Is god really beyond science's bounds?

[selfinflikted]

Unless you are new here, you have seen and heard numerous times that god and the supernatural are "outside" of science's domain. Many Christians and non-Christians alike believe that the existence of god cannot be tested through empirical, scientific means. Personally, I would concede this point if we were discussing a god who just blithely created the universe and all in it, then did nothing else. But that is not the god we hear Christians describe.

The god that we often hear Christians describe is not an inactive god, but rather one that takes an active role in the individual lives of his followers. If that were true, shouldn't we be able to detect the effects of god's activity?

 

[David Jerome]

If a God like the one described in the Bible were real, then he wouldn't be subject to scientific scrutiny; by the same token, if he were real, his own creation (the earth and the universe) wouldn't refute him, like it does now.

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, if He is intelligent - infinitely so - and also omniscient and omnipresent -whatever that really means... Then any test with a negative conclusion might be so because He decides to mess with our minds, not reveal Himself or otherwise confound the scientist(s) in question. Now, I doubt that this describes the Christian God very well. He does not in the new testament appear to be particularly devious.

Anyway. Are you familiar with any sound hypothesis on the subject and the testing of these?

 

[TheReasoner]

If a God like the one described in the Bible were real, then he wouldn't be subject to scientific scrutiny; by the same token, if he were real, his own creation (the earth and the universe) wouldn't refute him, like it does now.

Correction: If the creationist or intelligent design interpretations of scripture are correct your statement holds. If you consider the orthodox (and faaaar older) interpretation of the same passages your statement no longer holds, creation no longer refutes the Christian God.

 

[selfinflikted]

Anyway. Are you familiar with any sound hypothesis on the subject and the testing of these?

Not particularly. But I have just seen so many times the comment that "science is too myopic for god" that I just have to call bollocks. For instance, there was that blind study done on the effects of prayer on healing the sick (my apologies that I cannot provide a link, I'm at work and a lot of the interwebs are blocked). The results showed that prayer did not help the sick patients, and in fact, the patients who were prayed for fared worse than those who weren't prayed for. That kind of "effect" is detectable and measureable.

So, though I do not have a specific test in mind, one would think that because god is allegedly active in our world, we should be able to detect his effect upon it.

 

[selfinflikted]

If a God like the one described in the Bible were real, then he wouldn't be subject to scientific scrutiny;

How so?

 

[David Jerome]

How so?

Because God doesn't follow the rules of nature, which we'd need to study him.

 

[selfinflikted]

Because God doesn't follow the rules of nature, which we'd need to study him.

But not if he is affecting the physical world in the ways that his followers say that he is.

 

[TheReasoner]

But not if he is affecting the physical world in the ways that his followers say that he is.

So. His followers are out of whack with what and who He is.

That's a new one...

Ah. Or... Maybe it isn't.

 

[selfinflikted]

^ Freakin' awesome.

 

[David Jerome]

But not if he is affecting the physical world in the ways that his followers say that he is.

That wouldn't matter. If God is truly all-powerful and can do anything, his ways of affecting the physical worldn't be through means that aren't natural, because nothing in nature is all-powerful, omnipresent and infinite and eternal.

 

[TheReasoner]

That wouldn't matter. If God is truly all-powerful and can do anything, his ways of affecting the physical worldn't be through means that aren't natural, because nothing in nature is all-powerful, omnipresent and infinite and eternal.

If those are true, or approximately true, how can we hope to measure and detect Him? We might at our current developmental stage have the same means of detecting His existence as a bacterium in the gut of an anglerfish has of detecting us. It might be impossible at this juncture.

 

[David Jerome]

If those are true, or approximately true, how can we hope to measure and detect Him? We might at our current developmental stage have the same means of detecting His existence as a bacterium in the gut of an anglerfish has of detecting us. It might be impossible at this juncture.

If the God of the bible is real, then we can only detect him if he wants us too. Point blank. However, like I said, if he were real, his own creation wouldn't refute him, if the ID and Creationist accounts of him are the correct accounts.

 

[selfinflikted]

That wouldn't matter. If God is truly all-powerful and can do anything, his ways of affecting the physical worldn't be through means that aren't natural, because nothing in nature is all-powerful, omnipresent and infinite and eternal.

