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

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Well, I would like for you to very kindly point out the difference between the two.

 

[ScottySatan]

It's impossible to say. "Never" is a very strong and slippery word to keep hold of. Historically, people who have identified things that science could never do were proven wrong with an example.

People used to say that in a light microscope, you will never achieve greater than 200 nanometre resolution between two objects. This was based on the measured structure of light. However, we have broken that limit by a lot. The current record is 1nm resolution. It's not because the initial observations were wrong, but because the initial observer didn't realise some of the (in this case, extremely simple) technologies and methods of experimental planning we would later develop. He was thinking inside a box.

My example is not as abstract or exciting as proof about spiritual things, but when you break down the premises (that science can't reveal the existence of god, and the premise that we can't beat 200nm resolution in light microscopy), into the core mechanisms of their argument, they are identical.

 

[jasonwill2]

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:






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?

ya... Science can't prove a universal negative like that.

Who says that god isn't on the other side of the Universe and that as the Universe expanded he is now out of observable range? we can only see like 14 billion LY in any one direction but the Universe is like 93 billion LY across due to inflation.

God could just be on the other side of the Universe, well out of our detectable range

Also I bet our creator is nothing like anyone on this earth thinks he is. Then again I'm a pantheist so god is like right infront of my face right now as well as everywhere and everything... hes the state of reality itself.

 

[jasonwill2]

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

What does this mean and could you give an article or something? As this could have very large ramifications for my beliefs either for or against.

edit:

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

In other words you appeal to Christianity because you were feed Christian Apologetics and were raised by Christian Fundamentalists? Or you appeal to supernatural because your religious?

 

[lunakilo]

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

Well, I would like for you to very kindly point out the difference between the two.

If I may

If the universe began to exist it implies a beginning in time. That is, there is a point in time before which the universe did not exist.

If the universe has a beginning it says nothing about time. It could mean a biginning in time, but it could also mean that time and space are linked in such a way that it makes no sense to talk about time without the physical universe existing. That also means there would be no point in time before which the universe did not exist.

Possibly there are other ways the universe could have a beginning, that was just my first thought.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

I've not automatically excluded it. I just asked about the rational for having it as an assumption rather than something requiring some level of supporting evidence.

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.

This is just more assumption - it isn't even supported by Christian doctrine (which includes plenty of contact between the spiritual and temporal).

Someone else mentioned this is confused by different uses of the word "universe" (which is why I initially put it in quotes). Put as simply as I can, my question is; Where is the evidence that there is any form of barrier to the principal of scientific investigation?

 

[jasonwill2]

I've not automatically excluded it. I just asked about the rational for having it as an assumption rather than something requiring some level of supporting evidence.

This is just more assumption - it isn't even supported by Christian doctrine (which includes plenty of contact between the spiritual and temporal).

Someone else mentioned this is confused by different uses of the word "universe" (which is why I initially put it in quotes). Put as simply as I can, my question is; Where is the evidence that there is any form of barrier to the principal of scientific investigation?

His religion forbids it to be any other way because his religion says that The Bible is completely true and has no error... not sure on a literal interpretation but I suspect so. He fits the fundamentalist young earth creationist apologetic trope to the tee. I know lots of people/have known lots of people like him, but some vary on the approach to science (atheism is a religion like creationism saying neither can be proven, or creationism is proven as two differing examples). But essentially they are the same. It's just the "creationism and all the bible is 100% proven" kind are more annoying than those trying to put science/atheism/materialism/evolution/whatever down to religion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It would depend on the definition of that 'spiritual existence', so long as it is held to be beyond any non spiritual mechanism of examination (such as not being able to be seen, not being able to be detected and so forth) nor its interactions with those things that are capable of being detected able to be reliably predicted (such as 'working in mysterious ways') then the answer is no.

There would always exist the possibility that it exists since we cannot detect it nor its actions and there is nothing to suggest that the absence of such capacity for detection indicates that it does not exist... I would however suggest that the more this perspective is utilised, the more abstract the nature of any possible knowledge of the spiritual existence or its interactions - the more inherently undetectable such an existence is, it becomes increasingly unknowable and therefore any claims about such an entity (regardless of the source of such claims) become unreliable - reducing both the capacity for understanding and the incentive for acknowledgement on our part, of such an existence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If I may

If the universe began to exist it implies a beginning in time. That is, there is a point in time before which the universe did not exist.

Well, this depends on which cosmological model you are using. According to the Standard Model of the big bang, the existence of the universe DOES in fact imply a beginning of time itself. There are models that suggest otherwise (although many are not plausible).

If the universe has a beginning it says nothing about time.

Once again, depending on the model you are using.

It could mean a biginning in time, but it could also mean that time and space are linked in such a way that it makes no sense to talk about time without the physical universe existing.

