Does current science prove the existence of god?

[seoulsoul]

So here’s the story. My girlfriend has been trying to get me to go to church for awhile now, and I basically agreed the idea was fine, but was not really interested in going. Then, I decided to give it a try. I went to a couple of Christian services and found the people nice, sincere, and interested in improving themselves and their lives. All these things I think are great. The Pastor seemed dedicated and motivated by a desire to help others.

But then, in his sermon he brought up the book “the Case for a Creator”. (http://www.leestrobel.com/) And he said it was irrefutable evidence for the existence of god. I thought “wow, I should check this out”. I did check it out, and it turned me off to all the previous experiences I had had with this particular church. The conclusions seem very broad, and most of the references are to books written by the very person making the argument.

I guess I’m saying, religious services that help folks with life and bring people together seem like a good thing IMHO, but once science is brought in to justify the faith the whole argument seems to fall apart. I’m not a scientist, but have found books like “the Fabric of the Cosmos” (http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/greene_main.htm) and “the User Illusion” (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375412882) very interesting, and I think they tend to point out the fact that, ultimately, we really don’t know much about our universe and our consciousness, and that there are very many different interpretations of how to view reality. We don’t know about the milliseconds that elapsed after the beginning of the universe. We don’t know how many dimensions there are. We don’t know if we are all really living on a “brane” that is eternally colliding with another such “brane”.

A believer could say that these issues must be accepted/resolved by faith. But these days a lot of church goers claim that religious assertions are backed up by current scientific discovery.

Does current science prove the existence of god?

[Der Trihs]

I guess I’m saying, religious services that help folks with life and bring people together seem like a good thing IMHO, but once science is brought in to justify the faith the whole argument seems to fall apart. Religion is built on faith; science is based on facts. The two don't mix very well.

A believer could say that these issues must be accepted/resolved by faith. But these days a lot of church goers claim that religious assertions are backed up by current scientific discovery. Envy; science makes religion look bad, because it actually works.

Does current science prove the existence of god?Nope. There isn't even any evidence for a god, much less proof.

[John Mace]

Science can prove the existence of some advanced form of life that might be capable of creating the earth and the life on it, but science cannot prove the existence of a supernatural God. That simply follows from the definitions of "science" and "supernatural God".

[Der Trihs]

Science can prove the existence of some advanced form of life that might be capable of creating the earth and the life on it, but science cannot prove the existence of a supernatural God. That simply follows from the definitions of "science" and "supernatural God".Well, it could if the supernatural God manifested visibly and said "Hi ! God here !"; but then we wouldn't need science to do so anyway.

[seoulsoul]

Well, it could if the supernatural God manifested visibly and said "Hi ! God here !"; but then we wouldn't need science to do so anyway.

I agree with you, but what about the claims made in the book(s) I mentioned?

[Loopydude]

Supposedly science proves nothing at all, so the question, as posed, is philosophically incorrect, or whatever.

I think if God simply chose to do something starkly obvious and incredibly outlandish in broad daylight, repeatedly, perhaps even on-demand for impious and nitpicky sceptics the world over, many would throw in the towel and say, yes, as far as I'm concerned, there's a God, or some reasonably all-powerful fascimile thereof. In terms of logic, you don't prove anything empirically in this matter, you just feel confident of it. You'd never know as a truth if you're dealing with mischievous aliens who've jacked into your brain, or that you're living in a simulation, and hackers are screwing with you for their entertainment, or any of an infinity of other equally unlikely and thoroughly untestable possibilities which could nonetheless provide an explanation for what has been witnessed. Sort of along the lines of what JM said, the "supernatural" is either completely meaningless, or a "matter of faith", and poking around for evidence is simply beside the point. I am being only slightly more longwinded in an attempt to leapfrog another maddening rehashing of these insoluble, and likely completely bereft, preliminaries in GD.

[Der Trihs]

I agree with you, but what about the claims made in the book(s) I mentioned?Not having read them, I can't talk about the details, but just because we don't understand everything doesn't mean we should invoke the God of the Gaps. Besides, like John Mace said, there's no way science could detect a supernatural god - or supernatural anything - unless it manifested physically. Then, there's the problem that postulating a god doesn't explain anything; it just says "God did it; don't ask questions."

[bup]

I'm not familiar with the arguments in "Case for a God." What *are* the broad arguments? That'd help.

