Scientific Evidence of God?

In recent years, a number of scientists (Paul Davies, Willem Drees, Freeman Dyson,Bernard Haisch, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, Robert Spitzer, etc.) purport to have scientific evidence for the existence of God. I'd like to consider the merits of their case. Does scientific evidence support the existence of God?

 

For starters, I submit the following:

A video by Fr. Robert Spitzer explaining his book New Proofs for the Existence of God.

http://www.morec.com/nature/newproof.html

And a discussion on Larry King by Spitzer, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, and (ugh!) Deepak Chopra:
Larry King Live - Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Deepak Chopra, Robert Spitzer - Part 1 of 3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA - Cached

.Play Video

 

So where is the proof?

 

It's here.

 

In that blue box with the question mark?

 

Well I almost fell off my seat when I heard "... through faith and REASON", two polar opposite philosophies. I know that I've been searching for proof of God since I learned to think critically so I'll continue watching optimistically...

Well the first video doesn't say anything, introduction to scientific methods and theory, mentions theory's of dark matter and dark energy which I am very skeptical of. IMO "dark energy" is a bullshit term or a "fill in the blank" explanation for lack of anything better at this time. In other words our math doesn't add up yet and we're tying to figure out why. There are a lot of bullshit science theories that just never find solid evidence. Others do, that's the point of science, to gather facts, create and test theories... science is constantly evolving.

The Stephen Hawking video, ugh, can't bare to watch it. Who in the world though it was a good idea for him to answer live questions?

I might snoop around the site later and see if I can find any substance...

 

We need to stop giving our selves so much credit if you know what I mean. Like, you want some proof? Jesus Christ is proof. He was 100% man, but also 100% God at the same time, so to answer your question, he was here on Earth and has done many great things for us, but because of our selfishness, we have killed our own Lord. Pretty messed up, huh?

 

Anecdotal stories from a book of contradictions and lies is PROOF of what exactly?

 

pictures or it didn't happen.

 

So we need to define "proof". Also, "God" and "science". When I think of "proof", I'm thinking of a proposition supported by enough evidence that all reasonable people would agree on its validity. In that sense, I think Spitzer's use of the term "proof" is pretentious and misleading. The casual reader might assume that he's presenting scientific proofs of God, but actually he doesn't attempt to do that. He simply draws on science for evidence that can support arguments for God, but to "clinch the deal" he draws on the second source of "contemporary contributions": philosophy. Here, Spitzer shows a reverence for metaphysics that is rare in contemporary philosophical circles. As Davies explains, metaphysics is the study of topics about physics. It isn't science. I's an attempt to interpret the broader implications of scientific facts Philosophers like Locke, Hume, Kant,and A.J. Ayer had no use for it, but in recent years, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, and computing theory rekindled an interest in it. Cosmology, the academic study of the origins of the universe, is an effort to integrate our knowledge of science to provide a coherent, compelling explanation of the phenomenon. This is the enterprise in which Hawking, on the one hand, and Spitzer, on the other, are primarily engaged.

Spitzer, a Jesuit priest, philosopher, theologian, and university administrator, does not list scientist on his resume. His challenge to Stephen Hawking, world renowned cosmologist, takes considerable chutzpah. Hawking's background is in theoretical physics and mathematics, particualrly cosmology. I understand science to be a process of formulating and testing empirically- based refutable hypotheses. Neither of these scholars are much into that.

"God", as Spitzer views Him, is a transcendent intellegent agency responsible for the creation and design of the universe--not necessarily the Abrahamic God (although I'm sure that's who Spitzer has in mind). He further defines God as:"The unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality..which is the continuous Creator of all else that is". This, he tell us (Presumably with a straight face, "corresponds to what is generally thought to be God.

 

If you understand what science is and you understand what "God" must be then you will understand that it is impossible to have scientific evidence for God.

If God is the maximum of all things at once, infinity and eternity, then he can both exist and not exist, in the same way that the fundamental particles of matter can both exist and not exist at the same time.

On the other hand if your God is a jealous, wanton patriarchal grandpa-in-the-sky, then maybe proof of God is that bananas are easy to hold in your hand. It all depends on how deep you would like to go with the concepts your are working with.

