Is scientific proof of God even possible?

[MikeH]

I often wonder if any sufficient scientific proof of God is even possible. It seems that the main pillar of Atheism is the lack of evidence of God, but exactly what evidence would be sufficient to make a believer out of a non-believer?

Even if God himself came down and shook hands with you, there would certainly be no way to repeat the event, or to test its authenticity. Video evidence? Easily altered with a number of video editing programs. So what should the "faithful" look for to capture and present to the atheist or agnostic?

This is kinda like the "What kind of scientific discovery may challenge your faith?" thread, only in reverse.

[joer]

Beto wrote:

Even though Science may deem several biblical accounts as being scientifically inviable?

Yeap. The inviable ones don't matter. It's the viable ones that count. When you go through a ton of mud to find a diamond. You don't care about the Mud It's the diamond that you hold onto. So to with the Bible, you don't throw out the diamonds of truth because of the inviable accounts. You keep the diamonds and discard the inviable accounts.

[joer]

I found this post at another site. It seemed pretty interesting, That scientists are finding that people are more naturally Good and Godlike than NOT.

I found this very interesting article concerning the "Golden Rule":

This is an excerpt:

Brains Are Hardwired To Act According To The Golden Rule
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2008)

Wesley Autrey, a black construction worker, a Navy veteran and 55-year-old father of two, didn’t know the young man standing beside him. But when he had a seizure on the subway platform and toppled onto the tracks, Autrey jumped down after him and shielded him with his body as a train bore down on them. Autrey could have died, so why did he put his life on the line — literally — to save this complete stranger?

Donald Pfaff, the author of the new book The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule, thinks he has the answer. Our brains, he says, are hardwired to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Individual acts of aggression and evil occur when this circuitry jams.

“If it’s really true that all religions have this ethical principle, across continents and across centuries, then it is more likely to have a hardwired scientific basis than if it was just a neighborhood custom,” says Pfaff, whose laboratory at Rockefeller University studies various hormones and brain signals that influence positive social behavior.

(emphasis added mine)

The full article can be found at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131055.htm

[Goat]

I found this post at another site. It seemed pretty interesting, That scientists are finding that people are more naturally Good and Godlike than NOT.

I found this very interesting article concerning the "Golden Rule":

This is an excerpt:

Brains Are Hardwired To Act According To The Golden Rule
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2008)

Wesley Autrey, a black construction worker, a Navy veteran and 55-year-old father of two, didn’t know the young man standing beside him. But when he had a seizure on the subway platform and toppled onto the tracks, Autrey jumped down after him and shielded him with his body as a train bore down on them. Autrey could have died, so why did he put his life on the line — literally — to save this complete stranger?

Donald Pfaff, the author of the new book The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule, thinks he has the answer. Our brains, he says, are hardwired to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Individual acts of aggression and evil occur when this circuitry jams.

“If it’s really true that all religions have this ethical principle, across continents and across centuries, then it is more likely to have a hardwired scientific basis than if it was just a neighborhood custom,” says Pfaff, whose laboratory at Rockefeller University studies various hormones and brain signals that influence positive social behavior.

(emphasis added mine)

The full article can be found at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131055.htm

That just proves to me that altruism is genetic, and does not prove or disprove God.

What it does do is put in doubt the concept of original sin as described by the Calvinists though. Man is essentially GOOD, not evil.

[byofrcs]

I found this post at another site. It seemed pretty interesting, That scientists are finding that people are more naturally Good and Godlike than NOT.

I found this very interesting article concerning the "Golden Rule":

This is an excerpt:

Brains Are Hardwired To Act According To The Golden Rule
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2008)

Wesley Autrey, a black construction worker, a Navy veteran and 55-year-old father of two, didn’t know the young man standing beside him. But when he had a seizure on the subway platform and toppled onto the tracks, Autrey jumped down after him and shielded him with his body as a train bore down on them. Autrey could have died, so why did he put his life on the line — literally — to save this complete stranger?

