Humans are programmed to find order whether it exists or not. We believe we see order even in random arrangements Consider how many see the face of Jesus in a piece of toast.. — Real Gone Cat

What you describe is not seeing order where there is none, it is a misinterpretation of the order which is there, and that is very common. A piece of toast is an instance of order, saying that it is Jesus' face is a misinterpretation.

But why must the cause be divine? THAT is not self-evident. — Real Gone Cat

It is because this is what defines "divine", so it is true by definition. It makes no sense to ask why is the creator of the universe "divine", because "divine" is simply the word we use to refer to the creator. You could use some other random word, but then you'd miss the convention. It's like asking why the river consists of "water". It's the word we use. You could use some other random word but you'd miss the convention.

A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:
Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case. — 180 Proof

When I first started posting on this forum I noticed that you seemed to know a lot more about the history of philosophy than I do. So, I thought I might learn something from you. But I eventually learned that most of your replies to my posts can be summed-up in two words : "boo" & "hiss". Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally.

I've never been able to understand exactly what the sore point is, except that perhaps I don't pay homage to some authoritative scientists & philosophers, as listed in your post. I'll admit that I can't help being ignorant of a lot of the history of philosophy. In college, I took basic courses in all the major disciplines of Science. Yet the only philosophy course I took was "Logic", and that was a Math requirement. Consequently, I have a better-than-average understanding of science-in-general. But the only philosophers that I'm somewhat familiar with, are Plato & Aristotle --- who basically wrote "the book" on philosophy for the next 2500 years. As some wit observed, about "variations on a theme", it's all "footnotes to Plato".

Anyway, I only dove into philosophy seriously after I retired -- just a few years ago --and began to construct a broad-but-coherent worldview, for my own personal use. The prompt for that on-going project was the conjunction of two paradigm-shifting innovations in 20th century science : Quantum & Information theories. So, I'm trying to weave those disparate scientific concepts into a holistic & consistent philosophical worldview, for my own personal application. Yet, there are plenty of practicing scientists, who are also exploring the philosophical implications of an Information-based universe. And, as you so astutely noted, my personal BothAnd philosophy is merely an update of ancient Golden Mean & Moderation principles for a philosophical life, updated for the current polarized context of adamant Either/Or positions..

Anyway, my general posting policy is to ignore your replies to my posts, because they seldom have anything positive to contribute. They seem to be mostly polarized shout-downs & heckles. However, I must thank you for the links to Dialectic articles. They do seem to be relevant to my thesis, but I assume you were actually trying to pigeonhole me into some easily ridiculed historical positions. Since, as a novice, I'm not well-read in the doctrines you listed above, I have been forced to "reinvent the wheel" to suit a 21st century worldview and context. My "variation" on a long-running philosophical theme was incidental to the thrust of a novel perspective that the venerable philosophers you listed were completely ignorant of. I'm just a layman working alone, while scientific & philosophical pioneers are forging new trails into the unknown territory of information-based Mind & Matter. :cool:

PS__Your dismissal of my references to "Relativity" & "Superposition", indicates that you have no idea what aspects of those concepts I'm talking about. FWIW, I make my case in more detail in the thesis and blog.

Philosophical Attitude :
Karl Jasper submits that “he who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought, he who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition. He who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to question. He who acknowledges no mystery is no longer a seeker, because he humbly acknowledges the limit of possible knowledge. Karl jasper concluded that developing the philosophical attitude opens our mind to the unknowable that is revealed at those limits.”
https://medium.com/@TosinOlufeyimi/why-we-need-to-develop-the-philosophical-attitude-ea06f34bab94

The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

A Universe Built of Information :
"In the long journey of the human mind attempting to decode the workings of reality, one trusted companion has to be abandoned: the materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview."
___ James B. Glattfelder, physicist
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally. — Gnomon

Don't flatter yourself. :sweat:

I [only] take issue with ... mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories"). — 180 Proof

As in old posts where I've charitably elaborated on your specific case, sir:

Speaking for myself, I've criticized your not attempting to do philosophy here on a site dedicated to making such attempts and dialectically discussing them. Criticism has engendered from you only defensive sophistry and incorrigibly doubling-down on woo. For all of your sincere and speculative exertions, Gnomon, your profound misunderstanding of philosophy is gleefully conspicuous and tediously dogmatic. — 180 Proof

