Scientific proof of god's existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dbnp48

Q.E.D.
Registered Senior Member
People have been presenting "proofs" of god's existence for centuries. Here's a link that covers them:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godproof.htm

Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god(s)? Or, if not prove, at least provide some evidence one way or the other.

If you think it is possible, how would you go about it?
 
Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god(s)? Or, if not prove, at least provide some evidence one way or the other.
Click to expand...

No. Think about it - if it were possible, it would have been done by now.
 
I hope some specialist (i.e. a PhD in Phisics) may be able to comment
on what follows.

I think there is an interpetation of Quantum Mechanics, taken seriously
by expert opinion, that the universe is to some extent observer-based,
that is, to be is to be perceived, and Bishop Berkeley may have been
right all along: esse est percipi.

If this interpreation is fully correct, then, with apologies to Albert Einstein,
the Moon in fact does not exist unless at least one mouse is looking at it.
This poses some issues for the era before which mice and men arrived on
the scene. Most dramatically, who "obseved" the Bing Bang? Who could
have observed it, other than God?

(BTW I am an atheist)
 
dbnp48 said:
Is it possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god(s)?
Click to expand...
In general, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. In fact, if one adheres to the scientific method, it is not even necessary. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a positive assertion. He must provide supporting evidence in the form of observation and/or logical reasoning before anyone is obliged to treat his assertion with respect. Once he does that, then in accordance with the scientific method we can peer-review his evidence or reasoning. If we succeed in falsifying it, with a community of peers looking on to make sure we did it honestly, competently and scientifically, then he's back where he started, with one of the millions of unsupported hypotheses that we ignore every day.

In other words, we can't disprove the existence of gods, but we don't have to since it's an assertion with no respectable evidence. In just the same way, we don't have to prove that dogs can't fly, because there is no evidence that they can.
Or, if not prove, at least provide some evidence one way or the other.
Click to expand...
To prove the existence of gods, one must start with the presentation of evidence. I will digress here and explain the Rule of Laplace, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect. (Notice that we are not obliged to mock them, but we are free to do so, which is why you see so much of that mocking on SciForums.)

Now the scientific method, indeed all of science, is derived from the premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by reasoning logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior. To assert that a supernatural universe exists, full of invisible, irrational creatures and other forces who have the power to capriciously interfere with the behavior of the natural universe, is to assert that the scientific method is false, and is therefore the granddaddy of all extraordinary assertions. The reason is that the scientific method is recursive; it has been tested by its own methods for half a millennium, and it has never come close to being falsified. So you can easily see that for someone to claim that it is, indeed, incorrect, he is going to have to come up with some pretty extraordinary evidence. The typical "evidence," such as one of the tens of billions of tortillas that are sold every year having on it a splotch that is said to be the likeness of a biblical figure, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it for accuracy, is clearly not extraordinary evidence.
If you think it is possible, how would you go about it?
Click to expand...
The scientific study of the natural universe is not complete. Things occasionally happen that defy our attempts to explain them scientifically. Abiogenesis is an important example which is in the news. We have some very good ideas about how the first living matter developed naturally from non-living matter, but there are still parts of the process that we don't understand.

The best way to falsify science would probably be to start with one of these high-profile enigmas and look for evidence of supernatural causes. Note that simply saying that we haven't found a natural mechanism is not the same as proving that there is a supernatural mechanism. Both sides in the controversy still have to do their homework. The first side that finds evidence for their assertion shifts the burden of proof to the other side: they must falsify the evidence.
 
dbnp48 said:
I don't understand. God, if proven, no longer exists?
Click to expand...

God as belief in a supernatural being no longer exists, because he is no longer supernatural once we place him in the natural world. Faith no longer exists; no need for faith when you have measurements. Once we understand God to any degree he becomes physics.
 
billvon said:
God as belief in a supernatural being no longer exists, because he is no longer supernatural once we place him in the natural world. Faith no longer exists; no need for faith when you have measurements. Once we understand God to any degree he becomes physics.
Click to expand...

