God Is a Scientific Hypothesis

[Ken]

I fail to see a coherent hypothesis here though. The thoughts about God are hard to follow in a coherent way.

 

 

IMO, since I have not seen God and everyone has a different idea of what God is, we must start with a simple rational definition to be able to talk about it rationally. Before hypothesis, there must be a definition on which the inquiry focuses, since we have no accepted experimental evidence.

 

 

The definition must be rational. It can not be absurd. It must be something that is possible. For example, I can not see and not see my finger. That is absurd, and not rational. Similarly, God can not be defined as nothing and universe at the same time. So first, the definition must be rational.

 

If you substitute measurable for rational I would agree completely. Science, as a method of inquiry, deals only with measurable phenomena.

 

 

So we can define God as universe, for example. Since universe is, then God is, and that is rational. It is possible. But more than that, by definition it is 100% true. It is 100% likely, or probable, by definition, because universe is by experience.

 

 

Second comes the hypothesis: God is everywhere. We can test this hypothesis for possibility and likelihood based on the definition.

 

If God is universe, and universe is everything, and since everything includes everywhere; then universe includes everywhere, and God includes everywhere. Then God is everywhere. This is rational, possible, and 100% likely.

 

 

Third, we can hypothesize: God determines events everywhere. And this is where we get into a bind.

 

 

There are three schools of thought: 1) experimental, 2) philosophical, 3) devotional.

 

We have very similar notions.

 

I would state it this way: There are three methods of inquiry: 1) Science, 2) Philosophy, and 3) Theologiy. The defining, and fundamental, difference between them is what constitutes a FACT.

 

 

Experimentally, we know of nothing that controls events everywhere. Experimentally, this hypothesis is absurd.

 

 

Philosphically, since God is universe, and axiomatically all events occur in universe, then all events occur in God. Then, universe could possibly control itself, or God could control all events. But the second inquiry is more interesting: what is the likelihood of that? What is the likelihood that there is God such that controls all within itself. In rational discussion, this is a matter of tehnology. For example, humans have two-hand, or two-feet, technology to control certain things. Technologically, humans are also limited to speed at which they can control events.

 

 

Devotionally, the hypothesis is 100% true as a matter of strict following of a dogma. There is nothing to analyze or question.

 

 

 

"God as a scientific hypothesis" falls in the category of philosophical definitions (rational definitions and hypothesis), and then scientific examination of technological likelihoods for the truth of the hypothesis. But the hypothesis must be narrowly constructed so that technologies can be carefully examined. Otherwise, there is no end to the inquiries.

 

The key is that the questions have to be stated in quantifiable terms to be entertained by science.

[Ken]

Thought for another thread - The apparent ease with which people use hypothesis, assumption, and theory interchangeably.

 

I'll share in advance that I have substantial problems with this. :lol:

[Qfwfq]

people use hypothesis, assumption, and theory interchangeably.

Yes, and also theorem, it does cause much confusion. Folks get confused with various things and nowadays there is no such thing as an Oldspeak dictionary, they were all burned by Minitrue.

[Ken]

Yes, and also theorem, it does cause much confusion. Folks get confused with various things and nowadays there is no such thing as an Oldspeak dictionary, they were all burned by Minitrue.

 

 

I like the Orwellian reference.

 

I think the confusion is even more basic. I think very few people have any understanding of what Science actually is and how it differs from other methods of inquiry.

 

It might make for an interesting thread.

[Vox]

Good points gentlemen (forgive me if I'm mistaken :lol:),

 

The real issue here is not so much what is god but more, if whatever god is exists, and affects the universe in one way or another, then it should be possible to find evidence for whatever it is?

 

CC

 

 

It seems that standard approach is to specify "God" to something which is outside, controlling/coordinating "things and events" from outside. If we take another view "God" is all what is and within the all. How would you be able to prove scientifically "separate God´s" existence if this would be the case? Is it so that we seek something, outside of "things" which cannot be found due it is within? I have personally not found any proof that the universe is less than perfect and even not it would exist not, perfectly. Should that prove that Universe (all what is, "God") is "omnipotent" due it is faultless? So for me definition for "God" is all what is.

