What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Jon Miller]

God is not falsifiable

JM

[Whaleboy]

Why?

[Ben Kenobi]

For the same reason I was saying earlier. You can do two experiments, one in which God intervenes, and another where he does not. Even if there is absolutely no difference between the experiments, they can have two different results. You cannot go and test God in such a manner as to conclusively prove that he does not exist.

[Jon Miller]

because God is supernatural (be definition)

all science deals with is the natural world..

God is not within the realm of science

JM

[Whaleboy]

BK: My response to that is on my previous post

JM: Magnetism was considered to be supernatural 400 years ago, in this case, I would like to know why we consider God to be supernatural, asides from the problem of testing his behaviour as BK rightly asserts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it circular argumentation to assume that if something cant be explained by currently known natural explanations, then it probably didn't happen ?

As Elok remarked, there is a world of difference between 'improbable' and 'impossible'. I don't contest the argument that these things are improbable, just that they are in fact impossible.

No. If such a thing happend, then it's because we haven't found the explanation yet.

Ok, do you also believe that it is possible for science to eventually know everything there is in the universe using empirical means? What I am trying to say, is no matter how good our science gets, there will always be things that cannot be explained through empirical means.

Since there are three planets in this solar system that could sustain life and it has happend on at least one of them, then the chances are above zero and therefore not unrealistic.

Ah, the habitable zone. That's one factor. However, you have to realise that there are substantial differences between Mars, Venus and Earth. For starters, none of them have tides, like between the Earth and the Moon, and neither of them have a strong magnetic field like the Earth to protect from radiation.

[Whaleboy]

Ok, do you also believe that it is possible for science to eventually know everything there is in the universe using empirical means? What I am trying to say, is no matter how good our science gets, there will always be things that cannot be explained through empirical means.

True enough, but there is a difference between knowing one particular thing, and knowing all particular things. I consider that all things that submit to our 2+2=4 internally consistent logical system are fair game to science. Need that enter the human mind? No.

Ah, the habitable zone. That's one factor. However, you have to realise that there are substantial differences between Mars, Venus and Earth. For starters, none of them have tides, like between the Earth and the Moon, and neither of them have a strong magnetic field like the Earth to protect from radiation.

Various other factors too, such as the moon providing a relatively stable orbital axis, sufficient gravity so that we dont lose our atmosphere to Brownian motion etc.

But remember also that the habitable zone is not stable. It is moving ever outward, and conditions on Earth change every second as a result, thought not sufficiently to adversely affect the human race for many Eons yet.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
BK: My response to that is on my previous post

JM: Magnetism was considered to be supernatural 400 years ago, in this case, I would like to know why we consider God to be supernatural, asides from the problem of testing his behaviour as BK rightly asserts.

Most theists define God as supernatural. Christians do.

It is impossible to disprove the supernatural (if the supernatural is suppose to be causing something, you can show that the cause is natural and so the supernatural is not the best explanation... but the supernatural in general can't be disproved)

(it is something different to take the supernatural and make it natural, but as I said, God (For many theists) is by definition supernatural)

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a very good point, but its a bit of a red herring since it assumes that God exists, which is what we're trying to determine in this instance. There, you are illustrating the problems in analysing God's behaviour, which you might say is somewhat further down the line.

Actually, there are two ways to go about this. The first is to assume that he does not exist, and examine the consequences, or to assume that he does and do likewise.
Either is a legitimate means of answering your question.

I am trying to show why normal scientific experiments, assuming God does exist, will not work.

Ah you misunderstand. What I really want here is a scientific theory or philosophical proposition, or at least the framework under which one might be formed. All scientific theories are falsifiable, that's what makes them the "truth" so to speak.

Granted, and also why they are limited in scope. Science does not claim to be the sole source of knowledge because of it's own limitations that you touch on here.

You need a slightly more sophisticated idea of "truth" than that which they give you in sunday school / Chedar, but that's just a question of semantics. If one provides an unfalsifiable argument, then by definition it's bollocks, unless contained within it can somehow miraculously debase the entire notion of scientific method for determining the way the universe works.

Okay, but if the world of the spirit operates upon entirely different principles, why would one expect the tools developed for material things to work?

Yes, God is unfalsifiable through empirical means, because empiricism was not designed to work in this realm. That does not mean that he is unfalsifiable through other means.

