Modern science was catapulted by thinkers trying to infer god through measurable means (Isaac Newton is a prime example); so where sis the separation happen when did science become so opposed with the concept of god, and furthermore why is there so little actual scientific research that attempts to prove god?
Is god measurable?
I would say yes. By definition god is an omnipotent, and omniscient being. Meaning, god is at all time in everyplace of the universe, and capable of influencing it at his whim. Therefore making god both "the big eye in the sky", and the thing turning the wheels of the universe. So wouldn't it be logical to assume that any measurable thing within the universe is being or has been influenced by god, and we can see his haniwork so-to-say in anything from atomic weight to weather patterns?
this is just an idea I've been tinkering with over the last two years. Theres a lot more to it, but it's not as fully developed as I would like so if you have any questions
why all the incompatibility?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Welcome to the site.
As for scientists doing research to find god, where would they start? If god is omnipresent and eternal then we can simply look at a single particle for god. That would limit as much as possible and give something to focus the search on. Plenty of scientists are looking at particles. I have not seen any peer reviewed articles stating they found god in a particle.
If we are to find god I think it will be by searching and learning more. Not just stoping with something we don't understand and saying god must be responsible.
I don't think scientists have found a big eye in the sky or something turning the wheels of the universe. A lot of things(weather patterns) that use to be attributed to god are now understood. These things do not have the magical strings attached to them that people once thought they did. I think this is a good reason why scientists have moved away from crediting god with the things the don't currently know. It turns god into the god of the gaps.Is god measurable?
As for scientists doing research to find god, where would they start? If god is omnipresent and eternal then we can simply look at a single particle for god. That would limit as much as possible and give something to focus the search on. Plenty of scientists are looking at particles. I have not seen any peer reviewed articles stating they found god in a particle.
If we are to find god I think it will be by searching and learning more. Not just stoping with something we don't understand and saying god must be responsible.
Post #3
Hi huberart.
Both kinds of assumption could lead to the same conditions we are seeing now, however there's a whole bunch of math that explains the workings of the impersonal version. If you're happy to pin the label "God" on something that arrives at us via a purely probabilistic route then that seems fairly reasonable to me. But to insist that our existence is the result of some specific objective (which seems to be the most popular theology) we would need more evidence than there is at hand right now.
As a logical assumption this would have no extra merit over assuming the existence of an effectively eternal, effectively infinite meta-universe that boils-up "white holes" like our particular universe.huberart2 wrote:So wouldn't it be logical to assume that any measurable thing within the universe is being or has been influenced by god, and we can see his haniwork so-to-say in anything from atomic weight to weather patterns?
Both kinds of assumption could lead to the same conditions we are seeing now, however there's a whole bunch of math that explains the workings of the impersonal version. If you're happy to pin the label "God" on something that arrives at us via a purely probabilistic route then that seems fairly reasonable to me. But to insist that our existence is the result of some specific objective (which seems to be the most popular theology) we would need more evidence than there is at hand right now.
Post #4
Not entirely sure how true this is...Modern science was catapulted by thinkers trying to infer god through measurable means (Isaac Newton is a prime example);
Consider that at the time of Isaac Newton and Gallileo, if you were a European you were 'Christian' by default. Christian indoctrination was a given and so it is hard to really be sure from scientist's writings whether they were objectively subscribing things to God, or just making conclusions based on their religious conditioning.so where sis the separation happen when did science become so opposed with the concept of god,
As scientific knowledge began to increase at an exponential pace, things once attributable to God (as QED points out, the weather is a good example), were explainable by physical laws. God, therefore, began to be pushed out of our understanding of the universe. I would say the true conflict came when the religious opposed scientist's conclusions.
We are opposed to God, because a belief in God often means surrending your reason and accepting the unreasonable biblical/religious explanations for things.
God may not be measurable, but certainly his supernatural influence on the world should be measurable. To test God's existence I would suggest an experiment whereby a light bulb without an electrical current is placed in the centre of a room, around which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. pray to their God(s) to make the light bulb glow. Simple enough, and surely easily within the abilities of an omnipotent God.Is god measurable?
A thought occurs. Perhaps as God is unable to do anything logically impossible, he may be constrained by the physical laws of the universe he has set up. Thus he would not be able to break those laws in this universe.
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #5
Hi Huberart
After awhile it becomes apparent that universal laws don’t really need a God to put them in place. Einstein liked to talk about God, but was not religious in the conventional sense. It was largely a figurative way of speaking. In later life I believe Einstein regreted his three marriages, and realised that his life work got in the way of personal relationships. Much like Newton realised.
Feymann by contrast appears to be an everyman. He liked to frequent strip bars, was a bit of a practical joker, and learnt to paint in later life. So there is no hard and fast rule here. However perhaps at different times, and at different stages of science, people are needed who are prepared to give science everything, and give it their time and attention to the exclusion of other aspects of their life.
Science being catapulted by their individual commitment.
I think a concept of God does play an important role in the formation of the modern science. When one thinks of a single universal God, then the next step is to also think the world follows divine rules. Viz., universal principles. The smarter ones amongst us, guys like Newton, are then highly motivated to dedicate their life to discovering some of those rules. I believe Newton compared his life and dedication to science to that of a religious vocation.Huberart wrote:Modern science was catapulted by thinkers trying to infer god through measurable means (Isaac Newton is a prime example); so where sis the separation happen when did science become so opposed with the concept of god, and furthermore why is there so little actual scientific research that attempts to prove god?
After awhile it becomes apparent that universal laws don’t really need a God to put them in place. Einstein liked to talk about God, but was not religious in the conventional sense. It was largely a figurative way of speaking. In later life I believe Einstein regreted his three marriages, and realised that his life work got in the way of personal relationships. Much like Newton realised.