The only arguments I'm familiar with are "science has gotten us to here - but there's still this part we can't explain. Ergo God!" I don't think that fallacious reasoning needs deconstruction.

[Bytegeist]

The only arguments I'm familiar with are "science has gotten us to here - but there's still this part we can't explain. Ergo God!" I don't think that fallacious reasoning needs deconstruction.
One other position you'll often hear in such works is basically the Strong Anthropological Argument: the universe is too amazingly accomodating to life for it to be entirely coincidental, or mechanistic, or meaningless. Therefore, there must be a God who created the universe with just the right rules and ingredients to make us possible. (Whether Case for a God roasts this old chestnut, I don't know. I'm just saying it circulates around.)

Of course, it's the life that had to adapt to the universe, not the other way around. And in a universe where intelligent life isn't possible, there will be no intelligent life to make arguments, write books, or subscribe to message boards.

[Voyager]

Science can prove the existence of some advanced form of life that might be capable of creating the earth and the life on it, but science cannot prove the existence of a supernatural God. That simply follows from the definitions of "science" and "supernatural God".

Not only that, science has not come up with a set of facts for which a supernatural god is a very useful explanation. One could imagine evidence of miraculous events which, while not proving god, have god as a likely explanation. No such set of events is known.

For the OP: Do the facts that require god involve the parameters of the universe? It is commonly said that if they were different, no life, or the universe itself, could not exist. There are several explanations for this.

1. The parameters are interrelated in ways we don't understand yet, so their values are not random but in fact deteministic.
2. They are random, but there are many universes, and we are here to ask this question only in the unverse for which they are set properly.
3. Opal is god. (Sorry :) )

What other arguments do they have?

[UncleBeer]

I’m not a scientist, but have found books like “the Fabric of the Cosmos” (http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/greene_main.htm) and “the User Illusion” (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375412882) very interesting . . .
Then you may also enjoy, Has Science Found God (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591020182/qid=1149612356/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-4848664-6535918?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by Victor Stenger. Or any of his several previous books on physics and the supernatural. I believe he's got another one due out in early 2007.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, it could if the supernatural God manifested visibly and said "Hi ! God here !"; but then we wouldn't need science to do so anyway.

And even then -- how would we know that really was God, and not some other supernatural being -- or a natural being with technology much better than ours?

[Der Trihs]

And even then -- how would we know that really was God, and not some other supernatural being -- or a natural being with technology much better than ours?I was saying that science could then prove God's existence, not that he's actually God. :D

[John Mace]

Well, it could if the supernatural God manifested visibly and said "Hi ! God here !"; but then we wouldn't need science to do so anyway.
How would you distinguish that from a technologically advanced race of physical beings? You couldn't.

[Loopydude]

I think he fully agrees. There's a semantic problem here, but the gist is understood, from what I can gather.

[BrainGlutton]

How would you distinguish that from a technologically advanced race of physical beings? You couldn't.

Wonder why that never occurred to Moses or Abraham?

[Sage Rat]

Simply, no. At this current time, it neither proves nor eliminates any godly existences.

At this moment the best we've got is the big bang. How all that matter came into being, no idea.

However, given that obviously it somehow did come into existence, there is no reason to need for there to be a god. Saying that "Stuff can't just magically come into existence, thus there must have been a creator" doesn't work. All you're doing is shoving that magic off one level; instead of matter coming into existence suddenly, God comes into existence suddenly.

The other thing that science, and particularly computer science, will tell you is that there really is no need for there to be intelligence behind the development of life nor cognizance. As the saying goes, "A million monkeys typing...." You mix enough random chemicals around enough and eventually Darwinian evolution is going to start. Anything mixture that has an ability to stay put is going to keep staying and start advancing based on changes in the chemical environment, simply because, by definition, if it didn't it would disappear back--and the process restarts. Eventually though, one will get all the right rolls and it will advance.

[John Mace]

Wonder why that never occurred to Moses or Abraham?
Maybe it did. ;j

[ianzin]

No. And it never will.

The construct 'God' is defined, if it is defined at all, in terms which are not susceptible to evidence or the tools of empirical science. This is not an accident. Belief in 'God' is one instance of a closed system of thought, in which the conclusion is the same no matter what evidence is produced, or even if no evidence is produced. The sick patient recovers? Evidence of God's healing power. He dies? God knows what's best.