My standard of incontravertible evidence is basically evidence which points to one conclusion when linked to other available evidence. A scientific theory that emerges from this shouldn't really need to be interpreted or inferred; like evolution it more or less deduced. The method of proving a hypothesis to make a theory, allows us to throw light on this mountain of evidence by working backward along a priori.

Okay, that pulls us outside of the limitations of science, and more into reason, and rationality as a basis of truth.

Fair enough, in which case we have to separate God from scripture and put the latter to the side for a while. Do we agree then that the idea of God we are working on at the moment is according to the OP?

Yep, it's an important step! Didn't I say you asked good questions right from the start.

How so?

You are assuming a monotheist structure of one God, who is above all others. If, for instance we assumed that this God was created, then wouldn't the thing that created God be God? So this is why we say that if there is one God, he must be uncreated and eternal.

Now, if God must be eternal, then he must also be unchanging, immune to the effects of time and entropy, since everything we see in the natural world decays, for God to be eternal, requires him to be unchanging.

Thirdly, if God is both eternal and unchanging, we can say that he must be omnipotent. For something that is less then omnipotent can become weaker or stronger. Omnipotence cannot become either weaker or stronger.

Omniscient makes sense if you have a God who is eternal, who is outside time, and who is omnipotent. If he has created everything in the world, he must also know everything about that which he has created.

Omnipresence, is another way to say that God is outside time. He is not limited to one place or one time, but instead can exist in all places at all times at once.

Creator and possibly ultimate destroyer of the universe is secondary. This is not necessary to the primary attributes, as I understand it.

It flows from a monotheist belief that God must be the creator of everything. For if something else created everything, God still had to create the being that created everything. If you are working from a dualist belief, in having a good god and an evil god, then I can't make this point without additional work.

Able / willing to influence us (Problem of Evil argument) is tertiary. This could flow logically from the secondary attributes, I would be intrigued to see how you would argue that. I've got a couple of arguments for and against, but you've got an obviously different perspective I need to hear.

How can a good God, allow evil to exist in the world? I'm not sure I have a particularly 'unique' argument, but it might be new for some folks.

God in his mercy created us with the ability to do evil, in that we could choose evil over the good. He did this, so we may freely choose to love him. Now, Adam and Eve are different from us, in that they were free from original sin, they could have chosen to remain sinless for their entire lives. We, however are afflicted by original sin, in that no matter how we live our lives, we will fall into sin. Thus, the actions of Adam and Eve, brought sin to humankind.

Secondly, God tells us that our time here on this earth will be full of trials and tribulations. That bad things happen to people, through natural causes and God does not intervene to prevent them, is no different from a parent who allows her children to grow up and learn to do things on their own.

Finally, as for Satan, there are a number of thoughts, but the Christian tradition is that Satan was an angel in heaven who rebelled against God and when mankind was created, sought to drive us from God. For the same reason as the second, God allows Satan to have limited control over the earth, even as he restrains him.

Loves us and wants us to be happy is quartenary. This naturally flows from the tertiary characteristics, again part of the Problem of Evil. One could oppose that and say "Does God hate us?" and turn the problem of evil into the problem of Good? Which perspective you take depends upon the tertiary characteristics.

If God did not love us why create us? What would an omnipotent God obtain from creating us if he did not love us?

I am even open to the idea of science proving God as it has proven evolution, but I'm working on the evidence I have today.

I left sciences on the conclusion that such an endeavour was impossible. I don't believe you can prove God in the same manner as you can the laws of physics.

Could something historically have occured that contravenes the laws of physics? The laws of logic by which we all abide, say no. That is a deduction based upon the premise that 2 + 2 has always equalled 4. If you can show historically that this needn't be the case, I'm more than willing to listen, but I do not think that this question is open to the same doubt that a history might have. One does not need an audit trail and certified documentation to prove that logic was punching its clock 6000 years ago.

The laws of physics have changed. Ergo, it is entirely possible for events to have occured contrary to the laws of physics as we know them to be today, even though they remain valid under some greater law which we do not fully understand.

Scientific progress would to provide more light on the matter in the future. If you're asking me to accept that, hypothetically, with all possible available evidence, a natural explanation will fail, then I will not accept that. That is because I work on the premise of scientific method, which in that case, you would have to refute in order to proceed with your proposition.

