Show me how to test God scientifically

[UberLutheran]

...someone can show me how to replace the timing chain of my car using a garden hoe;

...or how I can solve a differential equation using nothing but intuition.

Different tools are needed for different purposes to achieve different ends.

The trick is to find the right tool for the correct purpose to achieve the end one is seeking to find.

Which is why we use hermeutics and exegesis to study Scripture to find out about God; and why we use intuition to create a work of art or music; and why we use science to discover the nature of the universe and the world; and why we use a timing light to calibrate the timing chain (or better yet, find a good auto mechanic who has the training to change timing chains!); and why we use pencil, paper, calculators, and a background in calculus to solve differential equations; and why we use a hoe in our gardens.

 

[Bargainfluger]

...someone can show me how to replace the timing chain of my car using a garden hoe;

Can I reshape the garden hoe?

 

[brightlights]

This is an interesting statement, brightlights!

If the unbeliever is unable to recognize God, why would he ask? To do so would be absurd.

One can still recognize a need.

 

[Glass*Soul]

One can still recognize a need.

If one cannot recognize God, how can the need be named?

 

[corvus_corax]

One can still recognize a need.

Relating to your earlier post from which this is derived-
What need?

I dont feel hollow, empty, or meaningless (all "needs" as have been described by other christians)
Likewise, I dont feel a need for an omnipotent father figure or a superior entity to order my life or give it meaning.
In a similar vein, I dont feel the need for an arbiter (eg Jesus) to deal with my wrongdoings towards others (I deal with that quite successfully on my own), and as one who doesnt believe in the Christian god-concept, I obviously dont feel a need for such arbiter regarding any apparent "wrongdoing" towards such a god-concept.

What need are we supposed to be recognizing?

You know I respect you (I may not agree with you, but that's a whole different matter). Im not asking these questions to bait you. Im asking them for clarification and understanding.

 

[Split Rock]

...someone can show me how to replace the timing chain of my car using a garden hoe;

...or how I can solve a differential equation using nothing but intuition.

Different tools are needed for different purposes to achieve different ends.

The trick is to find the right tool for the correct purpose to achieve the end one is seeking to find.

Which is why we use hermeutics and exegesis to study Scripture to find out about God; and why we use intuition to create a work of art or music; and why we use science to discover the nature of the universe and the world; and why we use a timing light to calibrate the timing chain (or better yet, find a good auto mechanic who has the training to change timing chains!); and why we use pencil, paper, calculators, and a background in calculus to solve differential equations; and why we use a hoe in our gardens.

This was the whole point of the OP.
You cannot use science to test for God and you cannot use belief in God to test science.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The only way anyone will be able to recognize God is if Christ dwells within them. To attain that, all one has to do is ask.

This is an interesting statement, brightlights!

If the unbeliever is unable to recognize God, why would he ask? To do so would be absurd.

One can still recognize a need.

If one cannot recognize God, how can the need be named?

I've had a little time to mull over my follow-up question. I think I'm able to answer it myself at this point. (Do let me know if you disagree.)

Actually, I think you've put your finger on an answer to the OP in your first comment.

Enlightenment is a state of being. The existence of God is a metaphysical question. If we "recognize the need" it is unutterable. The answer, if there is one, will be ineffable. We mustn't confuse our description of a numinous experience for the thing itself. It cannot be communicated or debated. We each take the journey in complete solitude. Its reality is psychic, not physical.

I think we sometimes project our metaphysical yearnings onto science. We believe we see intimations of our inward experiences in the world around us. We make symbols out of them. Maybe a Higgs boson is a more sophisticated symbol than a golden calf, but our tendency to project our inward experience onto the outward world probably hasn't changed much in thousands of years.

 

[MarkT]

No. You are talking about a sort of verification (which is a method of uncovering evidence), not falsification (which is a method of disproving a theory). Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability before continuing to post in this thread.

No. I was talking about a falsification test, the implication being that new kinds of life can evolve. So far it hasn't been done.

Evolution supposedly created the kinds of life we see today from older kinds or forms.

