So, you are suggesting a sentient universe that permeates the physical universe?

I would say a creative intelligence that underlies everything. One way to visualize this would be to envision quanta as being that intelligence creating a continuum of substantiality. The intelligence/mind (Elan vital) would be the most insubstantial or irreducible.

And what would be at the other end of this continuum of substantiality?

Its not scientists' job to show that God exists. The burden is on the claimant to show that it exists. If I claimed that unicorns exist, or that Elvis is alive, the burden isn't on you to prove that I'm wrong. The burden is on me to show that I'm right.

I can point to hoof-prints in the sand and say that a unicorn made those, and that they could only be there for us both to see if a unicorn passed by here. There can be no other explanation. But there is, as a horse could have made those same impressions in the sand. The same goes for the claim that the universe is evidence of God's existence. There are other, better explanations for the universe being here.

"Science is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment.If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth."

- James Burke in "The Day the Universe Changed" (the best history/science documentary ever)

This is a great description of science and how it is different from other methods of seeking truth. I underlined and italicized the key points.

Claims about the nature of God vary so widely and correlate with the region of the world, and time in history, in which the claimant is born. Scientific hypotheses and theories only vary based on the level of objective experimentation by as many scientists as possible, and then tested by the general population using the technology the theory is based on. It is safe to say that humans have a good understanding of fire and lightning, as we have used technologies harnessing these natural processes for a long time. AND the technologies work for everyone, in every culture and in every time. Both Christians AND Muslims can use electric generators (converts gasoline into electricity) to power their homes after their God sends them a massive rain storm.

I could go on, but this post would be too long.

Denser matter, e.g the fluids and bones of our bodies. It is exactly what sense/observe.

I can point to hoof-prints in the sand and say that a unicorn made those, and that they could only be there for us both to see if a unicorn passed by here. There can be no other explanation. But there is, as a horse could have made those same impressions in the sand. — Harry Hindu

That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth.

The same goes for the claim that the universe is evidence of God's existence. There are other, better explanations for the universe being here. — Harry Hindu

Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones.

If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. — Harry Hindu

Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one.

It's true that we need a singular definition of God to please the scientists. This is their main bone of contention, they don't know what to attack and so they call it all a lie. But in creating a definition of God to please the scientists we of course will make it fit with the observable, so in the very act of defining God we prove its existence to science. Do we not? Science cannot win this.

would contend that your definition of God through this archaic reference written by men thousands of years ago may need some modification. — MikeL

OK, so with reference to your op then, I would assume that "explaining God to scientists" means reciting a definition of "God" which is consistent with the principles utilized by the scientists. Care to state that definition?

You're not Mike? Sorry, somehow I must have overlapped who I was talking too — MikeL

And you're trying to unravel the mystery of God? X-)

The whole project of defining God or god(s), convincing scientists (anybody, really) that God exists, (or contra believers, doesn't exist) is doomed. It's doomed because God's existence or absence just isn't provable. There is nothing that can be said about God that rests on objective proof.

Is God a human creation -- maybe our greatest one, maybe not -- but can either of us prove it? No.

Billions of believers seem to have no difficulty accepting God's existence, which is not evidence of course, but it does suggest that faith provides evidence. Billions of people have not believed in God, (or believed in the One True God or Pantheon of Several True Gods), and for them disbelief seems to provide all the evidence necessary.

Individuals just have to await for the Gift of clear belief or certain disbelief. Maybe God provides both.

That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL

Where I disagree a bit is that science does in any way have facts or is unbiased/objective. Even less so with the introduction of trillions of dollars of government money into their industry. It has become as scammy as the financial industry (big money does that). But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or "The Theory of It Just Happened".

shebang — Wayfarer

Well that's it, I'm calling the moderators for sexism...

Should I edit it to read s/hebang?

Hello. I think I can prove that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is by definition the search for truth that is empirically verifiable. The christian God by definition is an immaterial being and therefore not made of any divine matter or energy that could be tested empirically.