Your obstinate pesistence when faced with sound criticisms of your pet "theories" by myself and several other members suggests an unreflective, dogmatic mindset at odds with your own stated preference for 'open-minded speculation', and so

Nonetheless, I ask you too, Gnomon: why do you post on a philosophy (i.e. contra sophistry, pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps) website instead of a site dedicated to New Age (esoteric) "theories" :sparkle: ... — 180 Proof

where members tend much more to be, like you, less scientifically, philosophically & religiously literate, pedantic or rigorous than we (often) are here on TPF? :nerd:

But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin: — 180 Proof

I guess this question scares you too. :roll:

Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. — Gnomon

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. It is more or less the case of asking someone to show evidence of ‘a round sound washing a cup of yellow yesterday weekend’. Evidence of any kind can only be presented when what is being asked of is clear.

Given that the concept of ‘deity’ commonly thrown around is at best extremely nebulous or, at worst, completely nonsensical, how can anyone provide something called ‘evidence’ for such a highly ambiguous or half-hearted fogy concept?

Point being, talking about something literally ‘outside’ of space and time is to talk about something outside of human experience. Which means it is literally nothing to us because we cannot know what we cannot know.

I hope we can agree that what we cannot know is not even a ‘what’. That we can merely pose a question about some vague idea does not make it anything other than an expression of humans doing human things.

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. — I like sushi

Actually, it's not that simple. For the reductive methods of empirical science, there is no way to analyze a Holistic concept into its constituent parts. Because, by definition, a Whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's not really a "shortfall" for physical Science, though. But it's an opportunity for theoretical Philosophy to pick-up the slack. Actually, there is a new approach that some call "Holistic Science" (HS), but is better known as "Systems Science" (SS). Unfortunately, like Philosophical conjectures, the conclusions of HS & SS are unlikely to be conclusively proven by empirical evidence*1. Human beliefs will always remain beyond the scope of standard scientific methods.

Regrettably, non-reductive methods are often indiscriminately ridiculed as "pseudoscience". Nevertheless, SS remains a useful approach for the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology & Sociology, which seldom produce final "proven" Facts. What they do offer is rational insights into confusing complex systems. Ironically, the holistic systematic procedures used are almost indistinguishable from the traditional methods of philosophical "thought experiments". Therefore, they could conceivably be applied to such perennial stumper questions, such as "what existed before the Big Bang", or" why do people believe in an invisible deity". :smile:

Holism in science :
Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Systems science :
To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems. The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, technology, computer science, engineering, and social sciences. . . .
The best known research institute in the field is the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, dedicated to the study of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science

A Theory of Almost Everything :
Santa Fe Institute, the self-anointed headquarters of complexity. ... is our best means of distinguishing science from pseudo-science.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/books/a-theory-of-almost-everything.html

*1. String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity are usually considered legitimate Science, even though their conjectures are unlikely to yield any empirical confirmation in our lifetime. Perhaps the Santa Fe Institute, as it gains legitimacy, will be emboldened to take-on the ultimate Systems questions about the conditional existence of the universe. Until then, that job will fall to non-institutional philosophers.

Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’.

Theoretical Physics and such are not exactly pseudoscience. There are some highly speculative ideas and some more tangible ones. You are asking what can be said about ‘god’ and I am saying nothing of worth at all if said ‘god’ is defined as existing in some beyond, in a realm wholly removed and outside of human conceptualisation.

If we are talking about something ‘outside’ of space and time all we have are some mathematical equations that do not really tell us about any ‘reality’ because reality to us is space and time.

A scientific conjecture without "nonphysical" woo: mass–energy–information equivalence principle.

↪Gnomon
Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’. — I like sushi

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? That list would include the "great skeptic" Voltaire.

Speaking of "smart people", is it not interesting that Albert Einstein often used the word "god" in reference to the unsolved mysteries of the world? Obviously, he is not referring to the various popular definitions of gods & God. Wouldn't you like to know what all the fuss is about, before you begin to dissect the general concept of deity into specific "details". Is the OP question a legitimate topic for discussion on a philosophy forum?

Once we have established that there is some reasonable basis for the plethora of religious ( celestial superheroes) & philosophical (First Cause) cosmologies, we can take those reasons seriously. What is common to all of them? Only then, can we treat the OP topic with respect. After all, it's asking about "scientific grounds", not "scriptural" or "emotional" grounds for the widespread god-concept among humanity. What is it about the real world that causes people to look beyond their physical senses for a universal Cause? :smile:


"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
___Voltaire

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
___Voltaire

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
___Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
___Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
___Albert Einstein

The floor is yours. Say something.

