God Is a Scientific Hypothesis

[A23]

God should have been the dessert of Babel, but humanity never reached it, at least if we believe in the Bible.

[coldcreation]

Exactly what is god, or what mechanism is operational is not known, as a matter fact. However, there are generally accepted definitions for god. I don't think we need to redefine the term here, specifically. As long as we say, for now, that we're discussing the Christian god (though others are welcome provided they are hypothesized in a way that can be tested, at least in principle).

 

Let's start with a few dictionary definitions that describe god (at least the one we've been discussing so far) some of which may be potentially testable:

 

God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 


 

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


 

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

 

 

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

 

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

 

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

 

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

 

5. A very handsome man. [;)]

 

1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine

 

 

 

And the Wiki definition for God:

 

"God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". [...]

 

"Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, in contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God."

 

So the definition(s) of god, however lacking or overrated they may be, provide a glimpse of what might be tested. As explained above, these definitions are only part of the overall hypothesis.

 

 

Many arguments which attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers for many centuries. In philosophical terminology, such arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.

 

There are many philosophical issues concerning the existence of God. Some definitions of God are sometimes nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types, while others revolve around holes in evolutionary theory and order and complexity in the world.

 

 

What should be examined further to formulate the scientific hypothesis, are the arguments for the existence of god. The combination of the above attributes and qualities with the relevant arguments for the existence of god can be used to formulate a scientific hypothesis.

 

To do so, the hypothesis need to posit a god who plays a non-negligable role in the universe. If it can be assumed that god has specific attributes or qualities, these should provide objective evidence for his existence. From there we scientists can test the hypothesis by looking for this evidence. If such evidence is manifest, one could conclude that god might exist (though the case for god would not be closed). It would simply constitute physical evidence that supports that hypothesis. If such evidence does not manifest itself, it could be concluded that a god with these properties does not exist.

 

That doesn't mean that another god with different properties does not exist. To determine the validity of any god hypothesis, the same process described above would need to be implemented.

 

 

So it seems there is enough material (some of it claimed to be empirical) on the topic, to formulate a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified.

 

For centuries now (or millennia), theologians and philosophers have argued the existence of god on scientific grounds. There is no reason why scientists and philosophers should not argue the non-existence of god on scientific grounds. A priori, these two seemingly distinct fields, are actually overlapping magisteria.

 

If a god exists (as opposed to not existing) then it should interact with the world we observe. If god does not exist then there is no way of knowing anything about its/his existence, and anything deduced about it would be speculation. So the interactions should be testable. The investigability of a god is entirely a function of the specificity of claimed interactions, or properties caused by or attributed to the hypothesized god.

 

It would be rather a peculiar situation if god existed and did not interact with the world we observe, since it would serve no purpose at all, and it would be in contradiction with 99% of what is written in the Bible (or maybe all of it).

 

 

The question of whether something exists or not is a question only science can answer. Only the scientific process is capable of supplanting erroneous or spurious explanations with ones that accurately describe the physical universe and its evolution in time.

 

 

CC

[Rade]

So I don't see why 'not knowing what god is' as a problem, yet. As long as god(s) is/are responsible for things that occur in the universe, there should be a way to verify it.

Why must this be so ? Suppose God (the Christian God we discuss here) designed the situation that it only effects events in the universe outside of Planck Time & Planck Space. How would humans verify it ? It is interesting is it not, the limit humans call Planck Time--suppose this is the upper limit of time for the God Dimension, and God enters the dimension of our universe via a Planck portal. You see, for me, humans have always known "what God is", it just became more obvious with the invention of the mirror.

[coldcreation]

 

So I don't see why 'not knowing what god is' as a problem, yet. As long as god(s) is/are responsible for things that occur in the universe, there should be a way to verify it.

 

Why must this be so ?

 

 

Let me use a couple of analogies that I've used above already.

 

(1) Not knowing what cold dark matter is has not prevented us form verifying, to some extent indirectly, that such exists or might exist. The definition of CDM (or what it is) need not be known to verify if something is happening observationally that seems to require it theoretically (or even hypothetically).

