I wonder if God may exist after all, despite our best efforts to logically prove he doesn’t.
I’ve been tossing around this idea. Science can’t really prove or disprove God, right? Science rests on certain assumptions, and at the very least in order to come within the realm of science, something has to be falsifiable. An omnipotent God isn’t falsifiable, so science is simply ill-equipped to deal with the question of God. That’s not to say that science should therefore asssume God’s existence. Actually, it means that science should continue on, assuming God’s non-existence, because science competely breaks down if you start throwing in ascientific variables like “God.”
But who’s to say that you can prove or disprove God with logic, either? I mean, logic seems to be a great thing, but there’s no way to logically prove the rules of logic themselves- they are assumptions. Sure they seem to work on just about everything we have encountered, but if God is transcendent then could he not also transcend things like logic? Even science tells us that there can be places (even theoretical ones) where rules like cause and effect can totally break down (singularities, etc.). Perhaps God simply is not subject to logic. God may very well be a kind of divine paradox. In fact, theological precedent already supports that idea what with mystery (the trinity for example) and all.
Setting aside the ramifications of such a God, I can at least accept the possibility that such a God may exist. This also squares with what little I know about Kierkegaard and his view of religion as inherently absurd, but not in a perjorative way.
I’ve thought about the possibility of a paradoxical God before, but the thoguht sort of coalesced better after I read a very good article about why religion is valuable even if you are an atheist.
Sailing to Byzantium 
Of course science has no obligation to prove the non-existence of god. But it does a fine job of seeking knowledge and beginning to answer the question of why humans posit a god in the first place.
So science will in fact never succeed at overturning ever grain of sand in the multiverse to prove the non-existence of god but every day it discovers new ways in which that which has been superstitiously ascribed to god in the past has an alternative and quantifiable explanation in the physical world.
This alone is enough for me to place both my hopes and doubts firmly in the trust of scientific method — until by and by we discover a better way, a brighter light than this “candle in the dark”.
PS. I really like your new page design.
I wonder what scientific test we can use to prove that the scientific method is the best (only, supreme, etc) way to know what is true? Aren’t we presupposing that only scientifically testable things are real? Which scientific test did we use to determine that?
I love science, but it has serious limitations. Science will never be able to test or verify the many very real, non-physical things such as the mind or thought.
Your sounding more and more like a Kabbalist. 🙂
I realize you wanted to set aside the implications of such a God, but if we accept such an entity, the next question must be “Therefore what?”
I’m not sure what such an unknowable God would mean to us. I can’t see it requiring our worship, our obedience, or a relationship with us outside that which already exists. It would seem to say: go about your lives as normal, as if I didn’t exist.
Dando,
I agree that science has limitations, but it is making serious inroads into explaining mind and thought on a purely physical basis. A better example would be trying to explain qualia (I suppose that qualia could be considered part of mind) which may very well be outside the grasp of science. We’ll see.
Another hard problem is why is there something rather than nothing. I doubt that science will ever answer that.
The problem with other epistemological methods is how unreliable they’ve been through history. Religion, for example, has probably asserted every contradictory thing possible in its 40,000 year history. If religious experiences have some truth content, it seems to be trapped, like qualia, in the mind of the observer so that it can’t translate perfectly into everyday life.
Science, on the other hand, has a pragmatic, proven track record of discovering public truths with demonstrable application to the real world. It may not be perfect, but it may also be the best thing we’ve got.
“I’m not sure what such an unknowable God would mean to us. I can’t see it requiring our worship, our obedience, or a relationship with us outside that which already exists. It would seem to say: go about your lives as normal, as if I didn’t exist.”
The problem of course is that you’d be applying a rational analysis to predict the desires of an inherently nonrational being.
That’s my point. A nonrational God cannot mean anything to us. We can’t answer the question: “Therefore what?” We can’t be sure that any decision we make in relation to a nonrational God is appropriate. We are forced to go about our lives ignoring God because we can’t get a foothold of understanding.