:100: :up:

:clap:

It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument — Gnomon

That's why it's ahead of the pack (the quarrel aye vs. nay is a never-ending story).

You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui?

Audi alteram partem: Let's hear the other side (as well).

↪Gnomon
The floor is yours. Say something. — I like sushi

Thanks, but I've already given my reply to the OP. Other, than that, I'm letting Voltaire and Einstein speak for me. Their personal opinions on the topic are not scientific facts, but philosophical inferences. :smile:

You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui? — Agent Smith

This forum is supposed to be a meeting place for philosophical dialogue. and the Site Guidelines say : "Don't start a new discussion unless you are: a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you." No-one is trying to force "opposing sides to join hands". Instead, each side is allowed to present an argument, pro or con, regarding the topical question or comment. For an engagement to work though, it takes two to tango.

Unfortunately, some posters get stuck on the "adversarial" step, and never make it to the "collaboration" station. So, they try to shut the door to further discussion, by demanding concession to a specified authority. But that tactic seldom works when there are strong motives on both sides. Some of the forum's longest-running threads are also the most contentious. So, the failure to communicate, or to "reach the finish line simultaneously" may be an indication of serious philosophical or political polarization. And "adversarial collaboration" requires identifying "diagnostic points of divergence", and a willingness to reach an agreement. The divergent topics are pretty clear, but the agreement stage may be a long time coming.

So, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for a break-through. After all, we are still debating some of the same topics that Plato & Aristotle raised 2500 years ago : "God", "Consciousness", "Free Will", etc. There's a common aphorism : "It's the journey, not the destination that matters.". Which acknowledges that you may never reach your desired destination. That's why I'm not trying to convert anyone to my personal worldview. Instead, by submitting my perspective to opposing views, I can learn it's deficiencies & weaknesses. As Nietszche said, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". :joke:

Philosophical dialogue is a mutual inquiry based on the principle that the more points of view there are, the better we understand what there is to understand. There are no winners and no losers - it is open, based on collaboration.
https://lepole.education/en/philosophy/32-practice-of-philosophy.html?start=4

adversarial collaboration rests on identifying the most diagnostic points of divergence
between competing theories, reaching agreement on precisely what they predict, and then designing
experiments that directly test those diverging predictions.
science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6545/911

Religion for some time has been trying to make amends with science -which has been moving farther and farther into the realm of empiricism (and only rightly so).

I do not think that religion and science should necessarily agree with each other though. We need religion for our morality and we need science for our rationality. In the greater modern times one will be equally needed to the other.

We need religion for our morality — chiknsld

God, I hope not.

I'm sorry, I meant in terms of distinguishing between science and religion. Of course you could just as easily get your morals from ethics or some other subject in the liberal arts.

Thanks for the explanation. The two sides of a debate could thrash out the sticking points, identify where they disagree and come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to settle their differences.

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? — Gnomon

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof.

To say I am not interested in this couldn’t be much further from the truth. Religion and religious traditions have fascinated for a long time.

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??). — Gnomon

This is evidence of a sort. Someone believing something does not make it true (obviously). I have stated that I have experienced something that I regard as being what people refer to as ‘experiencing god,’ but the issue is that I am fairly aware how one experience can be viewed differently from different perspectives. All I can say is that there is something acutely important and powerful in the experience.

Such experiences happen to many people from all walks of life. The underlying theme is how difficult it is to express this to someone who has not experienced anything similar whilst simultaneously having the deep desire to do so because no one in their right mind would want to keep it to themselves.

I think the best way to talk about it would be something like how art can appeal to someone in such a powerful manner. Dawkins, as someone else mentioned, is moved to tears when listening to music. The experience I am talking of is something like that but it is universal.

I do not call it ‘god’ but I can easily see how someone else would. My first thought at having the most vivid and intense experience of my life was ‘why me? Surely someone else has had this, but if they have then why the hell are they not shouting about it?’. It was then I realised something along what I experienced had clearly been experienced by many others and that was why religions existed - some had the ability to express the experience more fully than others and people could not help but listen (as happened to myself briefly where everyone I met I seemed so easily able to connect with).