 

I'm a coconut and pineapple eater, myself, so I prefer to go to a deeper level. (Besides, isn't banana eating something we associate with apes?) I don't think that God can be "proven". I base my beliefs on substantial evidence, rather than scientific consensus or even courtroom proof. Substantial evidence means there's enough evidence to support a reasonable belief, even though other reasonable people can come to the opposite conclusion. I reject beliefs that are contrary to the available evidence, and try to make decisions on the basis of the best available evidence as I assess it. My beliefs about politics, economics and public policy are on the same level--a product of my own best judgment on the basis of the evidence at hand. None of it is science, and we make up our minds as best we can on the basis of our knowledge, personal experience, values, intuitions and assessment of demeanor. Of course I think I'm right, just like everybody else, but I have to concede the possibility that even I can be wrong from time to time--possibly 90% of the time. Life is a crapshoot!

It's impossible to develop empirically refutable, testable hypotheses about God which can command "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence" consensus from scientific peers. Science, per se, won't cut it. Apart from the obvious problem that science is concerned with finding naturalistic rather than super-naturalistic explanations for things, God won't lend Himself to systematic observation or testing by refutable hypotheses. However, as explained in the previous post, it might be possible to use God as an explanatory concept in metaphysics or cosmology to interpret the known facts. There are cosmological theories that have no need for a Creator God. The Harlte-Hawking quantum-cosmological theory , in which there is no "beginning" accords with the latest fashion in inflation theory, and M theory, Superstring and multiple universes have appeal in the quest for a "Theory of Everything". Mathematical elegance seems to be favor some of these theories, but that isn't the same as being true. None of these are testable or observable. After reviewing M theory, multiple universes, and other cosmological theories, mathematical physicist Paul Davies concludes that the notion of an intelligent agent is the most plausible explanation in keeping with Occam's razor, although unlike Spitzer, he hastens to add that this, like all metaphysical theories, is a matter of taste. I prefer to say a matter of judgment.

 

The irony is that banana eating is associated with apes, homo sapiens being apart of the group.

Is it a shot to our intelligence that a fruit had to be intelligently-designed specifically for our hands and mouths to stand the test of survival on this planet? I don't think so.....wild bananas don't fit in our hands or mouths, and the ones that do have been selectively bred to do so.

Depth is implied in everything you say....how many trees have you seen without roots

 

Of all of the many examples of "fine tuning" in the universe, bananas don't seem to be among them, despite the claims of Rev. Comfort and his sidekick, Kirk Cameron. I once lost a good friend by describing those two as "dumber than dirt" for their remark that the banana is the atheists' worst nightmare. On the other hand, a number of scientists of good reputation have marveled at the fact that the universe is put together in a way so astonihing that it is difficult to accept as a brute fact resulting from blind processes. Physicist Freeman Dyson, notes the "peculiar harmony between the structure of the universe and the needs of like intelligence". Mathematical physicist Paul Davies marvels at the laws of physics which "not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously," but "encourage it to self-organize and complexify to the point where conscious beings emerge." These laws "not only encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety." Randomly selected alternative laws "lead almost inevitably to unrelieved chaos or boring inevitable simplicity." Astronomer Fred Hoyle concludes that the universe looks like "a put up job."

The so-called Anthropic Principle posits that the remarkable "cosmic coincidences" in the values of the few dozen parameters of our models of physics and cosmology, such as the masses of the elementary particles, the relative strength of the various forces, and the cosmological constant, show "fine-tuning" to produce life as we know it. The so-called "strong" form of this principle (SAP), stated by Barrow and Tipler, views the fine-tuning as something which "had to be". A variant called the Design-Centered Anthropic Principle sees it all as the product of design, or as Physicist Hans Pagels quips: "the closest that some atheists will get to God." The weak form of the principle (WAP) by Brandon Carter, essentially states that the universe happens to be delicately suited for life, and if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to notice. That begs the question of how it got that way.

