Can Science Find God?

[The Happy Humanist]

This question is mainly (but not exclusively!) for the scientists out there.

I have been debating a gentleman in email, who asked me what I would consider as proof of God. I thought about it, and decided that, if a few dozen stars were to suddenly rearrange themselves to spell out "Howdy, it's me! -- GOD", I might be swayed. OK, I would be seriously challenged. OK, OK, I'd be singing Hosannahs and heading for the confessional.

He replied that he doubted it, that astronomers would merely chalk it up to "coinicdence", or swamp gas, or just "unknown." That got me to thinking. I know that Science is supposedly neutral w/r/t God and the supernatural; that is, it doesn't deny they exist, it just isn't set up to study that realm, or magisterium, so it can't say anything about them.

But what about a case like this, where God (finally) shows his hand unmistakably? Am I right in saying that Science would be forced to at least acknowledge that "after significant study, the phenomenon in question seems to be attributable to an entuty called God, through mechanisms currently unknown to us, but which may involve supernatural forces"? Or is my friend right, that there still could be and would be no acknowledgement?

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

[Alien]

Basically, would Science be allowed to acknowledge God if it found him?

I think this question is a sort of red herring (I am not of english mother language, and I hope this is a right use of this idiom).

1) Science can only explain natural phenomena.
2) God, by definition, is supernatural.
=>
3) Science cannot explain God.

When Science arrives at an explanation for what previously looked as supernatural, then it means that the phenomenon is natural. And we are plenty of examples.

If Science will ever acknowledge God, this would mean that God is a natural phenomenon with natural explanations, ie scientific explanations, ie objective.

But if God is really supernatural, it cannot be explained in any way by Science. A supernatural phenomenon, being subjective, cannot match the philosophy of Science that is a process which tries to be objective as far as possible.

[Ian Parker]

When Science arrives at an explanation for what previously looked as supernatural, then it means that the phenomenon is natural. And we are plenty of examples.

This could be true of telepathy. However if we have a (limited) communication with the future we still have to explain why timelines are as they are.

But if God is really supernatural, it cannot be explained in any way by Science. A supernatural phenomenon, being subjective, cannot match the philosophy of Science that is a process which tries to be objective as far as possible.

One does not have to provide an explanation one has to look at effects.

[Curious]

The truth is, mathematically, any event that has any possibility of occurring, will occur, if you wait long enough. Fine. However, add a second event, and require the two events to occur in the same time frame, and the odds are slimmer. Add to that any required functional interaction of the events, and it becomes highly doubtful. Now, add a planet FULL of such events... the chance of it all coming together accidentally, is simply outside any model of probability.

Except that for evolution, it's not outside any model of probability, because these kinds of probability calculations do not apply. Why not? Because evolution is a process that we know happens, and we therefore know that once it starts, there will be a result after some amount of time. It doesn't matter what that result is; the point is that there will be some result.

Ah, there’s the rub… The outcome does indeed matter! When you see the results, and note the number of possible outcomes, you have to admit that having such a “happy” result with the enormous number of variables, virtually eliminates randomness as the drive mechanism. This world should be full of benign absurdities that did not kill the species, but they are rare to non-existant.

That we arrive at a result that is viable has nothing to do with blind luck but is an absolute certainty. Even if the first event was purely random (which it is not as there is no such thing as a random event, all things ( physically at least ) being derived from the factors involved), then only those outcomes that were viable would survive. These viable outcomes would eventually dominate the system due to the very fact that they are viable. To argue that the presence of such a viable end result is remarkably lucky does not take into consideration that a viable outcome is the only possible outcome that could possibly be achieved.

[QED]

Ah, there’s the rub… The outcome does indeed matter! When you see the results, and note the number of possible outcomes, you have to admit that having such a “happy” result with the enormous number of variables, virtually eliminates randomness as the drive mechanism. This world should be full of benign absurdities that did not kill the species, but they are rare to non-existant.

I can't believe nobody's picked-up on this... The reason that there is hardly any such thing as a 'benign absurdity' is because every evolved structure comes at a cost; be it weight, oxygen, glucose or whatever. Animals are extraordinarily economical and run to extraordinarily tight budgets. Evolution by natural selection is like having the most zealous of accountants going over the books -- even the tiniest of unnecessary costs are cut as a result of fierce competition.

[Curious]

I can't believe nobody's picked-up on this... The reason that there is hardly any such thing as a 'benign absurdity' is because every evolved structure comes at a cost; be it weight, oxygen, glucose or whatever. Animals are extraordinarily economical and run to extraordinarily tight budgets. Evolution by natural selection is like having the most zealous of accountants going over the books -- even the tiniest of unnecessary costs are cut as a result of fierce competition.

What exactly would qualify as a benign absurdity and how might I recognise such a thing if I saw it? Would , for example, Curiousnium qualify as such a benign absurdity ( For those of you unfamiliar with unchemistry, Curiousnium is a non-existent element that "exists" with alternating allotropic structures of Question mark and exclamation mark).
If Bro Dave is correct, should we expect to find Curiousnium spread thoughout the universe?

[paulbaylis]

If someone is deliberately lying to prove a point as important as the existence of God, it negatively affects the ability of others to believe. I find it hard to tolerate that. So should you.

Depends what you mean by evidence, fruitcake.

