Can the existence of God be proved through scientific inquiry?

by caliber 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  caliber

  Below are thoughts from the posted web site... I am interested in how those who put full faith in the scientific method would answer.

  Can the existence of God be proved through scientific inquiry? Can playing the board game Monopoly prove whether Charles Darrow or Lizzie Magie invented the game? Can assembling a puzzle of the Mona Lisa prove the existence of Leonardo da Vinci? Can following a map of the Guggenheim museum prove that Frank Lloyd Wright was the architect? No. The inventor of Monopoly, the painter of the Mona Lisa, and the architect of the Guggenheim museum are outside the scope of proof of the respective game, puzzle, and map. In like manner God is outside the scope of proof, or disproof, of scientific inquiry.

  If the Elijah protocol could be followed in scientific fashion every Christian would carry around a well-charred walking stick. Upon meeting an unbeliever the Christian would simply douse the walking stick with as much water as possible and then hold it in the air for God to ignite. Thus converting the unbeliever immediately.

  The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved in this fashion because the universe does not sustain the existence of God; rather, God sustains the existence of the universe.
  Although the existence of God cannot be proved through scientific inquiry, nature can reveal God’s attributes and declare God’s glory. Just as the form and function of Monopoly, the Mona Lisa, and the Guggenheim museum reveal something about their creators, so to the form and function of nature reveals things about its creator. Therefore, scientific inquiry does reveal the work of God. But knowing God goes beyond scientific inquiry. Knowing God requires faith and faith is based on the power of God rather than the wisdom of mankind (1 Corinthians 2:5).
  (black highlight added )

  The scientific method is a well-defined linear approach to scientific inquiry. However, there is not a single agreed upon set of steps in the scientific method, meaning that you will find some sources that list four steps in the scientific method and some that list up to seven steps. Here is an example of the steps in the scientific method (Biggs, et al., 2002).
  1. Observation
  2. Hypothesis forming: “A hypothesis is a testable answer to a question” (p.19).
  3. Data collection
  4. Publishing results
  5. Theory forming: “A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by a large body of scientific evidence” (p.19).
  6. New hypothesis forming
  7. Theory revision
  http://www.professorstraw.com/html/essays/God's%20Omniscience%20Lesson%204.pdf

  How would you answer ??
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Can the existence of God be proved through scientific inquiry?

  No, it cannot. Science is a tool for investigating that which is natural. God, by definition, is supernatural.

  BTS
• 

  caliber

  Thanks Burn The Ships ! good thought.

  So to say the scientific method finds there is no God , therefore God can't exist.... would seem to be cast in doubt if

  the system of measurement is misapplied plus the tool or measurement itself cannot to totally agreed upon.
• 

  Joshinaz

  Anything unsolved is from god. Until its figured out by some scientist.

  Volcanoes erupt because the gods are angry, until scientists discover the real reason why volcanoes erupt. ect. ect.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Can the existence of God be proved through scientific inquiry?

  No, it cannot. Science is a tool for investigating that which is natural. God, by definition, is supernatural.

  I disagree. Only the god of the theist or deist is supernatural by definition. The god of the pantheist and panentheist is quite natural and if pantheism proves to be a valid view, it will likewise prove to be supported by science at some point.

  An additional point. I feel like the theist and even the deist view are convenient belief systems established specifically to avoid having to try proving the existence of God. "Oh, He is outside the universe so there is no way we can ever see him personally. We have only his works of creation to go by."

  That's a cop out in my book. God is either everywhere or he's nowhere. He isn't here when it fits our agenda and absent when it doesn't. To me it isn't a matter of whether God is immanent or transcendent, it is a matter of whether he is immanent or nonexistent because the end result of transcendence and nonexistence is the same to me: if either are true he's out of my life.
• 

  Terry

  The method by which people accept God as a reality is called Faith and Belief which is a bypass exempting proof.

  Faith is seen as a virtue and lack of Faith as a moral failing.

  So, why the insistance on dragging proof into the discussion?

  Something called A isn't the same as something called not A.

  Faith is a workaround. Proof is evidence confirming fact.

  So, which is it going to be? Faith (A) or Proof (not A)?

  In my opinion, a rational person can only suspend disbelief for just so long (cognitive dissonance) before something more substantial

  becomes necessary to sustain the burden of imagination pretending to be fact.

  Think about it: Jehovah's Witnesses are built around the Armageddon scenario. Every so often they go off the reservation and actually try to place their Faith in that core belief in the realm of reality by PREDICTING a date!

  This is the desperate cry of the rational mind for Proof even if it will destroy the basis of Faith itself!

  Time and again JW's have DISproved the basis of their own Faith (Armageddon is a no-show.)

  Immediately they lapse back into a more and more intense Faith-Coma and lick their intellectual wounds and public humiliation.

  The same is true for mainstream Christians who try to establish PROOF of God through scientific inquiry.

  You simply cannot have it both ways because Faith is irreconcilable with Proof.

  A and not A won't fit inside your mind without destroying each other.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  he god of the pantheist and panentheist is quite natural and if pantheism proves to be a valid view, it will likewise prove to be supported by science at some point.

  This is perhaps true of the pantheist, but panentheists (of which I consider myself part of their number) believe in a God that is greater than the sum of the natural realm itself.

  BTS
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  You cannot prove that God (or the teapot orbiting Pluto) does not exist. Science doesn't prove such a negative. But science proceeds with what it can prove. God is welcome to pop up with proof of his existence anytime he wants to. In the meantime, science will continue proving things without him.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  In like manner Santa Claus, Unicorns and Superman are outside the scope of proof, or disproof, of scientific inquiry.
• 

  caliber

  So, why the insistance on dragging proof into the discussion?....

  Because most non-believers in God seem insist on proof as

  absolute necessity

  Something called A isn't the same as something called not A.

  Faith is a workaround. Proof is evidence confirming fact.

  So, which is it going to be? Faith (A) or Proof (not A)?

  Is it not non- believers in God that insist there be just one method .......the scientific method. ??? I see two choices for two things... natural & super natural..... must I be forced to chose only one ???