Can Science Rule Out God?

[Comfortably Numb]

Thought this new article may be of interest and worthwhile highlighting. :btime:

Can Science Rule Out God?

We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins

By: Mark Alpert/scientificamerican.com
Dated: 25 December, 2019

I should make it clear from the start that I have no religious agenda. I’m not a believer. I’m not a committed atheist either.

For 10 years, I was an editor at Scientific American. During that time, we were diligent about exposing the falsehoods of “intelligent design” proponents who claimed to see God’s hand in the fashioning of complex biological structures such as the human eye and the bacterial flagellum. But in 2008 I left journalism to write fiction. I wrote novels about Albert Einstein and quantum theory and the mysteries of the cosmos. And ideas about God keep popping up in my books.

Should scientists even try to answer questions about the purpose of the universe? Most researchers assume that science and religion are completely separate fields—or, in the phrase coined by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, “nonoverlapping magisteria.” But as physicists investigate the most fundamental characteristics of nature, they’re tackling issues that have long been the province of philosophers and theologians: Is the universe infinite and eternal? Why does it seem to follow mathematical laws, and are those laws inevitable? And, perhaps most important, why does the universe exist? Why is there something instead of nothing?

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

 

[EnolaGaia]

A couple of off-the-cuff and very general comments ...

(1) There's little point in trying to determine the relationship of science (and / or anything else) vis a vis "God" until and unless one specifies what "God" is to be taken as meaning. Physics can't get away with addressing anything as vague as "stuff", but theology has been privileged to hand-wave about "God" at an equivalent level of non-specificity (and / or outright obfuscation).

(2) At least in the Abrahamic traditions, there's a distinction usually drawn between "God" and "Creation" unless, of course, you're one of the pantheistic minority. Science is dedicated to understanding Creation. Whether or not such an understanding illuminates "God" as well depends on the specification sought in item (1) and a further clarification of the relationship between the Creation science can examine and "God."

 

[Comfortably Numb]

There's little point in trying to determine the relationship of science (and / or anything else) vis a vis "God" until and unless one specifies what "God" is to be taken as meaning. Physics can't get away with addressing anything as vague as "stuff", but theology has been privileged to hand-wave about "God" at an equivalent level of non-specificity (and / or outright obfuscation).

An astute observation, this is elemental as a foundation to any such discourse.

Dare I suggest, one is reminded of the following quotation:

"I shut the front door upon Christ and Einstein, and at the back door hold out a welcoming hand to little frogs and periwinkles. I believe nothing of my own that I have ever written. I cannot accept that the products of minds are subject-matter for beliefs".

Charles Fort

 

[AlchoPwn]

As near as I can tell there are only two vaguely scientific theories that produce anything like a god as an outcome, but to suggest it is a benign and personal god rather than a C'thulhu mythos deity would be a stretch in either case.

The first is the Anthropic Principle. For the record, I reject the basic philosophical premise of the Anthropic principle, as all life forms must become better able to adapt themselves to their reality in order to survive and reproduce. The notion that there needs to be a sentient observer capable of understanding the substrates of the reality that can be understood by mathematics seems entirely false and arbitrary, as for most of the history of this planet there have been no sentient beings capable of doing so. On the other hand, I admit that the fact that humanity has managed to understand that maths is so very predictive of how this physical reality operates is a bit magical and serendipitous, and is approaching evidence of a reality that was made for us.

The second is the Boltzmann Brain theory. Have a read of the link, it's a bit mind warping, but not as mind warping as when you start doing the maths. It is rare to get properly high from doing equations, but Boltsmann Brains are some strong gear. I am still waiting to come down btw. In any case, the implications of the Boltzmann Brain are not incompatible with the notion of a deity of some sort existing.

 

[Cochise]

Science cannot rule out God. God is beyond human understanding, by definition.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Science cannot rule out God. God is beyond human understanding, by definition.

Does this not intrinsically imply there is one?

Just a resultant contemplation; why a singular, autocratic, entity?

Any reason it couldn't be a committee?

