Does science prove the existence of god?

[The Voice of Reason]

Nonsense, NetDoc - you should post as you see fit. I want to apologize - I composed my post to you without benefit of your post about your wife's headaches being available yet. While I did intend to be smarmy, I do not wish to make light of her ailments. I would not do that to anyone (well - not many - and certainly not yourself). I sincerely hope that whatever is causing her headaches is cured as soon as possible.

Please accept my apology,
TVOR

 

[Scuba Pete]

TVOR,

I accept your apology, but not sure that you needed to give it.

I did not feel you were being insensitive to my wife... just tired of my fairly circumferential reasoning. I have admitted elsewhere that my skills as a "debater" are limited at best. And I could fully understand that my tedious reasoning may not fit "traditional" parameters.

Some call it delusional... divers call it "atmospheric narcosis".

For what it's worth (and this is WAY off topic), I really like the "mental sparring". It keeps me thinking about what I believe and if I need to continue believing it. I have changed my position more than once in my life time based on new evidence or insight. The tenor of this forum has largely been phenominally positive except for one poster showing no sympathy to those murdered hunters (don't get me started).

As it is, I am still "learning" the ropes of this community. I am the "top dog" on most of the other forums that I am on, so I get to see this from a slightly different view point.

No hard feelings by me, mon ami!

 

[Scott1]

NetDoc and TVOR
*** choking up ***
You guys are the best! We are so lucky to have such mature, loving members here at RF!
Bless you both!

Scott

 

[The Voice of Reason]

NetDoc -

First, I love the line about "Atmospheric Narcosis" - I'll be putting that in my "Great Replies" thread, mi amigo.
Secondly - I have been advised by one of the moderators that the use of the term "delusional" is deemed to be an offensive term of dubious value on this site. I must plead ignorance of that viewpoint, in spite of my seniority here.
At any rate, I was merely using the verbage from your post, as I would not have chosen that phrase myself.
So - I find myself in the unenviable position of having to issue my second apology in as many posts - not a very good track record, and one I am certainly not proud of. I must say, NetDoc, that we appear to be destined to be of divergent opinion on a great many subjects, but hopefully, perhaps not as many as I fear. I do admire your ability to admit a weakness - a trait we would all do well to possess.

With egg on my face,
TVOR

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ah, that would more take time to apologise rather than to blindly defend their honor! As I sent to you already, an apology is the humblest expression of the truly wise. One cannot hope to forge ahead unless they are able and willing to mend the road they travel on.

Again, I did not feel "flamed", but I understand the moderator's concern.

 

[HOGCALLER]

During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively. One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.


It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way. For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

The above is a partial quote from an article that appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. It is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.





.

 

[HOGCALLER]

It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration. At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein

The above is a partial quote from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.


.

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

:bonk: Because we don't feel entertained by the future progress in science as solving all the problems in Life. However, science can prove that not everything is provable like that the minute quantum physical reality can and may construct the whole universe of what at any moment we are to do.
What we expect of science I believe is not God's question:help: So as God's question to science is how we as people involved with science or effected by science can wonder about supreme knowledge and perfection, which we, as much as we don't like it want to know from it.
Oh heck... God is that scientific entity which we search in order to permit us not to think of science forever. Somehow, the ethical proof for the existence of God.

 

[ap0stle]

There is no need for any heated debate about whether science can do this or do that, certainly from a Christian standpoint.
It seems odd that Christians feel so challenged that they get involved in head banging.

The crux of the gospel is about the imposition of eternity as a King - dom

For the believer, Logically, its a win or win situation. If the gospel turns out to be true, the penitent life has been a small price to pay. If the gospel turns out to be untrue, the sacrificial life will not be remembered anyway, no loss there. You can't regret if spiritually dead etc.

For the unbeliever, Logically, it's a lose or lose situation. If the gospel turns out to be true, the unpenitent life will be a big price to pay. If it turns out to be untrue, nothing will be remembered, so the outcome will be the same as believer.

Scientists can only speculate about the after life. But Christians have a written guarantee from God's own mouth. So you Christians should just simply tell the truth and leave the head banging to God

Choice is a gift that eternity lends
markgolding.com

 

[Orthodox]

Hello Mr Spinkles, Duet, pah, painted wolf, TVOR, et al,

I have been away for a few days and have only just been able to reply to your statements. Sorry to come back after four days but I felt that your contentions with my argument required an answer.