Okay, would you accept the possibility that there are some things science cannot know? That there are inevitable constraints placed on science by themselves through their method of obtaining knowledge?

I'm not sure about that, I consider the idea of life itself to be a far more beautiful thing than some dude getting nailed to a tree and living; but then, I'm not a Christian and I think it's a minefield to say that something is inherently more "miraculous" than another.

I don't know, it would depend on whether you'd prefer an earthly life over immortality in heaven.

The chances are irrelevant since theories such as evolution do not propose that the atoms of the world were chucked together like a kid would throw hundreds&thousands on a birthday cake. That life fits it so perfectly is consequent of cumulative selection in the case of life, not a condition (if it were any different, you and the rest of life wouldn't be in your current form asking the question).

I'm not even saying that. Just that the combination of many different things had to come together in order to make the earth the way that it is today. We have only begun to scrape the surface.

I guess this represents a shift in my own thoughts, before I used to think that there would be thousands upon thousands of planets with other forms of life upon them. Now I wouldn't be surprised if we were alone.

that values sans deity are ultimately rootless

Whaleboy, you are left with the problem, if it is true that there exists an absolute and universal truth, how does that truth come about in the absence of a god?

[Thorn]

I have no ****ing faith...... what the hell are you crazy people talking about.... I've actually met god and had several conversations. So to me, it was actual proof.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As Elok remarked, there is a world of difference between 'improbable' and 'impossible'. I don't contest the argument that these things are improbable, just that they are in fact impossible.

This doesn't make any sense concerning circular argumentation.

Ok, do you also believe that it is possible for science to eventually know everything there is in the universe using empirical means? What I am trying to say, is no matter how good our science gets, there will always be things that cannot be explained through empirical means.

Why not ? Please tell about those things that science can't explain when it get the knowledge.

Ah, the habitable zone. That's one factor. However, you have to realise that there are substantial differences between Mars, Venus and Earth. For starters, none of them have tides, like between the Earth and the Moon, and neither of them have a strong magnetic field like the Earth to protect from radiation.

I don't say that venus and mars are just as good as earth, just that they are possibilties. Secondly, you igonre what life is. There are plenty of places where noone would expect life to exist, but there are. Black smokers for instance. They certainly doesn't depend upon magnetic fields or tide.

Just because it happend that this planet had a sufficient distance and maybe had a drabant and life blossomed here, how come that that is the proof of a god ?

If anyone is using circular argumentation, then it is you. You claim that because there is life on this planet, then it is proof of gods existence since life couldn't exist here if god didn't exist.

[Jon Miller]

There is no proof that God exists either.

For something to be proovable, it must be disproovable.

Note:
If Jesus returns (like I beleive He will), then my God will be disproovable (as one could proove He was not supernatural). But God, as a supernatural entity (no other properties) is not proovable or disproovable.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

This doesn't make any sense concerning circular argumentation.

Okay, suppose you are debating the existence of God. The only way to prove that God exists is to show evidence of his intervention. If you believe that anything that cannot be explained through natural means did not happen, then it is impossible to show that God exists. You are arguing in a circle.

I don't say that venus and mars are just as good as earth, just that they are possibilties. Secondly, you igonre what life is. There are plenty of places where noone would expect life to exist, but there are. Black smokers for instance. They certainly doesn't depend upon magnetic fields or tide.

Mars, perhaps, if you can find enough water or atmospheric pressure, and even then, it will be a stretch.

Venus, it's an interesting question as to what will kill you first. Asphyxiation, battery acid rain, atmospheric pressure or the temperature hotter then an oven. The Russians couldn't even get probes down long enough to survive more then a few minutes on the surface.

If anyone is using circular argumentation, then it is you. You claim that because there is life on this planet, then it is proof of gods existence since life couldn't exist here if god didn't exist.

It is unlikely, that all the conditions required for the existence of life as we know it on Earth would arise through a chance combination. That is the argument why it seems more plausible that God would exist. It's not just the distance, but as Whaleboy shows, a whole constellation of effects coming together.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no proof that God exists either.

For something to be proovable, it must be disproovable.

Oh, you don't believe that Jesus really existed?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
There is no proof that God exists either.

JM

Wich god ? I assume that you are thinking of the christian god, but why is it more probable that that particular god is more true than any other god ?