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

[Conscious Z]

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. 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 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.

I think we're probably working with different definitions of "god." I am using it in the sense that god must be non-physical.

 

[Conscious Z]

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.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with our conversation. My only claim is that science can tell us nothing about a non-physical being. That we can infer physical beings from their physical causes is an irrelevant point with which I can't imagine anyone would disagree.

 

[Conscious Z]

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.

I don't know anyone who would define god in such a way.

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

There could be no evidence of a non-physical being that science could discover. None. A supremely intelligent being might do things that are inexplicable, but at no point could we reason that any given effect had a non-physical cause.

There is certainly truth the the point that a sufficiently intelligent being could fool many people into thinking he is god, but that is not the same as there being scientific evidence that he is god.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think we're probably working with different definitions of "god." I am using it in the sense that god must be non-physical.

Jesus is physical and Jesus is God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you seen "The Wizard of Oz" film? Remember what happened to the wicked witch of the west when water was thrown on her? That's what will happen to atheism if indisputable evidence for the existence of God were discovered by somebody who was a scientist doing science.

I'm melting ... all my beautiful atheism ... who would have thought ...

MoreCoffee,

The irony of your analogy is that "The Wizard of Oz" is an atheistic movie. You do realize that, don't you?

 

[TillICollapse]

I think we're probably working with different definitions of "god." I am using it in the sense that god must be non-physical.

Okay I think I began to gather that we were going off defining "God" differently Because I essentially agree that the scientific body of knowledge deals with the physical, and personally, to claim to be able to detect something non-physical is what I would call nonsensical lol.

I, personally, would assume a definition of God would involve one where God was physical.

Out of curiosity, why does your definition have a "must" within it ? I'm assuming based on your icon you take an atheist stance, yes ?

 

[grandvizier1006]

Oh, FYI for whoever wanted me to answer the question: I still plan on doing it, but I have to give it some thought and I have a lot going on right now. So it might be a little bit.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Yes, by their influence. What is the larger point you are making?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I like Jesus Christ so I choose to believe in him. God comes with Jesus, I'd explain why but most of you would already know or at least have a vague idea of why that is so. Now, if you think it is condescending to equate God with the Christian God what can I say? He is God. It would be disingenuous of me to say otherwise given that I believe in him.

But carry on, no doubt you have some specific god in mind as a replacement or was that not your intended point?

My point was, there are thousands of god concepts, and I think the chances that one of these god concepts is actually true and accurate, is extremely unlikely.

I thought it was condescending of you, to "celebrate" the demise of atheism, and to presume that if a god is confirmed to exist, it must automatically be the Jesus/god.

But let me concede for arguments sake, that one of these god concepts is confirmed to exist.

The odds that it is the Jesus/god, is still unlikely, therefore, the high probability, for the demise of Christianity also.

 

[Conscious Z]

Jesus is physical and Jesus is God.

So you believe that a physical Jesus is still hanging out somewhere in the universe? Maybe NASA should take up the search?

 

[Conscious Z]

Okay I think I began to gather that we were going off defining "God" differently Because I essentially agree that the scientific body of knowledge deals with the physical, and personally, to claim to be able to detect something non-physical is what I would call nonsensical lol.

I, personally, would assume a definition of God would involve one where God was physical.

Out of curiosity, why does your definition have a "must" within it ? I'm assuming based on your icon you take an atheist stance, yes ?

Yes, I am an atheist. I think that the god depicted in the three major monotheistic religions must be non-physical because he is purported to have created the physical realm and is assumed to exist outside space and time. Further, it is hard to imagine how any physical thing could be omnipotent. Perhaps someone has put together an argument for how that is possible, but it seems to me that physical things follow physical laws and thus have physical limitations.

 

[Conscious Z]

One never feels very impressed by argument from personal incredulity.

I'm not making an argument. I'm asking someone else to make an argument to demonstrate something I simply cannot imagine.

 

[Conscious Z]

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

The mind is almost certainly physical. The vast majority of philosophers of mind are physicalists, and for good reason. That is still a huge debate in philosophy, however, so it makes no sense to simply assert something like that as though it's a given.

 

[Conscious Z]

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

That doesn't even come close to suggesting that the mind is not physical.

To be honest, and I'm not trying to sound arrogant or stifle your opinion, unless you are familiar with the relevant arguments on both sides of physicalism and dualism as they relate to metaphysics of mind, you probably shouldn't just assert something as controversial as "The mind is non-physical." If you were familiar with the arguments, you wouldn't feel comfortable making such an assertion.

 

[Conscious Z]

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.

Of course -- who would disagree with that? We're talking about whether science can tell us that some physical effect has a non-physical cause, and the answer is no.

Making inferences about physical causes is irrelevant.

 

[agua]

Of course -- who would disagree with that? We're talking about whether science can tell us that some physical effect has a non-physical cause, and the answer is no.

Making inferences about physical causes is irrelevant.

Phew ! At least we understand eachother, now.

 

[Conscious Z]

I'm not attempting to make an entire page of Conscious Z responses, but I wanted to clarify my concern with the idea that science could ever conclude that a physical effect had a non-physical cause. If you believe god is non-physical, as most Christians do, this is a serious objection to a premise assumed in the OP.