Pah,

You said:

There IS a mathmatical cause for the Big Bang and it deals with Superstring theory and it corrects problems with the singularity of the Big Bang

I assume you mean that in superstring theory there would be no singularity? Anyway I’ll just assume this and move on.

There is a very small and quiet suggestion among a few string theorists that if we accept certain "minimum lengths" for strings then singularities can be avoided. However, this fails to account for the very probable existence of black holes. This suggestion also relies upon a certain fringe understanding of superstring theory being proven correct (or, as it is virtually unprovable empirically, not mathematically flawed) which is dubious, and various properties being chosen to fit the theory (this is not a highly thought of procedure). So, for these scientific reasons, I reject the idea of correction to the problem of the singularity.

Duet,

Firstly, You idea that I am fuelling a purely semantic argument is wrong. The term nature is defined by the World Book Dictionary as pertaining to that with a "real physical existence, as opposed to what is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, or the like". I say that natural things did not exist at the BB, would you disagree? If you do for what reason?

While the theist may wallow in the false comfort of a less than perfect scientific understanding, it is pure sophomoric hubris to presume that the Universe should be intelligable at all. That the term 'natural' has difficulty at the limits of our understanding shows only that the map is not the territory. The very fact that cosmology can establish and evaluate testable models at odds with teleology demonstrates the poverty of argumentum ad ignorantiam - and this poverty is rendered no more acceptable by repetition.

Which testable cosmological models at odds with teleology were these duet? Last time I asked you for these type of facts you espouse you disappeared for a week or so, please be so kind as to fill me in this time!(I am not suggesting that they do not exist I just would like to be aquainted with what I am accused of not considering).

Your idea that my assertion was an argument from ignorance shows that either, you have not read and understood my posts thus far, or, your understanding of the entire 'argument from ignorance' fallacy is wrong. I am not asserting something on the basis of our lack of knowledge, I’m asserting something on the basis of our knowledge. Do you see the difference?

I totally respect your disagreement with me provided you have a good cause.

continued below......

 

[Orthodox]

Painted Wolf,

once uppon a time Black Holes were considered to be byond the possibilities of 'nature'. Does that make them 'super-natural', no it ment that we had to re-evaluate what we considered 'natural'.

No, that’s not correct. Black holes were unknown ‘once upon at time’ but they were never considered supernatural.

Mr Spinkles,

Earlier I said: "Do you mean to say "it is vanishingly improbable that any known rule or principle could do this", or are you omniscient?" To which you replied: "Yes that 's what I meant to say." Therefore, it is not impossible for there to have been a natural cause for the universe--the cause, if there be one, is unknown.

You assert that because the cause of the BB is unknown, it must be supernatural. That is an argument to ignorance. Furthermore, your hypothesis is unscientific--"supernatural causes" are neither observed (they may not even be observable), nor do they make falsifiable predictions. The word "supernatural" carries unwarranted baggage when describing the unknown. I would be interested to see a peer reviewed scientific paper authored by Robert Jastrow on the existence of supernatural forces.

Yes it is possible that the universe has no creator – I said that it is vanishingly improbable, not impossible. Neither is it impossible that a pink unicorn (to re-use a frequently employed example) created the universe.

I do not assert that because the cause of the BB is unknown, it must be supernatural. I assert that because of what we know about the BB its cause must be supernatural. Here is an example of my reasoning.

Say that there is a pot standing within a long shallow airtight case. This case lies on a floor in a closed air tight room. Imagine that this pot is found one day broken at the bottom of its case. What can we rule out as the cause of its destruction? The wind, of course. This pot cannot have been blown over. Whatever caused the break it was probably not the wind.

This is the case with the cause of the BB. By its very nature the BB rules out any natural causes, this is why I posit a supernatural one. There can be no natural cause for this event. For this reason an attempt to diffuse the call for the supernatural must concentrate on eliminating the need for a singularity.

Please carefully read Deut's well written comments.

I did. As always, duet’s post is impeccably written. Each time I read something he has written I learn a new word (thanks duet). However, a well-written post is not necessarily free from errors. I mean, the bible is well written but that doesn’t mean you accept its validity….. I find errors in duets comments.

