Could science one day explain everything including the non- existence of God

[Alan McDougall]

 

Hi

 

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2907-science-religion-god-physics.html

 

 

Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

 

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

 

Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

 

He thinks the sphere of supernatural influence will eventually shrink to nil. But could science really eventually explain everything?

 

 

Do you agree or want to add to the debate?

 

 

 

[swansont]

Everything physical, perhaps. The god of the gaps gets diminished because, way back when, a god was used to explain material behavior of nature. As it turns out, nature follows laws, and not the whims of a supreme being.

[Alan McDougall]

Everything physical, perhaps. The god of the gaps gets diminished because, way back when, a god was used to explain material behavior of nature. As it turns out, nature follows laws, and not the whims of a supreme being.

 

Maybe what we call nature is really god in disguise and in the end science might have to concede that all of reality simply cannot be expained scientifically.

[dimreepr]

However credible and undeniably factual science becomes, there will always be people who deny the obvious in favour of what could be. Science will always have gaps, however small, into which doubt can be inserted. God will always be the fantasy of doubt in some people as a way to deal with stuff they don't want to face with reality.

 

Edited September 19, 2012 by dimreepr

[swansont]

Maybe what we call nature is really god in disguise and in the end science might have to concede that all of reality simply cannot be expained scientifically.

Perhaps. But there's no indication that we've arrived there.

[akh]

The burden is not for science to prove the non-existence of God (as your thread title asks). This is not a proper line of inquiry. The burden is to find verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God. Which, to this day, there is none. I don't suspect there will ever be any such evidence. Gaps in understanding do not equate to evidence; the gaps never have and never will be evidence no matter how large or how small the gaps might be.

Edited September 20, 2012 by akh

[Alan McDougall]

The burden is not for science to prove the non-existence of God (as your thread title asks). This is not a proper line of inquiry. The burden is to find verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God. Which, to this day, there is none. I don't suspect there will ever be any such evidence. Gaps in understanding do not equate to evidence; the gaps never have and never will be evidence no matter how large or how small the gaps might be.

 

 

I disagree with you and so do many great scientists, both past and present, including many Nobel Prize winners. Somethings are obviously beyond the abilty of humans to comprehend and this will remain that way forever , because we are just little fallible balls of watery finite protein, trying in vain to explain how all of reality came to be in the first place. How can a finite entity ever explain Infinite Existence and reality?

[swansont]

I disagree with you and so do many great scientists, both past and present, including many Nobel Prize winners. Somethings are obviously beyond the abilty of humans to comprehend and this will remain that way forever , because we are just little fallible balls of watery finite protein, trying in vain to explain how all of reality came to be in the first place. How can a finite entity ever explain Infinite Existence and reality?

Not understanding something does not lead one to conclude "God". It's bad science. So is argument from authority.

[Alan McDougall]

Not understanding something does not lead one to conclude "God". It's bad science. So is argument from authority.

 

Why is it bad science if it leads to the understanding that there is no god, or that the same research leads to the conclusion that a Godlike entity is the only explaination for all of reality and infinite existence?

[ydoaPs]

Why is it bad science if it leads to the understanding that there is no god

 

Because it's bad logic.

 

1) I don't know

2) .....

3) Therefore, God!

 

That's not a valid argument form. It takes the form:

 

p

Therefore, q

 

Valid arguments have a way to check to make sure they're valid even if you don't know the steps they took in the argument. All you do is make a conditional. The antecedent is the conjunction of the premises and the consequent is the conclusion. If the argument is valid, this conditional will be a tautology. Let's try it out. We only have one premise. That is, p. Our conclusion here is q.

 

That makes the conditional p->q.

 

So now we need to construct a truth table to see if it is a tautology.

 

p | q | p->q

T | T | T

T | F | F

F | T | T

F | F | T

 

We can clearly see that this is not a tautology (especially since this happens to just be the truth table for the conditional in general) and is thus not a valid argument form. The premise does not lead to the conclusion. That's why.

[Alan McDougall]

Because it's bad logic.

 

1) I don't know

2) .....

3) Therefore, God!

 

That's not a valid argument form. It takes the form:

 

p

Therefore, q

 

Valid arguments have a way to check to make sure they're valid even if you don't know the steps they took in the argument. All you do is make a conditional. The antecedent is the conjunction of the premises and the consequent is the conclusion. If the argument is valid, this conditional will be a tautology. Let's try it out. We only have one premise. That is, p. Our conclusion here is q.

 

That makes the conditional p->q.

 

So now we need to construct a truth table to see if it is a tautology.

 

p | q | p->q

T | T | T

T | F | F

F | T | T

F | F | T

 

We can clearly see that this is not a tautology (especially since this happens to just be the truth table for the conditional in general) and is thus not a valid argument form. The premise does not lead to the conclusion. That's why.

 

I dont agree why is it bad logic to try to find the source of something, the why of something and the how of something, this is science not the philosohy agrument you propose? It could be a contingent propsitionWhat about

 

1) I dont know.

 

2) ..............

 

 

3) Therefore no God

 

 

 

[ydoaPs]

I dont agree why is it bad logic

 

I can't force you to be correct.

 

What about

 

1) I dont know.

 

2) ..............

 

 

3) Therefore no God

 

Good thing no one is doing that, eh?

[Alan McDougall]

I can't force you to be correct.

 

 

 

Good thing no one is doing that, eh?

 

 

So you are correct and I am wrong, remember you were using subjective logic, I just reversed your whole subjective agrument to satisfy my own subjective logic like you did?

 

What is TRUTH?

[ydoaPs]

So you are correct and I am wrong

 

Yes.

