Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[McBell]

All quibbling of semantics aside, this is a prime example of Schrodinger's Cat. If you cannot open the box, how can you prove or disprove there is a cat inside? Therefore, the entire argument is invalid no matter what is said either for or against.

Not exactly.
We can determine things like the cat needing to eat and drink, which it cannot do if you cannot open the box....

 

[HonestJoe]

Science and the Scientific Method are terrific tools for obtaining a better understanding of the Natural Universe. Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe?

Why are you automatically starting from the position of there being a supernatural universe which is distinct from the natural universe and in some way restricted to scientific study.

I see absolutely no reason to make such an assumption. If a god of some kind exists, it by definition exists within the same "universe" as everything else where "universe" is the place in which things exist.

I agree that the argument for the non-existence of God as described in the OP is flawed but not quite for the reasons you present. I also believe that the existence/non-existence of many of the gods proposed by various people will never be proven or dis-proven but the gap is not in scientific process in principal but in the limitations of humanity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you are going to ditch science the second you get from it what you want and ignore everything that you dislike, why bother using science at all?

Mest...you have been following my posts long enough to know that my position on science is that it is nothing more than a tool we use to gain knowledge of how the world operates. It cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain. I have said this countless times and you people just dont seem to get it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why are you automatically starting from the position of there being a supernatural universe which is distinct from the natural universe and in some way restricted to scientific study.

The same reason why you are automatically EXCLUDING the existence of a supernatural reality beyond this natural reality.

I see absolutely no reason to make such an assumption. If a god of some kind exists, it by definition exists within the same "universe" as everything else where "universe" is the place in which things exist.

I cant speak for other supernatural deities, but the Christian God, if he does exist, does NOT exist within the same "universe" as everything else, at least in the same way that we do. Now of course, being omipresent, God does "exist" in this universe, but this existence is not "bound" by natural law or it isn't Gods point of origin.

 

[PolyHedral]

The same reason why you are automatically EXCLUDING the existence of a supernatural reality beyond this natural reality.

I have no need of that hypothesis.

 

[lunakilo]

Why are you automatically starting from the position of there being a supernatural universe which is distinct from the natural universe and in some way restricted to scientific study.

I see absolutely no reason to make such an assumption. If a god of some kind exists, it by definition exists within the same "universe" as everything else where "universe" is the place in which things exist.

I cant speak for other supernatural deities, but the Christian God, if he does exist, does NOT exist within the same "universe" as everything else, at least in the same way that we do. Now of course, being omipresent, God does "exist" in this universe, but this existence is not "bound" by natural law or it isn't Gods point of origin.

You are arguing over the difinition of the word universe.

1. "universe" is the place in which things (including supernatural deities) exist.
2. "universe" = the natural world. A deity can exist outside the natual world.

 

[McBell]

Mest...you have been following my posts long enough to know that my position on science is that it is nothing more than a tool we use to gain knowledge of how the world operates. It cannot be used to explain the origin of its own domain. I have said this countless times and you people just dont seem to get it.

Yes.
And that you toss out everything you dislike.

So again, what is the point of using it to begin with?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are arguing over the difinition of the word universe.

1. "universe" is the place in which things (including supernatural deities) exist.
2. "universe" = the natural world. A deity can exist outside the natual world.

Maybe I argued this position because I never heard of the dwelling place of God being labeled as a "universe", or within "a universe". Maybe its just me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes.
And that you toss out everything you dislike.

So again, what is the point of using it to begin with?

Its not that I dont "like" it...its because I refuse to believe in logical absurdities, which is what it is.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have no need of that hypothesis.

That really doesn't surprise me.

 

[McBell]

Its not that I dont "like" it...its because I refuse to believe in logical absurdities, which is what it is.

Either way, you pick and choose from science what you want and reject the rest.

So what is the point of using science in the first place?

Your posting history is compelling evidence that you use science to justify your beliefs where you can and reject science when it disagrees with your beliefs.

 

[McBell]

The same reason why you are automatically EXCLUDING the existence of a supernatural reality beyond this natural reality.

So you are starting with the assumption of the supernatural because there is no objective empirical evidence that supernatural exists?

 

[lunakilo]

Maybe I argued this position because I never heard of the dwelling place of God being labeled as a "universe", or within "a universe". Maybe its just me.

What would you call the realm in which all things, including deities exist?

I would call it the universe, but maybe that is just me

You can subdevide it into a natural and a super natural part if you want.
You can call it the natural universe and the supernatural universe if you want.
You can about whether a supernatural universe exists if you want.

 

[work in progress]

Science and the Scientific Method are terrific tools for obtaining a better understanding of the Natural Universe. Can it be used to understand the Supernatural Universe? Can it be used to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty, God, supernatural forces or anything else which exists beyond our Natural Universe? I think not, but this article tries to make it sound like it can: Scientifically, God Does Not Exist - Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist - No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can Provide

Obviously the author of the article, Austin Cline, is a bit biased, but he is also smart enough to try focus most of his words narrowly yet he leaves the unstated impression that science can absolutely prove that God does not exist. Here he quotes Victor Stenger:

I never actually read Stenger's book; but I heard him interviewed on all of the atheist and many of the science podcasts, so I feel like I have a good idea of why Vic Stenger feels that the anthropomorphic God-with human attributes- can be disproven. He declares that this sort of creator can be disproven using the scientific method to test for examples where natural processes and explanations cannot explain the Universe's existence. And as physicists probe deeper and deeper into theorizing about the beginning of the Universe, no supernatural hand has to be invoked to explain it's existence. And the Universe we have today, is so ludicrously large and empty and devoid of life, that it does not match any of the claims involving a proposed active, concerned creator interested in this universe. Whatever cannot be explained now with naturalistic theories has a range of hypotheses that serve as possible natural explanations. Nothing...including the existence of a universe itself, has to be permanently reserved for invoking God, or any supernatural explanation, for it to occur. So, to me, when Stenger says that he can prove that God does not exist, he is specifically referring to anthropomorphic gods that are not completely hidden, and uses a scientific approach to addressing the claims that such a god needs to be there acting in our Universe. If the god cannot pass the scrutiny to qualify as a valid hypothesis, then it should be rejected like all other failed hypotheses should be rejected if they can't provide a reason why they are necessary.