You are oversimplifying your argument. In actuality, it also contains two unstated premises from your first statement:
1) that a supernatural cause must exist (in itself, an untestable premise), and
2) this supernatural cause is the driving force behind the big bang (again, untestable).
So, your assertion is based on a two premises that are unprovable and untestable - your claim IS based on the fact that we cannot prove it wrong, and ergo it must be correct - and it truly is an argumentum ad ignoratiam - just as Deut stated.

I say that because a natural cause cannot exist for the BB therefore it must necessarily be supernatural – that is my basis for both ‘premises’. This is a falsifiable claim, it could possibly be shown that the BB never happened. It can therefore be proven wrong, and, as such, is not an argumentum ad ignoratiam. Look up the whole idea of argument to ignorance and you’ll see what I mean.

The line that "many a scientist has taken" is nothing more than an appeal to authority - a straightforward logical fallacy.

I have not committed a fallacy here either. The fallacy of appealing to authority only applies when an expert in one area is touted as an expert in another totally removed. I quote experts in physics who say that the laws of physics disqualify natural causes from causing the BB. I have not committed a fallacy.

Anyway, thank you all for your responses to me. I only hope that you are still on this thread.
Cheers,
orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

By the way, I saw that some people had questioned the existence of something that is intangible. Is it true that only the tangible can be proven to exist?

 

[Pah]

By the way, I saw that some people had questioned the existence of something that is intangible. Is true that only the tangible can be proven to exist?

I would say yes! But then it puts Atheism and Christianty on the same level of being correct.

Bob

 

[meogi]

This is the case with the cause of the BB. By its very nature the BB rules out any natural causes, this is why I posit a supernatural one. There can be no natural cause for this event. For this reason an attempt to diffuse the call for the supernatural must concentrate on eliminating the need for a singularity.

I say that because a natural cause cannot exist for the BB therefore it must necessarily be supernatural – that is my basis for both ‘premises’. This is a falsifiable claim, it could possibly be shown that the BB never happened. It can therefore be proven wrong, and, as such, is not an argumentum ad ignoratiam. Look up the whole idea of argument to ignorance and you’ll see what I mean.

I'd agree it's not an ignorance fallacy... but I would say it is a false dilemma.

And sorry I havn't gotten to your theory yet Orthodox... I'll be done with my last final tomorrow, and then I'll be on a week of 'celebration ' after which I'll probably get around to looking at it.

By the way, I saw that some people had questioned the existence of something that is intangible. Is true that only the tangible can be proven to exist?

I lean more toward the idea that the intangible can be proven to exist/not... that's me though (I think most generally don't think this here), and that's probably the main reason I label myself as Atheist at the moment.

 

[Orthodox]

Pah,

Is true that only the tangible can be proven to exist?

I would say yes! But then it puts Atheism and Christianty on the same level of being correct.

Interesting..... but what about truth? Truth is intangible is it not? Does truth exist?

cheers
orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Meogi,

Good to have you back!

I'd agree it's not an ignorance fallacy

Thankyou!

but I would say it is a false dilemma.

I can see how it would appear so. A false dilemma is where a number of possible alternatives is simplified to a 'binary opposition'. I can see that the either/or choice may appear to be the product of this type of 'simplification' , nevertheless, I don't think it is. I am not trying to 'simplify' the supernatural thing that I have proposed.

Given the nature of what the BB is this supernatural thing must have been eternal, immaterial and nonspatial, however, beyond that I have no warrant (with regards to the the BB data) to postulate further. I have not tried to simplify the alternatives. They themselves fall willingly into the brackets of the natural and everything else (which I have dubbed the supernatural).

And sorry I havn't gotten to your theory yet Orthodox... I'll be done with my last final tomorrow, and then I'll be on a week of 'celebration ' after which I'll probably get around to looking at it.

Sure, I look forward to it.

I lean more toward the idea that the intangible can be proven to exist

me too.

cheers
orthodox

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I do not assert that because the cause of the BB is unknown, it must be supernatural. I assert that because of what we know about the BB its cause must be supernatural.

