What will happen if, science runs across definitive proof of God?

[agua]

Experiments are not meant to be designed, to produce a specific outcome. That would be bias.

True. Experiments can be designed to detect something we expect though. This is how the process from premise to model works.

 

[agua]

No, we can't. Science has nothing to do with non-physical things. If god is non-physical, then there is absolutely no way to reason from a given scientific finding to the conclusion that "There is a high probability of god existing."

Do you consider astronomy science ?

 

[Smidlee]

I'm Christian I'm not sure why you'd ask me this ?

Just checking.

 

[agua]

"Influence" is physical evidence.

Exactly !

 

[TillICollapse]

Detecting a life form that isn't carbon-based wouldn't imply that we've detected god.

I didn't say that it would be the sole factor, rather I was implying that it would perhaps be at least one of them. In my own post, I hinted at what I presumed may be some other minimal attributes (i.e. intelligence, will and intent, etc). So obviously I agree that what would constitute a "god" by human standards would be greater than merely discovering a form of life that was non carbon based. Again, I was implying more of a minimal attribute, albeit a signifficant one.

The requirements for what constitutes "god" are far greater. For starters, god is a non-physical entity. He is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

There are plenty of people throughout history who have defined various types of gods without the omni attributes, even within current areas on these forums some of the omni attributes are debated amongst "believers". However concerning the "non physical", I don't understand this idea, or why many believers as well as non believers seem to side with it. What is the basis for it ? There are plenty of examples, even within the average Protestant Bible, of "God" being described in physical ways.

I cannot fathom how science could "detect" a non-physical being. Even if that being caused physical effects, there is no way to reason that the cause of a given physical effect was non-physical.

I would probably agree that to detect a non-physical being does seem impossible. In my mind, this is like saying, "Science can now detect the undetectable," or "We can now jump to a new causality." How do you know it's a new causality if it's linked to this one in any way ? How is something undetectable if you can detect it ? Similarly, how can a non physical thing effect the physical and still not be considered "physical" at least on one point of it's existence ? However if you remove the restriction that "God must be non physical" (again, I don't understand why so many claim that, even amongst those who claim no gods exist) then a physical entity could be considered a god if it met certain criteria.

 

[Conscious Z]

Exactly !

That is evidence for my point, not yours. My claim is that science only deals with the physical realm. Another poster suggested that science also deals with the non-physical, and you pointed out that sometimes we see the influence of physical things without seeing the things themselves.

That in no way suggests that science is interested in anything but the physical realm.

Here's the problem for your position: There is no way to reason from a physical effect to a non-physical cause.

 

[agua]

That is evidence for my point, not yours. My claim is that science only deals with the physical realm. Another poster suggested that science also deals with the non-physical, and you pointed out that sometimes we see the influence of physical things without seeing the things themselves.

That in no way suggests that science is interested in anything but the physical realm.

Here's the problem for your position: There is no way to reason from a physical effect to a non-physical cause.

My point is that we can do science when we can't see the cause of the influence. We often reason that a physical effect comes from something we haven't yet seen or discovered; astronomy does it daily.

Do you believe Astronomy is science ?

 

[Conscious Z]

My point is that we can do science when we can't see the cause of the influence. We often reason that a physical effect comes from something we haven't yet seen or discovered; astronomy does it daily.

Do you believe Astronomy is science ?

No one has mentioned anything about being able to see causes. I referenced causes that aren't physical. The two are not the same.

Of course astronomy is science.

I believe you've substituted "can't see it" for "it's not physical."

 

[agua]

No one has mentioned anything about being able to see causes. I referenced causes that aren't physical. The two are not the same.

Of course astronomy is science.

I believe you've substituted "can't see it" for "it's not physical."

My point is that we can do science well before the source/cause is known. In Astronomy we currently have many bodies in space we have yet to see, but we hypothesise they exist by their influence.

 

[Smidlee]

Science can't be done without the non-physical mind. Remember science hasn't been able to prove "Realism" is true.

 

[TillICollapse]

Science can't be done without the non-physical mind. Remember science hasn't been able to prove "Realism" is true.

How in your opinion is the mind non-physical ?

