God vs. Science

[cloudyday2]

That's just it though. Santa is a good example of what a 'personified' God is in our reality. Santa has a few fail safes in that adults all agree he doesn't truly exist, but the basic idea is the same.

I think I understand the concept. Pagans typically personified natural things into gods (sky, rain, harvest, etc.), right? The Abrahamic religions view God as the Creator of the universe - not a personification of something in nature. IDK.

 

[dlamberth]

A physicist on another forum pointed-out that the probability wave of particles "located" on Earth actually cover the entire universe. There is a small probability that an Earth particle will cause an event on Mars. Of course there is the quantum entanglement too. Things that seem to be separate in the universe are actually connected apparently.

Sounds mystical.

.

 

[light upon light]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

What exactly does science say about "the origins of the universe"? I'm pretty familiar with cosmology and TBH science doesn't know why everything unfolded over the last 15 billion years, it just describes the unfolding.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical.

That doesn't tell us what "physical" is.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

Actually, QM pretty much shows us that "physical" things aren't material at all, and that the appearance of a universe of separate particles in an absolute space-time reference frame is an illusion.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable?

You can only measure quantities, not qualities.

Purpose, meaning, love, beauty - these are qualities, not quantities.

Reductionism is a useful tool for many things - but certainly not for everything.

 

[cloudyday2]

What exactly does science say about "the origins of the universe"? I'm pretty familiar with cosmology and TBH science doesn't know why everything unfolded over the last 15 billion years, it just describes the unfolding.

Of course science doesn't tell us how something came from nothing, but there are lots of theories showing how the universe evolved - just as there are lots of theories showing how life evolved. The Abrahamic religions say that God created something from nothing, but of course that leaves us wondering where God came from. It's better to leave those questions unanswered so that we can look for real answers. Plugging these gaps with religious speculation is like hiding your vegetables under the plate instead of eating them.

That doesn't tell us what "physical" is.

Actually, QM pretty much shows us that "physical" things aren't material at all, and that the appearance of a universe of separate particles in an absolute space-time reference frame is an illusion.

I would define "physical" as those things that seem to behave deterministically (so that science can predict their behavior using mathematical models). QM says the individual measurements are not deterministic, but a large collection of measurements should approximate the probability wave that science can calculate. A collection of measurements is very deterministic.

You can only measure quantities, not qualities.

Purpose, meaning, love, beauty - these are qualities, not quantities.

Reductionism is a useful tool for many things - but certainly not for everything.

We can measure beauty by selling an artwork. We can measure love too. Christians believe that Jesus measured his love for the Father and for humanity by submitting to crucifixion.

 

[Zstar]

I know that the majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews accept science's theories about the origins of life on Earth, the origins of the universe, etc. Most religious people rely on science to solve their practical problems too. If they are sick, they go to the doctor. God becomes like a sprig of parsley decorating a plate while science becomes the edible food.

Naturalism is the belief that everything is exclusively physical. Science is built on methodological naturalism which means accepting that naturalism is 99.999% of the explanation for everything. Scientists can be religious, but only if God is merely a garnishment.

Quantum mechanics says that particles are probability waves punctuated by events that momentarily localize them (sorry to any physicists who might cringe at my bad understanding ). So some randomness is part of nature. This randomness may or may not be real. There is an interpretation of QM that imagines hidden variables to make nature deterministic, but there are other interpretations that make nature non-deterministic.

... Anyway, is it possible for God to exist and yet never appear as an essential ingredient in any scientific theories? The randomness in QM provides a big lever for hidden variables to exert some influence without detection, but if this influence is part of a goal that humans can comprehend, wouldn't this be measurable? Like if science could say that God should want a probability wave to collapse into a particular event, and we measured that collapse consistently, what would that mean? (I forgot to mention Maxwell's demon - partly because I don't understand it - but it might be a consideration too.)

