Proof of god's existence not a scientific claim!

[R_P_A_S]

Seriously what the fuck does that even mean? I don't get this... How or why can this statement be used to prevent the critique or challenge gods evidence of it's existence?

Everything grants a scientific explanation? Does it? I'm confused. What doesn't?

FUNNY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8W5OQYYhgY

[Meridian]

What he is saying is actually true. "God exists" is not a scientific claim, it is not an empiric claim. It is completely unlike saying, for example, "Your bike is standing in the garage".

It is a metaphysical claim. It is more like saying "Matter is how we perceive spirit" or something. All metaphysical claims are without meaning.

[Belisarius]

metaphysical claims do have meaning, they are only more debateable.

it is true that god's existence cannot be proven scientifically, since if we can know anything about him, it is that we can't know anything about him. if he exists, he won't be understandable for us mere humans. my conclusion then: don't worry too much about the existence of a god and just live your life as if he doesn't exists.

[¿Que?]

Every definition of god must define him/her as supernatural. Otherwise it's a pretty useless definition of god, and ultimately you would just be arguing semantics anyway.

Supernatural things do not abide by the laws of nature (that's what it means to be supernatural).

Science is the study of the laws of nature.

Ergo, no proof of god can ever be scientific.;)

[mikelepore]

Supernatural things do not abide by the laws of nature (that's what it means to be supernatural).
Science is the study of the laws of nature.
Ergo, no proof of god can ever be scientific.

Maybe someone next year will walk into a conference of the National Adademy of Science, surprise everyone with a demonstration of turning a staff into a serpent, producing a plague of locusts, raising the dead, etc., and then submit to a series of verifications by independent laboratories. It's improbable, but something that doesn't adide by the laws of nature can at least be be conceived. I'd say that the absense of evidence settles the issue, not the principle that science can't investigate it.

[¿Que?]

Maybe someone next year will walk into a conference of the National Adademy of Science, surprise everyone with a demonstration of turning a staff into a serpent, producing a plague of locusts, raising the dead, etc., and then submit to a series of verifications by independent laboratories. It's improbable, but something that doesn't adide by the laws of nature can at least be be conceived. I'd say that the absense of evidence settles the issue, not the principle that science can't investigate it.

Sure, supernatural things can be conceived, but not scientifically. And I understand your concern. Saying that science can't be used as proof of supernatural claims simply gives theology a legitimate area of concern. But I wouldn't equate saying that science can't prove supernatural claims with saying science science can't investigate supernatural claims. In fact, I find it quite useful to use science to debunk supernatural claims as I believe the concept of "supernatural" to be inherently illogical.

The absence of evidence, the whole notion of "teapot atheists" for example, in my opinion is flawed in that there is room for possibility (hey there really might be a teapot orbiting the earth) and this possibility (however small) may be used to justify investigations which are logically flawed based on what I mentioned earlier.

[mikelepore]

I guess what I'm saying is, I've been an atheist since the 1960s, but if someone, right in front of me, were to say "In the name of God, I command the sea to divide", and then the sea were to divide, then I would begin to believe in God. I'm an atheist who is prepared to reverse myself at any moment if I were shown any reason to. No one has ever given me a reason. But none of this "Oh, the beautiful symmetry of nature - surely there must be a God!" I'm talking about an unambiguous reason. Let's see you violate the laws of physics.

[¿Que?]

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed after watching the video and seeing the religious guy make somewhat of a similar argument I am making. I think the point however is that just because science can't prove the existence of god, doesn't mean that science can't investigate claims which profess to give evidence for god. If god is supernatural, why should evidence exist?

This actually goes back to Kierkegaard and his idea of "subjective truth". He shunned all proofs of god's existence and came to the conclusion that people should arrive at their devotion to god subjectively.

In which case Sam Harris should have said, "that's your opinion" taken off his mic, and gone home. These arguments are difficult to refute on their own grounds since they appeal to subjectivity rather than objectivity. Flying spaghetti monster maybe?

Mikelepore, you will never find an unambiguous reason as one is not possible. Anything we observe in the natural world must operate by some mechanism, whether it is understood by humans or not. The whole notion of the supernatural means that no mechanism exists. This, besides being unscientific and unprovable, is hopelessly ambiguous by nature (no pun intended).

[mikelepore]

It is reported that the contemporaries of Jesus saw him perform miracles, and, if that were true, then their acceptance of his divinity wouldn't really be based on faith, but based on empirical data. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus had been dead and entombed for four days (John 11), and presumably the body was cold so there's no chance that he was in a coma and not dead. I consider Jesus's intervention to be an unambiguous sign, that is, if I personally saw it happen the Jesus is God. But I don't believe the story, because I don't consider a story written on an ancient parchment to be empirical data. In this way, my answer to the topic's title is: proof of a god's existence isn't necessarily incapable of being proven scientifically.