None of this, in my opinion, proves that some intelligent agent is involved, although I think that is a plausible conclusion. The alternative explanation in favor with scientists like Steven Weinberg is the multiverse theory which holds that are one among gazillions of other universes where things may be really messed up to the point that life or intelligent life doesn't even occur there. Although the coincidences that led to us might seem extraordinary, it came about as one out of a gazillion or so coin tosses that finally got a viable outcome. The major problems are that there's no empirical foundation for it and some critics think it violates Occam's razor (but I'm not sure the alternatives do better). It's also possible that some order-producing phenomena we aren't aware of yet are responsible. Until Darwin came along, we had no plausible way of accounting for the integrated complexity of life except a Watchmaker. Here the self-organizing phenomena studied by Stuart Kaufman and Philip Ball might be illuminating--or not. Or Star Wars fans might prefer a Force. The idea that aliens could have been involved is taken seriously by some scientists. And of course the Designer God theory isn't without problems. I'm betting on that because it seems most plausible to me, but I respect other views on the subject.

 

There is none. At all.

Religion hinders learning and progress. "why did my child have to die?" Religious idiot: "It's God's will".

FUCK YOU.

 

I'm new here..

I was a teenage hippy in the 60's.. and have many happy memories of London and the Summer of Love.. the UFO club.. and the Electric Garden..

Also.. I'm an aspie.. no social skills whatsoever.. nevertheless i have a passion for information.. and reasoning things..

First of all.. Evidence for God depends on how we define – God in the first place…

Speaking of supernatural beings is just silly-ness.. both Buddhism and the Bible make that clear.

Myself.. I understand the word to function as a symbol.. representing either a simple or a complex idea........ probably because.. I read a lot of Jung.. in my youth.

If by - God we mean - something exists.. that is greater than our self.. then we must be looking for evidence that… the WHOLE is greater than the sum of its parts.

For example.. If I were to die tomorrow.. it's a fact... the world goes on..

So obviously.. something does exist that is greater than me.. I know that.

Then.. If the world were to end.. it would still be a rather insignificant event.. because the stars would continue shining.. and the galaxies would continue colliding.. life goes on.

But what happens when the universe finally comes to an end.. ?

Is that it.. ?

Or does something exist.. amidst all these changes.. amidst creation - destruction.. that is neither subject to time or space... ?

Is there something that has neither a beginning or an end..?

Something that wasn’t created and can never be destroyed.. ?

For example - A Primary Field

Primary because it is pre-existing..

By comparison.. gravitation.. magnetism.. consciousness.. etc.. are secondary fields… meaning.. they are responses in the Primary Field to patterns of activity.

Our universe.. and the entire multi-verse could have emerged from it..

Maybe.. one day.. physics will realize that EVERYTHING IS ENERGY.

And what we perceive as NOTHINGNESS.. or NON-EXISTENCE - is just energy that is lying dormant. In the same manner that our consciousness lies dormant while we sleep.

The energy that we can detect.. the world.. the stars.. people jumping up and down.. is an activity that is taking place in the Primary Field..

Consciousness is the Primary Field detecting this activity.. via the brain.

Then there’s the evidence in religion..

In the Book of Psalms.. it says... YOU ARE GODS.

Jesus taught this.. and so did Nietzsche.. and Alan Watts made it clear..

-

Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god."

Jesus answered them : "Is it not written in your Law, `I said: "You are gods"'? - IJohn 10:31

-

“Every church is a stone on the grave of a god-man: it does not want him to rise up again under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

-

"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama."

Alan Watts


-

 

Yes, and none for the alternative. But enough substantial evidence that rational people could support either belief or non-belief.

Not necessarily. It depends on the religion. Take the Big Bang theory, for example, which is the going scientific theory of the origin of our universe, and the idea that the universe is expanding. Who originated those? Dr. Georges Lemaitre, physicist, mathematician and Catholic priest. At the Dover, Pa., trial on the teaching of evolution in public schools, what respected evolutionary biologist was the star witness against creationism? Dr. Kenneth Miller, another devout Catholic. To give Evangelical Christians credit, Dr. Kenneth Miller, renowned geneticist and head of the human genome project, has also been an outspoken defender of evolution against his co-religionists. I could go on and on, as I did in my previous post. I agree that there are dangerous tendencies toward anti-intellectualism in Christian circles. Some of the postings in the Christian Sanctuary provide examples. I just got through reading Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind, which details how anti-rational forces took hold in the Church from the fourth to the thirteenth century. It could happen again. But I also see disturbing trends toward close-mindedness and dogmatism in some of the new atheist writers, especially Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, and Alex Rosenberg. Close-mindedness in any form hinders learning and progress.