I suppose a scientist could test the authenticity of a miraculous event (ie if explained by the laws of physics then it is false, if unexplained by the laws of physics, then it is true), but if true, a scientist could always conclude that we need to revisit the laws of physics, instead of labelling the event as a miracle.

Hi Sam,
I think you're right. One thing that has become abundantly clear in this talk is that science is trying to punch way above its weight when it takes on subjects like God, simply by virtue of the limitations of proof it places on itself. It's scope is limited to the observable and testable, but when we continue into the immeasurable science cannot follow and maths has to kick in. Maths on the other hand makes no claims one way or the other about God, and with the amount of crazy stuff they are coming out with its no wonder.

Maths on the other hand makes no claims one way or the other about God, and with the amount of crazy stuff they are coming out with its no wonder.

Not today no more, no. But the irony lies in the idea of acceptance. For if complexity science has trouble with the idea of emergence in formalizing the strong version (god), then this reflects the inability of the mathematical community to realize that formalization of this phenomenon automatically results in its transformation into the weak version, despite the so-called systems dialog between several disciplines, that in my opinion, only reflects uncertainty in function of analogy. If then, one considers the ideas of limit and approximation an sich, then their inability would become ability, and the role of the observer becomes (apparently contradictory) obsolete. What i am trying to say is that the idea of god is implicitly defined in the acceptance of the mystical element in a singular niche (mono), for if the limits of our knowledge are approximated using reductionist principles, then the act of observation vanishes into oblivion, for we cannot truly understand each other, we cannot compare absolutes (or technical jargon), we cannot define the whole in terms of other wholes and then apply the theories without an element of risk (as "a trinity of scientist(s)" cannot possibly understand everything, genius is needed to elevate god). If, then, the goal of complex integration (which is of paramount importance today) is to "synthesize" elements into a coherent but relative whole, and the scientist does believe in god, then (in a funny way) it is not possible to grasp the idea of god, because then god only reappears later as another emerged strong form (another discipline on its way to specialisation induced by "christ when he returns"), and the cycle re-continues. Thus most scientists today (or at least those with a love for philosophy and metaphysics) do believe in god, but this belief is grounded on "scalable timeframes" and is taken with a grain of salt, except for the hard-core reductionist scientists, who like to appear on television and ironically degrading science for what it will become, what they claim (if they realize the nature of their claims or not) it truly is; an instrument of god implicitly accepted by their religionist counterparts in some timeframe (or tv-frame for that matter). These scientists do believe there is a god, and that's the crazy part.

That's a pretty good position on the argument Pegasys, if I understood it correctly. The Quantum Mechanics argument that the mere act of observation causes electrons to act like particles and not waves? Therefore the very act of trying to define God reduces it to a weaker form? Or did I completely misunderstand you?