This being the case, there is no possibility that empirical science can present evidence for or against the premise that 'God exists'. The realm of science is that of the testable and falsifiable hypothesis. 'God exists' is no such hypothesis.

[bonzer]

One other position you'll often hear in such works is basically the Strong Anthropological Argument: the universe is too amazingly accomodating to life for it to be entirely coincidental, or mechanistic, or meaningless.

Emphasis added. More accurately, the Strong Anthropic argument. Or varients thereof.

The root's the same and it's a pretty common spelling confusion. Even amongst people who push this argument.

[Bytegeist]

More accurately, the Strong Anthropic argument.

When you're right, you're right. I wondered why Google wasn't turning up a good summary page.

(I did know the correct term, once upon a time. Honestly.)

[Der Trihs]

How would you distinguish that from a technologically advanced race of physical beings? You couldn't.How do you know that God isn't a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?

[Loopydude]

There's these wild ideas floating about the field of theoretical physics postulating sufficiently advanced races could create false vacua, manipulate them in such a way as to determine the physical constantants they will give rise to, and then simply allow them to evolve much like our own universe did. Perhaps they could even allow info. to tunnel into these baby universes from the parent universe so as to escape heat death, for instance, or at least procreate into a vacuum that would give rise to intelligent beings, and hence achieve a kind of immortality.

Whether or not this is a load of hooey I don't know or really care anymore.

What matters, I suppose, is this concept of a powerful creator that, whilst vast in its abilities, is still fully constrained by the laws of its sector, and can only endow others with laws according to its own limitations. It is not omnipotent, only mighty. I think omnipotence may be a concept so profound or absurd as to fall into the catagory of supernatural. The alien breeder of universes is not like God, then, if God is understood to be a supernatural Being.

[John Mace]

How do you know that God isn't a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?
I don't, but I see no evidence that He is, so I'm comfortable concluding that to the best of my knowledge He doesn't exist at all. You are, too, if I'm not mistaken.

[Der Trihs]

I don't, but I see no evidence that He is, so I'm comfortable concluding that to the best of my knowledge He doesn't exist at all. You are, too, if I'm not mistaken.Oh, definitely. I was speaking theoretically.

[Czarcasm]

I think that, if we were able to prove that some god-like being exists, it would cause more problems than it would solve. Every religious group out there would have the last of their doubts removed, and every last one of the little zealots would believe theat it was their god that had been proven to exist. If you think violence in the name of religion is bad now...

[Wesley Clark]

Studies on the power of prayer have been inconclusive to date, so I don't think God really interacts with us. As for the existence of God, I don't really know if there is any way to test that. If God doesn't interact with us (and the prayer studies show he doesn't) then I don't really know how we could test for God's existence.

[FriarTed]

The book referenced in the OP is Lee Strobel's THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, which is a rehashing of the Anthropic Principle & the Design arguments. Definitely not proof, but I still believe deserving of greater consideration than many here would grant.

[Thudlow Boink]

The Pastor seemed dedicated and motivated by a desire to help others.

But then, in his sermon he brought up the book “the Case for a Creator”. (http://www.leestrobel.com/) And he said it was irrefutable evidence for the existence of god. I thought “wow, I should check this out”. I did check it out, and it turned me off to all the previous experiences I had had with this particular church.Alas, many pastors know little about science, philosophy, or reasoned debate. A lot of pastor jobs require organizational/management/leadership skills and social/relational/helping people skills and intellectual/knowledge/scholarship expertise, and it's hard to find people who excel at all three.

Does current science prove the existence of god?I'm not sure it even matters, since even if science could prove God's existence, you're still a long way from all the characteristics and attributes and things that Christianity, or many another religion, teaches about God.

[Voyager]

The book referenced in the OP is Lee Strobel's THE CASE FOR A CREATOR, which is a rehashing of the Anthropic Principle & the Design arguments. Definitely not proof, but I still believe deserving of greater consideration than many here would grant.
Mind giving your rebuttal to the arguments against these that have been given both here and in many other threads? While you're at it, do you see these arguments supporting the case for the god you believe in, or some god in general?