I rest my case.

 

Good post! I've never been able to see the difference between aspies and everybody else, except the aspies seem to be smarter. ( Maybe that says something about me I should look into.)

You're right. Definitions are key. My quarrel with people like Spitzer is that they provide elaborate proofs of a First Cause, Unmoved Mover, or Intelligent Designer and call that "God", but that's a far cry from the entity that will get us thru math tests or carry our football team to victory. The leap from that to Yahweh or Allah is considerable. Your concept of God as a symbol of something greater than ourselves which would persist if all else didn't is similar to my own concept of the felt presence of a Higher Power. By that I don't mean the Dude in the Sky. Like you, I see God as primarily a life-affirming metaphor, but maybe something more objective--hinted at by the Anthropic Principle. Joseph Campbell saw God as a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of human understanding. I use the term to express the wonder and beauty of the universe, the laws of science, the summation of human ideals, the ground of all being, and our existence against all odds; but maybe something more objective, Something Big Out There (SBOT) that accounts for the other phenomena. Maybe using the term SBOT would avoid the Abrahamic baggage which God has acquired in our discourse. God (SBOT) is "supernatural" only if we give that designation to whatever seems outside our current understanding of nature, or whatever caused nature.

I'm cool with deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, or theism. It's Jesus and His teachings that really interest me, and I'm also a Buddhist. I'm less concerned that God exists than that (S)he might exist. The atheist "Four Horsemen" have struggled with how to provide for "the numinous" in their system of non-belief. Maybe they can take a lesson from religion and not try to reinvent the wheel and throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Whats SBOT mean ?


I don't often socialize on the internet..


Aspies tend to write long rambling posts too..

Probably due to information overload..


I keep cutting my posts into small chunks.. to try to keep them readable..

Maybe I should write a book..

Yes.. well considered definitions are essential in any serious philosophical discussion. People get their ideas about word meanings from hearsay mostly.. Popular usage can be unreliable .. Dictionaries may serve as a rough guide but they’re not always reliable either.

I can think of loads of defintions for God.. so I pick the one that best suits my purpose at the time..


Jung = Symbol of Wholeness


Blake = God is the Imagination


Hermes = The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God.


Alan Watts = You are the eternal thing that comes and goes..


Author Unknown = God is the living fabric of the universe.


---


Then there's always the God Within..


---



All Gods are One God and all Goddesess are One Goddess..

There is only One Initiator.

To each his own God, and the God Within...,

From 'Mists of Avalon'

---

Most of the key words I use.. I tend to define for my self….. like

RELIGION = RE-UNITE

SOUL = The accumulation of all our perceptions and our actions.. thoughts.. feelings.. everything we both do and say.

SPIRIT = Volition.. the direction we turn our will.. or our determination.. towards.

PHYSICS = the observation of our mental perceptions.


In spite of me becoming a hard core atheist at the age of seven.. I’ve spent much of my life fascinated by religion. For sure.. Jesus has been widely misunderstood. Films like The last Temptation and Stigmata were a step in the right direction though. Jesus and all the Biblical prophets.. were fighting against the system.. They saw the system as “the Devil” (the deceiver)… that was causing ruination all over the earth.

The use of the word – God – in the Bible is very complex. It is used as a gender based authority figure to lay down the Law.. over and above men’s laws… Laws for our rulers and law-makers to follow.

It is presented as a mythological super hero.. in story form.. for the uneducated who couldn’t read.. pandering to the expectations of the common folk.. while containing hidden agendas that remained hidden.. even to the casual reader.

And also.. the word – God – is artfully redefined.. as being a Spirit that either exists.. or doesn’t exist in human hearts and minds.

For example.. – God is Love.

Why people take the stories so literally is beyond me. It is perfectly obvious that the writers were poets.. and the stories were intended as illustrations.. not literal histories. It’s the words of wisdom between the stories that matter.. and these words explain what the stories really mean.

Like.. Jesus walking across the high waves of the sea.. spiritually means.. He is putting those in power (in the high places) under his feet.. and silencing their foolish talk. It's about who's got the power.. and who is really leading.. AND BEING UNDER THE SOLE OF JESUS' SHOES.. WAS REALLY BEING INSULTING TO THOSE IN POWER.