Donald Pfaff, the author of the new book The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule, thinks he has the answer. Our brains, he says, are hardwired to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Individual acts of aggression and evil occur when this circuitry jams.

“If it’s really true that all religions have this ethical principle, across continents and across centuries, then it is more likely to have a hardwired scientific basis than if it was just a neighborhood custom,” says Pfaff, whose laboratory at Rockefeller University studies various hormones and brain signals that influence positive social behavior.

(emphasis added mine)

The full article can be found at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131055.htm

It is interesting that you claim "people are more naturally Good and Godlike".

The "Good" we can agree on if we define "Good" to be this behaviour and "Bad" to be contrary to this behaviour. This allows us to define a morality without reference to an external source.

You then also claim that this encoding is synonymous with Godlike. Unfortunately that fails as an argument if you look at the evolution of autonomous software agents in the example of the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma (IPD). It can be readily shown with the IPD that (non-cheating) Software agents will trend to cooperate. This is simply shown with the tit-for-tat strategy. It can also be shown that master-slave, with slaves sacrificing themselves for a master can also provide a benefit with cheating. These very much reflect human actors too. Tit-for-tat cooperates on the first move, but is retaliatory but then forgiving by immediate return to cooperation. This strategy wins and it drives all to co-operate without any built-in idea of "Good" or even what a "God" is.

These agents are nothing as sophisticated as a few lines of code (i.e. there is no Ghost in the machine or God) but an emergent behaviour happens when they are placed into an environment. These emergent behaviours happen even more so in human societies given the complexity of our evolved programming.

What is more reasonable to believe ?
a) That humans have evolved behaviours independent of any external moral reference as an emergent behaviour in a multi-agent environment ?
b) That humans have been pre-programmed by an external moral reference which you call God to allow us to function in a certain way in a multi-agent environment ?

I feel that these experiments show that b) is an unreasonably held belief unless you can show some supernatural influence in the coding. If this is not obvious with software then why is b) true for humans given software agent match human behaviours ?

It is because of these software experiments that I believe that there is a ethical/moral code that is self-sufficient without recourse to a higher moral guide. This does give humanity an incredible hope in that we are morally self-sufficient. If everyone realised this then life would certainly get better. Looks to me that your idea of God is interfering with morality rather than supporting it.

[joer]

Goat wrote:

That just proves to me that altruism is genetic, and does not prove or disprove God.

That’s true Goat. They are assuming that because we naturally have these scientifically proven traits and they are indicative of precepts of God Likeness that they are some more supportive evidence of the possibility that we evolutionarily come from a God created line of evolutionary Life. It certainly is a stretch. But one that a lot of people believe makes perfect sense.
Goat also wrote:

What it does do is put in doubt the concept of original sin as described by the Calvinists though. Man is essentially GOOD, not evil.

I agree.

I don’t see anything said that would indicate this that byofrcs wrote:

Looks to me that your idea of God is interfering with morality rather than supporting it.

Also byofrcs wrote this:

What is more reasonable to believe ?
a) That humans have evolved behaviours independent of any external moral reference as an emergent behaviour in a multi-agent environment ?
b) That humans have been [influenced] by an external moral reference which you call God to allow us to function in a certain way in a multi-agent environment ?

Well if you changed "preprogrammed" to a more proper representation by using the word “Influenced” in it’s place than I’d say they were both reasonable to believe and my preference would be the second one.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT GOD, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATEMENT BEING MADE ABOUT WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN THIS popular SHORT PRESENTATION:

HTTP://WWW.ONESOLITARYLIFEMOVIE.COM/

[steen]

Beto wrote:

Even though Science may deem several biblical accounts as being scientifically inviable?

Yeap. The inviable ones don't matter. It's the viable ones that count. When you go through a ton of mud to find a diamond. You don't care about the Mud It's the diamond that you hold onto. So to with the Bible, you don't throw out the diamonds of truth because of the inviable accounts. You keep the diamonds and discard the inviable accounts.