This is the same thing, Orthodox. Your assertion is that because we know that *nothing we know of* can have caused the BB, it must have supernatural causes. In fact, assuming the BB was caused by something, and assuming that we do indeed know that *nothing we know of* can have caused the BB, all we can conclude is that we do not know how the BB happened--it's causes are unknown. The causes of the BB could have causes themselves, which in turn have more causes; or the causes could be random; or they could be uncaused causes. Who knows? The problem, Orthodox, is that you insist upon using the word "supernatural" which carries unwarranted baggage--the term implies miracles, deities, and teleology, none of which are proven and some of which are unprovable. Do you not see that the word "supernatural" carries unwarranted baggage when describing the nature of these 'causes', when the word "unknown" would do just fine?

Furthermore, your assertion is completely unscientific, as it makes no falsifiable predictions. Yes, BB theory offers falsifiable predictions, and yes, BB theory could be proven wrong--that is why BB theory is scientific. But what predictions can you offer that would disprove supernatural causes? What predictions can you offer that would confirm supernatural causes, and thereby further scientific knowledge? Your theory that the BB "must necessarily be supernatural" may sound impressive in philosophy class, but as far as science is concerned, it's worse than untrue--it's useless.

Perhaps you could provide a scientific paper asserting the existence of the supernatural that has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Pah]

Pah,
Interesting..... but what about truth? Truth is intangible is it not? Does truth exist?
cheers
orthodox

Yes, in the abstract. And I recognize that truth is not the same as proof in all cases.

Bob

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

The problem, Orthodox, is that you insist upon using the word "supernatural" which carries unwarranted baggage--the term implies miracles, deities, and teleology, none of which are proven and some of which are unprovable. Do you not see that the word "supernatural" carries unwarranted baggage when describing the nature of these 'causes', when the word "unknown" would do just fine?

I can see that there would be drawn 'unwarranted baggage' more often than not. I, as you know, never postulated deities, miracles and teleology on the singular basis of the non-natural origin of the BB. Nevertheless, the term "unknown" carries even more 'unwarranted baggage'. "Unknown" implies that we have absolutley no idea what the cause to the BB would be, this is an equal and opposite fallacy. "Supernatural" may suggest to much, but "unknown" suggests too little.

It is necessity that has driven me to the use of the word supernatural. In order to avoid semantic misunderstandings in future let's come up with a word that defines that which exists purely within this universe and that which exists (according to me anyway) above and beyond it. I thought about the words material and immaterial but I think they they wind up short. Is unnatural a suitable replacement for supernatural? I will adopt it at least until there is a better alternative.

I do not assert that because the cause of the BB is unknown, it must be supernatural. I assert that because of what we know about the BB its cause must be supernatural

This is the same thing, Orthodox. Your assertion is that because we know that *nothing we know of* can have caused the BB, it must have supernatural causes. In fact, assuming the BB was caused by something, and assuming that we do indeed know that *nothing we know of* can have caused the BB, all we can conclude is that we do not know how the BB happened--it's causes are unknown.

I agree to a certain extent. Still, I maintain that the cause for the universe is not best described as "unknown". Furthermore, as I have always said, just because there can be no natural cause for the universe (assuming the BB model is correct - it is possible that it isn't) doesn't mean that this unnatural cause is a triune god rather than a extra-universal mathematical construct (presumably one able to exist in a non-spatial, immaterial, non-temporal context).

If we assume that there must be a cause for every effect then, while we do not know (on the basis of the BB data) what exactly the cause is, we do know that there is a cause for the BB and we can conclude that it must be of a certain type of cause. We know that if the BB is the correct view of the universe then all nature began in it. Hence, only the unnatural could have caused the BB. An example might suffice to show the reasoning behind my assertion.

If we imagine that I hold box in my hands which contains three balls of the same shape and size. Each ball is a different colour - one red, one blue and one green. Imagine that you saw me remove the green ball and throw it away. Now imagine that I put my hand in the box and remove another ball but this time you cannot see the colour of the one I have chosen. What colour is the ball which remains in the box?

Well it is either red or blue. We cannot no for sure without for information. What we do know is that it is not green. So, what colour is the ball? Not Green.

Likewise, the cause for the BB is not natural. On the basis of the BB data we do not know the exact nature of this unnatural thing but, nevertheless, we now it exists and we know certain things about it. Namely, that it must be immaterial, non-spatial and non-temporal.

Did this make any sense? I am in a rush and cannot read what I have just written.

cheers
orthodox

 

[Orthodox]

Pah,

And I recognize that truth is not the same as proof in all cases.

What do you mean by this?

cheers
orthodox