I have thought of a few things, but let me throw out another example that I've been thinking about.

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is supposed to endwell all Christians. One would deduce, then, that since all Christians have this "Holy Spirit" that they would all 1) Receive the same information from the Holy Spirit, 2) Have superior morals which would play out through their words and actions, and 3) Interpret the Bible only in the way in which the Holy Spirit dictates.

But we know 1) No two Christians ever receive the same information from the Holy Spirit, 2) Christians are no better than anyone else - they have adulterous relationships, steal, lie, kill, etc etc just like those filthy heathens, and 3) How many different interpretations of the Bible are there? Countless.

These are but a couple of examples of things that we can see and test for. Can you see what I'm driving at now? I don't know that science could or could not "detect" god himself, but we can certainly detect the effects his actions would have on the physical world and by extension, detect god.

 

[Theofane]

Is god really beyond science's bounds?

Yes!

If God is truly God, He must be transcendent. As the programmer transcends the program ...

 

[Theofane]

The god that we often hear Christians describe is not an inactive god, but rather one that takes an active role in the individual lives of his followers. If that were true, shouldn't we be able to detect the effects of god's activity?

Within the Matrix program of what we call reality, we can detect the effects of what we believe to be God's activity. But if we don't believe our Matrix program in fact has a Creator, we would posit simple naturalistic explainations to what we observe. And, given the extent of our knowledge, logic would tell us we are correct.

 

[TheReasoner]

I have thought of a few things, but let me throw out another example that I've been thinking about.

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is supposed to endwell all Christians. One would deduce, then, that since all Christians have this "Holy Spirit" that they would all

1. Receive the same information from the Holy Spirit
2. Have superior morals which would play out through their words and actions
3. Interpret the Bible only in the way in which the Holy Spirit dictates.

But we know

1. No two Christians ever receive the same information from the Holy Spirit,
2. Christians are no better than anyone else - they have adulterous relationships, steal, lie, kill, etc etc just like those filthy heathens, and
3. How many different interpretations of the Bible are there? Countless.

These are but a couple of examples of things that we can see and test for. Can you see what I'm driving at now? I don't know that science could or could not "detect" god himself, but we can certainly detect the effects his actions would have on the physical world and by extension, detect god.

(I made the lists lists)

Yep. Those three pointers (Or at least 2 and 3) have been issues I can't quite resolve myself either. Not in faith's favor at least.

[edit]
Though we can see a fairly unsatisfactory answer in the bible. It tells us of believers who are not really believers. E.g. in Matthew 25. And it lists several things which shall identify true believers. For example in Galatians 5:22. Or we can get pointers throughout Jesus' life as detailed in the bible. Basically I gather that a war-mongering narcissistic racist filled with hatred is not a christian no matter how loud he shouts that he is. Basically eliminating most if not all KKKers, and a lot of others, like a couple of torture-promoting republican contenders.
Of course this makes it hard/impossible to determine whether point 2 has any hold. If someone claims to be a christian but displays hatred, greed, lust or other things as lifestyle choices then said person would possibly be defined as a non-christian through him or her lack of 'fruit'. Whereas if someone were to be a veritable saint, then a claim to be christian would have hold. But only then.
[/edit]

 

[Elendur]

Yes!

If God is truly God, He must be transcendent. As the programmer transcends the program ...

That's not correct, he doesn't have to. But he can choose to (if he would be omnipotent).

If what you said was true we would have no way of guessing (not even getting close to understanding him/her/it) his nature or his effects.

And if we cannot do that... Not much point in trying to understand him, is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

The god that we often hear Christians describe is not an inactive god, but rather one that takes an active role in the individual lives of his followers. If that were true, shouldn't we be able to detect the effects of god's activity?

Do you really think that would make a difference?

Matthew 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

If so, I've got a bridge in Beisfjord I'd like to sell you.

 

[selfinflikted]

Within the Matrix program of what we call reality, we can detect the effects of what we believe to be God's activity. But if we don't believe our Matrix program in fact has a Creator, we would posit simple naturalistic explainations to what we observe. And, given the extent of our knowledge, logic would tell us we are correct.

What reason would there be to even suspect god if we have natural explanations that work without god?