 

[Cochise]

Does this not intrinsically imply there is one?

Just a resultant contemplation; why a singular, autocratic, entity?

Any reason it couldn't be a committee?

Seems too well designed for that

 

[Anome]

I've tried arguing this before, but Science can't really prove the non-existence of God in any meaningful sense (partly because God by its nature is non-scientific) but it can, at least theoretically, prove that God is not necessary.

It is possible that we could, while examining the universe, find something that we can't explain using current Scientific theory. At this point, one of two things happens - either we adapt our theories to account for the new phenomenon, possibly by completely re-writing everything, or we genuinely cannot construct a working model that accounts for it.

The former is what we call a paradigm shift. The latter, I guess, would be called a miracle. So far miracles have been few and far between, while paradigm shifts happened reasonably regularly throughout the 20th Century.

So, if we examine the universe and find no miracles, then we have not disproved the existence of God, but we have proved that we don't need God to explain the universe.

Conversely, finding miracles doesn't necessarily settle the matter, either. We don't know that someone might come along and construct a new theory that accounts for the miracles we thought we found, once again removing the necessity of God. At best the necessity of God is a transitory thing.

So what does this mean. Well, if God is necessary, then there must be a God, somewhere. If God is unnecessary, then God could still exist, but not have any noticeable impact on the universe, or there might not be a God. The two situations are indistinguishable, but by careful application of Occam's razor, we might presume that if there is no need for God, then it doesn't exist. Of course plenty of things that have no purpose do exist, but even those explain the images created by shining light on them, or the decrease in oxygen in the room. God, on the other hand, we can safely act as if it doesn't exist.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Seems too well designed for that

*Cough* Camels.
A camel is a 'horse designed by a committee'.

 

[Victory]

There is no conceivable scientific discipline which can rule out the existence of G-D.
How could this possibly be achieved?

But by the same token, is there a way science can prove the existence of G-D?
I do not think it can at the moment.

Science can find complex mathematical rules behind the mechanisms of the universe, both on Newtonian and Quantum levels, and on whatever other levels remains to be discovered.

But these do not prove anything, they merely suggest intelligent design.

So I think if G-D wants to make himself known to humanity, then it will need open miracles/communication to ultimately be proven.

 

[Ermintruder]

Seems too well designed for that

No, no and thrice no. Dawkins absolutely hits this one clean out of the park, with (his?) designoid-versus-designed binary compact.

As complex biological creatures, we ascribe & perceive directed intent in the makeup of our bodies and the world around us....where in expanded reality there is none.

Back in 1991, Dawkins expounded this theory publically and brilliantly during the RI Xmas Lecture Series "Waking up in the Universe".

We behold the mamallian eye, and tend to forgivably-conflate what is an evolved/provably-flawed/convergently-emergent biological system with actually-designed technical analogues (cameras/telescopes/optically-ground lenses).

Dawkins and other good biologists can convicingly-explain that the Eye is exactly as bad & as good as it would be, if it was a multi-generational evolved biological system. Reaĺly-impressive, but massively-flawed on closer examination. Such that when there are those that crow "this undoubtedly shows the hand of intelligent design, the work of a benign ingenious creator".....why would God 'design' a clearly-limited/expedient/inadequate eye? With inverted structures, blind-spots, rods/cones limitations consistent with *evolutionary selection* rather than pre-planned design?

It's persuasive to imagine we (and other creatures & plants) are designed by a god. But if we really were: why would our flawed biological systems be exactly-consistent with selected maturational/developmental states that are only consistent with a continuous evolutionary emergence of transitional states, each slightly-less flawed than its forebearers?

And not exist, immaculate and immutable, only in one singularity of miraculous benevolence?

EDIT - hooray!

 

[eburacum]

Meh. God is an atheist. She doesn't believe that anyone created her. If it is good enough for God it is good enough for me.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Science cannot rule out God. God is beyond human understanding, by definition.