The only thing of interest in this case would be the statement or test that would falsify the argument. Something that would be true if evolution is false.

How can I rid the theory of this error when the theory isn't truly predictive. What experience would delimit or falsify it? What would prohibit a new kind of life from beginning? Seems to me there are limits to biological change. You can prove me wrong by evolving something.

You haven't made a falsifiable statement that I can compare with the results of a practical application or experiment.

The observation that whales have no feathers is theory laden. You can't falsify something that is made evident by the theory.

In general the simple minded approach might work but in this specific case (and many others) it doesn't and it is fraught with danger.

A human jury, for example, would know what stealing is from experience in their own life. But we have no experience of new kinds of life being created or evolving from a previous kind. So we have two competing theories.

But extending the simple minded approach to where you accept everything until it is proven false is to end up being so full of lies you can't see straight.

 

[Lucretius]

A theory does not need direct observation to be called science.

If it did, we could throw out the whole of astronomy (the speed of light isn't infinite, so we really get indirect pictures of the universe) as well as all of quantum mechanics (we don't really see the subatomic particles…just their trails under a microscope or their effects on larger things).

Instead, a theory needs to make a prediction, it needs to be falsifiable, it needs to explain why things are the way they are in a logical way. Basically, it needs to follow the Scientific Method. Also, no "supernatural explanations." Because that is an oxymoron.

 

[tryptophan]

Take a study group of cancer patients, and a control group of healthy "patients." Add a group of theists are each assigned a "patient" ramdomly. Divide the theists into four equal groups. The first group does nothing, the second group prays for their patient's cancer to be cured once a day, the third group three time a day, and the fourth group five times a day.

Repeat several times.
Analyze the results.
Make a conclusion.

Does that indeed show that you are testing God? What if there is something else going on? To test God in this experiment, you would have to assume that God exists and that only he can direct prayers. However, what if prayers work by some as yet unknown mechanism?

(Playing Devil's Advocate is fun. )

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Well, the consensus here seems to be that you can't test God scientifically. One only wonders if this will be the last of it...

But of course it won't...

 

[Code-Monkey]

A theory does not need direct observation to be called science.

If it did, we could throw out the whole of astronomy (the speed of light isn't infinite, so we really get indirect pictures of the universe) as well as all of quantum mechanics (we don't really see the subatomic particles…just their trails under a microscope or their effects on larger things).

Instead, a theory needs to make a prediction, it needs to be falsifiable, it needs to explain why things are the way they are in a logical way. Basically, it needs to follow the Scientific Method. Also, no "supernatural explanations." Because that is an oxymoron.

Right. Science is in the business of providing natural explanations. Even if the cause is a super-natural cause, as long as there's a preceeding natural correllation that can be predicted, science will only point to the natural correllation. Some people will then point to those natural correllations and claim that they actually cause the thing to happen. But in this case they would be wrong. And even if there were a supernatural cause and NO correllation between other natural events, then some scientific philosophers might claim there is NO cause, rather it just happens on it's own. But that claim leaves the realm of science and enters philosophy at that point.

The bottom line is science is a failure of a method when it comes to observing God directly. In the same way, looking at my programs I write is a really poor way to find out about me, the programmer.

As someone mentioned, you could try to do an experiment on God by looking at "prayer" and testing which patient is God going to heal... but that would be testing a very narrow bit of theology that almost no world religions hold. But again, science is just really designed for a specific set of problems, it doesn't at all begin to address the entirety of what is true and what isn't.

 

[Split Rock]

No. I was talking about a falsification test, the implication being that new kinds of life can evolve. So far it hasn't been done.

What is a "kind?" Speciation has been well documented. You will just say "it is still a (fill in the blank)." Therefore, I must insist you tell us what a "new kind" is.

Evolution supposedly created the kinds of life we see today from older kinds or forms.

OK

The only thing of interest in this case would be the statement or test that would falsify the argument. Something that would be true if evolution is false.

I have given you examples.