 

(2) Not knowing what luminiferous aether was did not stop scientists from hypothesizing its existence. The fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed null results enabled scientists to rule out the idea that aether existed, i.e., the hypothesis was falsified.

 

 

The question, of course, is: Can science do the same with the god hypothesis? I do not know. (That is what I'm trying to figure out right now. That, for me, was the purpose of starting this thread). The difficulty seems to be the determination of the difference between two conflicting views or interpretations of the same observable phenomena. For example: how can science decide or distinguish between these two claims?: The universe was created by god through supernatural processes. And: The universe was created by the big bang through natural processes.

 

Perhaps it is possible with other 'evidence' listed above to determine what is and what is not operational in the real world.

 

 

I conclude nevertheless: A hypothesis has been presented that claims to be supported by empirical evidence (amongst other forms of evidence, e.g., historical) that explains certain physical phenomena or events. As such that hypothesis is, by definition, a scientific hypothesis. Whether it is a valid one or not remains to be seen. My hunch is that it is not valid. But my mind isn't absolutely closed to the idea that it might be.

 

 

 

Suppose God (the Christian God we discuss here) designed the situation that it only effects events in the universe outside of Planck Time & Planck Space. How would humans verify it ? It is interesting is it not, the limit humans call Planck Time--suppose this is the upper limit of time for the God Dimension, and God enters the dimension of our universe via a Planck portal.

 

You have a good point but what you write is not consistent with the hypothesis proposed by theologians or philosophers that have the 'authority' or knowledge to make claims regarding god (those who have formulated the god hypothesis). That's one point. And the other is that if what you write (provable or not) was part of the god hypothesis, then clearly it is a scientific hypothesis, thus, the determination of validity or refutation belongs within the purview of science (theoretical physics).

 

Your concept there reminds me of Bernard D'Espagnat's Veiled Reality, or Mind Independent Reality. A very nice topic to debate. One in which I have a feeling you are quite familiar (am I wrong?). Perhaps we should go there. What do you think Rade?

 

 

You see, for me, humans have always known "what God is", it just became more obvious with the invention of the mirror.

 

Would you care to elaborate on that?

 

Sounds like something Nietzsche would say. ;)

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

[...]If people ask me if I believe in God I just answer yes; being fully confident that there are many things I can not explain and many questions I can not answer. It doesn't create arguments and generally gets the idiots off my back.

 

Does this mean that you feel it's appropriate, required, or justified to insert god where no man has ever been, just because there are things we cannot explain, or questions we cannot answer?

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, the existence of god is clearly not a "scientific" hypothesis as it is not a hypothesis put forward by "scientists" (at least not by any serious professional practitioners of the field); no more than the existence of many gods is a "Catholic" hypothesis as it is not a hypothesis put forward by "Catholics" (at least not by any serious professionals practitioners of the field).

 

 

Why would being a scientist be a prerequisite for the formulation of a scientific hypothesis. Recall that Immanuel Kant, arguably not a scientist (well, okay, he was a natural philosopher, which is almost a scientist) had a robust scientific hypotheses (prior to Hubble's discovery at the telescope): That the observed 'nebulae' were groupings of stars, subsequently referred to as galaxies, and that they were located beyond the Milky Way Galaxy.

 

The discovery of a supernova in the Andromeda nebula (1880s) came as a surprise to some, to others it was a confirmation of what they had suspected all along: Our Galaxy was not unique. Immanuel Kant had hypothesized about this possibility, in his influential Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1755):

 

I consider the species of nebulous stars, of which De Maupertuis makes mention in his treatise On the Figure of the Fixed Stars, which present the form of more or less open ellipses; and I easily persuade myself that these stars can be nothing else than a mass of many fixed stars…And I further saw that, on account of their very feeble light, they are removed to an inconceivable distance from us.” (p. 30,32-34 of the preface) “It is far more natural and conceivable to regard them as being not such enormous single stars but systems of many stars, whose distance presents them in such a narrow space that the light which is individually imperceptible from each of them, reaches us, on account of their immense multitude, in a uniform pale glimmer…We see that at immense distances there are more of such star-systems, and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members…The plan of their revelation must therefore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds.” (Kant, I. 1755, 1969, Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens p. 63-65)

 

 

And what about a priest (G. Lemaître) who hypothesized the big bang, and a roustabout janitor (M. L. Humason) who had never gone beyond eighth grade co-discovering an expanding universe? Note too that both Kant and Edgar Allan Poe hypothesized a big bang type of event. Poe, in “Heureka” (1848), described creation as an “instantaneous flash.”