[HydrogenBond]

Science can not prove that god exists. Yet to many people, god is real. This paradox can be explained by comparing internal and external proof. For example, I will start with a well trained scientist, who has a dream. He can not prove he had this particular dream, using external data, yet what he experienced was a phenomena that was real. if we trust he is honest, objective and reliable, we might take his word for this unique data, even if he/we can't reproduce it. Others who more cynical may say, there is no external proof for the details he outlined, therefore what may have been real to this keen observer, does not exist, according to the philosophy of science. We may concede he had a dream, since everyone has has this experience; the realm of possibility. But his details lack proof, unless he can reproduce that data.

 

Say for example, the experience of god can not be done with the sensory systems alone, but occurs in a way similar to a living dream. Say the entire human brain is the only known instrument that has the right combination of biology and physical chemistry to pick up this signal. Once the neural receiver picks up the signal, the brain's main CPU is able to process and translate. The translated effect cascades inside the person, where it triggers emotions. sensations, imaginary inductions, even sometimes audio and visual hallucinations. This would be like the dream that our scientist was unable to prove. Even if this occurred you can not prove or recreate it, therefore it did not exist even if it did exist.

 

I

[Vox]

Science can not prove that god exists. Yet to many people, god is real. This paradox can be explained by comparing internal and external proof. For example, I will start with a well trained scientist, who has a dream. He can not prove he had this particular dream, using external data, yet what he experienced was a phenomena that was real. if we trust he is honest, objective and reliable, we might take his word for this unique data, even if he/we can't reproduce it. Others who more cynical may say, there is no external proof for the details he outlined, therefore what may have been real to this keen observer, does not exist, according to the philosophy of science. We may concede he had a dream, since everyone has has this experience; the realm of possibility. But his details lack proof, unless he can reproduce that data.

 

Say for example, the experience of god can not be done with the sensory systems alone, but occurs in a way similar to a living dream. Say the entire human brain is the only known instrument that has the right combination of biology and physical chemistry to pick up this signal. Once the neural receiver picks up the signal, the brain's main CPU is able to process and translate. The translated effect cascades inside the person, where it triggers emotions. sensations, imaginary inductions, even sometimes audio and visual hallucinations. This would be like the dream that our scientist was unable to prove. Even if this occurred you can not prove or recreate it, therefore it did not exist even if it did exist.

 

I

 

Why would you need to describe "experience of God" anything outside of things /experiencies what you do / feel / sense normally ? Is all what is already "Godlike" itself?

 

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is.

Albert Einstein

[Ken]

It seems that standard approach is to specify "God" to something which is outside, controlling/coordinating "things and events" from outside. If we take another view "God" is all what is and within the all. How would you be able to prove scientifically "separate God´s" existence if this would be the case?

 

Nothing can be "proven" scientifically. Prove is not a viable concept in Science though Disprove is a core concept. Understanding the distinction clarifies the discussion.

 

 

Is it so that we seek something, outside of "things" which cannot be found due it is within? I have personally not found any proof that the universe is less than perfect and even not it would exist not, perfectly. Should that prove that Universe (all what is, "God") is "omnipotent" due it is faultless? So for me definition for "God" is all what is.

 

 

How would anyone ever know things that are outside objective (as Humans perceive it) reality? Science does not, and cannot, deal with metaphysical issues. That's one of the distinguishing characteristics of Science, that it only deals with the physical universe. Metaphysics lies within the realm of Philosophy and Theology.

[Ken]

Science can not prove that god exists. Yet to many people, god is real. This paradox can be explained by comparing internal and external proof. For example, I will start with a well trained scientist, who has a dream. He can not prove he had this particular dream, using external data, yet what he experienced was a phenomena that was real. if we trust he is honest, objective and reliable, we might take his word for this unique data, even if he/we can't reproduce it. Others who more cynical may say, there is no external proof for the details he outlined, therefore what may have been real to this keen observer, does not exist, according to the philosophy of science. We may concede he had a dream, since everyone has has this experience; the realm of possibility. But his details lack proof, unless he can reproduce that data.