[ElvisL1ves]

How do you know that God isn't a member of an advanced race; from another universe, perhaps ?
Who created them, then? :)

[vetbridge]

I think if God simply chose to do something starkly obvious and incredibly outlandish in broad daylight, repeatedly, perhaps even on-demand for impious and nitpicky sceptics the world over, many would throw in the towel and say, yes, as far as I'm concerned, there's a God
David Copperfield is God?
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=184794088&p=y84794794

[Loopydude]

Does Mr. Copperfield lack a brain, or is he on some level at least aware of the can of worms he's opening with that nonsense?

[vetbridge]

Does Mr. Copperfield lack a brain, or is he on some level at least aware of the can of worms he's opening with that nonsense?
BLASPHEMER!!!!!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Here's the wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_a_Creator) for Case for a Creator. It appears to consist of a bunch of interviews with ID proponents and Discovery Institute stooges. According to the wiki article, Strobel only interviews ID supporters (most of whom are uncredentialed in any relevant scientific field) and does not talk to anyone who is not a creationist. This is typical of Strobel. I have not read this particualr book but I have read some of his other "Case for..." books and his MO is always the same. He interviews "experts" who consist only of evangelical Christians. He seeks no rebuttals. He never interviews anyone who will not support what he already believes. He extropolates fallacious conclusions from contrived "evidence" (e.g. extropolating a specifically Christian God from the anthropic principle).

Strobel is one of the worst popular apologists your ever going to find (it's a tight race with Josh McDowell). Despite his pretext of Journalistic inquiry, he's really just a proselytizing blow hard preaching to the choir.

The answer to the OP is if science had proven the existence of God, you would have heard about it already. It wouldn't be something you would have to find out about from persusing the Christian section of Barnes & Noble.

[Bytegeist]

The answer to the OP is if science had proven the existence of God, you would have heard about it already.

Seems like they're still looking (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3546973.stm) though.

[Skald the Rhymer]

At the end of the book, does God disappear in a poof of logic?

[Der Trihs]

Who created them, then? :)Well, if they have god-level technology, they have time travel; perhaps they travelled back in time and created themselves. :D

[griffin1977]

Rather than poorly put together pseudo-scientific rants such as "the case for god", I would recommend Just Six Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465036732/qid=1149787861/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8767006-7086443?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

[ululate]

According to the wiki article, Strobel only interviews ID supporters (most of whom are uncredentialed in any relevant scientific field) and does not talk to anyone who is not a creationist. This is typical of Strobel. I have not read this particualr book but I have read some of his other "Case for..." books and his MO is always the same. He interviews "experts" who consist only of evangelical Christians. He seeks no rebuttals. He never interviews anyone who will not support what he already believes.

I'll go you one better by quoting Strobel's "expert" in The Case For Faith. Strobel presents a point of view he got from a rabbi; the "expert", who is Christian, responds as follows:

"Kreeft raised an eyebrow. 'For a rabbi, that's hard to understand, because the distinctively Jewish notion of God is the opposite of that,' he said."

That's the first chapter. Second chapter, Strobel talks to another expert; also a Christian, and also weighing in on Judaism. See, it's one thing to doubt the other miracles that Jesus performed, but coming back from the dead was a different kind of miracle: one it'd be harder to convince his Jewish disciples that he'd performed, and so one which by definition has extra evidence backing it. Because, well, "Jewish beliefs precluded anyone's rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world," and so the fact that they were swayed "despite their predisposition to the contrary" is especially cool.

So what did I learn from the second chapter? That neither Strobel nor his "expert" read the Old Testament, what with that being one of Elisha's signature miracles and all -- which is Strobel's usual level of competence, like Dio said. But the first chapter? Chronicling that a Jew and a Christian say different things about what the Jews believe, and that he listens to the Christian over the Jew? That's something special. That's downright helpful. That's a frickin' disclaimer.

[Othersider]

It's likely there are still some people out there who think science and theology must be mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure they aren't. Still, as several knowledgeable posters already said, science neither proves or disproves God's existence. Could it? Possibly. But I imagine if it had already, it'd be on the news or something all over the world and we'd all have heard about it by now. :)

[Der Trihs]

It's likely there are still some people out there who think science and theology must be mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure they aren't. Quite a few people, because they are. People have tried to mix the two together for centuries, and it never works. Science either disproves religious beliefs, or has nothing to say about them; religion corrupts science whenever it influences it.