 

Here is what Kant wrote:

 

“This fire, thus put by new nourishment and the most volatile matter into the most violent conflagration, will undoubtedly not only resolve everything again into the smallest elements, but will also disperse and scatter theses elements again in this way with a power of expansion proportional to the heat and with a rapidity which is not weakened by any resistance in the intervening space; and they will thus be dissipated into the same wide regions of space which they had occupied before the first formation of nature. The result of this will be that after the central fire has been subdued by almost total dissipation of its mass, the forces of attraction and repulsion will again combine to repeat the old creations and the systematically connected movements, with not less regularity than before, and to present a new universe.” (Kant 1755 p. 153,154)

 

 

Granted though, it doesn't happen very often that a scientific hypothesis (proposed by a non-scientist) is validated.

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Okay, for those interested, this is where the debate between William Lane Craig and Victor Stenger become interesting. In the following video William Lane Craig presents his rebuttal to Stenger's refutation of the god hypothesis (discussed above in this thread):

 

"Is There a God?": William Lane Craig vs. Victor Stenger. (part 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtSk7T5AKzc&feature=related

 

 

And here is Victor Stenger's rebuttal (which starts at 2 min. 28):

 

"Is There a God?": William Lane Craig vs. Victor Stenger. (part 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipsb2ywhSU0&feature=related

 

 

Enjoy...

 

 

 

CC

[Rade]

I conclude nevertheless: A hypothesis has been presented that claims to be supported by empirical evidence (amongst other forms of evidence, e.g., historical) that explains certain physical phenomena or events. As such that hypothesis is, by definition, a scientific hypothesis. Whether it is a valid one or not remains to be seen. My hunch is that it is not valid. But my mind isn't absolutely closed to the idea that it might be.

What hypothesis (in red) are we talking about ?

 

Edit:

 

Is it ?:

The idea that god created the universe

 

Thus, the OP question becomes:

 

The idea that God created the universe is a scientific hypothesis....is this correct ?

[CraigD]

I think that nature-explaining theories involving the entity known as God, as described in the root literature of the most popular present day religions, the Old Testament of the Bible, were at one time effectively scientific hypotheses, but failed experimentally and were rejected so long ago that they’re now known well only in narrow, specialized history domains. In short, I don’t think hypotheses of God-driven nature need be made and tested in a modern scientific way now, because they were long ago, and found to be false.

 

Consider a couple of examples: In the domain of science we now call astrophysics, God-based theories once held that the visible celestial bodies were part of a very big machine physically turned by the labor of strong angels. Because the natural philosophers/theologians of this time had no experience with or comprehension of mechanical systems with very low friction:momentum ratios, such as we now know our solar system and galaxy to be, but much with high friction:momentum ratios such as wheeled carts, they sensibly could reach no conclusion other than that the celestial bodies were moved by the constant work of invisible laborers, for which their well-developed theological thinking provided a ready explanation in the form of angels. By the early 17th century, the principle that this “everything that moves must be constantly pushed”, the “Aristotelian physics” dominant since the 4th century BC, was increasingly rejected in favor of the principle we now usually call Galilean invariance, and theories of angel-pushed celestial machinery were almost entirely rejected.

 

In the domain of science we now call biology, God-based theories once held that mundane matter – all that we could perceive with our senses – could not move without being filled with a “breath of life” which issued originally from God. The energetic life processes, including reproduction, of plants and animals, including humans, were explained as due to this inner, non-material “animating stuff/fluid/principle”. Around the same time that Aristotelian physics was being rejected in favor of Galilean physics, advances in scientific methods of looking closely at living tissue such as optical microscopy, along with advances in physics leading to greater imagination in hypothesizing that mechanical processes might occur on microscopic scales, lead to the increased rejection of “breath of life” biological theories in favor of “mechanical” ones.