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the explanation. The two sides of a debate could thrash out the sticking points, identify where they disagree and come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to settle their differences. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the theory. But, in practice, the core disagreement may be so wide & rigid that mutuality is impossible. When that happens, I call it a "political" dispute, instead of a "philosophical" dialogue. On this forum, the core issue seems to be focused on the authority of Science, envisioned as having monolithic dominion over certain kinds of questions, including "norms" & "values", but especially concerning Metaphysics.

For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's & Ptolemy's physics & metaphysics as the final authority to settle dissension within its ranks. Today, Ari is out of favor, and Ptolemy is discredited. So capital "s" Science has taken their place as ultimate arbiter, at least for believers in doctrinaire Scientism. In general, that absolute trust in empirical Science, as opposed to theoretical Philosophy, was mandated by proponents of Logical Positivism (aka Logical Empiricism). Ironically, that movement has boldly crossed-over into the "Magisterium" of Religion. Hence, it seems to serve as a sort of religion-substitute for its adherents.

Although they may not realize that they have been indoctrinated with an anti-philosophy attitude, a few posters on this forum feel that their mission is to root-out heretics, who insist on defying the sovereignty of Science, by delving into Metaphysics, and by insisting that there is more to Reality (e.g. Mind) than just Matter & Physics. Therefore, it's that "sticking point" which blocks some attempts to reach "mutually acceptable agreements". Undaunted, some of us soldier on, buoyed by faith in FreeWill & Reason, to explore the meta-physical mysteries of our world, and especially the human Mind. :smile:

PS__Disclaimer : These are just my personal opinions, not those of The Philosophy Forum.


Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values. . . .
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed meaningless.
http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm

I was just turning this matter over in my head and this: Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist & atheist is adamant that the theory of evolution (ToE) is a fact i.e. it's true.

I just remembered science doesn't work that way. Scientific theories aren't true; they're, at best, provisionally/tentatively true and it feels wrong to even label them as such. Scientific theories are the best explanatory models for observed phenomena but they aren't true. If you google science fallacy of affirming the consequent you'll know what I'm talking about.

As for observations and finding patterns in them (laws of nature), this isn't the exclusive domain of science; George Lemaître (co-discoverer of the Big Bang), a catholic priest, is proof of that.

What is it then that makes science science? Hypotheses and theories of course, but for better or worse truth is N/A to them.

To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether.

That is rather garbled. Science relies on predictive and explanatory models. We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results.

True in mathematics is a matter of abstract truths. Such absolute truths exist only in abstraction NOT in nature (or if they do it seems impossible to me that they could be shown as absolute truths).

At the base level the grounding for all experimentation is not utterly solid. Descartes tried to reach for such and Husserl did too. Husserl basically came to admit to himself that there is not reaching any ultimate grounding but reaching for it is nevertheless a worthwhile task - he was not fond of ‘conclusions’.

Science relies on predictive and explanatory models — I like sushi

:up:

We don’t suddenly state Newton’s Laws are ‘not true’ in the colloquial sense because they are still capable of giving highly accurate results. — I like sushi

Predictions are based on laws of nature - sensing patterns in the way matter & energy behaves - and is distinctly neutral territory in the science vs. whatever debate.

Science is largely an activity in hypothesizing/theorizing. Newton famously confessed "hypothesis non fingo". In other words, Newton had no hypothesis for gravitation and so Newton being true/false is moot.

Come to think of it, Newton's work is incomplete or only half-finished for he had no explanation for his equations. Einstein changed all that with his theory of relativity (matter bending space). At this point only can we discuss whether a scientific theory is true/false and as we all know it's a logical fallacy to claim them to be true from experimental evidence (converse fallacy).

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings.

The ‘Laws of Nature’ are based on the assumption that they exist. This assumption just happens to have produced fruitful results, but at the end of the line it might just be that the said ‘Laws’ are in a constant state of flux and that our finite and minuscule perspective merely makes our predictive models seem more reliable than they are.

That said, we seem to have done pretty well as a species in terms of understanding in part the ‘machinations’ of nature :)

I cannot comprehend anyone in the distant future ever looking back at Newton and saying ‘What an idiot!’ (in terms of gravity) yet for those that believed in a flat Earth on the back of a giant turtle I can.

Just read the first line and it is wrong. Predictions are based on the assumptions that there are features of nature common and repetitive enough to allow for accurate readings. — I like sushi

I believe we're talking about the same thing but with different words.