Let's say science discovers a phenomenon P that it was previously unaware of. The question is then what is the cause of P. How could science ever discover that P had a non-physical cause? It might not be able to find the cause of P, but because it is impossible to prove a universal negative, science could never conclude "There is no physical cause to P." This is a logical extension of our inability to prove a universal negative.

So, at most, science would have to conclude that it couldn't explain P. It could never say "God did it."

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes, I am an atheist. I think that the god depicted in the three major monotheistic religions must be non-physical because he is purported to have created the physical realm and is assumed to exist outside space and time. Further, it is hard to imagine how any physical thing could be omnipotent. Perhaps someone has put together an argument for how that is possible, but it seems to me that physical things follow physical laws and thus have physical limitations.

Well I can't speak to the various views of gods that may be debated amongst the umbrella's of Islam or Judaism, however under the Christianity umbrella, obviously many of those attributes you mention are debated (I even remember hearing someone many years ago state that God was roughly 6 feet tall, based on various dimensions taken from certain Protestant scriptures, etc).

It always kind of intrigues me when someone claims to be an atheist, yet also claims that certain attributes of a god must be so. I find myself curious as to how someone can claim an entity doesn't exist, yet be so certain of their attributes. Perhaps it's a psychological issue ?

The typical response when I question this is for the person to defer to other religions defining it for them ... i.e. "Well I'm just pointing to definitions given by others, I can only go off those definitions," yet I find that isn't entirely accurate. There are a myriad of definitions to choose from, so I don't understand why certain ones are almost defended by the atheist at times and still chosen above others, as though it's a standard default definition. Furthermore, many of the atheists who display this type of response seem to clearly show they are able to think for themselves in many areas of life, as reflected by their responses and comments on other topics. So to continually say, "Well that's what others tell me God is," seems like passing the intellectual buck. I have atheist friends who have considered things for themselves and not relied solely on what others have told them to believe.

So I'm still curious as to why you are claiming these attributes for gods ? From my perspective, it is not only many adherents of the major monotheistic religions that claim these attributes, it is also many atheists, which is counterintuitive to me. I realize this is a forum under a Christian umbrella, so it would probably be safe to assume some of the more mainstream claims that go along with that ... however many concepts are discussed here which do not fall under those mainstream claims, and some of us are interested in the truth about topics such as God, above deferring to or defending religions.

If you'd care to respond with more of why you still claim those specific attributes about God(s), feel free ... if not, no worries, it's cool.

ETA: No need to address the "physical things follow physical laws" thing, because I'm essentially with you on that. Plus I realize you are defaulting to a "God is a non physical being" stance, but I'm still unclear why you stick with that, so perhaps I'm looking for your own personal reasons for sticking with that IOW.

 

[Conscious Z]

Phew ! At least we understand eachother, now.

If you believe god is non-physical, then this means that science could never prove god's existence.

 

[Conscious Z]

Well I can't speak to the various views of gods that may be debated amongst the umbrella's of Islam or Judaism, however under the Christianity umbrella, obviously many of those attributes you mention are debated (I even remember hearing someone many years ago state that God was roughly 6 feet tall, based on various dimensions taken from certain Protestant scriptures, etc).

It always kind of intrigues me when someone claims to be an atheist, yet also claims that certain attributes of a god must be so. I find myself curious as to how someone can claim an entity doesn't exist, yet be so certain of their attributes. Perhaps it's a psychological issue ?

The typical response when I question this is for the person to defer to other religions defining it for them ... i.e. "Well I'm just pointing to definitions given by others, I can only go off those definitions," yet I find that isn't entirely accurate. There are a myriad of definitions to choose from, so I don't understand why certain ones are almost defended by the atheist at times and still chosen above others, as though it's a standard default definition. Furthermore, many of the atheists who display this type of response seem to clearly show they are able to think for themselves in many areas of life, as reflected by their responses and comments on other topics. So to continually say, "Well that's what others tell me God is," seems like passing the intellectual buck. I have atheist friends who have considered things for themselves and not relied solely on what others have told them to believe.

So I'm still curious as to why you are claiming these attributes for gods ? From my perspective, it is not only many adherents of the major monotheistic religions that claim these attributes, it is also many atheists, which is counterintuitive to me. I realize this is a forum under a Christian umbrella, so it would probably be safe to assume some of the more mainstream claims that go along with that ... however many concepts are discussed here which do not fall under those mainstream claims, and some of us are interested in the truth about topics such as God, above deferring to or defending religions.

If you'd care to respond with more of why you still claim those specific attributes about God(s), feel free ... if not, no worries, it's cool.

Omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence are assumed to be traits of god in virtually all corners of philosophy of religion. I was a Christian for twenty-five years, and at no point did I ever believe that a being without these three traits could be god...nor did I believe that god himself could be physical, as god is purported to have created the physical and stands outside of space and time. All of these phrases are borrowed from Christian theologians and philosophers, and they are taken as a given in these sorts of discussion by everyone I know.

That's not to say that there isn't debate about the limitations of these traits, such as whether god being unable to do the logically impossible is a knock on omnipotence (most contend it's not), but I know of no one who has seriously doubted these traits. Do you?