You are full of shite.

You're totally full of it and shouldn't be allowed to post here until you back up your claims. Moderators, deal with this idiot.

Actually, you are the one who needs to be dealt with by your gross violation of the rules. Since you are a newbie here, I'll let you go with an informal warning. Please carefully read through the rules. It's not that long and it'll serve you well if you follow them. Especially, please note rule 14, "In general, all members are to be civil and respectful." Thank you for your cooperation.

[The Happy Humanist]

If someone is deliberately lying to prove a point as important as the existence of God, it negatively affects the ability of others to believe. I find it hard to tolerate that. So should you.

You're apparently used to dealing with discussion boards where this sort of conduct is the norm (which is nearly all of them). Think of this place as an experiment, attempting to prove the hypothesis that "debating religious beliefs can be done with a modicum of gentlemanly conduct, civility, and sensitivity." Thus far, the experiment has been successful, your post notwithstanding - and launching you would be roughly akin to throwing out the occasional spurious Carbon-14 dating.

You'll note I'm a non-theist...but I came here as a respite from the usual childish vitriole. Please don't soil my nice, quiet nest. Instead of "You're full of shit," try something like, "Please provide evidence for your point of view." It actually accomplishes more - and it makes us non-theists look better.

[paulbaylis]

I apologise for soiling your nest. I thought "shite" might be a little tamer with an "e" on the end. I spend a lot of time on iidb.org listening to this type of crap and I have very little tolerance for it there also. They bite like dogs there and they soon shut up when they realise there is a theist watching that can actually deliver some of their own medicine.

On the other hand, it is also an important enough matter for me to try to stop truth-seekers being swayed and influenced by outright lies that atheists are dishing up to support their lifestyles and to drag as many people down with them. Agnostics, apathetics and half-hearted believers come to these forums and these types of outright lies don't do anything for their belief. You could say I owe it to them to point out the obvious crap and let them be swayed, if they must, by valid arguments and truths.

I will, however, choose my words more carefully, though they will be no less forceful in future.

You're apparently used to dealing with discussion boards where this sort of conduct is the norm (which is nearly all of them). Think of this place as an experiment, attempting to prove the hypothesis that "debating religious beliefs can be done with a modicum of gentlemanly conduct, civility, and sensitivity." Thus far, the experiment has been successful, your post notwithstanding - and launching you would be roughly akin to throwing out the occasional spurious Carbon-14 dating.

You'll note I'm a non-theist...but I came here as a respite from the usual childish vitriole. Please don't soil my nice, quiet nest. Instead of "You're full of shit," try something like, "Please provide evidence for your point of view." It actually accomplishes more - and it makes us non-theists look better.

[Bro Dave]

Ah, there’s the rub… The outcome does indeed matter! When you see the results, and note the number of possible outcomes, you have to admit that having such a “happy” result with the enormous number of variables, virtually eliminates randomness as the drive mechanism. This world should be full of benign absurdities that did not kill the species, but they are rare to non-existant.

I can't believe nobody's picked-up on this... The reason that there is hardly any such thing as a 'benign absurdity' is because every evolved structure comes at a cost; be it weight, oxygen, glucose or whatever. Animals are extraordinarily economical and run to extraordinarily tight budgets. Evolution by natural selection is like having the most zealous of accountants going over the books -- even the tiniest of unnecessary costs are cut as a result of fierce competition.

And then there's that nagging question of who/what is so concerned as to keep score, deduct relative effeciences, and direct towards that desired goal.

Bro Dave

[QED]

And then there's that nagging question of who/what is so concerned as to keep score, deduct relative effeciences, and direct towards that desired goal.

OK, well as you probably know there's only one 'goal' and that is survival. Have you ever notices how people doing athletics are winning races by split-seconds? At these fine margins every little disposition towards speed helps. The outcome is just one winner. If the race is transposed to the wild, natural environment the winner is the one that lives to breed and pass on his genetic blueprint to the next generation. Now at the risk of you getting all shirty with me, you must have been presented with this before and for you to have asked the question you did implies that you don't accept it. I would dearly like to know why.

Survival is not just what you think of when you roll your eyes, it is a very general term and might better be replaced by 'persistence'. The natural forms we see all around are those that persist (a statement so obvious it can easily be overlooked). You might argue that god has set everything up 'just so' but we can see enough of it evolving before our very eyes to know that a vast autonomous system is marching along according to a handful of rules. Take my local beach for example: the sea and tides have a different plan to the local government. They want to keep the sand where it's always been, but coastal erosion nearby has changed the currents and the sand no longer wants to stay. Persistence in the environment is what counts.

Just because nobody has bothered to invent alternative words for 'plan' 'design' 'goal' 'select' etc. when it comes to describing autonomous, natural, processes doesn't mean that you've caught someone like me out when I use them. I expect it reflects an age when people were still unaware of the natural forces that shape geology and biology.

I don't think you can argue that the goal of survival (or persistence) is something that would require a god-like entity to devise it. It simply refers to those structures that are practical in a given environment. You might want to argue that the environment has been designed (although it has clearly been evolving for billions of years) but the evolution of biology that takes place within it is totally contingent on that environment. So you could only argue that a god-like entity went as far as setting up the laws of physics at the instant of the Big Bang and walked away IMHO.