How can I rid the theory of this error when the theory isn't truly predictive. What experience would delimit or falsify it? What would prohibit a new kind of life from beginning? Seems to me there are limits to biological change. You can prove me wrong by evolving something.

Are you asking why abiogenesis isn't still going on? This is because now that life exists here, any organic molecules are going to be eaten before a new type of cell can develop.

Why do you ask us to "evolve" something? The rose is one of the most genetically engineered organisms on the planet. It does not look anything like its ancestors. Humans did that.

You haven't made a falsifiable statement that I can compare with the results of a practical application or experiment.

Yes we have

The observation that whales have no feathers is theory laden. You can't falsify something that is made evident by the theory.

A theory explains what we observe around us.

In general the simple minded approach might work but in this specific case (and many others) it doesn't and it is fraught with danger.

It is so simpleminded you don't seem to understand it.

A human jury, for example, would know what stealing is from experience in their own life. But we have no experience of new kinds of life being created or evolving from a previous kind. So we have two competing theories.

Again, we have examples of speciation. Do you expect a bird to pop put of a lizard's egg? That is not evolution.

But extending the simple minded approach to where you accept everything until it is proven false is to end up being so full of lies you can't see straight.

This is the danger of creationism. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

interestingly enough, though, some scientists are thinking that deep below the crust we still might be able to see biogenesis going on- some Japanese scientists are checking on this

 

[Bargainfluger]

The thread about it is here.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

Take a study group of cancer patients, and a control group of healthy "patients." Add a group of theists are each assigned a "patient" ramdomly. Divide the theists into four equal groups. The first group does nothing, the second group prays for their patient's cancer to be cured once a day, the third group three time a day, and the fourth group five times a day.

Repeat several times.
Analyze the results.
Make a conclusion.

been done. http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2001-rst/921.html

 

[Peruvian]

There are some people on this forum that have the bizarre idea that God is testable. I would like these people to tell me how they would purpose to scientifically test God. And I want details (methods and materials and so forth).

According to ROMANS 1:20, there is absolutely nothing where we can proof God scientifically, but if we do not believe that God is the creator, we do not have an excuse!

JT

 

[MarkT]

A theory does not need direct observation to be called science.

To keep science progressing, so they say. That's the reasoning behind not requiring proof. But that's not good enough in this case and that kind of reasoning is fraught with danger. Hypothetically it allows science to progress but logically it also allows falsehood into science.

The idea that a theory doesn't need to be proven was proposed by Karl Popper.

Any "positive support" for theories is both unobtainable and superfluous; all we can and need do is create theories and eliminate error - and even this is hypothetical, though often successful.

Even observations are theory laden so you can't even trust your own eyes.

Logically it should only apply to things that are too small or too far away to be seen or to forces like gravity.

But released to the public, this kind of reasoning allows things to be called science that aren't really science and it allows social scientists, political scientists, behavioral scientists, drug companies, etc. to use the scientific method to make claims which are false, illogical, irrational and down right fraudulent.

It's truly remarkable how it adapted itself and gained acceptance especially since it is so close to a logical fallacy.

Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Even common sense is questioned. If it isn't researched then it isn't true but if it is, then it is true. Hence the ever expanding research industry.

In 40 years it's reshaped society causing great harm to people who trust anything that is scientifically proven and it has taken away common sense as everything needs to be explained scientifically. Or so it would appear.

 

[MarkT]

This lends further support to other evidence, such as the leg buds that appear in dolphin embryos and are reabsorbed, and the fact that the nostrils in such embryos start at the tip of the snout (like other mammals) and then migrates to the top of the head.

An interesting parallel but I don't have any reason to think a creature's evolutionary history should be revealed in its embryonic growth.

 

[ChrisS]

There are some people on this forum that have the bizarre idea that God is testable. I would like these people to tell me how they would purpose to scientifically test God. And I want details (methods and materials and so forth).

Have several Christians pray about critical things to their lives, if what they are praying doesn't go against Gods character, and the prayers are answered, then that right their is your test. God is still very active in the world . Simply saying it's a coincedence that my prayers are answered, whether with a yes or no, isn't a very good explanation.