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

[agua]

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."

Why does Spiritual necessarily imply non-physical ? Let me explain. Yahweh is a Spirit but can manefest physically, as per Jesus, as per miracles, as per Creation etc. Are you saying that unless Yahweh is always physical then we can never model Him or His actions etc ?

 

[TillICollapse]

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?

I suppose I can see where you are coming from then ... you have a history already steeped in certain types of thought, etc. I don't have that same history, so I still find I'm getting used to certain concepts that others claim are a given. My father was an atheist/agnostic, my mother claimed to be a believer (raised in the Southern US) but never pushed any religion on me. Only introduced me to very basic concepts that are usually picked up through cultural osmosis anyways. I was exposed to a variety of religions as a youth, everything from Santeria to Islam. Nothing was really held back from me as off limits. My father was fascinated by pretty much everything, his shelves filled with books ranging from the Happy Hooker to Edgar Cayce. I remember getting a Bible one Christmas because I asked for one, along with a book on Majestic 12 (I wasn't even out of elementary school yet if I recall). I've also lived on every continent (save the cold one), in a variety of situations, been exposed to all manner of beliefs that people claim to hold, I've personally experienced what many would call supernatural phenomena, etc ... so I sometimes find myself having to adjust to what someone claims is "given" lol.

Yes I would doubt the traits of all knowing (omniscience), as well as what most would probably call omnibenevolence. Growing up, I had no reason to think that "God" wasn't a physical being that I could actually meet, or that concepts of heaven or hell weren't actual places I could somewhere reach and visit. The idea of such things being "non physical" seems nonsensical somewhat to me and foreign still. Omnipotence I would probably doubt depending on context, and omnipresence I am more agnostic towards.

Overall, I like to let "reality speak for itself" and that often includes personal experience. I don't typically seek to verify the claims of a religion, I try to start with my own questions, as little bias or presumptions as possible, and let reality and experience begin to speak for itself as I formulate a picture of what I think about such things.

 

[Conscious Z]

Why does Spiritual necessarily imply non-physical ? Let me explain. Yahweh is a Spirit but can manefest physically, as per Jesus, as per miracles, as per Creation etc. Are you saying that unless Yahweh is always physical then we can never model Him or His actions etc ?

All of those examples can be explained by saying god is a non-physical entity that can create physical effects, which is the normal Christian claim.

My claim is that, if true, that we could never reason that any of those effects had non-physical causes. That would be a question outside the realm of science.

Could you give me an example of a case in which we might be able to make some scientific finding that would yield the conclusion that god is real?

 

[Conscious Z]

I suppose I can see where you are coming from then ... you have a history already steeped in certain types of thought, etc. I don't have that same history, so I still find I'm getting used to certain concepts that others claim are a given. My father was an atheist/agnostic, my mother claimed to be a believer (raised in the Southern US) but never pushed any religion on me. Only introduced me to very basic concepts that are usually picked up through cultural osmosis anyways. I was exposed to a variety of religions as a youth, everything from Santeria to Islam. Nothing was really held back from me as off limits. My father was fascinated by pretty much everything, his shelves filled with books ranging from the Happy Hooker to Edgar Cayce. I remember getting a Bible one Christmas because I asked for one, along with a book on Majestic 12 (I wasn't even out of elementary school yet if I recall). I've also lived on every continent (save the cold one), in a variety of situations, been exposed to all manner of beliefs that people claim to hold, I've personally experienced what many would call supernatural phenomena, etc ... so I sometimes find myself having to adjust to what someone claims is "given" lol.

Yes I would doubt the traits of all knowing (omniscience), as well as what most would probably call omnibenevolence. Growing up, I had no reason to think that "God" wasn't a physical being that I could actually meet, or that concepts of heaven or hell weren't actual places I could somewhere reach and visit. The idea of such things being "non physical" seems nonsensical somewhat to me and foreign still. Omnipotence I would probably doubt depending on context, and omnipresence I am more agnostic towards.

Overall, I like to let "reality speak for itself" and that often includes personal experience. I don't typically seek to verify the claims of a religion, I try to start with my own questions, as little bias or presumptions as possible, and let reality and experience begin to speak for itself as I formulate a picture of what I think about such things.

I think many people, myself included, think that the three main traits are necessary components for something to be god. If it doesn't have those three, it's not god. That's simply what many people mean by the word "god." It's like saying a bachelor can't be married. That's simply what the word means to many, myself included.

 

[agua]

All of those examples can be explained by saying god is a non-physical entity that can create physical effects, which is the normal Christian claim.