A concise example of this hidden agenda can be seen in just three verses.. one from Job.. one from Isaiah.. and the other from the Psalms.. The Bible is rather like a jigsaw puzzle.. Rearrange some verses and you get the true meaning of the stories..

Jesus Calms the Storm – The hidden meaning of Matthew 8:23…

HE REBUKED THE WINDS AND THE SEA, AND A CALM SET IN. So the men became amazed and said: "What sort of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?"


---
Then the evidence of the hidden meaning..

“Stretching out the heavens by himself and treading upon the high waves of the sea...” - Job 9:8

“He is stilling the noise of the seas, The noise of their waves and the turmoil of the national groups. He causes the windstorm to stand at a calm, So that the waves of the sea keep quiet.” - Psalms 65:7

"The national groups themselves will make a din just like the noise of many waters. And He will certainly REBUKE IT, and it must flee far away and be chased like the chaff of the mountains before the wind and like a thistle whirl before a storm wind." - Isaiah 17:12

---

So.. as you rightly say.. the idea of God as a supernatural being and Jesus doing miracles is purely metaphor. These are symbolic stories not historical accounts. We don’t even know if a man called - Jesus -ever existed.. and it doesn’t really matter.. IT IS THE WORDS that are important because these contain the Christ Spirit.. WHO ACTUALLY SAID THEM IS OF NO IMPORTANCE.

Words and genes both serve to carry information from generation to generation.. This is why the Gospel of John begins.. “In the beginning was the word.. and the WORD was a GOD….”

Jesus defined God as being a Spirit.. that either existed.. or didn’t exist.. in human hearts and minds. To be precise the Spirit of Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Truth and Freedom….

(My own interpretation of the Seven Spirits of God in the book of Revelation)

In my mind.. embracing these seven core human values is the path to unity (true religion)… and ignoring them leads to division and conflict.

Buddha taught these same seven core human values should be the basis of any authentic religious belief. Both Buddha and Jesus were the embodiment of this Supreme Spirit……. They were both leading by example.

The Bible is full of errors due to the translator’s inability to grasp the big picture. For example the Bible has nothing bad to say about sex.. and nothing good to say about marriage. The problem is too many people read metaphors literally.. not taking into consideration that the writers of the Bible were poets.. and word-smiths.

The best rendering of what the Bible is REALLY about is contained in a short story by Dostoyevski.. called – “The Dream of the Ridiculous Man”.

I’ve uploaded it to my utube channel.. and my website… I had to split it into 5 parts.. because of their 10 minute film limit though..

This is part 4.. The first 4 minutes is about the Bible’s agenda to establish heaven on Earth.. after comes the fall of mankind..

Dostoyevski knew the Bible very well.. this short story is a true revelation of the Bible’s hidden agenda.. what we find when we go beneath the symbolism..

http://www.apocatastasis.net/GoldenRule/The-Dream/The-Dream-Chapter5-Paradise.html

The original story speaks out against organized religions.. but in the TV drama this is missing.. probably because it might cause offence…. For example..

To quote from Dostoyevski.. who was a deeply religious individual..
---

“Religions began to emerge, worshipping the nonbeing, and self annihilation, for the sake of eternal repose in nothingness.

Saints came to those people and preached to them about their pride, their loss of a sense of proportion. The saints were laughed at and stoned. Their blood splattered the doors of the temples. Countless temples were built, in which they defiled their own desires; and proceeded to worship them, and prayed to this idea. Even though that were so sure their wishes could never come true, they worshiped them with tears in their eyes.”

---

This was left out of the TV drama.. so.. I have included the original story in text beneath the video window. If any one wants to watch (or read) this from the beginning.. here’s a link to Part One.

http://www.apocatastasis.net/GoldenRule/Fyodor-Dostoyevski2.html

“’Well, they call me a madman now, but I don't mind, you see, I love them, especially when they're laughing at me. I'd like to share the joke with them, I would; I'd laugh at myself too. If only they didn't make me feel so sad. What is it that makes me sad? Well, you see, they don't know the truth, and I do……...”

-