 

[Smidlee]

How is the mind non-physical ?

We can doubt the existence of everything including our brain (hyper-skepticism) but not without our mind. (consciousness)

 

[TillICollapse]

We can doubt the existence of everything including our brain (hyper-skepticism) but not without our mind. (consciousness)

I've never found any form of solipsism very practical. This sounds like another form of solipsism to me.

On what practical level do you, yourself, doubt the existence of your own brain ?

 

[TillICollapse]

We can doubt the existence of everything including our brain (hyper-skepticism) but not without our mind. (consciousness)

I still don't see how this would lead you to think the mind is non-physical. Wouldn't that lead you to conclude that the mind is the ONLY physical phenomena if everything else may not exist ?

 

[keith99]

Has anyone on this thread actually given an account of what such a scientific finding might look like? I cannot imagine how any scientific finding could lead to the conclusion that god exists. I can imagine how a finding might disprove other findings or demonstrate that the current body of knowledge is insufficient, but I literally cannot fathom how a scientific finding could make one conclude "There is a god."

Depends on how one defines God.

If one means an intelligence as far beyond us as we are beyond cockroaches I think such could be demonstrated.

If one sees a gap between that and God I don't see how we the cockroaches could tell the difference.

 

[TillICollapse]

Depends on how one defines God.

If one means an intelligence as far beyond us as we are beyond cockroaches I think such could be demonstrated.

If one sees a gap between that and God I don't see how we the cockroaches could tell the difference.

I think defining "god" would obviously be part of being able to agree on what a "god" is scientifically since I assume consensual taxonomical classification would play a part.

 

[Smidlee]

I still don't see how this would lead you to think the mind is non-physical. Wouldn't that lead you to conclude that the mind is the ONLY physical phenomena if everything else may not exist ?

Simple ,the product of mind is also non-physical and without the product of the mind there would be no brain.

I've never found any form of solipsism very practical. This sounds like another form of solipsism to me.

Neither do I . I'm not saying I doubt my physical existence.

 

[TillICollapse]

Simple ,the product of mind is also non-physical and without the product of the mind there would be no brain.

Again, I just don't think a non materialist view of the universe in a solipsistic context is very practical. One can stick their fingers in their ears and say "I'm the projection of an invisible turtle" all the way to their physical death, but such an unfalsifiable position from their perspective isn't really practical for my own, or most social perspectives. If someone wanted to take such a stance, I'd probably just move on and converse with someone else. Non falsifiable statements suck, IOW. lol.

Neither do I . I'm not saying I doubt my physical existence.

Okay. Well thanks for responding to clarification.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Has anyone on this thread actually given an account of what such a scientific finding might look like? I cannot imagine how any scientific finding could lead to the conclusion that god exists. I can imagine how a finding might disprove other findings or demonstrate that the current body of knowledge is insufficient, but I literally cannot fathom how a scientific finding could make one conclude "There is a god."

One never feels very impressed by argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Paradoxum]

Even if God didn't care about good/evil, he'd still understand the true nature of good/evil since he's the most intelligent being. So it would still make sense to follow his definition.

Why would that mean you should follow him?

I might know how to do X. But I could direct someone to do X incorrectly, if it would benefit me.

Well, if God is the only definition of good then by definition nothing good can come from outside of God. So by definition everything God says is good is good and everything he says is evil is evil. God's reasoning behind his "morality" can simply be that he's good and therefore everything in line with his nature is good and everything not in line with his nature isn't.

I don't think God is the only definition of good. If that all goodness is, then why should I care about being good? It's just 'obey the king'.

If his reasoning is just that anything he says is good, then I see no reason to do what he says... because 'good' is nothing more than obedience.

Yes, I admit that God is a mostly quiet Chap, and that He continues to be much more quiet than I would have preferred (meaning that I've never had any experiences I would qualify as miraculous; perhaps a few breezes of providence here and there, but no miracles. No brilliant revelations of light. No sudden booming voices. No angels heard on High. No amazing cases of healing. No fantastical prophecies made on my behalf coming true. No visions of sugar plums. .....Just the love of Christ making my family a family.)

So, I sympathize, Para.

Peace