Feymann by contrast appears to be an everyman. He liked to frequent strip bars, was a bit of a practical joker, and learnt to paint in later life. So there is no hard and fast rule here. However perhaps at different times, and at different stages of science, people are needed who are prepared to give science everything, and give it their time and attention to the exclusion of other aspects of their life.
Science being catapulted by their individual commitment.
Post #6
I guess I should have clarified more. I absolutely do not think that we should blame god for things we do or don't understand. Modern science is an offshoot of European philosophy which is a mix between ancient European myth, but primarily Christian theology. Anyway that aside they main point I was trying to get at is: if god is everywhere at all times couldn't we infer/see certain aspects of god in the material world.
Post #7
absolutely.huberart wrote:if god is everywhere at all times couldn't we infer/see certain aspects of god in the material world.
the problem is we are built to see patterns, even where there is no pattern there.
the man in the moon, for example, I never saw 'it' until I remembered that silent movie where they shoot a cannon bullet into the man in the moons eye then suddenly I did 'see' the pattern in the lunar craters and seas.
so the first problem with finding ACTUAL patterns in reality caused by the existance of a creator god would be identifying and disregarding FALSE 'patterns' generated by our WANTING to see a pattern in the data.
those false patterns we have loads of, there are websites dedicated to cranking out spurious 'patterns' shat show a man in the clouds carving the grand canyon in a week, sort of thing.
-
katiej49
Post #8
heyWelshBoy wrote:Not entirely sure how true this is...Modern science was catapulted by thinkers trying to infer god through measurable means (Isaac Newton is a prime example);
Consider that at the time of Isaac Newton and Gallileo, if you were a European you were 'Christian' by default. Christian indoctrination was a given and so it is hard to really be sure from scientist's writings whether they were objectively subscribing things to God, or just making conclusions based on their religious conditioning.so where sis the separation happen when did science become so opposed with the concept of god,
As scientific knowledge began to increase at an exponential pace, things once attributable to God (as QED points out, the weather is a good example), were explainable by physical laws. God, therefore, began to be pushed out of our understanding of the universe. I would say the true conflict came when the religious opposed scientist's conclusions.
We are opposed to God, because a belief in God often means surrending your reason and accepting the unreasonable biblical/religious explanations for things.
God may not be measurable, but certainly his supernatural influence on the world should be measurable. To test God's existence I would suggest an experiment whereby a light bulb without an electrical current is placed in the centre of a room, around which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. pray to their God(s) to make the light bulb glow. Simple enough, and surely easily within the abilities of an omnipotent God.Is god measurable?
A thought occurs. Perhaps as God is unable to do anything logically impossible, he may be constrained by the physical laws of the universe he has set up. Thus he would not be able to break those laws in this universe.
God generally doesnt respond to requests when the only reason is to test Him. "hey uh...God, i dare ya to light up this bulb to prove you exist"....what kind of God would He be if He responded with a quick YES to our every little request.....we'd be in big trouble if He did, because we as humans are at times...well, stupid. We just dont know enough to know whats best at times. Jesus didnt always give direct answers to people. He often answered in ways that made them think. 
Post #9
Modern science is nothing like what it was when religion dictated what was real and what wasn't. I am of course specifically referring to the time of the Catholic Church rule. Science today is based on a method that God cannot stand up to. That is just a simple fact. Modern science used to largely ignore religion. It didn't see any need to address it. It wasn't until creationists tried to pass of the illusion of creationism being a valid alternative theory to evolution and demanded equal time to brainwash kids with its doctrines that science was forced to look at their claims. When science effectively put creationism and YEC to rest, they came back with ID. Once again with the same claims. Once again, not science. Science isn't at odds with religion. Religious extremists brought this about and are the ones that keep it going. Science would much rather spend its time learning more about our universe and multiverses and elementary particles etc.. for the advancement of mankind, but instead, it must devote a portion of its time explaining, yet again, why ID isn't science.huberart wrote:I guess I should have clarified more. I absolutely do not think that we should blame god for things we do or don't understand. Modern science is an offshoot of European philosophy which is a mix between ancient European myth, but primarily Christian theology. Anyway that aside they main point I was trying to get at is: if god is everywhere at all times couldn't we infer/see certain aspects of god in the material world.
It is funny you should mention Newton, since he was labeled a "heretic" by the church during his time.
Now, as to your final point. Science doesn't infer anything. It takes facts from observations, makes hypotheses about them, then tests the hypotheses for reliability and validity. They undergo many robust tests by many different scientists and if they are found to be valid and reliable, they become a theory. But the testing doesn't just stop. Theories are constantly being retested. They are never put to rest. Now "if" God is everywhere, perhaps a better question would be " Why can't we see Him"? If you wan't to make Him science, observation is the first step. Otherwise, He remains in theology or ancient literature.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Post #10
Well, for one thing, he'd be a God whose existence no rational person could doubt.katiej49 wrote:hey
Doesn't that strikes you as being a little odd when so much of Christianity is about a self-imposed system of not thinking awkward thoughts (having doubts). There's so much certainty expressed in every Christian belief -- no wiggle room for doubt. That's hard to reconcile with the diverse range of possibilities that actually present themselves.katiej49 wrote:hey we'd be in big trouble if He did, because we as humans are at times...well, stupid. We just dont know enough to know whats best at times. Jesus didnt always give direct answers to people. He often answered in ways that made them think.
Take all those people who reject the convergence on evolution by natural selection as an explanation for the apparent design seen in living things for example. Would Jesus really disprove of people figuring out God's methods? Wouldn't he be proud that people were thinking carefully about the world rather than making stuff up as they went along?
