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?

[QED]

Theists are "stuck" with the inadaquacies of an outdated dogma. Thinking with their hearts, they stand no chance against those who think only with their God given brains! On the other side, A/A's refuse to include the spiritual part of the equation, and simply attack anythng non-material. In order to investigate the spiritual, you need to use that same God given mind to do the investigating. But the choice as always is yours...

Nicely put. The problem is that when using the brain to investigate what the heart is saying, the brain notes that the heart is firing off in all directions hitting on things like Astrology, the paranormal, UFO's etc. So the brain knows how unreliable the heart can be. This is just fine for poetry and the like, but the brain also notes that it can spell trouble if it finds its way into wider, potentially dangerous, applications.

[Ian Parker]

As for science finding god, there is a science-fiction scenario that has us all running around like lab-rats in a vast cosmic experiment. Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev proposed type I, II & III civilizations based on their technological capabilities. But what upper limit might there be on technology? A type XVII civilization might create universes like ours just for kicks for all we know. So even if science did figure out that there must have been a creator (finding encoded copyright messages etc.) we couldn't safely say he was god -- or could we?

There is the question of technological possibility. Type 3 civilization with energy based on a Black Hole. (Spinning holes have 80% mass conversion efficiency) is a technological possibility given that civilization develops. It is not possible simply to create a universe.

There is however one interesting possibility, and that is that we are a simulation in a Type 3 civilization.

[QED]

I don't think Bro Dave would be too happy with anyone thinking the above quote was his

The point I made is very relevant to this thread though, if science did find god and went on to realise that he was just an advanced life-form then what impact would it have on something like Christianity? How can people be so sure that this isn't the explanation?

[Bro Dave]

I do tire of you A/A using the pathetic staw-god tactic. God is not limited by Christian/Biblical depictions of Him. Clearly the God of the OT, and the NT are completely incompatible with a God who is loving, infinite and unchanging. I am not so constrained. God continually updates us as our culture and understanding permit. A much clearer picture has been given us, but it will take time make serious seekers aware of it.

Oh, and where do we find God's 'updates'? Please present an objective means to know what God wants.

Oh, only 'true believers' get them? How convenient!

All who sincerely seek truth, will find God. The paths are as many as there are people, since each of us sees the universe from an unique perspective. I personally think the Urantia Book give the clearest most reasonable view I've come across in my 65 years of seeking. You may not agree... or know.

Bro Dave

[Bro Dave]

God, being spirit, is not "hiding" either. Keeping His presents out of the material world is critical to the unfoldment of the Universe. Like spoiled children born of wealthy parents, we'd refuse to do anything ourselves if we could go screaming to a physical presents of God. Its all about personal growth, and God is right there, "closer than your breath", but you've got to search... INSIDE to find him. And so we declare ourselves to be agnostics or athiests and go forward with our eyes wide closed.

I assume that you mean presence rather than presents. Or maybe not

Yeah, "Us engineers don't spell good"... but we THINK real hard!

God continually updates us as our culture and understanding permit.

But the christian idea of god is said to have existed before creation and is unchanging. Your idea of god seems to be culturally derived and a creation of the collective human mind.

Yes, I'm addressing the cultural stereotype here. The point is, until and unless one is truly searching for God, He seem unavailable. Most think they should be able to demand a parlor trick for God to prove something or another. Childish, and unworthy, expecially from folks who have fought so hard to dump the religiousity they grew up with!

Bro Dave

[McCulloch]

All who sincerely seek truth, will find God. The paths are as many as there are people, since each of us sees the universe from an unique perspective.

Or all who sincerely seek a god will find one, there are lots of different ones to go around.

[Ian Parker]

There are 3 possible replies to the question of creation by a race of super beings but not by God as such. The first answer is philosophical. Basically the philosophical question is whether or not Christianity could or would accept Logical Positivism. If the super race were to a large degree isomorphic with the Christian God then it would be prove Christianity in a Logical Positivist sense. If Christianity did not accept Logical Positivism it would cease to be intellectually credible.

The scientific answer is quite simple. Science is a long way from proving anything remotely like this. There is speculation, and it is speculation about a Type 3 civilization setting up a simulation. I have discussed this in.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmargaret/matrix.htm
There are a very large number of ifs. If we have a multiverse, if......if...... I do not regard anything like this as being a serious threat or challenge to Christianity. There is considerable elegance in the neo steady state theory. That is however all that can be said. The inherent scientific objection to a super race lies in the fact that, with the possible exception of a new steady state theory, it simply adds entities and adds nothing at all to the discussion of the infinite regress (Who or what created God?).

The current areas of interface between Science and Religion at the moment lie in 2 areas. The first is the scientific investigation of the Power of Prayer. The second is of course the whole area of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Personally I believe that for the most part organisms have evolved although there are instances of irreducibility (most notably in the area of our Intelligence) where Intelligent Design interventions at critical points are the only solution. See my contributions under Intelligent Design in this forum. Super beings are simply not a current area of research. I tend to feel that the questions discussed actively should be Prayer and Psychic interactions and Intelligent Design. Everything else is pure speculation.

The 3rd reply, the theological to some extent echoes the scientific. If we have been created by super beings we will know at a time and place of their choosing. Ordinary scientific investigation will be useless. This being so it would in a sense be a "Second Coming", Christianity in its present form would thereby become redundant, in the same way Judaism was with the first.

[Cephus]

All who sincerely seek truth, will find God. The paths are as many as there are people, since each of us sees the universe from an unique perspective. I personally think the Urantia Book give the clearest most reasonable view I've come across in my 65 years of seeking. You may not agree... or know.

And of course, those who don't find God obviously weren't seeking truth. Gotcha. How is this any different than saying "All who sincerely seek truth, will find Krishna"?

My personal take is that all who sincerely and honestly seek truth will see this religious stuff for the complete crap that it is.

[jerickson314]

And of course, those who don't find God obviously weren't sincerely (addition mine) seeking truth.

Is logically no more similar to

"All who sincerely seek truth, will find Krishna"?

than

all who sincerely and honestly seek truth will see this religious stuff for the complete crap that it is.

is, except that the first two positively say that a deity exists whereas the third asserts that such a deity does not exist. However, this similarity does not link the truth values of the first two assertions; it is logically possible for one to be true and the other to be false. If God actually does exist, it is possible that only the first statement will be true whereas the second and third will not.

[QED]

My personal take is that all who sincerely and honestly seek truth will see this religious stuff for the complete crap that it is.

Cephus> think it if you wish, but please don't say it on these forums. We are not here to sling mud at each other. The idea is to challenge those beliefs that you find fault with. Value judgments are for other places.