Well, so we are told, but really, on reading the Bible, assuming it is a true and accurate representation of the facts, one must conclude that God is in fact the most odious character in literature. Now if that deity were in some way real, it would certainly not be beyond mysterious, as we have a large number of spoken statements from the deity in the scripture that indicate the sort of entity it is. Frankly the God of the Bible seems to have more in common with the Freudian "human id" than any other thing. We are told that God is love, but that love is petty, violent, jealous, generally abusive, controlling, deeply insecure, lonely, infantile, vindictive, gullible, stupidly unaware of its own potential, and essentially a creepy bearded old sky Stalin who likes watching you poop. I can't imagine anything I less want to worship than this completely reprehensible notion of a god-head. Some folks claim that god can't be understood, but theology demonstrates that what we do know paints a pretty horrid picture. I have always regarded this lack of moral imagination is a clear indication of the fact that this allegedly ineffable deity is in fact clearly a product of some pretty creepy and shabby old men a long time ago.

 

[Cochise]

No, no and thrice no. Dawkins absolutely hits this one clean out of the park, with (his?) designoid-versus-designed binary compact.

As complex biological creatures, we ascribe & perceive directed intent in the makeup of our bodies and the world around us....where in expanded reality there is none.

Back in 1992, Dawkins expounded this theory publically and brilliantly during the RI Xmas Lecture Series "Waking up in the Universe".

We behold the mamallian eye, and tend to forgivably-conflate what is an evolved/provably-flawed/convergently-emergent biological system with actually-designed technical analogues (cameras/telescopes/optically-ground lenses).

Dawkins and other good biologists can convicingly-explain that the Eye is exactly as bad & as good as it would be, if it was a multi-generational evolved biological system. Reaĺly-impressive, but massively-flawed on closer examination. Such that when there are those that crow "this undoubtedly shows the hand of intelligent design, the work of a benign ingenious creator".....why would God 'design' a clearly-limited/expedient/inadequate eye? With inverted structures, blind-spots, rods/cones limitations consistent with *evolutionary selection* rather than pre-planned design?

It's persuasive to imagine we (and other creatures & plants) are designed by a god. But if we really were: why would our flawed biological systems be exactly-consistent with selected maturational/developmental states that are only consistent with a continuous evolutionary emergence of transitional states, each slightly-less flawed than its forebearers?

And not exist, immaculate and immutable, only in one singularity of miraculous benevolence?

EDIT - hooray!

I don't think God needed to design humans. What He needed to do was create a universe which had the potential for humans. Which He obviously did otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Until someone can explain what happened before the Big Bang (and what caused whatever was there before to change state) science has nothing to say to God. He only had to light the fuse, so to speak.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I don't think God needed to design humans. What He needed to do was create a universe which had the potential for humans. Which He obviously did otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Until someone can explain what happened before the Big Bang (and what caused whatever was there before to change state) science has nothing to say to God. He only had to light the fuse, so to speak.

What came before God? What created God?
It's turtles all the way down, so to speak.

 

[AlchoPwn]

What came before God? What created God?
It's turtles all the way down, so to speak.

Now that's a lot of turtles

 

[Victory]

What if G-D always existed, and was not created?

 

[Mythopoeika]

What if G-D always existed, and was not created?

The same could be said of the Universe (or Multiverse).

 

[AlchoPwn]

What if G-D always existed, and was not created?

Outrageous claims like yours place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those making such claims, and demand very good evidence indeed. What have you got?

 

[Victory]

Outrageous claims like yours place the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those making such claims, and demand very good evidence indeed. What have you got?

The word "outrageous" has no place in this discussion.

My post is a suggestion.
And not my original one either.

For some it is a belief.
That the universe was created, but it's creator always existed, still exists, and always will exist.

It cannot be empirically proved or disproved at this point, as I have written in an earlier post on this thread.
It only suggests that the totality of G-D can be outside current human scientific understanding, perhaps always will be.

More discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_eternity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God

 

[AlchoPwn]

The word "outrageous" has no place in this discussion.