[Voyager]

Quite a few people, because they are. People have tried to mix the two together for centuries, and it never works. Science either disproves religious beliefs, or has nothing to say about them; religion corrupts science whenever it influences it.
That mixing them doesn't work certainly doesn't prove that they are mutually exclusive - it just means that if they aren't, theology fails whenever challenged by science.

Sure, theology covering the "why" of things and science don't intersect. But for the past 2,000 years or so theology also covers the what and how. Theology is the original theory of everything. Just because non-fundamentalist theologies have retreated into being a theory of the inexplicable doesn't mean that we must ignore what they started as. We know more about science than people 1,000 years ago, but do Christians and others claim we know more about god?

[Der Trihs]

We know more about science than people 1,000 years ago, but do Christians and others claim we know more about god?That simply makes them more incompatible. Science advances; error is discarded and new facts are discovered. Religion is stuck in the Bronze Age.

[seoulsoul]

The answer to the OP is if science had proven the existence of God, you would have heard about it already. It wouldn't be something you would have to find out about from persusing the Christian section of Barnes & Noble.

In my post it's pretty clear I didn't find this book at B&N. :confused:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In my post it's pretty clear I didn't find this book at B&N. :confused:
I didn't mean "you" literally. I just meant that scientific proof for the existence of God would be front page, screaming headline, 24 hour news on every channel. It wouldn't be something that *one* could only find in a book which is *typically found in* the Christian section of chain bookstores. To put it bluntly, the genre of Strobel's books is Christian witness. They're not really journalistic exercises (despite the pretext) and they're certainly not science.

[seoulsoul]

I didn't mean "you" literally. I just meant that scientific proof for the existence of God would be front page, screaming headline, 24 hour news on every channel. It wouldn't be something that *one* could only find in a book which is *typically found in* the Christian section of chain bookstores. To put it bluntly, the genre of Strobel's books is Christian witness. They're not really journalistic exercises (despite the pretext) and they're certainly not science.

I understand now more better :smack: But I meant my question in a rhetorical sense

[seoulsoul]

At the end of the book, does God disappear in a poof of logic?

In the second book I mentioned, yes he does.

[seoulsoul]

Religion is built on faith; science is based on facts. The two don't mix very well.

Envy; science makes religion look bad, because it actually works.

Nope. There isn't even any evidence for a god, much less proof.

So why do so many mix the 2?

[Der Trihs]

So why do so many mix the 2?Envy and a desire for validation on the part of the believers.

[MaxTheVool]

religion corrupts science whenever it influences it.
I don't think this is quite fair. Many scientists, both in the past and present, are at least partly motivated towards scientific inquiry because of their faith, and their desire to explore (as they see it) God's creation. If your view (and, while I'm not religious, I have respect for this view) is that God created a miraculous universe full of incredible things, then what purer form of worship could there be than to explore and study those things?

[Der Trihs]

I don't think this is quite fair. Many scientists, both in the past and present, are at least partly motivated towards scientific inquiry because of their faith, and their desire to explore (as they see it) God's creation. That's not an attempt by religion to shape science; that's religion influencing someone's career path.

If your view (and, while I'm not religious, I have respect for this view) is that God created a miraculous universe full of incredible things, then what purer form of worship could there be than to explore and study those things?The problem is, not everything is wonderful; people who engage in that sort of "natural theology" tend to have their faces rubbed in that fact. They tend to respond one of three ways; deny that the unpleasant things exist, or feel betrayed and seesaw towards the position of hatred/contempt for nature, or they try to redefine "wonderful". For example IIRC correctly, the idea that sex is and should only be about reproduction came from religiously motivated studies of cows and sheep, with the result that the sexual behavior of such animals was interpeted as natural and therefore God's Will.

[Voyager]

That simply makes them more incompatible. Science advances; error is discarded and new facts are discovered. Religion is stuck in the Bronze Age.
If by incompatible, you mean religion doesn't work worth a damn answering scientific questions, then I agree. If by incompatible you mean that religion doesn't think it should be able to answer scientific questions, I disagree. 200 years ago many very rational religionists thought that scientific investigation would validate their god. Scientific discoveries, and Darwin especially, showed they were wrong. That many of the more rational religions today say that theology doesn't cover god is more a function of this failure than any inherent wisdom.

[Der Trihs]

If by incompatible, you mean religion doesn't work worth a damn answering scientific questions, then I agree. Yes.