I know my ideas are rambling. Any thoughts? (I didn't mention the pantheistic and panentheistic religions, however, I believe science makes them into a frivolous garnishment too.)

'Sprig of Parsley' - give me a break.

There is a Source for all one can see and touch...no, then how?

 

[cloudyday2]

'Sprig of Parsley' - give me a break.

There is a Source for all one can see and touch...no, then how?

I don't understand what you are saying. Maybe I am being dense.

 

[cloudyday2]

Hmmm. I'm surprised that this issue doesn't seem to bother other people as much as it bothers me. How can God exist when we never see any scientific evidence that He exists? I had to think a lot about this question. This was the question that led me to doubt my "spiritual" experiences and gradually become an atheist again.

Of course, everybody is different, so that's fine.

 

[Hawkins]

Hmmm. I'm surprised that this issue doesn't seem to bother other people as much as it bothers me. How can God exist when we never see any scientific evidence that He exists? I had to think a lot about this question. This was the question that led me to doubt my "spiritual" experiences and gradually become an atheist again.

Of course, everybody is different, so that's fine.

Your understanding of science doesn't seem to be correct. The randomness QM gives is predictably always the same. That is, QM doesn't give you a 1/3 probability today in the formula but 1/4 the next day. If the probability calculated from a formula is 1/3, it remains the same all the times. You can repeatedly do the same calculation to deliver the same result.

This has nothing similar to human thinking or human behavior, our thinking and behavior are never predictably repeat themselves like QM.

 

[cloudyday2]

Your understanding of science doesn't seem to be correct. The randomness QM gives is predictably always the same. That is, QM doesn't give you a 1/3 probability today in the formula but 1/4 the next day. If the probability calculated from a formula is 1/3, it remains the same all the times. You can repeatedly do the same calculation to deliver the same result.

This has nothing similar to human thinking or human behavior, our thinking and behavior are never predictably repeat themselves like QM.

That's true. If we calculate the probability wave for something like an electron orbiting an atom, then it is the same (probably the wave oscillates though?). An individual measurement of the electron can be anything with non-zero probability, but a collection of measurements should approximate the probability wave calculated. (I hope that is more or less correct.)

I suppose I'm a reductionist in that I don't see any distinction between a human and a computer. Maybe the human is more sensitive to variations in individual quantum events within the brain, and that might add more non-determinism to the human, but maybe not. I know that fruit flies are able to smell the differences in isotopes which apparently means their noses are sensitive to QM.

I would say the higher the Kolmogorov complexity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity ) of the measurements, the lower the chance that God is active in those measurements. If the fundamentalists are correct, then the Kolmogorov complexity of God's plan is 3,116,480 (the number of letters in the Bible http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q10_bible_facts_statistics/ ). This is the complexity of God's master plan... whatever

 

[light upon light]

Hmmm. I'm surprised that this issue doesn't seem to bother other people as much as it bothers me. How can God exist when we never see any scientific evidence that He exists? I had to think a lot about this question. This was the question that led me to doubt my "spiritual" experiences and gradually become an atheist again.

Of course, everybody is different, so that's fine.

It all depends on what you mean by "God".

 

[light upon light]

I suppose I'm a reductionist in that I don't see any distinction between a human and a computer.

I see lots of differences.

Computers pretty much just sit there until I tell them to do something.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hmmm. I'm surprised that this issue doesn't seem to bother other people as much as it bothers me. How can God exist when we never see any scientific evidence that He exists? I had to think a lot about this question. This was the question that led me to doubt my "spiritual" experiences and gradually become an atheist again.

Of course, everybody is different, so that's fine.

If we found scientific evidence for this god, I would immediately assume it is a life form that exists within the universe. The being becomes, essentially, Q from Star Trek than the being described in the religions such as Judaism and Christianity. A powerful life form, yes, but one that isn't different than us fundamentally.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see where God is revealed to be active within the world.