Note narrow definition of God and his point "as defined". While he is correct within his narrow parameters, to extrapolate that idea to say "God does not exist" is beyond scientific capability. Even the "high priest" of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, admits "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable". Fine. He guesses God is improbable but, as a scientist who is fully knowledgeable of the limitations of Science, he "cannot know for certain". If Dawkins can't know for certain, then why does a non-scientist Austin Cline believe he can know for certain?

This is where the problem of the "hiddeness" of God comes in. If we go back to a time before Isaac Newton, a theologian of the middle ages would just have to invoke the Sun, Moon and planets moving in the heavens as proof of God's existence. Today, the usual fallback position is that God must exist or we wouldn't have a universe or anything in existence.

The point that subatomic physicists make - that nothingness would be the impossible, unstable state of nature, and would lead to "something" springing into existence from the void of space-time, is a completely counter-intuitive concept that only makes sense mathematically, not in the way we understand space and time and material substance. But, us non-physicists can't write it off as fantasy because the predictions are based on applying the absurdities of quantum mechanics...which shouldn't work either, except that it does! As we can witness every day with every electronic device we have that is based on the application of quantum mechanics.

So, in the end, I'm left thinking that there still is no reason to propose that God has to exist, or that anything supernatural has to occur to explain anything at all. But, I also believe that the majority of people want to go with their intuitions when thinking about the big questions in life; so I don't see a whole lot of point to spending too much time arguing with believers about God. It's likely that most people will continue to invoke God to explain why we are here, and why there is Something Instead of Nothing. I don't see a whole lot to gain to working to disprove the Enchanted Universe. It's not a debate that is going to end by looking for scientific evidence; it's going to go on forever as long as there are people who prefer to go with their intuitions, rather than step back and try to reason out what the real answer is likely to be...and accept that answer also! Even if it is not completely aesthetically pleasing or provides a comfortable feeling that everything will work itself out in the end.

 

[work in progress]

There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science.

And why not? This sounds like Freeman Dyson was invoking that principle of hiddeness, to protect a supernatural belief from being scrutinized out of existence. If ESP is based on a natural force, it's existence should be proveable by physics, and if it is a supernatural phenomena that is outside of nature, how does this mysterious supernatural force interact with a natural world? And since Psi makes testable predictions about how it applies to our world, why can't tests of psychics, dowsers, remote viewers, clairvoyants, telekenesis, NDE's etc., where they all seem to fail for some reason, and that should qualify as a valid reason for rejecting the existence of ESP as a phenomena that is as imaginary as the magic in the Lord of the Rings books, until it does start showing some clear evidence to support it's existence.

These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable. If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration.

How would Freeman Dyson propose to prove that the scientific process is limited? Even if science is limited by our inabilities to understand everything, that still would not prove ESP has any basis to exist. My ******** detector starts flashing red whenever I'm reading psychic claims or supposed evidence of anything supernatural, because all of these phenomena appeal to our intuitive, subconscious way of understanding the world. We are hardwired to detect agency, even in leaves that are rustling in the wind. We are also hardwired to assume that people and even animals possess some kind of supernatural 'essenses' that transmit some spiritual traits of the person who possessed or even handled them previously. Check out all of the ritual purity laws in established religions, or the modern applications of the sacred -- like collectors who will pay millions for some stupid item that their favourite celebrity had owned. And, on the downside, people are naturally inclined to avoid contact with an item possessed by some odious person like a serial killer for example. We may apply higher reasoning to calm down our early apprehensions as superstition...or we may just run with our superstitions, which is what I feel most people who follow psychic phenomena are doing.

 

[HerDotness]

Good points, WIP. As I recall it, you've accurately represented Stenger's approach and conclusions. Been about a year since I read the book, so I won't swear to the accuracy of my recollection though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Either way, you pick and choose from science what you want and reject the rest.

So what is the point of using science in the first place?

Your posting history is compelling evidence that you use science to justify your beliefs where you can and reject science when it disagrees with your beliefs.

I dont reject science. Science confirms that the universe began to exist. So me and science agree in that regard. I use other arguments (mathematical and philosophical) arguments to lead me in the direction of the Supernatural, and historical evidence that point me in the direction of Jesus Christ and Christianity. So I do not reject science at all, where you get this from is beyond me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What would you call the realm in which all things, including deities exist?

Well, on the Christian view, the realm of the supernatural is called HEAVEN, and heaven is to be distinct from the universe, at which earthly beings have their point of origin.

I would call it the universe, but maybe that is just me

Cool lol

You can subdevide it into a natural and a super natural part if you want.
You can call it the natural universe and the supernatural universe if you want.
You can about whether a supernatural universe exists if you want.

Okey dokey

 

[PolyHedral]

I dont reject science. Science confirms that the universe began to exist.

Science shows that the universe has a beginning, not that it began to exist. It's very important to understand the difference.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you are starting with the assumption of the supernatural because there is no objective empirical evidence that supernatural exists?

I appeal to the supernatural because I have scientific, philosophical, and mathematical reasons to do so.