote:

You said it could be scientifically proven that the centre of the galaxy (milky way) was mice and cheese. Now you're saying that it is possible to prove that it is, because if you go there, you will see that it is.

I am saying that one way to definitly prove the centre of galaxy is or is not made of cheese is to go there and actually look (observe) ... are you saying that would not be considered observable enough for scientific method?

bonkey wrote:

You have offered an unsubstantiated claim. Scentifically, that is at most a conjecture. Proof or theory, it ain't.

Sigh ... I wasn't actually claiming the centre of the galaxy is made of cheese ... :rolleyes:

bonkey wrote:

which some people will mislabel as a proof.

Bonkey you have jumped way off topic into the realm of the philosophical debate that "nothing can be really know" in an attempt to show that you cannot prove God exists cause you can't prove anything actually exists ... sigh ...

Ok, I will change me original statement from

"There is no actual reason why their cannot be a scientific proof of God"

to

"There is no actual reason why there cannot be a scientific determination of God's existance (assuming he does exist) to that same standard that there can be a scientific determination of anything"

bonkey wrote:

I said that its impossible to prove that the centre is made of mice and cheese.

Only to the extent that it is impossible to prove anything ... if you went there and saw little mice running around over a big ball of cheese, by your lets-get-philosophical stand point that would not be proof.

bonkey wrote:

That it is categorically impossible to formulate a scientific theory that says there are mice and cheese at the centre.

Only cause we already know it ain't true.

The theory might be based on nothing and be completely wrong, but then we are assuming God exists in the first place. God most likely doesn't exist and therefore any attempt to determine if he does exist will fail. But if God does exist it is illogical to say that it can never be scientifically determined (can't use "proved" cause we can't "prove" anything) that he does exist. For a start God can quite easily scientifically determine he exists, just as I can quite easily scientifically determine I exist (walking into a wall a few times would be more than enough evidence)

If the centre of the galaxy was made of cheese, are you saying it would be impossible to ever scientifically determine that fact? Cause if you are you would be wrong, it can be determined because it exists.

bonkey wrote:

Now...lets apply that to God. Can we form a falsifiable test? Can we form a hypothesis? Or is all we have a conjecture, that God might exist, but we've no way of proceeding frmo there?

We can't, but as I have said that is irrelevenant. 10 million years ago we couldn't formulate a falsifiable test on atomic structures. Does that mean such a process is impossible?

Because we have no way of proceeding from there is also irrelevenant, just as the Greeks having no way of proceeding to test their theories about atoms is irrelevenent to the issue of can atoms be observed and tested. Certinaly not by the Greeks, but does that mean it is impossible? Nope, cause we did it 2000 years later.

Anything that actually exists can be determined (heaven forbit I use the word "proved") to exist by scientific methods. Nothing that exists lies outside of the realm of science. To claim otherwise is to not understand what science is.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

We can't, but as I have said that is irrelevenant. 10 million years ago we couldn't formulate a falsifiable test on atomic structures. Does that mean such a process is impossible?

Well we didn't (as a species) exist so its a pretty mute point.

Because we have no way of proceeding from there is also irrelevenant, just as the Greeks having no way of proceeding to test their theories about atoms is irrelevenent to the issue of can atoms be observed and tested. Certinaly not by the Greeks, but does that mean it is impossible? Nope, cause we did it 2000 years later.

The Greeks employed Natural Philosophy, which is an ancestor of Science but not, strictly the same thing.

Anything that actually exists can be determined (heaven forbit I use the word "proved") to exist by scientific methods. Nothing that exists lies outside of the realm of science. To claim otherwise is to not understand what science is.

That would be what we call observation. Its not scientific enquiry.

larryone

Wicknight wrote:

Nothing that exists lies outside of the realm of science. To claim otherwise is to not understand what science is.

Something can exist that is supernatural. By definition it then exceeds nature.

"The scientific method is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural."
- Wikipedia

Zombrex

psi wrote:

By your argument, "if god exists, he is a natural phenomenon, therefore science can prove his existence".

The first part of this is true. However, the second part is a paradox. In order to test his existence, he must first exist. If he does not exist, there is nothing to test.
No scientific hypothesis can be generated around these conditions.

What may be put forward is speculation and conjecture, but no valid line of scientific enquiry can prove or disprove the hypothesis that he exists as we need to already know he exists in order to test the hypothesis.

If thats too confusing, try construct a scientific experiment to test the existence of a duck. I'm not being dismissive or rude, I mean this as a valid point.

I understand what you are saying Psi but you are thinking along the same lines as Bonkey, that we are the important factor in the argument when in fact we are irrelevant to the argument entirely.

There are two possible situations, God exists or he doesn't exist (which is the most likely). Us knowing he does or does not exist doesn't change that fact.

If God doesn't exist there is no futher to go. You cannot prove or determine something exists if it doesn't.

If God does exist then his mere existance means it is possible to determine, through scientific methods, that he exists. The fact that we, as a species of apes on a cold planet in the corner of the universe, cannot and probably will never be able to even concieve of a way to actually do that, or even to know if he actually exists in the first place, doesn't change that fact.

The fact that need to have an idea that something exists before you can test it actually does exist is also irrelevant. The Greeks didn't know atoms or electrons existed, they didn't even know what to test for or how to even test for it (as i have said the Greeks idea of "atoms" is not what we know today as "atoms".

That doesn't change the fact that it is possible to test and determine atoms and electrons exist.

The possibility that something can be scientifically determined (proven to a high degree) to exist does not rest on the ability of a current intelligence to actually do it, or even the need to be aware of the presence of the entity in the first place.

As I have said, even if God himself (assuming he exists) is the only intelligence that can actually scientifically determine he exists, then that is still scientific method. And even if God himself cannot come up with a way to do it, it doesn't prove it is impossible (well, without getting into the theological debate that God and do anything). I mean if humans had never existed, it would still be possible to measure the speed of light and test for electomagnetic radation.

Zombrex

larryone wrote:

Something can exist that is supernatural. By definition it then exceeds nature.

Sigh ... please define supernatural .. in fact so I don't go through the same thing I had with Bonkey, first define "natural" and then explain how something can exist outside of that definition ...

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Well we didn't (as a species) exist so its a pretty mute point.

Well thats what I meant, we couldn't cause we were up in trees. It is only a mute point if you are saying the process's ability to exist is dependent on us existing to carry it out or discover it. 10 million years ago the ways to test atomic structures were exactly the same as they are today. 100 million years ago it, 1 billion years ago ... etc etc

psi wrote:

The Greeks employed Natural Philosophy, which is an ancestor of Science but not, strictly the same thing.

Very true, which I why I thought I was safe using the Greeks as an example of a culture before modern science.

psi wrote:

That would be what we call observation. Its not scientific enquiry.

What would be what we call observation?

larryone

Fair enough.
Directly from Wikipedia.
"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond the current scientific understanding and concept of nature, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics."

"Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study, and the history of the concept is linked to the history of science."