 

Note that none of these old, God-based theories of nature required a complete or concise definition of God (in fact, the consensus of the best theologians of their time was generally that such a definition is impossible), only the acceptance of a few key assumptions, such as “God keeps the heavens in their place” and “God gave life to inanimate matter”.

 

Our present-day times are not without straightforward hypotheses involving, if not specifically God as described in the Bible, miraculous happenings such as described in it. A common such hypothesis is that praying, as described in the Bible and many other religious documents, has clearly measurable effects on people unaware of the praying, or on living tissues incapable of awareness. See the wikipedia article Studies on intercessory prayer for an overview and example of such hypothesis. Most of the studies described in the article produced null results (prayer was shown to have no physical affect). Those that produced positive results (prayer was shown to have a physical affect) are either disputed, or discovered to be fraudulent.

 

In summary, I think scientific testing of “hypotheses of God” were relevant a few hundred years ago, when such hypotheses enjoyed mainstream acceptance. In our present time, however, most such hypotheses seem to me fringe science at best, and charlatanism at worst. Humankind has, I think, moved on, and while most humans continue to “believe in God”, this belief appears to me to be, among intellectually able people, mostly either metaphorical, or an conscious act of “accepting a beneficial myth”. The main stream of human kind no longer find references to God needed to explain most practical, everyday phenomena of nature.

[lawcat]

The key question imo is: whether there is spirit. A spirit, I imagine, is a nonmaterial living part of the universe. The central question is the existence spirit.

[coldcreation]

What hypothesis (in red) are we talking about ?

 

Is it ?:

 

The idea that god created the universe

 

Thus, the OP question becomes:

 

The idea that God created the universe is a scientific hypothesis....is this correct ?

 

No and no!

 

The title, if you will, of the hypothesis we are talking about is a claim made by theists: God exists. In order to build a hypothesis around that claim, a number of requirements had to be satisfied. In an attempt to satisfy those requirements, arguments were formulated. Those arguments cover a wide-range of supposedly related topics, some of those are purportedly considered physical evidence. All of the above form part of the hypothesis. Since the hypothesis posits that certain features of god can have an effect on, and interact with parts of the physical universe, the hypothesis steps into the territory of science. For that reason, it is a scientific hypothesis. As such it could, in principle, be verified. If the claims are not testable, even in principle, it would be falsified.

 

 

 

For a list of some of those arguments in favor of the existence of god see this post. For more arguments see the list in this post and click on each link for details (see arguments for the existence of god).

 

CC

[Rade]

..Since the hypothesis posits that certain features of god can have an effect on, and interact with parts of the physical universe, the hypothesis steps into the territory of science. For that reason, it is a scientific hypothesis. As such it could, in principle, be verified. If the claims are not testable, even in principle, it would be falsified

CC, I do not agree that this conclusion is part of any "theist" thinking on the matter--it is the false conclusion of Dawkins and others. You see, for the theist, there is 0.0% possibility that God does not exist, that God can be falsified. The so-called hypothesis is a shell game that exists in the mind of Dawkins and others in his attempt to use his version of "science" (that as explained by natural laws) to falsify the theist version of "science" (that as explained by super-natural laws).

 

As for the claim of the theist that it is an axiomatic given that "God exists"--well, this is a nonsense statement. This is not a proper way to begin any philosophic argument--to claim as axiom that any specific entity "exists" and you "know it", then develop various hypotheses based on the claim. Perhaps the greater error in logic is to accept such thinking (as attempted by Dawkins) and then attempt to falsify the twisted mess of explanations based on the false premise.

 

Let me make my position as clear as I can. One does not claim as axiom that "God Exists". The only claim logically possible about ontology is that "Existence Exists". Then, all other thinking derives, including claims for and against existence of any specific entity such as God or Devil or the Car in my garage.

[C1ay]

....the theist version of "science"....