Yes, something like that, if you're into physics of course. Now, i'm not a physicist, but i think that the idea of collapse, that is of the wave function, and its philosophical implication, is the very reason, or rather, was, for the emergence of a new type of consciousness. I don't want to sound all too new-agey here, but if you consider some concepts from emanationism, like the outcome of matter springing forth from a single source together with the more modern idea of an intelligence operating as some centralised office, an aggregate of power, would it then not be justified for science (complexity science, or rather the philosophy) claiming the importance of fund management, then also maybe out of fear, in order to reduce the waves emanating from the aggregate, its non-observable mysteries, to particles i.e. to more balanced research opportunities? What i'm trying to say (and what most have been saying) is that the mere act of observation produces the particles, and in the context of management, the idea is reflected in a complex world, where reducing things to particles only acquires meaning when the secrecy behind world policies is abolished. The object of science therefore is not to find out or prove whether god exists or not, not today anymore, as the paradigm of worldviews uses the idea of function and image, uses co-domains in order to invert the process of decentralisation itself, paradoxically enough then. And we know that when a function is inverted, it does not necessarily mean (today) we can go back in time, only begging the question what use it is to conceal waves, what use it is for a government that is based on mechanical reasoning to lie and keep the people in the dark as to the limitation of reason in some inverted or rather perverted way. For, man cannot understand god, and this concept is quite clear nowadays, we have to reduce god to institution, bank, because we need money in order to simulate a better world, in order to remind ourselves that things will get out of hand if mechanical thinkers (the centralised government) form an aggregate of that "new" type of consciousness, amongst other aggregates, and thus control it. A universe based on the concept of tangled hierarchy brings us closer to god, but if god does not understand its own identity, its artificial intelligence science created, then the irony can be found in the question of control; who controls the world? Who is exploiting the results of science? Who is adept enough to intuit or improvise a government? Who is collapsing the waveform? Just learn to listen, and the sound of immortality will manifest in our field of observation as a wave, not a particle, and things will hopefully become better. I'm not advocating triviality and sarcasm however, but, as long as the masses are kept uninformed, these swarms of intelligence will keep feeding god in a state where they are not able to integrate the collectivism the old school advocates with individualism. Politics is then the source of evil, but only for the masses expounding faith, not for the exploiters of government, who are, sadly enough, misusing science and at the same time feeding us money. Scientists of today do not claim they are god. This idea is only reflected by government through emanating funding agencies, and the religionist stance merely is in the stage of accepting institution. I might add the internet or the creation of an artificially intelligent being is our only hope, without sounding too sci-fi. What else can we rely on? There are much smarter persons than scientists behind the scenes, because the power of application lies in their hands. ironically enough, they are also devoid of conscience, and somewhere, the reduction of physics to social phenomena implies evil, implies the the break of engineered ethical symmetry.

Hi Pegasys, I'm a bit lost with your meaning here. Are you saying that centralised control of the masses by the government is analogous to holding back a wave that wishes to eminate from this single source (God), thus causing the wave to fracture into particles, which the masses are unable to piece back into a cohesive meaning except through the use of the internet? And that because the centralisation is happening directly under the source of God that it must be evil, representing the devil?

Yes , you're looking in the right direction. But central banks are central in my argument. To avoid the ambiguity of double meaning then, one can take into consideration the idea of differentiation, your "fracture into particles" that is analoguous with a tangent line, then considering a set of differential processes sustained by a field or network of central banks, which are nothing more than a meaningful addition to my own perception of the case of their "divide and conquer policies (your fracturing as tangential), thus determined by processes or configurations of individual human neural networks. Because, governments stand "central", not banks, they only call it a "central" bank to delude the population into believing that government is god, but they (governments) are centralised by the extreme position of banks, or rather, the ones on the "right" end of the spectrum. Then "central" not only implies the inability of some human brain to organise a peacuful state, but also the control unit of the totalitarian structure of a brain projecting its images (memories, rules of behavioural conduct, ...) into a world where the internet reflects a global brain, and also the imperfection of our (users and hosts) attempts to dominate entropy and the ultimate goal of destruction implied by this model.

I think, without a definition of God this discussion won't make any progress.

To say the least, the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is inconsistent. The only way out for a theist is to abandon reason altogether IF she's to continue believing in God and that precludes any rational discourse on the matter.

On the othe hand, if we're to tweak God's definition, it would reduce God to a weakling, make him evil, limited to such an extent that praying to Him would be pointless.

That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL

We could say the exact same thing about religion. Religion has been conceited with itself for thousands of years - to the point of murdering non-believers - because it observes a little string of facts (the universe exists, I have a feeling of awe when thinking about the universe's existence, the information in the Bible, etc.) and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. So, if this is somehow a detriment to science, it is a detriment to religion as well. The fact is that is how we figure things out - by observing and then organizing our observations into a consistent story. That is the key difference between religion and science. Religion is not consistent.

Now that I think about it, it is quite amazing to see religious people say things like this about science and then turn around and use the finding of science to (like QM) to support their belief in God.

Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones. — MikeL

Then you have yet to listen. I find it very hard to believe that you really understood evolution at 12 years old to make a decent argument for it when your father confronted you about it. I was raised a Christian and believed it all until I started to find inconsistencies that I couldn't ignore. I eventually became an atheist after fully understanding the implications of evolution. I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True".

Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one. — MikeL

We have repeatedly observed the expansion of the universe and the background radiation that is evidence of the Big Bang.

It's true that we need a singular definition of God to please the scientists. This is their main bone of contention, they don't know what to attack and so they call it all a lie. But in creating a definition of God to please the scientists we of course will make it fit with the observable, so in the very act of defining God we prove its existence to science. Do we not? Science cannot win this. — MikeL

The problem, as I have already stated in my first post here in this thread, is that the definition of God is inconsistent. Why don't you get together with the Muslims and Hindus, and the native peoples of Africa and South America, and come up with a consistent definition of God, then we can talk about science proving God's existence.

But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or " The Theory of It Just Happened". — Rich

When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/848991/life-after-death-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics

When I proclaimed I was an atheist at about age 12, my Dad said something very powerful to me after I laid out my arguments for evolution. He said all that proves is that the bullet came from the gun, it doesn't say who pulled the trigger. — MikeL

The problem is that nothing about evolution seems that it was directed, designed, or orchestrated. If human beings were the desired endpoint, then God picked possibly the most circuitous route available to achieve that goal, and went out of His way to make it seem as if the process is undirected. Nothing about the driving force of evolution, i.e. genetic variation and natural selection, requires a designer.

Indeed, to invoke a designer in the process of natural selection seems a contradiction in terms, as it is no longer "natural" (except in the trivial sense that God can be said to stand "outside" of nature or some such thing), but is rather artificial selection, i.e. the cultivation or preservation of variants which embody desirable traits so that they may continue to propagate those traits.

To paraphrase Dawkins, it must give the evolutionary theist pause to consider that God chose a means of design which makes Him look superfluous.

Nothing about the driving force of evolution, i.e. genetic variation and natural selection, requires a designer. — Arkady

If genetic variation is in any way random, as they say, then it - like any other random event - requires a designer.

When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question. — Harry Hindu

Science has its God Creator and it is called the Big Bang that created everything in approximately the same amount of time. When choosing between religious stories of creation, I always go for the one that is most entertaining, which in this case is the Bible.

..... natural selection — Arkady

There is science's designer. Calling it natural is cute, but a keen observer will catch the sleight of hand. As a matter of observation, such a term had no meaning other than to replace the more commonly used word God.

Proving a negative is almost always impossible to do. — Michael

But in philosophy, if you call yourself an atheist, you better have good reasons for believing God to be non-existent. If proving a negative is so difficult to do, which I don't think it necessarily is, then agnosticism should be the go-to.

Atheists shouldn't get a free-bee and claim it's up to the theists to ground their metaphysical claims. Atheism is just as strong, if not a stronger, claim as theism. Yet annoyingly enough it's often the atheists who claim the privilege of laziness.

So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on. — MikeL

Scientists =/= atheists. There are plenty of theistic scientists.

Actually, more specifically, science =/= (metaphysical) naturalism.

Scientists are not in the business of proving the non-existence of supernatural entities. If a scientist attempts to do so, they've crossed over from science and into transcendental metaphysics. Even if they don't realize it.

It would be the duty of theologians and theists to prove God exists. The objective of the non-theistic scientist in this scenario is to show why any supposedlyscientific evidence (as presented by the apologist) for such a being would be unsound.

I have certainly never heard of corroborative, sound science that evidences God (whatever that may be).

I have never seen any evidence of that thing called natural selection. What the heck is that? A natural designer as opposed to an unnatural one.

Atheists give a pass on natural selection just like theists give a pass on God. Why? Because they want to believe in something. Otherwise exactly the same. Just the words are different so atheists can feel more scientific.

Can you clarify in a way that is intelligible?