 

Say for example, the experience of god can not be done with the sensory systems alone, but occurs in a way similar to a living dream. Say the entire human brain is the only known instrument that has the right combination of biology and physical chemistry to pick up this signal. Once the neural receiver picks up the signal, the brain's main CPU is able to process and translate. The translated effect cascades inside the person, where it triggers emotions. sensations, imaginary inductions, even sometimes audio and visual hallucinations. This would be like the dream that our scientist was unable to prove. Even if this occurred you can not prove or recreate it, therefore it did not exist even if it did exist.

 

 

 

I see what your goal is but I think you got yourself into a linguistic box.

 

The problem is trying to use certain terms as though they have consistent meaning over different methods of inquiry. Existence is one of those words that has unique meanings for different realms. The existence of a God is "known" by a member of the faith-based community, a matter of debate for the logic- based community, and irrelevant for the observed-data-community.

 

Taking it back to the original thesis of this thread that God is a Scientific Hypothesis requires answers to some fundamental questions. 1) What is God? What characteristics of this concept are measurable? 2) What is an hypothesis? If it has any meaning at all then it means far more than just a casual assumption about an immeasurable concept. and 3) What is Science and what could this particular methodology bring to the inquiry into a metaphysical claim?

 

I submit that "God" is concept that is not susceptible to measurement, that the proposed experiments are not experiments merely exercises in calculation correlations, and that Science has no means to establish any "proof" about anything. Science is a methodology to reduce uncertainty; it has no claim producing certainty.

 

Further, the notion of a Science Hypothesis relative to God is a verbal mish-mash since it mis-uses the term hypothesis as used in Science. And finally, whatever Science is, it is irretrievably bound to the physical not the metaphysical.

[noexpert]

When I was in school, I was taught a fairly strict definition of science that said something like this: Science is a process aimed at discovering the nature of things and is based on concrete observation and mearsurement.

 

The professor then went on to say that a soul for example does not fit within the realm of science since it cannot be observed or measured. God is in a similar state as that of a soul. Since it cannot be observed or measured, science simply can have nothing to say about it. That means that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. While believing in God is not scientific, it is not a sign of bad science either- so long as one does not apply bias to their science based on God. i.e. if we find a fish atop a mountain assume that God put it there during the great flood of the bible.

[Ken]

When I was in school, I was taught a fairly strict definition of science that said something like this: Science is a process aimed at discovering the nature of things and is based on concrete observation and mearsurement.

 

The professor then went on to say that a soul for example does not fit within the realm of science since it cannot be observed or measured. God is in a similar state as that of a soul. Since it cannot be observed or measured, science simply can have nothing to say about it. That means that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. While believing in God is not scientific, it is not a sign of bad science either- so long as one does not apply bias to their science based on God. i.e. if we find a fish atop a mountain assume that God put it there during the great flood of the bible.

 

 

Well stated. :lol:

[Vox]

 

 

How would anyone ever know things that are outside objective (as Humans perceive it) reality? Science does not, and cannot, deal with metaphysical issues. That's one of the distinguishing characteristics of Science, that it only deals with the physical universe. Metaphysics lies within the realm of Philosophy and Theology.

 

 

How it is possible that when Science discovers something "totally new reality within current reality" which have not been the reality yesterday and it was yesterday deemed as metaphysics? Was it reality as such all the time though? Only difference that we were not aware of it as being part of the reality in our symbolic thinking mind concept? Someone just used his or hers imagination and created new reality within current reality? So without imagination there would not be real progress concerning new realities discoveries within? So what we think in our mind(s) and what is, will always be different concept?

 

So answer to if God is, could be; there is only one reality whatever it might be and containing how many different exist of it or not exist. We will never know that fully in our thinking minds. We can only be it, perfectly and fully?

 

Like an example if there were, let´s say 11 dimensions, we are not fully aware of these dimensions within our thinking mind or our scientifically verified senses, but we are within all 11 dimensions?