 

There's no such thing. Theism is purely about belief, belief without proof, belief based on faith and faith alone. That is not science under any meaning of the word. Science is about knowledge. Science is a way of gaining knowledge via falsifiable, testable, observable methods in order to know the answer to a question. Theism is none of that. "....the theist version of "science"...." is an oxymoron. Theism is not about finding an answer, it's simply about declaring an answer and that's NOT science.

[Rade]

...Science is a way of gaining knowledge via falsifiable, testable, observable methods in order to know the answer to a question. Theism is none of that. "....the theist version of "science"...." is an oxymoron. Theism is not about finding an answer, it's simply about declaring an answer and that's NOT science.

Yes, thank you ! That is why I put the word science in quotes for the thesis philosophy. You seem to be one of few here that understands the true issue at play----the thesis attempt to redefine the concept we call science to allow for the super-natural to come into play. So, the question becomes, why does not Dawkins realize that "the theist version of "science" is an oxymoron. Why does Dawkins continue to act as if the thesis is saying anything about knowledge via science ? That for me, is the shell game Dawkins plays.

[maikeru]

So first God needs to be defined.

 

This is a bigger problem than most people realize.

[coldcreation]

[snip] Theism is not about finding an answer, it's simply about declaring an answer and that's NOT science.

 

... That is why I put the word science in quotes for the thesis philosophy. [...] the thesis attempt to redefine the concept we call science to allow for the super-natural to come into play. So, the question becomes, why does not Dawkins realize that "the theist version of "science" is an oxymoron. Why does Dawkins continue to act as if the thesis is saying anything about knowledge via science ? That for me, is the shell game Dawkins plays.

 

On that score I think you are both mistaken.

 

Clearly there are many theists, ranging from divers Popes throughout the ages, to the common prelate, that claim there to be scientific evidence in support of the existence of god.

 

That is no shell game played by R. Dawkins.

 

Dawkins is not the first to make the claim that god is a scientific hypothesis. That claims stems from theists themselves. And they don't write science in quotes.

 

Dawkins, and others, remarks are in response to claims such as this one (yes, I know, I've posted this before):

 

THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

 

Conclusion:

49. What, then, is the importance of modern science for the argument for the existence of God based on the mutability of the cosmos? By means of exact and detailed research into the macrocosm and the microcosm, it has considerably broadened and deepened the empirical foundation on which this argument rests, and from which it concludes to the existence of an Ens a se, immutable by His very nature.

50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.

 

Not once in the 39 times science was mentioned in that Papal Encyclical was the word wrapped in quotes, as if to mean anything other than science.

 

And more recently:

 

This book gives conclusive scientific proof that God exists and the Bible is true.

 

Regarding "conclusive scientific proof": yes, seeing is believing. BUT, our eyes are only one way to access reality and the existence and nature of things in it. Our eyes are just one very limited scientific instrument. In proving the existence and nature of things in reality, science isn't limited to just what our eyes can see. For example, it proves and measures invisible things such as microwaves, magnetism, radio waves, gravity, ultraviolet waves, etc. God is invisible and therefore can't be proven by our eyes to exist ... but can be scientifically proven to exist ... which this book does.

 

[...]

 

 

The science of logic says that there can be ONLY ONE true explanation of reality. The book shown below, THE PROOF that God exists and the Bible is true, PROVES what that reality is – using science, logic, objective observation, experience and statistics. More specifically, it uses physics, chemistry, astronomy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, botany, biology, archaeology, statistics, logic, prophecy, law, microbiology, history, supernatural occurrences, mathematics, geology, and the scientific method (but in easy to absorb ways). It also disproves what is being taught in secular schools as to the origin of the universe and Earth

 

 

The list goes on, and on, and on, and on...

 

Edit: It would be careless on the part of Dawkins to allow these claims to slip by unanswered by the scientific community.

 

 

There is a simple answer to all of these claims: Put the god hypothesis to the test or shut the **** up.

 

 

CC

[Rade]

On that score I think you mistaken....Dawkins is not the first to make the claim that god is a scientific hypothesis. That claims stems from theists themselves. And they don't write science in quotes.