Predictions, we all know, is based on a pattern (extending it to be precise) aka the laws of nature. Anyone with an advanced degree in math and the right equipment can detect a mathematical pattern in nature.

Explaining the pattern (the laws of nature) is the next step. Hypotheses are formulated and appropriate predictions are made. When predictions match a hypothesis we say that hypothesis is, after being evaluated, based on other criteria, against other competing hypotheses, best, not true.

Laws of nature are descriptive. They are either true or not (correspondence theory of truth)

Hypotheses/Theories are predictive/retrodictive. We use them to foretell the future and also explain the past . They are not true although they can be falsified when predictions fail to actualize.

Darwin's theory of evolution is one that hasn't been contradicted by observation (it isn't false); nevertheless, it isn't true. It's, as some say, just a theory. Even so, it's the best one we have (at the moment).

I was being a tad pedantic ;)

I was being a tad pedantic — I like sushi

I'm but a novice. Learning, when does it end, eh?

Death will come one day. I promise :)

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof. — I like sushi

Apparently, he was not questioning any particular god-concept, but merely the almost universal notion of some transcendent power over the world. Most of the world's religions hold that their supernatural authority (Lord) must be worshiped in order to receive blessings, or to avoid punishments. I suspect it's that intervening (blessing & cursing) Western (Abrahamic) god-model that the OP assumes may require some empirical evidence in a skeptical age. Almost all popular religions teach that their god, if properly motivated, can override Nature, and sometimes even human actions, on their behalf. That's the one I replied to in the negative. Empirical science has no evidence, one way or the other, about such extra-mundane beliefs.

Before the advent of modern science, most people were mystified by the vagaries of Nature, which seemed as unpredictable, mercurial, & capricious as the behavior of their human leaders. But, there are other, more philosophical, and mostly Eastern (TAO), notions of transcendent power, that make no claims of placatable deities. In those cases, the deity or deities were presumed responsible for both the good and the bad events in the world (Good & Evil). Hence, a Stoic attitude was the best way to think about the inexplicable positive or negative effects of Nature on human welfare. Ironically, such apathy is almost indistinguishable from our modern concept of Nature as an automatic mechanism. Consequently, our scientists feel no qualms about tinkering with dangerous natural processes, in order to make them more agreeable to human wishes.

Unfortunately, Stoicism & Scientism, are not very attractive to the average human, who is more inclined to pray for instant & personal help, rather than to wait for human ingenuity to learn to control tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, plagues, insurrections, civil wars, and so forth, with technology instead of magic. Those more philosophically inclined though, may still find the general notion of First Cause, or Cosmic Force, or Tao helpful to make sense of a bewildering world. From that cosmic perspective we are all parts of a universal Whole.

Since the Cosmos as-a-whole is "more than the sum of its parts: it is both Immanent & Transcendent. So, you can call it "GOD", or "TAO", or "LOGOS", or simply "Nature", as you please. However, there will still be no empirical evidence for that Holistic concept. The affirmation is merely philosophical, rational, & theoretical. So, the answer to the OP is still negative. :cool:


Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like,
___Wikipedia

Stoic physics :
The Stoics often identified the universe and God with Zeus, as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. The Stoic God is not a transcendent omniscient being standing outside nature, but rather it is immanent—the divine element is immersed in nature itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics

To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether. — Agent Smith

I agree. Science is about provisional facts. But some of us still feel the need for some ultimate arbiter of Truth. That feeling may be the same imperative need that motivated the ancient prophets, who tried to go over the head of irascible autocratic kings, by appealing to a King of Kings. In this case though, the Truth-giver is imagined as a sort of a collective hive-mind, composed of officially-frocked scientist priests. Anyway, for the prophets of Absolute Truth, there is no room for independent-minded, woo-mongering, uncertain, flakey philosophers. :joke:


Why Science Is Not Final Arbiter of Truth :
For far too long, science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge (except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect).

* What drives us onward in the work of science is precisely the sense that there are truths out there to be discovered, truths that once discovered will form a permanent part of human knowledge.--Steve Weinberg, 2001 (1)
* ...all scientific knowledge, however acquired, is inherently provisional.--Ian Tattersall, 2008 (2)
* It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3)
* Science is not about final truth or "facts"; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses, until they are extremely well-supported.--Donald P. Prothero, 2007 (4)
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2681