 

And please be not afraid, I am not trying to destroy grounds of science or support grounds of theology religions. Just "using" thinking mind and imagination. But I am aware that if I need to take a leak, I need to take a leak regardless what my mind thinks of it :lol:

 

If anything Science history indicates that we do know reality only partially and via symbolic language, mathematics and more we find from within more will be discovered formerly unknown?

[Vox]

When I was in school, I was taught a fairly strict definition of science that said something like this: Science is a process aimed at discovering the nature of things and is based on concrete observation and mearsurement.

 

The professor then went on to say that a soul for example does not fit within the realm of science since it cannot be observed or measured. God is in a similar state as that of a soul. Since it cannot be observed or measured, science simply can have nothing to say about it. That means that science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God. While believing in God is not scientific, it is not a sign of bad science either- so long as one does not apply bias to their science based on God. i.e. if we find a fish atop a mountain assume that God put it there during the great flood of the bible.

 

Good description and that lead me to think that both "science realms" and "religious realms" are states of non real experiences due both of them do not live in real reality, science mind lives in deliberately limited realm being; only if it can be measured or observed. Religious mind lives in artificially expanded realm where it imagines additional things to be part the reality which are not necessarily so. So what is then "to live in real reality"? Let´s say for example that our little fingers fingernail is living in perfectly real realm that what we can never achieve within our thinking mind realm, neither scientific or religious? It does not limit anything nor it does not create anything additional either? What can be more real than that? If God is God is also fingernail?

[Ken]

How it is possible that when Science discovers something "totally new reality within current reality" which have not been the reality yesterday and it was yesterday deemed as metaphysics? Was it reality as such all the time though? Only difference that we were not aware of it as being part of the reality in our symbolic thinking mind concept? Someone just used his or hers imagination and created new reality within current reality? So without imagination there would not be real progress concerning new realities discoveries within? So what we think in our mind(s) and what is, will always be different concept?

 

So answer to if God is, could be; there is only one reality whatever it might be and containing how many different exist of it or not exist. We will never know that fully in our thinking minds. We can only be it, perfectly and fully?

 

Like an example if there were, let´s say 11 dimensions, we are not fully aware of these dimensions within our thinking mind or our scientifically verified senses, but we are within all 11 dimensions?

 

And please be not afraid, I am not trying to destroy grounds of science or support grounds of theology religions. Just "using" thinking mind and imagination. But I am aware that if I need to take a leak, I need to take a leak regardless what my mind thinks of it ;)

 

If anything Science history indicates that we do know reality only partially and via symbolic language, mathematics and more we find from within more will be discovered formerly unknown?

 

Interesting ideas but I cannot accept your notion of a "real reality". To me it's a meaningless term. Reality is. What would an "unreal" reality be?

 

I think what led you here is some sense that Science, or scientists, have the only answers or believe they have the only answers. I think that perspective misses the critical point that there are fundamentally different ways to inquire about the nature of the universe. Science is very effective in studying the things that it limits itself to but that doesn't mean that it is either the best or the only way to inquire nor are it's areas of study the only areas that exist.

 

We see the effectiveness of its methods all around us as it impinges on our lives in so many easily observed ways. But is is a limited effectiveness - we have cell phones but no universal peace, we have medicines to fix the body but nothing reliable to fix the "soul" or to mend the emotional pains that we suffer.

 

What we do have is the ability to choose methods of inquiry that are personally satisfactory. And we do have the freedom to use different methods for different issues. Science can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of god and yet there are probably more scientists who believe in god than who don't. That's not an in consistency, the issues that scientists choose to study as a formal activity are those that involve the directly, or indirectly, observable. But on a personal level there are issues and questions that can only be resolved through other methods - logic or faith.

 

Personally, I find no answers to questions about why I am here, or what my purpose in the universe might be. Faith, or the unconditional acceptance some answer that is presented does not satisfy me. My faith, or unconditional acceptance, is limited to a few core beliefs that really are the foundation of my chosen method of inquiry. I won't list them all here but I'll briefly offer the first as an example.