[R_P_A_S]

My brain is completely inside out. OK... Is it just safe to assume that science is used to test all matter and proof the things exist? therefor anything Supernatural is BS?

[¿Que?]

It is reported that the contemporaries of Jesus saw him perform miracles, and, if that were true, then their acceptance of his divinity wouldn't really be based on faith, but based on empirical data.
Empirical data doesn't necessarily guarantee the correct explanation for phenomena. People used to worship the sun based on empirical data (no one would deny that the sun was an illusion) and yet, we know now that the sun is not a god but actually a star.

And while generally observation does constitute empirical data, in the more narrow scientific definition, empirical data referred to data arrived at through experimentation as well.


When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus had been dead and entombed for four days (John 11), and presumably the body was cold so there's no chance that he was in a coma and not dead. I consider Jesus's intervention to be an unambiguous sign, that is, if I personally saw it happen the Jesus is God.
While I appreciate the bible reference (I happen to be very bible illiterate) I don't see how this hypothetical is any more relevant than one I could make up off the top of my head. Seeing as how back then science had not developed to the extent that it had today, I would probably come to the same conclusions. However, if these things happened today, I would still be skeptical.


But I don't believe the story, because I don't consider a story written on an ancient parchment to be empirical data.
In which case I would have to question your definition of empirical data. The philosophical definition of empiricism (as opposed to the scientific that I mention above) means any kind of evidence we gain through our senses is empirical. This includes second hand information. In fact it includes everything except a-priori knowledge.


In this way, my answer to the topic's title is: proof of a god's existence isn't necessarily incapable of being proven scientifically.
I guess as I alluded to earlier, there are branches of philosophy (existentialism, postmodernism) that rely heavily on subjective experience as claims to truth (insofar as the notion of truth is even relevant). Some of these have been implemented in the social sciences (for example ethnographies rely heavily on personal accounts), and so I would be essentially contradicting myself in denying your assertion flat out.

On the other hand, if you mean "scientifically" as in the application of the scientific method, then I would have to disagree. The scientific method relies heavily on replication and intersubjective verification (objectivity?) which negates any notion of personal experience as the basis for truth or knowledge claims.

But I think all of this ignores my basic premise. Which is that empirical data or not, scientific explanation must provide a mechanism by which things in the natural world occur. If what god does falls within the strictures of these mechanisms, then what is the point of calling him god. And if what he does does not fall within these strictures, then exactly by what means could it ever be possible to confirm this?

EDIT: Sorry for my repeated use of the phrase "relies heavily".

[¿Que?]

My brain is completely inside out. OK... Is it just safe to assume that science is used to test all matter and proof the things exist? therefor anything Supernatural is BS?
Basically, but I would urge you not to accept the argument if you don't understand it. Develop a working definition of science. Develop a working definition of god. Then see if you can arrive at your definition of god based on your definition of science.

You have to keep in mind that this is not an argument for or against the existence of god. As the video shows, many religious people make the same claim. If you look at my first post, I really don't think it can be explained in more simple terms.

[Decolonize The Left]

Seriously what the fuck does that even mean? I don't get this... How or why can this statement be used to prevent the critique or challenge gods evidence of it's existence?

Everything grants a scientific explanation? Does it? I'm confused. What doesn't?

FUNNY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8W5OQYYhgY

Basically the claim made in this thread's title revolves around the following: science makes empirical claims, that is, claims as to how the universe works. Religion and theists make absolute claims on why the universe works (or more likely, why we're here).

In a nutshell, religion attempts to answer the 'big why? questions' (why am I here? why is there something rather than nothing? why can I think? etc...) whereas science deals primarily with the big and small 'how' questions (how did humans evolve from primates? etc..).

The point that the knowledgeable atheist makes when confronted with this sort of space-making argument for religion is that there is no 'why' question. It is a human invention - the "why?" The lion doesn't ask why. The tree doesn't either. The rock surely doesn't. Only humans do, and as such, only humans have invented a long, long, long, history of stories to answer this question.

- August

[MortyMingledon]

Supernatural things do not abide by the laws of nature (that's what it means to be supernatural).

Science is the study of the laws of nature.

Ergo, no proof of god can ever be scientific.
A supernatural god, as imagined by most people, would not really be much use unless he could affect actual physical things, and these effects we would be able to measure empirically. While science unravels the causes of natural phenomenon, there is really quite little left for a possible supernatural god to affect in real physical nature which would not be able to be measured empirically.

[¿Que?]

A supernatural god, as imagined by most people, would not really be much use unless he could affect actual physical things, and these effects we would be able to measure empirically. While science unravels the causes of natural phenomenon, there is really quite little left for a possible supernatural god to affect in real physical nature which would not be able to be measured empirically.
This essentially proves the absurdity of any supernatural claims. Was that your point?

[MortyMingledon]

This essentially proves the absurdity of any supernatural claims. Was that your point?