Which fits with what most people who are not invested in dogma knows, that Science and Christianity complement each other and does not supplant each other.

Science shows the How, and Christianity shows the Why. There is no conflict between the two. Conflict arise when someone tries to supplant one with the other. Christianity doesn't show the How, nor does Science show the Why.

[byofrcs]

Goat wrote:

That just proves to me that altruism is genetic, and does not prove or disprove God.

That’s true Goat. They are assuming that because we naturally have these scientifically proven traits and they are indicative of precepts of God Likeness that they are some more supportive evidence of the possibility that we evolutionarily come from a God created line of evolutionary Life. It certainly is a stretch. But one that a lot of people believe makes perfect sense.
Goat also wrote:

What it does do is put in doubt the concept of original sin as described by the Calvinists though. Man is essentially GOOD, not evil.

I agree.

I don’t see anything said that would indicate this that byofrcs wrote:

Looks to me that your idea of God is interfering with morality rather than supporting it.

...because the morality seems to have evolved rather than being divinely imposed then it is not truthful to claim God is a moral arbiter.

Would you not agree that people should only be told the truth about such a fundamental concept of the right behaviours when interacting with others ? Given that no-one has been very convincing to date to prove that God even exists and that we can show software agents that repeatedly show what is good behaviour then isn't there more truth in the results of the software than in the unfalsifiable religious claims about God ?

To me it is far better to show guidance from a falsifiable proof than to be guided from an unfalsifiable religious decree. This is why God hinders morality in humanity.

Also byofrcs wrote this:

What is more reasonable to believe ?
a) That humans have evolved behaviours independent of any external moral reference as an emergent behaviour in a multi-agent environment ?
b) That humans have been [influenced] by an external moral reference which you call God to allow us to function in a certain way in a multi-agent environment ?

Well if you changed "preprogrammed" to a more proper representation by using the word “Influenced” in it’s place than I’d say they were both reasonable to believe and my preference would be the second one.

Then can't you see the flaws in your reasoning ?. We can create software agents that do the same thing that you feel God has influenced humanity towards. Where is God in the code ? This is as fundamental as there being 180 degrees in the internal angles of a triangle on a plane surface. It is what it is. This is why Mathematics isn't considered to be in the same realm as science as it is in maths that you have truths rather than theories. It is my belief that we can show truths in the morality of humanity which are as true as truths in mathematics. A triangle needs no god to have a sum of angle of 180 degrees and a human needs no god to be a moral person.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT GOD, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATEMENT BEING MADE ABOUT WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN THIS popular SHORT PRESENTATION:

HTTP://WWW.ONESOLITARYLIFEMOVIE.COM/

What it claims are disingenuously wrong. It glosses over the fact that it took kings, armies and parliaments to impose Christianity on people in the past 20 centuries.

From the first Holy Roman Emperor to the established state churches, from tithes to taxes, Christianity is sought by few but imposed on many.

Even today it is illegal for me to "blaspheme" in the UK against Christianity (specifically the established church).

How long would Christianity have lasted without secular laws, tithes and taxes ? We can see today in secular Europe it doesn't last long and drifts to a few percentage points.

[joer]

byofrcs, Thanks for the excellent response. I appreciate your candor and position.

byofrcs wrote:

...because the morality seems to have evolved rather than being divinely imposed then it is not truthful to claim God is a moral arbiter.

If you believe set the evolution in motion that the morality evolved from than you might consider God a moral arbiter. I think most people think God personally gets involved much more than God actually does. It’s more like God sets the process in motion and in it’s evolution WE CORRECT OURSELVES. Thus vindicating God’s Process as we evolve morally.

Would you not agree that people should only be told the truth about such a fundamental concept of the right behaviours when interacting with others ?

I believe the Truth is ALSO evolving. And we should always strive to SEE the highest truth.