My claim is that, if true, that we could never reason that any of those effects had non-physical causes. That would be a question outside the realm of science.

Could you give me an example of a case in which we might be able to make some scientific finding that would yield the conclusion that god is real?

Yes I agree the scientific method doesn't allow for a non physical cause at present.

I can't give you a scientific finding to prove God but we can reason on it. I suppose that's in the philosophy section eh or End Times etc when things will get real.

Angon this is the philosophy section. I always wondered why I had to do a philosophy module in a science course

 

[TillICollapse]

I think many people, myself included, think that the three main traits are necessary components for something to be god. If it doesn't have those three, it's not god. That's simply what many people mean by the word "god." It's like saying a bachelor can't be married. That's simply what the word means to many, myself included.

I understand ... in that sense, "God" is a type of office, or status, as opposed to a type of being, or the name of a being. Like "President". Or "Boss" or as you said, "bachelor". A bachelor is not a species or a class of being, it's a status that a human being can have depending on their state of marriage. President is a role or office that a person can hold in governmental society, etc and so forth.

I would consider the word "Lord" along those lines (like an office, or status), but for me, the term "God" implies either a

* Name, as in Shawn, Mike, Penelope, etc. In other words, when I say, "God" I expect a being or entity to turn it's head and say, "Yes ?". Insert Ghostbusters joke here.

* a type of entity. As in, we can theoretically test it's DNA and find out what type of entity it is (I'm being analogous here). Or if it doesn't have something similar to DNA (or isn't even carbon based for that matter) we can at least attempt to classify it by it's unique composition, not just it's other ability attributes. Thus, you could have a "god" as a class of being. The other omni attributes may or may not be present, for example.

So for me still, the idea of "god" strictly being an office or status type of term, is still foreign to me. I understand why someone who adheres to certain religious concepts may think along those lines (I mean, John Frum is a "god" to some, yes ?) ... but for an atheist to still hold to such definitions, I'm still perplexed. I'm assuming the idea of the existence of any of the common definitions of "God" are equal in weight to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible pink unicorns to you, correct ? As well as leprechauns ? I'm assuming here, so if I'm mistaken concerning your stance, please let me know (I know atheists who still believe in what people would call the supernatural for example) ? If I'm not mistaken, and equal weight would be given by you concerning the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and most of the major monotheistic religions' concepts of God ... why would you still personally find certain traits necessary in order to consider it a god ? Leprechauns, as far as I know, have never had such traits attributed to them. Nor have unicorns as far as I know, invisible pink ones or not. So why would you personally still require certain attributes of a "god" in order to deem it a god ? Esp if you don't believe any of them exist ? Do you think it's just habit on your part perhaps ? Or a type of lingering brainwashing effect ? Or maybe you still have expectations ? Could conditional belief based on the fulfillment of personal expectations actually be categorized as belief ? I realize, based on what you've said, that you have a personal history that seems biased towards a specific POV. However why would you still support that POV even though you claim it's non-existent and even impossible ? I see no difference in that and what a believer's stance often is. I hope you take my questioning the right way by the way, as I'm not trying to drill you, rather I'm trying to place my finger on what is perplexing me about the nature of your belief concerning god and the attributes you believe he must have, even though you are an atheist.

 

[FireDragon76]

If there were a God, I'd hope it would explain to us it's reasoning behind it's morality. But clearly in our universe there isn't a God which has explained that.:

Read Jesus' parables some time, they are full of explanations of God's morality.

 

[agua]

Read Jesus' parables some time, they are full of explanations of God's morality.

Yeah Jesus was the brilliant Teacher of morality. I think Paradoxum wants to know the reasoning behind why Yahweh acts and legislates in the ways He does. This is because it's intrinsic in His and our being and need no explanation imo. Maybe a non Theist would call these things Universal Truths etc. What do you think ?

 

[Paradoxum]

Read Jesus' parables some time, they are full of explanations of God's morality.

I've read many of them.

Can you quote one you think completely and fully explains Gods reasoning behind his morality. Ie: Explains it in as much detail as you'd expect from a philosophy essay.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?, or a force that they find has a mind and a will, and is exerting that will in our world in measurable quantum ways? or something like that...

How would our world change if something like this happened?

God Bless!

The scientific community along with the federal government would censure the discovery just as they have censured many archaeological discoveries already that failed to support their preconceived explanations.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/archeological_coverups.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The scientific community along with the federal government would censure the discovery just as they have censured many archaeological discoveries already that failed to support their preconceived explanations.