Well, of course they do not write science in quotes, that is the beauty of the shell game they play. But, your own citation falsifies your claim that discussion about the God Hypothesis does not require a new twist on definition of science. So, here is how the logical argument is presented in the book on Proof of God you cite, I put the God Hypothesis in [] to show where the shell game occurs:

So a problem with modern science is that it limits itself to seeking an answer [to the God Hypothesis] just through physical science. Obviously an answer isn’t emerging from that mindset. That is because the answer isn’t within the physical realm. The scientific inquiry must expand to “all possibilities” in order to reveal the answer as to where the physical universe came from [the God Hypothesis].

 

In a search for that answer [the God Hypothesis], I will now show why we should abandon any kind of physical explanation to the origin of the physical universe [the God Hypothesis]. Any physical explanation [of the God Hypothesis] has a major problem because it clashes with some proven laws of physics. It is those laws of physics that will give us our first big clue that will lead to showing that God exists [the God Hypothesis].

 

Clearly the author of the book finds a difference in "modern science" and the "science" that provides proof of the God Hypothesis.

 

Therefore, there is no "God Hypothesis" to falsify using "modern science" since by definition (of the argument presented above and apparently in the mind of Dawkins) one must abandon any kind of physical explanation of facts.

[CraigD]

Of course, any conclusion largely depends on definition or properties of God. So first God needs to be defined.

This is a bigger problem than most people realize.

If by “people”, M, you mean the general human population, I agree, given that most of this population is little if at all exposed to academic philosophy and theology, or, alas, fora like our own hypography. For most of these people, God needs no definition, being taken as a-priori existent and qualitatively obvious. If “people” refers to people with even the minimal exposure to philosophy and theology offered by a college (or good 9-12th grade) education, I think most people have at least a summary acquaintance with the long, arduous – and for me, at least, fascinating – history of attempts to define God and prove/disprove He/She/It exists.

 

However, going back to L’s assertion that “first God needs to be defined”, I think it’s critical to distinguish between (1) the definition necessary to state “God hypotheses” such as “nothing that happens would did God not will it”, (2) the detailed, profound definitions sought and explored by centuries of philosophers and theologists, and (3) the “definition that needs no defining” assumed by most human beings. Only the first and third of these definitions is needed in this thread – the first, to be able to state hypotheses, the third to assure their relevance to most of humankind.

 

It’s also helpful to consider the motives of the people usually driving discussions such as this thread’s, “new athiests” such as Dawkins, Harris, and I presume, coldcreation. Their manifest reason for “rocking the boat” of what many other atheists believe to be the beneficial, although false, belief in the existence of God, is that this belief is not beneficial, either to individual humans or humankind as a whole, and that, via a scientific approach, not only can a few well-educated specialists reach a consensus that God does not exist, but so can nearly all people, thus expunging humankind of a detrimental belief. The definition of God used must, therefore, correspond sufficiently with third kind that most people recognize it as referring to “their God”. Otherwise, they can accept the results of any experiment confirming the null hypothesis “God does not exist”, but dismiss it as irrelevant for not referring to the real God.

 

A key experiment-design question becomes, then, what is an attribute that is both scientifically observable, and present only if God-of-the-third-kind exists? IMHO, this attribute is intercession, actions performed by God in response to the prayers of humans. The expectations of most theists are, I think, unambiguous and concrete: they expect that people and things prayed for are significantly more likely to survive, succeed, and thrive, than people and things not prayed for.

 

As I mentioned in post #25, experimental tests of this hypothetical prediction are not only practically designable, they have been conducted and their results published. To the best of my knowledge, except for outliers – results that cannot be reproduced by credible experimenters – all such tests have failed to confirm their hypothesis.

 

This does not mean, IMHO, that “scientific theism” is discredited. However, for an informed and credible person to affirm the existence of God (or similar supernatural entities), her or his definition must necessarily move from the third kind to the second, an esoteric definition that most people would not recognize as referring to “their God”. The beliefs expressed by Einstein – that God is a name for the underlying beauty and elegance of physical reality – is a prime example of such a definition. (source)