Right, and that is why on the Christian view, time did not exist before God created the physical universe. My point exactly.

That also means there would be no point in time before which the universe did not exist.

Right, there was no "point" in time "before" which the universe did not exist. Agreed, because without time, there could be no point in time or any temporal reality.

Possibly there are other ways the universe could have a beginning, that was just my first thought.

And this would be to posit infinite regression, which is logically absurd.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I've not automatically excluded it. I just asked about the rational for having it as an assumption rather than something requiring some level of supporting evidence.

Well maybe the person made the statement based off of supporting evidence. You assumed that the person lacked the supporting evidence when in fact the supporting evidence may have been the reason why the person made the statement.

This is just more assumption - it isn't even supported by Christian doctrine (which includes plenty of contact between the spiritual and temporal).

It is supported by Christian doctrine, this is the only place where I've seen people try to link the supernatural realm with the physical universe. As I said before, heaven and our physical universe is/has been distinguished from one another, so I dont know where this stuff is coming from.

Someone else mentioned this is confused by different uses of the word "universe" (which is why I initially put it in quotes). Put as simply as I can, my question is; Where is the evidence that there is any form of barrier to the principal of scientific investigation?

Dont understand the question Joe

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

His religion forbids it to be any other way because his religion says that The Bible is completely true and has no error

Pretty much, yeah.

... not sure on a literal interpretation but I suspect so. He fits the fundamentalist young earth creationist apologetic trope to the tee.

Im not a young earth creationist.

 

[jasonwill2]

Pretty much, yeah.



Im not a young earth creationist.

old earth creatonist?

 

[lunakilo]

Well, this depends on which cosmological model you are using. According to the Standard Model of the big bang, the existence of the universe DOES in fact imply a beginning of time itself. There are models that suggest otherwise (although many are not plausible).



Once again, depending on the model you are using.



Right, and that is why on the Christian view, time did not exist before God created the physical universe. My point exactly.



Right, there was no "point" in time "before" which the universe did not exist. Agreed, because without time, there could be no point in time or any temporal reality.



And this would be to posit infinite regression, which is logically absurd.

I was just explaining the difference between "began to exist" and "has a beginning", this is about the meaning of words and has nothing to do with cosmological models.

"began to exist" implies time.
"has a beginning" does not.

 

[Road Warrior]

I was just explaining the difference between "began to exist" and "has a beginning", this is about the meaning of words and has nothing to do with cosmological models.

"began to exist" implies time.
"has a beginning" does not.

Not quite following you here. If you are trying to say "time" didn't begin until the Big Bang, then I agree. If you are saying the Universe had no beginning, then I disagree.

 

[jasonwill2]

Not quite following you here. If you are trying to say "time" didn't begin until the Big Bang, then I agree. If you are saying the Universe had no beginning, then I disagree.

Time is a dimension that is inherently tied to space. Hence no space = no time.

this is why they call it space-time as time is dimension just like length width and depth... just in a really weird way.

 

[Road Warrior]

I understand the concept of space-time. What I don't understand is what Lunakilo was talking about in respect to the origins of our Universe:

"began to exist" implies time.
"has a beginning" does not.

 

[jasonwill2]

I understand the concept of space-time. What I don't understand is what Lunakilo was talking about in respect to the origins of our Universe:

Ya I see that point then as to begin one needs the reference of time.

 

[lunakilo]

I understand the concept of space-time. What I don't understand is what Lunakilo was talking about in respect to the origins of our Universe:

I was commenting on PolyHedral's post:

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

And I am just saying that:

"began to exist" implies a beginning in time.
"has a beginning" does not necessarily mean a beginning in time.

 

[jasonwill2]

I was commenting on PolyHedral's post:



And I am just saying that:

"began to exist" implies a beginning in time.
"has a beginning" does not necessarily mean a beginning in time.

How can something begin unless it didn't exist before, therefore making change and it exists? That seems to imply time. I recall Brian Greene going over this once but for the life of me I forget how he addressed it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I was just explaining the difference between "began to exist" and "has a beginning", this is about the meaning of words and has nothing to do with cosmological models.

"began to exist" implies time.
"has a beginning" does not.

Yeah, and based on what you said, whether you accept your "interpretation" of what he said would depend on which model you accept. If you you accept the Standard Model, then you would believe that the beginning of the universe implies the beginning of time. But if you accept another model, you will believe that the universe had a beginning, but it was the product of a pre-big bang cause, which does not imply the beginning of time. Second, i dont think what you said had anything to do with time anyway. He basically said there was a difference between "beginning to exist", and "having a beginning". I maintain that there is no difference whatsoever. I began to exist on 4-6-85.....I had a beginning on 4-6-85....It means the same thing. Both statements implies that before the given date, I did not exist.