If we are approaching the subject of God and science from a position of assumed theism--which seemed like the point of the thread--then there is a presumed revelation of said God. For Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha'is who believe in the God of Abraham the presumption is that this is a God of revelation, a God that has revealed God's Self in some capacity through the narrative of human history. For Christians such historical revelation is recorded in the Bible, the identity of this God is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" the God who delivered the Israelites out from Egypt, the God who spoke through the prophets, the God who became man in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

Such a God is thus revealed to be a God who is quite active within the world.

God is comprehended by revelation rather than reason. Which is why God is not comprehended through the scientific method or through naturalistic processes; God is comprehended and encountered by way of revelation, God's Self-unveiling of God's Self in the unique encounter between God and man as received in the histories and stories of God's people--culminating, for Christians, in the chiefest encounter: the Incarnation.

For Christianity God is not an abstraction philosophized about, a concept with which particular properties are attached; God is instead the concrete Reality that condescends to encounter human beings redemptively, most prominently and explicitly in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man. God is not preeminently defined as That-Most-Powerful, but as That which called Abraham and promised him to be a father of many, That which met Moses in the burning bush, That which led Israel in the desert as a pillar of fire by night and smoke by day, and most importantly That which became man in the womb of Mary the virgin.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

When you say God is transcendent and immanent, I see a problem. Christians believe that a relationship with God is key. This violates God's transcendent attribute, because a relationship is not possible unless both parties are effected by each other.

Some Christians "believe that a relationship with God is key". The language of a "personal relationship with God" is largely an Evangelical construction--and can have different meanings depending on who you ask ranging from definitions that I could agree with to more mystical constructions which I would not agree with.

It's not that non-Evangelicals would reject that we have a relationship with God, but we would arguably frame it with perhaps more strict theological language. So it's a good idea to define what a "relationship with God" even means at a theological level.

For example I certainly don't have a similar relationship to God as I have with say my friends, my father, my grandparents, or my brother. I can't send God a text, or go grab a beer with God, I can't call Him up on the phone and ask if He wants to watch a movie.

Moving past that, however, I fail to see why God's transcendence would exclude His immanent presence (and thereby making Him personally present in some capacity by which to relate to or encounter the world or individuals.

As a Christian I come to the gathered worship of the Faithful to hear God's Word preached and receive God's Sacraments; whereby there is indeed, in faith, a real and true encounter of the Transcendent Deity. Because God condescends to meet men by His Word, and God condescends to meet men in His Supper; in the Supper by which I receive the real and actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God-Man, I indeed have a visceral, tangible encounter with the Almighty. Indeed, I receive the flesh and blood of the invisible and transcendent God. That, of course, is an admitted paradox and is part of the holy mystery of the Eucharist. Christ said "This is My body ... do this for the remembrance of Me" and, indeed, it is so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

It all depends on what you mean by "God".

This is why a precise definition of "God" is so important - otherwise discussion isn't possible.

 

[cloudyday2]

I see lots of differences.

Computers pretty much just sit there until I tell them to do something.

I wish that was true. My computers seem to have a mind of their own.

 

[dlamberth]

This is why a precise definition of "God" is so important -

That's pretty imposable with an infinite being.

otherwise discussion isn't possible.

Yet...we continue to discuss.

.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's pretty imposable with an infinite being.


Yet...we continue to discuss.

.

The discussions don't get anywhere. It is like the Tower of Babel without some clear definitions of our words.

 

[dlamberth]

The discussions don't get anywhere. It is like the Tower of Babel without some clear definitions of our words.

Which might help explain why there are so many different Christian denominations. God can't be clearly defined using words so we end up with different images of God and different way's of knowing the Divine.

.

 

[Wryetui]

There is no really a God versus science thing, not here in the eastern Europe at last, I think that's just something made up by sick minds. In Constanta, in my country, the main doctor of Neurosurgery is also a priest, would you go and tell him that science and God are opposite? Maybe with some made-up God of your minds, but not with the real, living God.