You say that because the notion of a bearded man with superpowers living on a cloud seems perfectly reasonable to you. To me that is utterly unreasonable as I have been in an actual aeroplane and didn't even see one solitary angel. The term "outrageous" is utterly justified in this discussion until you can offer proper proof of your claims.

My post is a suggestion. And not my original one either.

I am well aware your post is an unoriginal suggestion. It is also without any practical foundation as it hasn't actually provided any proof for the first underlying point it makes i.e. the existence of a god...(that can then be shown to have already existed, as per your position).

For some it is a belief.

For others it forms a dangerous delusion.

That the universe was created, but it's creator always existed, still exists, and always will exist.

But given that they cannot prove the existence of this alleged "creator", the whole position is rendered pretty outrageous.

It cannot be empirically proved or disproved at this point, as I have written in an earlier post on this thread.

Correct. It cannot be empirically proven. On the other hand, much that is in the Bible, the only source that makes a claim for the existence of the Christian god, can be proven to be utterly false, and is thus an unreliable source. Ergo, why make a point you cannot prove, based on unreliable source material?

It only suggests that the totality of G-D can be outside current human scientific understanding, perhaps always will be.

On the contrary, you worship the God of the Gaps. Over and over again, science has shone a light into the areas where supposedly your god was operating, and behold! There was no god operating anything. It was all just the physical systems of the natural universe doing what they have always done. Every year, the gap grows smaller, and so does your god. The problem with a god of the gaps is that the gaps are a product of human ignorance, so really you are worshiping a god that has become the anthropomorphization of human ignorance. Can there be a more egregious form of idolatry?

 

[EnolaGaia]

... But given that they cannot prove the existence of this alleged "creator", the whole position is rendered pretty outrageous. ...

It's no more outrageous a conceptual gambit than hand-waving about "dark matter", "dark energy", and / or "quantum entanglement" - all of which remain elusive items / agencies invented to explain things we don't understand or which conflict with our prior understanding(s).

In any case, I agree with Victory's point about "outrageous" having no place in the discussion. It's a tacitly pejorative value judgment.

 

[AlchoPwn]

It's no more outrageous a conceptual gambit than hand-waving about "dark matter", "dark energy", and / or "quantum entanglement" - all of which remain elusive items / agencies invented to explain things we don't understand or which conflict with our prior understanding(s). In any case, I agree with Victory's point about "outrageous" having no place in the discussion. It's a tacitly pejorative value judgment.

I hope you aren't serious E.G. The conjectures of physics are responsible for some of the greatest advancements in human technology in history. What might look like rando speculation as immensely practical applications. Consider... there would be no electronics if it weren't for physicists mumbling about the apparently ridiculous results of quantum physics. No electronics=no computers=no mobile phones. Now compare that to what religion has given us... Which is...?

For the record, I don't subscribe to the present Dark Matter/Dark Energy flap. I think that physicists haven't looked into the potential for virtual particles bouncing in and out of the quantum foam still exerting an effect on our side of the "equation", while technically not being able to; a bit like black holes emitting beams of light and such.

As to quantum entanglement, as I have seen it work in a lab thanks to my physics buddies at MIT, I have made a point of studying the maths, and it does more than check out, in fact it's mind-blowing.

The fact is that if you start claiming that there is a superpowered bearded tyrant in the sky who watches you poop and lives on a cloud and who will send you to a super-heated gulag if you don't obey his priest class, what about such a claim is not outrageous? Of course it would be a lot less outrageous if it were any solid evidence to support even the notion that people can walk on clouds, but there isn't any.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I hope you aren't serious E.G. The conjectures of physics are responsible for some of the greatest advancements in human technology in history. ...

I'm not just serious - I'm deadly serious ...

Applied science benefits from the pure sciences, but this in no way validates past technological triumphs as evidence the pure sciences are necessarily, much less always, "right." As those wizards of protective own-butt-covering (i.e., investment counselors) "religiously" put it:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the present Dark Matter/Dark Energy flap.