That sounds like you think that understanding god in a scientific sense will diminish him/her/it/them.
 
NCDane said:
I think there is an interpetation of Quantum Mechanics, taken seriously by expert opinion, that the universe is to some extent observer-based, that is, to be is to be perceived, and Bishop Berkeley may have been right all along: esse est percipi.

If this interpreation is fully correct, then, with apologies to Albert Einstein, the Moon in fact does not exist unless at least one mouse is looking at it. This poses some issues for the era before which mice and men arrived on the scene. Most dramatically, who "obseved" the Bing Bang? Who could have observed it, other than God?
Click to expand...

You are probably thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what you are actually describing is the idea that consciousness causes wave function collapse. This idea is often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation and I doubt that many physicists take it seriously.

Additionally, the manner in which Einstein stated his objection can be misleading. Even if you did subscribe to the idea that consciousness causes wave function collapse, it would not be strictly correct to say that the moon doesn't exist unless someone is looking at it. It's more correct to say that the moon exists in a superposition of both being there and not being there. But regardless of it's state, all of the matter and/or energy that the moon is made of always exists somewhere in the universe. There is a fundamental difference between saying that an observer is necessary for wave function collapse and that an observer is necessary for anything to exist.
 
dbnp48 said:
That sounds like you think that understanding god in a scientific sense will diminish him/her/it/them.
Click to expand...

No, it will just move God from religion to science. One of the fundamental properties of any religion is that it is based on unprovable suppositions that must be taken on faith. Eliminate that and you've changed it into something completely different.
 
billvon said:
No, it will just move God from religion to science. One of the fundamental properties of any religion is that it is based on unprovable suppositions that must be taken on faith. Eliminate that and you've changed it into something completely different.
Click to expand...
Isn't evidence better than faith? Assuming god exists, I can't see how evidence of that existence changes god in any way.
 
dbnp48 said:
Isn't evidence better than faith?
Click to expand...

To a scientist? Yes. To a true believer? Probably not.

Assuming god exists, I can't see how evidence of that existence changes god in any way.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, given that every religion out there has differing (and often very, very detailed) perceptions of what God is, it's a pretty safe bet that 90% of the world's religions (if not 100%) will be invalidated if it turns out God is a hydrogen-plasma based consciousness who interacts with us through modulation of the solar wind.

And what if what we discover is not one God, but weakly Godlike beings that really have nothing to do with us, and didn't have much to do with the creation of the universe? Heck, in that cases, religion might just ignore them completely and thus continue to keep God and science separate.

Trying to figure out what we might discover about the scientific nature of God is speculation in its purest form. But one thing is almost certain - whatever we discover (if anything) it will be nothing like what we expected.
 
Rav said:
You are probably thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what you are actually describing is the idea that consciousness causes wave function collapse. This idea is often confused with the Copenhagen interpretation and I doubt that many physicists take it seriously.
Click to expand...
My impression was that Copenhagen QM defitintiely requires
a wavefunction collapse, and situates in it the measuring device,
thus conferring a special status on the measuring device that
many experts find troubling.

Von Neumann, at least at some point, situated the collapse
in the human mind, which could hardly be more satisfactory
to those who objected to it being in a microsope, or whatever.

Eugene Wigner seems to me to have gone even further than
Von Neumann, and it was his interpretation I was alluding to:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

(from link, my emphasis):
When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena, through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. All that quantum mechanics purports to provide are probability connections between subsequent impressions (also called "apperceptions") of the consciousness, and even though the dividing line between the observer, whose consciousness is being affected, and the observed physical object can be shifted towards the one or the other to a considerable degree, it cannot be eliminated. It may be premature to believe that the present philosophy of quantum mechanics will remain a permanent feature of future physical theories; it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality.
Click to expand...