 

I believe, or unconditionally accept, that the universe is orderly. I mean it in the sense that the chair I'm sitting on does not and will not wink into and out of existence arbitrarily. It was constructed at some point in time and it will be destroyed at some later point but during the interval created by those limits it remains. It's components have existed in some form or another as far back in time as every other part of the universe, and after it's destruction those components will continue to exist in some form - matter or energy as every other part of the universe. A major goal of science is to decipher the "rules" of orderliness in the universe. We've barely scratched the surface.

 

I apologize for being so wordy but I'm trying to convey why I am unable to accept a phrase such as "unreal reality". I reject it on three grounds - one from each of the three methods of inquiry - it's definition excludes the possibility of observing and measuring it, it suffers from a lack of internal consistency (logic), and I don't "believe" it. :)

[Vox]

Interesting ideas but I cannot accept your notion of a "real reality". To me it's a meaningless term. Reality is. What would an "unreal" reality be?

 

.................

 

I apologize for being so wordy but I'm trying to convey why I am unable to accept a phrase such as "unreal reality". I reject it on three grounds - one from each of the three methods of inquiry - it's definition excludes the possibility of observing and measuring it, it suffers from a lack of internal consistency (logic), and I don't "believe" it. :)

 

Your responses appreciated.

 

What I wanted to express with my simple "rude" definitions of "real reality" and "unreal reality" is the difference between "being" and "thinking of being". So basically "I am" compared to "I think I am". For me "I am" represents "real reality" as is without adding any abstract /thinking/imagination from our mind. "I think I am" represents "unreal reality" due it uses words/symbols/ mathematics to reflect what is (real) so it at it best is a reflection of the "real reality" and yes that is all we got from thinking perspective but we need to remember the "little fingers fingernail", it do not rely on words/symbols/mathematics to exist. So it exist in "real reality" due it do not contain any illusions/theories as reflections of "real reality" as substitute or as an addition?

[Ken]

Your responses appreciated.

 

What I wanted to express with my simple "rude" definitions of "real reality" and "unreal reality" is the difference between "being" and "thinking of being". So basically "I am" compared to "I think I am". For me "I am" represents "real reality" as is without adding any abstract /thinking/imagination from our mind. "I think I am" represents "unreal reality" due it uses words/symbols/ mathematics to reflect what is (real) so it at it best is a reflection of the "real reality" and yes that is all we got from thinking perspective but we need to remember the "little fingers fingernail", it do not rely on words/symbols/mathematics to exist. So it exist in "real reality" due it do not contain any illusions/theories as reflections of "real reality" as substitute or as an addition?

 

 

It seems to me that you are focused on inner experience. The problem for me is that inner experience is not susceptible to scientific investigation. Even the words that we use in common, in everyday conversation, don't give us any valid information about the inner experiences of others.

 

But your point does demonstrate the kinds of issues that I believe argue against the notion that God is a Scientific Hypothesis. In that discussion the term "hypothesis" is used in ways that are meaningless as far as Science is concerned. The OP seemed to be using the term as a substitute for Logical Assumption.

 

Cheers,

[Vox]

It seems to me that you are focused on inner experience. The problem for me is that inner experience is not susceptible to scientific investigation. Even the words that we use in common, in everyday conversation, don't give us any valid information about the inner experiences of others.

 

But your point does demonstrate the kinds of issues that I believe argue against the notion that God is a Scientific Hypothesis. In that discussion the term "hypothesis" is used in ways that are meaningless as far as Science is concerned. The OP seemed to be using the term as a substitute for Logical Assumption.

 

Cheers,

 

How you/human/men could have "Outer experience", whatever we experience it is inner experience due it is processed by our individual brain/mind?

We are using words/symbols/mathematics to express, think, receive and transmit these inner experiences, but they all are less than "real reality".

Hopefully I have repeated my "core point" what I am trying to make enough many times :)

From my perspective "God" cannot be described by any means less than "real reality”. So thinking cannot touch/explain true "essence" of “God”. Thinking/mind at its best can create only mere reflection of “God”?

 

 

Cheers,