If you're referring to current debates over the influence(s) of either or both these things in relation to observational evidence, I agree. However, that was not my point. My point was that the very postulation of both dark matter and dark energy originated as outright theoretical kludges to account for inconsistencies between what was observed "out there" versus what was painstakingly inscribed upon theoretical physicists' whiteboards. DM and DE therefore represent invocation of hypothetical agencies which are given credence on "faith" alone (pending eventual confirmatory evidence for the explanations / agencies, as opposed to evidence for the phenomena these agencies are purported to cause).

As to quantum entanglement, as I have seen it work in a lab thanks to my physics buddies at MIT, I have made a point of studying the maths, and it does more than check out, in fact it's mind-blowing.

The situation with QE is somewhat murkier than is the case for DM and / or DE. The phenomenon is demonstrable, but so far only in the context of the orthodoxy (quantum physics) within which the phenomenon arises as an issue in the first place.

Now compare that to what religion has given us... Which is...?

An older and progressively less readily / reliably convincing version of the same thing ...

Outright mythos (take it or leave it ...) and endless nth-order debates over the fine points precipitating from the tenets of that mythos (as elaborated and glossed to justify adherents' ongoing pursuit of their interests).

 

[Victory]

@AlchoPwn

You write as if you have proof there is no G-D, and that the bible is false.

You don't have this proof. No one does.

Hence science as it currently stands, cannot prove nor disprove the existence of G-D.

And for all your talk of "The gaps", there is a mass of work which takes a directly opposite view to your's. That as science progresses, it hints more and more towards G-D's existence.

The whole thing is a debate in progress.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

If of interest, there's a lengthy article on this topic, written by Ethan Siegel, for Forbes in January, 2017.

Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?

There’s an argument that many people make: that the natural world, and humanity’s existence in the Universe, point towards a divine creator that brought forth all of this into existence. To the best of our knowledge, Earth exists with a plethora of conditions that allowed for our existence, and does so in a way that no other world can match.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproje...01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/

 

[Cochise]

I hope you aren't serious E.G. The conjectures of physics are responsible for some of the greatest advancements in human technology in history. What might look like rando speculation as immensely practical applications. Consider... there would be no electronics if it weren't for physicists mumbling about the apparently ridiculous results of quantum physics. No electronics=no computers=no mobile phones. Now compare that to what religion has given us... Which is...?

For the record, I don't subscribe to the present Dark Matter/Dark Energy flap. I think that physicists haven't looked into the potential for virtual particles bouncing in and out of the quantum foam still exerting an effect on our side of the "equation", while technically not being able to; a bit like black holes emitting beams of light and such.

As to quantum entanglement, as I have seen it work in a lab thanks to my physics buddies at MIT, I have made a point of studying the maths, and it does more than check out, in fact it's mind-blowing.

The fact is that if you start claiming that there is a superpowered bearded tyrant in the sky who watches you poop and lives on a cloud and who will send you to a super-heated gulag if you don't obey his priest class, what about such a claim is not outrageous? Of course it would be a lot less outrageous if it were any solid evidence to support even the notion that people can walk on clouds, but there isn't any.

As usual, you raise straw men that have nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. There is currently no explanation for the existence of the cosmos. It's sheer extent makes our existence exceptional in the extreme. Who are you to decide how it has come about?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

'Einstein on God'

Maybe of related interest?

 

[AlchoPwn]

As usual, you raise straw men that have nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. There is currently no explanation for the existence of the cosmos. It's sheer extent makes our existence exceptional in the extreme. Who are you to decide how it has come about?

I leave the speculation of that sort IRL to the cosmologists, rather than mythologists. Science works, unlike religion. If someone says they think there is some beardy guy with superpowers who made the universe, is it so unreasonable to want to meet the beardy guy to confirm the claim? I think not.

 

[Cochise]

I leave the speculation of that sort IRL to the cosmologists, rather than mythologists. Science works, unlike religion. If someone says they think there is some beardy guy with superpowers who made the universe, is it so unreasonable to want to meet the beardy guy to confirm the claim? I think not.

Why 'some beardy guy'? Why would a being with the power to create a universe necessarily be in a form you could recognise or comprehend?