Rav said:
Additionally, the manner in which Einstein stated his objection can be misleading. Even if you did subscribe to the idea that consciousness causes wave function collapse, it would not be strictly correct to say that the moon doesn't exist unless someone is looking at it. It's more correct to say that the moon exists in a superposition of both being there and not being there. But regardless of it's state, all of the matter and/or energy that the moon is made of always exists somewhere in the universe. There is a fundamental difference between saying that an observer is necessary for wave function collapse and that an observer is necessary for anything to exist.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that Wigner would agree with you, and I wonder if
Einstein did not have Wigner in mind when he spoke of mice and
the moon.
 
It's a bit more than the human mind making a collapse, a simple theory is thus:

Lets say a person comes up with a cost efficient way of terraforming planets and getting people to them quicker.

Throughout their life up to that climactic point, they will have had a various number of choices that would have effected this outcome. If those choices hadn't of been deterministic then the outcome would no longer exist. Those choices however all split down to on vary basic choice that person doesn't have control over, their birth.

If there was complications in birth, then their whole deterministic house of cards would come crashing down, robbing the very universe of their expertise. Interesting enough the universe potential mass displacement caused by the duality based upon this persons birth would likely cause a rather interesting Doppler Effect, it would indeed make a big WOW!
 
Besides which, the world of quantum phenomena is the world of the very small. Large items do not behave in a quantum manner. So saying the moon will not exist if unobserved is inaccurate.

I found the reference in the OP more amusing than enlightening. The 'proofs' were so full of obvious holes that my guess is that whoever posted them did so tongue in cheek.

As Fraggle said, the 'proof' of deity must be positive, and it is up to the deity itself, or its believers to provide that proof. This would be easy for a deity that is omnipotent. I would be convinced if it popped down to say hello, performed a few miracles, and left me with a supernatural ability for the rest of my life, so that I would not have further doubts. All of this would be easy for God if it was as traditionally described.
 
NCDane said:
I am not sure that Wigner would agree with you, and I wonder if Einstein did not have Wigner in mind when he spoke of mice and
the moon.
Click to expand...

Wigner was a very smart and interesting man. But he was also as much a philosopher as he was a physicist. His exploration of the possible metaphysical implications of physical theory combined with his belief in a mysterious and miraculous connection between mathematics, physics and the capacity of the human mind to make sense of it all eventually led him to start thinking of the universe itself as being some kind of all pervading consciousness. I'm not saying that he completely embraced this idea. In fact he seemed to remain a rational scientist right into his final years. In the end, by his own admission, he had simply made peace with the mystery of it all. I'd love to talk some more on this because last night I spent a few hours researching the man and his ideas and reflecting upon them. It was all quite compelling. But, well, another thread at another time. What we are trying to do here is establish whether or not Wigner's ideas could count as evidence of the existence of some kind of God.

If we were to define God as a universal consciousness that is inextricably linked with physical reality then we could argue that there was once a brilliant physicist who's efforts to make sense of the quantum world lead him to a similar conclusion. Wigner didn't use the word God of course, but it's all just semantics really. However, being that we already know that consciousness is a feature of reality, as evidence by the fact that you're sitting there reading this, it's not really anything new. Consciousness is here, but isn't the question of God more about why it is here and how it all came to be?

This brings me back to your original hypothetical argument that the existence of consciousness may be necessary for the existence of anything (which I agree essentially seems to be the same argument that Wigner was making) and that it may then make some kind of sense to suggest that the universe itself could not possibly exist unless consciousness existed first. But there is no doubt that more than one person out there who is reading this right will be worried about Wigner turning in his grave over this huge leap. We haven't just departed from physics, we've wandered a long way even from justifiable metaphysical speculation. You can't call any of this scientific evidence, no matter how intriguing it may be to think about.

I don't have a problem with getting stuck into the philosophical thick of things. In fact I love it. But we'd need to do it in a different forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top