Many mystics would disagree. Many of my acquaintance have exhorted me that to know God we must suspend our rational thought, that as you’re pondering, God is inherently beyond rational apprehension. I just don’t know why I should therefore care about God. 😉
Well, yeah. I mean, it’s a bit of a poser. I think it would have to involve a Kierkegaard-style leap to faith, a nonrational decision to move toward a nonrational God.
Any supernatural entity with attributes can be verified scientifically (beyond a reasonable doubt). There are many attributes that are claimed in the Bible and Koran about the God of Abraham, some of which can be out and out proven to be false, and some can be shown to be highly unlikely.
If there are no attributes ascribed to an entity, then we use the concept known as “Occam’s Razer” to eliminate the unnecessary extra variable(s).
Albert Einstein:
“The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”
Perhaps this will help expand your knowledge in this area and answer some of your questions:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
I highly recommend this book (parts are summarized on the link above):
God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
by Victor J. Stenger
and
‘Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,’ by Daniel C. Dennett
Daniel Dennet has written several wonderful books.
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene, by Brichard Dawkins
A Brief History of Time, S. Hawking
Regards from Upgrade01a.wordpress.com
I have a few more links here as well and the beginnings of a short story with a lot of links to interesting conceptual and technological sites, as well as an attempt to be entertaining.
Singularities exist in Einsteins model. A very important concept to understand is that scientific model is not the same as the “thing” itself. A singularity points to a possible flaw or hole in the model, just as the wobble in the orbit of Mercury’s orbit pointed to a flaw in Newton’s gravitational model. Both Newtons and Einsteins models are still very good for nearly everything we humans do or can think about doing. We use Newton to fly to the moon and back. We use Einstein to make accurate GPS (GPS would be off by about 10 miles without taking Relativity into account).
This (singularities in black holes and at the so-called Big Bang in the Relativity model) is one reason why many scientist believe it will be Einstein’s model that will be adjusted when or if it is succesfully combined with Quantum Theory to product a Quantum-Gravity Model. Sting “theory” is one attempt at this.
S. Hawking successfully combined Relativity and Quantum mechanics in a limited way when he showed that radiation escapes from black holes, so they really “ain’t so black” afterall.
Any supernatural entity with attributes can be verified scientifically (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Not quite. I can define a supernatural entity which would defy all scientific tests quite easily: an invisible woolly mammoth which does not interact with our natural world in any form.
And here’s a less trivial example: a supernatural entity which upholds everything that happens in the natural world. It is the source of natural laws and therefore all things. It’s impact on the natural world is indistinguishable from the action of its natural laws.
Johathan – those are not attibutes in our Universe so nobody cares in the 1st case.
In the second case, the entity is not doing anything, since by definition, you are saying god is nature. Just call it nature then.
Your second case falls under the category “The Illusion of Design:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
From Victor J. Stenger:
“4. The Illusion of Design
1. Hypothesize a model God who is the creator and preserver of the physical universe, including Earth and the living organisms that abide on that planet.
2. Assume that model God plays an important, continuing role in guiding the development of life on Earth.
3. We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for design, purpose, and continuous outside action in the structures of those organisms.
4. No such empirical evidence can be found.
5. Science provides a purely material explanation for the development of those structures by mindless natural processes.
6. Earth and life do not distinguish between the model God and a model in which there is no God. That is, they do look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God such as the model God.
7. We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God like our model God, who is the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing creator and preserver of the physical universe including Earth and the living organisms that abide on that planet, does not exist.”
I’m a naturalist. I don’t believe in supernatural entities. However, there will always be a way to for supernaturalists to wiggle out of scientific detection.
In defense of my second example, this entity is supernatural and therefore has an existence outside of nature. It would therefore be inappropriate to call it nature because it is more than that. Even though our only experience of it is mediated by nature, it transcends nature. This is something like the panentheist position.
Yeah… but reasonable doubt and proof are far from the same thing. Something can be wildly unlikely and yet be so. Occam’s Razor isn’t a law of physics.
I agree with Kullervo and Blake. There could be a teapot orbiting the earth just always outside of the site of our most powerful telescopes too.