Given that no-one has been very convincing to date to prove that God even exists and that we can show software agents that repeatedly show what is good behaviour then isn't there more truth in the results of the software than in the unfalsifiable religious claims about God ?

Since the software comes from us and we come from God then unfalsifiable or not if you assume God exists there is no contradiction. The contradiction enters if you assume God doesn’t exist and YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT EITHER.

To me it is far better to show guidance from a falsifiable proof than to be guided from an unfalsifiable religious decree.

Given your position of an assumed non-existence of God that makes perfect sense. I have no problem understanding that.

This is why God hinders morality in humanity.

I still don’t see it. I mean from what you’ve presented it seems like weather ones believes in God or not, morality progresses. So it seems like if God existed or not morality would progress.

Of that short video you wrote:

What it claims are disingenuously wrong. It glosses over the fact that it took kings, armies and parliaments to impose Christianity on people in the past 20 centuries.

From the first Holy Roman Emperor to the established state churches, from tithes to taxes, Christianity is sought by few but imposed on many.

Even today it is illegal for me to "blaspheme" in the UK against Christianity (specifically the established church).

How long would Christianity have lasted without secular laws, tithes and taxes ? We can see today in secular Europe it doesn't last long and drifts to a few percentage points.

I hear what you are saying about it glossing over those things. But even that fact “that it took kings, armies and parliaments to impose Christianity on people in the past 20 centuries.” doesn’t change the fact that it was all based on that one guy, and that his life and teachings inspired them to do what they did…even if they were wrong. Some things they did may have made more sense in their time even though they look entirely barbaric in our time.

That’s part of that moral evolution, when we recognize it as wrong we are impelled to admit we made a mistake and correct it.

Thanks BYO. Good Will to you my friend.

[joer]

Beto wrote:

Even though Science may deem several biblical accounts as being scientifically inviable?

Yeap. The inviable ones don't matter. It's the viable ones that count. When you go through a ton of mud to find a diamond. You don't care about the Mud It's the diamond that you hold onto. So to with the Bible, you don't throw out the diamonds of truth because of the inviable accounts. You keep the diamonds and discard the inviable accounts.

Which fits with what most people who are not invested in dogma knows, that Science and Christianity complement each other and does not supplant each other.

Science shows the How, and Christianity shows the Why. There is no conflict between the two. Conflict arise when someone tries to supplant one with the other. Christianity doesn't show the How, nor does Science show the Why.

That's the way I see it too Steen. I think more and more people are seeing that. And like myself many religious people with an interest in Science, are seeing Science as a tool for a more profound discovery and deeper understanding of God's Creation.

It's exciting! Instead of seeing them (science and religion) as separate competing ideas, they become a complimentary means to each others ends.

Nice to meet you Steen!

[Beto]

Beto wrote:

Even though Science may deem several biblical accounts as being scientifically inviable?

Yeap. The inviable ones don't matter. It's the viable ones that count. When you go through a ton of mud to find a diamond. You don't care about the Mud It's the diamond that you hold onto. So to with the Bible, you don't throw out the diamonds of truth because of the inviable accounts. You keep the diamonds and discard the inviable accounts.

Which fits with what most people who are not invested in dogma knows, that Science and Christianity complement each other and does not supplant each other.

Science shows the How, and Christianity shows the Why. There is no conflict between the two. Conflict arise when someone tries to supplant one with the other. Christianity doesn't show the How, nor does Science show the Why.

That's the way I see it too Steen. I think more and more people are seeing that. And like myself many religious people with an interest in Science, are seeing Science as a tool for a more profound discovery and deeper understanding of God's Creation.

It's exciting! Instead of seeing them (science and religion) as separate competing ideas, they become a complimentary means to each others ends.

Nice to meet you Steen!

Science is expected to show evidence of "how" things happen, while Religion is exempt from having to show evidence of "why". Being diametrically opposite in this regard, they are far from complementary, and naturally repel each other.

Besides, the "why" increasingly becomes "how", as scientific knowledge increases, in case you didn't notice.