Yeah. Just a very quick summary of why seperating the supernatural and the natural is absurd.

[R_P_A_S]

thanks so much to all those who took their time to help me out with this.

[spiltteeth]

A supernatural god, as imagined by most people, would not really be much use unless he could affect actual physical things, and these effects we would be able to measure empirically. While science unravels the causes of natural phenomenon, there is really quite little left for a possible supernatural god to affect in real physical nature which would not be able to be measured empirically.

Actually, if God were to intervene and break the natural laws this would not be a repeatable event, science could not therefore study it.

[Che a chara]

I don't want to sound a nut-case here, just asking like, but what if someone took part in a sort of seance or spiritual routine that asked for certain things to happen around them, and things did happen .... Would that test the non-faith of atheists and non-believers of the existence of some other entity/power, not necessarily the existence of a God, but that there could well be a God because of these occurrences ?

[¿Que?]

I don't want to sound a nut-case here, just asking like, but what if someone took part in a sort of seance or spiritual routine that asked for certain things to happen around them, and things did happen .... Would that test the non-faith of atheists and non-believers of the existence of some other entity/power, not necessarily the existence of a God, but that there could well be a God because of these occurrences ?
This thread was about how god cannot be proven scientifically. The actual question as to whether god exists or not is actually ancillary to this primary assertion. You'll notice that the religious guy in the video is making the same claim as I (an atheist). Of course, if you follow the logic, the only conclusion you can come to is that supernatural claims are contradictory and therefore illogical.

Then there are some that argue that logic itself is nothing more than a construct of white, male, bourgeois power structures (or something along those lines) and I respect those people wholeheartedly. Everything must be challenged at some point.

But to answer your question: When you drop something, you don't believe that some entity made it fall. You say, well it was gravity. And when you boil water for noodles, you don't believe some entity is making the water hot. You know it's fire (heat energy). So by what criteria do you decide one day to say, hey, that must be some entity right there done that. Basically, it would be when you don't have an answer, right? But suppose the next day some great scientist comes up with an answer that makes perfect sense. Then what? Will you continue to believe in the entity? Well, a lot of people do. I don't tho.

[Che a chara]

This thread was about how god cannot be proven scientifically. The actual question as to whether god exists or not is actually ancillary to this primary assertion. You'll notice that the religious guy in the video is making the same claim as I (an atheist). Of course, if you follow the logic, the only conclusion you can come to is that supernatural claims are contradictory and therefore illogical.

Then there are some that argue that logic itself is nothing more than a construct of white, male, bourgeois power structures (or something along those lines) and I respect those people wholeheartedly. Everything must be challenged at some point.

But to answer your question: When you drop something, you don't believe that some entity made it fall. You say, well it was gravity. And when you boil water for noodles, you don't believe some entity is making the water hot. You know it's fire (heat energy). So by what criteria do you decide one day to say, hey, that must be some entity right there done that. Basically, it would be when you don't have an answer, right? But suppose the next day some great scientist comes up with an answer that makes perfect sense. Then what? Will you continue to believe in the entity? Well, a lot of people do. I don't tho.

But would a paranormal 'investigation' which yielded results not be classed as some sort of scientific proof for a supernatural occurrence ?

If you're of the belief that every experience can be explained scientifically, is it a miracle that would change your mind, and not a minor incident that could baffle science ?

[mikelepore]

On the other hand, if you mean "scientifically" as in the application of the scientific method, then I would have to disagree. The scientific method relies heavily on replication and intersubjective verification (objectivity?) which negates any notion of personal experience as the basis for truth or knowledge claims.

But I think all of this ignores my basic premise. Which is that empirical data or not, scientific explanation must provide a mechanism by which things in the natural world occur. If what god does falls within the strictures of these mechanisms, then what is the point of calling him god. And if what he does does not fall within these strictures, then exactly by what means could it ever be possible to confirm this?

I agree with the paragraph about verification. Suppose the hypothetical God commmunicated with me directly, as allegedly in the case of Abraham or Moses. Then I have "knowledge." I blab the news all over town. We can't possibly be scientific about this, because there can't be any replication by independent investigators. However that was also the case regarding reports of meteorites in the 1700s, when scientists laughed about the crackpot reports of "rocks falling out of the sky." Later at some point, the question did become suitable for verification by independent investigators.

I don't think mechanism is necessary to a definition of science. Sometimes when people are being as scientific as possible, given their historical situation, all they can do is observe certain things, name them and classify them. (Example, disease before the invention of the microscope, starlight before the invention of the spectroscope.) They can carefully document the patterns they find, but they can't offer explanations. The could invent myths to serve as explanations, but they would be better archivists of accumulated knowledge if they would just say "nobody today knows." This may go on for thousands of years until people have better tools. Nevertheless, they are contributing to science by doing the best they can while classifying the available patterns. As Rutherford once commented, one part of science is doing "physics" and another part of science is being a "stamp collector."