However, in the case of the God of Abraham, there are several attributes attributed to him/he/it that have a lot less places to wiggle out of than was true in the past.
Take this concept to the extreme and nothing is provable or disprovable. That is the fatalistic postmodernest approach.
Wiggle your god into rediculous directions… yes of course. I suppose there will still be followers too 😉
I question this statement:
Science will never be able to test or verify the many very real, non-physical things such as the mind or thought.
Who said that the mind or thought are non-physical things? We can predict them happening by observing physical changes in the brain, and we can observe them to be altered by inducing physical changes in the brain. They sound indubitably physical to me.
An omnipotent God isn’t falsifiable
again Victor J. Stenger
”
The Paradox of Omnipotence
1. Either God can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
1. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
1. If God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
1. Therefore god is not omnipotent.
“
A couple of things to consider, uPgRaD3:
1. You’re assuming that rules of logic would even apply to a being like God. That’s kind of the point of the post and therefore should be the point of the subsequent discussion.
2. You’re also assuming that this is some kind of public forum where a lively theism vs. atheism debate is welcome. You’re not necessarily right about that. I would suggest you read the “About” pages, and then do your best to either make useful, on-topic comments, or refrain from commenting at all.
“You’re also assuming that this is some kind of public forum where a lively theism vs. atheism debate is welcome.”
I appoligize if you feel that I was somehow debating theists. I was remarking on the post itself. I found this site by following the tag “atheism”. I wanted to give the author some alternative ways of thinking about the issue in the post. My mind was truely set and focused on the post itself. I was not trying to debate anything – just trying to add my thoughts and point out some of the issues I had with the remarks in the post itself.
I was merely pointing out some of the problems in the initial post -poorly? Perhaps, but not intentionally so. There are so many statement made that are simply not true, such as
“so science is simply ill-equipped to deal with the question of God.”
“Science will never be able to test or verify the many very real, non-physical things such as the mind or thought.”
What would be the meaning behind or purpose of a god that is so “transendent” and “beyond logic” that a human being could never comprehend “it” – “it” would not even apply, nor language, nor music, nor anything of substance or meaning that a person could appreciate?
If this were so, God would have no meaning relevent to any thinking entity. Thinking in those fuzzy terms leads one to end up thinking about nothing at all.
The post is part of a context, an ongoing internal monologue about God, religion, faith, and meaning.
I get the feeling that you are well-intentioned, but I would advise you to take a look at the posts on the “What’s Going On” page (there’s a link at the top) and get a sense of the direction of the dialogue before you jump right in with post-specific blinders on. You’re not the only atheist who comments here (by a long shot).
Your point has now been made. I am not ignorant to the structural problems with a nonrational God, but those problems are invariably based on rational thinking. While they are worth considering, they certainly don’t decide the issue. It’s a paradox, sure. But again, I’m proposing the possibility of a God that can exist despite paradox.
Seriously, I think it would be a good idea for you to read all of the pages at the top to get a sense of the continuity if you want to keep commenting here. You can probably skip the Mormonism page, since it’s more relevant to current and ex-Mormons.
you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
just think about it. you are using rational thought and discussion on the one hand, and on the other hand pretending to speak of the nonrational.
Answer this question in your own words please “afjkljf eef e d ?”
my final post on this topic
Okay, now you’re just being antagonistic, and I really don’t appreciate it. So quit it. Maybe it’s a good idea for that to be your last post on the topic. Anyway, who are you to tell me what I can have and what I can eat?
I think the post above my last post must have appeared at the same time. It was not there when I entered my last post.
I swear to you I was not trying to be antagonistic. You are right though, I have now read your “What’s going on Page” and I admit I do not understand your point-of-view. I think you misinterprete what my intentions are too!
Please feel free to delete any of my posts that you feel are out of context. I reached this post through the tag “atheism” I do not in any way mean to disrespect your point-of-view.
We posted at about the same time, I think. No worries, though. All I’m saying is that the conversation has both a context and a purpose. I’d be thrilled for you to take part, but I’d like you to keep the context and purpose in mind. That’s all.