Oh, they have? So how do you know about them?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Oh, they have? So how do you know about them?

Oh, I don't believe the government hides anything from us. The government is your buddy. The IRS loves you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh, I don't believe the government hides anything from us. The government is your buddy. The IRS loves you.

The question was how do you know that they are hiding the archaeological discoveries you claim that they are hiding, not whether they are hiding anything at all.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

The question was how do you know that they are hiding the archaeological discoveries you claim that they are hiding, not whether they are hiding anything at all.

Go back and read the post again. There is a link which you will totally disavow.

 

[Gene2memE]

Go back and read the post again. There is a link which you will totally disavow.

Having read the article, I see no evidence of any government hiding archaeological discoveries. I see little beyond an unverified accounts of the the Smithsonian disagreeing with the controversial and unsupported, if not downright fictitious, assertions of some individuals with axes to grind.

Much of the rest is, to put is frankly, unsubstantiated bovine fecal matter.

 

[Ken-1122]

The scientific community along with the federal government would censure the discovery just as they have censured many archaeological discoveries already that failed to support their preconceived explanations.

"Archeological Cover-Ups"

Any scientist who found such evidence of God would become world famous and rich. Do you really think a scientist would pass up such an opportunity just to tow the line? I think not; greed and the desire for fame is more powerful than you think.

Ken

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Any scientist who found such evidence of God would become world famous and rich. Do you really think a scientist would pass up such an opportunity just to tow the line? I think not; greed and the desire for fame is more powerful than you think.

Ken

Go to www.youtube.com and input Charleston Heston Forbidden Archaeology. Charleston narrated three or four little movies in his series about scientific censorship which will give you even more fodder to chew on.

One woman archaeologist working a dig down in Mexico had her find dated by US Geological Survey and then had her dig shut down, was removed from her job, and has never again been able to work in her field.

There's a lot out there you folks with the evolution religion apparently aren't aware of and you're the very ones claiming to be the experts.

 

[Ken-1122]

Go to www.youtube.com and input Charleston Heston Forbidden Archaeology. Charleston narrated three or four little movies in his series about scientific censorship which will give you even more fodder to chew on.

One woman archaeologist working a dig down in Mexico had her find dated by US Geological Survey and then had her dig shut down, was removed from her job, and has never again been able to work in her field.

There's a lot out there you folks with the evolution religion apparently aren't aware of and you're the very ones claiming to be the experts.

Again; if somebody had evidence of God, all they would have to do is publish their findings for peer review and if it passes scrutiny, they would be world famous. The same goes for if somebody had proof that evolution was wrong.

Ken

 

[JGG]

One woman archaeologist working a dig down in Mexico had her find dated by US Geological Survey and then had her dig shut down, was removed from her job, and has never again been able to work in her field.

What was her name?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Go to www.youtube.com and input Charleston Heston Forbidden Archaeology. Charleston narrated three or four little movies in his series about scientific censorship which will give you even more fodder to chew on.

One woman archaeologist working a dig down in Mexico had her find dated by US Geological Survey and then had her dig shut down, was removed from her job, and has never again been able to work in her field.

There's a lot out there you folks with the evolution religion apparently aren't aware of and you're the very ones claiming to be the experts.

You don't seem to understand that, in science, the paradigm-shifting discoveries you claim are being "covered up" would make the discoverers famous. Their names would go down in history alongside Newton, Darwin and Einstein. They would be considered among the most celebrated scientists of our day. Why would they forego such celebrity, which is difficult to earn in the scientific community as it is, just to keep the status quo?

I can understand that, if you think evolution is a religion, you might think that some individuals might behave unscrupulously to preserve certain cherished dogmas. It seems that you are projecting the flaws of religion onto science. Science is ideally set up to smash dogmas.

The only reason a conspiracy of cover-up is used to explain the lack of evidence for Creationism is because, well, the evidence is lacking. Instead of admitting that, however, creationists insist that the evidence is there, but that it is merely hidden - something "they" don't want you to know. Concealing such a voluminous body of evidence must be incredibly difficult for the government, or the Illuminati, to competently carry out, particularly given all these alleged scientists who are being forced to pass an opportunity for celebrity. It must be made even more difficult by the countless other scientists who, in the course of their work, must have come to the same conclusions that their silenced peers have reached. Are they too being silenced and their work suppressed? What a monumental task it must be to keep this conspiracy going. And the only people that know it about are, well, everyone who has access to the internet.