 

remember you were using subjective logic

 

No, I was using simple sentential logic which most children should be able to grasp.

 

 

I just reversed your whole subjective agrument[sic] to satisfy my own subjective logic like you did?

 

No, you didn't. What you did was straw man since no one made any such argument. To do so would be idiotic, which is why no one does.

 

What is TRUTH?

 

A proposition is true iff said proposition accurately represents the state of affairs actualized by reality.

[swansont]

Why is it bad science if it leads to the understanding that there is no god, or that the same research leads to the conclusion that a Godlike entity is the only explaination for all of reality and infinite existence?

I don't see how "God did it" will lead you to an understanding that there is no god, since you've basically given up with your inquiry. Since science is inductive, the process requires that you not give up until all scientific possibilities are tried — which includes ones any given individual can't think of.

[ydoaPs]

Since science is inductive

 

Science is actually so cool that it is inductive, deductive, and abductive.

[Alan McDougall]

Yes.

 

 

 

No, I was using simple sentential logic which most children should be able to grasp.

 

 

 

 

No, you didn't. What you did was straw man since no one made any such argument. To do so would be idiotic, which is why no one does.

 

 

 

A proposition is true iff said proposition accurately represents the state of affairs actualized by reality.

 

Dont insult me I did not use a Straw Man argument I am not a child .

 

2. Person A (Me) has position X (MY ARGUMENT THERE IS NO God).
3. Person B (You) presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). You just left this out using ………….?
4. Person B (You) attacks position Y. (You attack your own position?)
5. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed (No it is not wrong science ultimately proves the non-existence of god by scientific method)

 

 

 

 

[ydoaPs]

Dont insult me I did not use a Straw Man

 

Yes, yes you did.

 

I am not a child .

 

Then you should be able to grasp the basics of simple first order sentential logic.

 

2. Person A (Me) has position X (MY ARGUMENT THERE IS NO God).
3. Person B (You) presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). You just left this out using ………….?
4. Person B (You) attacks position Y. (You attack your own position?)
5. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed (No it is not wrong science ultimately proves the non-existence of god by scientific method)

 

 

 

 

 

It's unclear what you're trying to show with this incoherent babble. Take a second to calm down and collect your thoughts.

[swansont]

I dont agree why is it bad logic to try to find the source of something, the why of something and the how of something, this is science not the philosohy agrument you propose? It could be a contingent propsitionWhat about

 

1) I dont know.

 

2) ..............

 

 

3) Therefore no God

I will second the cll that this is not what is happening. Science does not conclude that there is no God, but it does mandate that God cannot be required. Not invoking God is not the same as concluding that God does not exist, since science can only address phenomena that are testable with the tools it has at its disposal.

[Alan McDougall]

Yes, yes you did.

 

 

 

Then you should be able to grasp the basics of simple first order sentential logic.

 

 

 

It's unclear what you're trying to show with this incoherent babble. Take a second to calm down and collect your thoughts.

 

 

So I am a childish, idiot who just babbles incherently, OK then knower of all things, what exactly are you right about and what exactly am I wrong about??. This question was posed as a scientific quest for truth, not a long winded cirular philosophical agument you brought up.

 

What is your answer to the title of the thread?......................................?

[LimbicLoser]

I was actually slightly shocked to find you here, Alan, and with having been here longer than myself, even. Wow... I will give notice, up front, that I do not reason that I can discuss any such topic as you have raised here in question form, but I would like to purge out one matter a bit (and see what I can get out of it). Which particular god might you have in mind? Also, why not a particular goddess? (There are at least thousands of non-carry-over gods and goddesses.)

[Alan McDougall]

I was actually slightly shocked to find you here, Alan, and with having been here longer than myself, even. Wow... I will give notice, up front, that I do not reason that I can discuss any such topic as you have raised here in question form, but I would like to purge out one matter a bit (and see what I can get out of it). Which particular god might you have in mind? Also, why not a particular goddess? (There are at least thousands of non-carry-over gods and goddesses.)

 

 

Do you know me from elsewhere? I am not refering to any god of religion or demigod of any sort, the god I am thinking of would be more like an Infinite Intelligence or uncaused cause of all existence. A prime mover if you like.

 

 

 

Thus if science finally comes up with a Theory of Everything and it can be proved as fact would this exclude the need for a god to explain existence?

[John Cuthber]

It's possible that in the fairly near future, science will show why people believe in God.

Experiments like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

and research in areas like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Temporal_Lobe_Epilepsy.2C_Neurotheology_and_Paranormal_Experience

 

will explain why some people insist on believing in an ancient myth that no longer provides any answer to any questions.

 

I rather doubt that it will affect some people's belief, even if we were able to prove it down to the cellular and molecular level that there is a scientific explanation for belief in things that are not there.

[LimbicLoser]

Do you know me from elsewhere? I am not refering to any god of religion or demigod of any sort, the god I am thinking of would be more like an Infinite Intelligence or uncaused cause of all existence. A prime mover if you like.

I appreciate your getting back to answer towards the pondering-like questions I had posed; an effort to see what understanding the presentation is coming from, so as to see if I can work with that at all. I stand by what I had mentioned in my previous post, but hope (in some hopelessly-given-to-mere-emotion way) to be proven wrong; maybe you will have learned since days gone by. Do the letters KJ ring a bell?

 

Then, since it is clear that you are not talking about any gods or goddesses, there is no reason to use that word 'god.' This is a big error on the part of so many people, that it just really is a shame. We have so many thinkers out there who refuse to think about what they have missed along the way, or have been mislead, or misguided, into thinking. 'Intelligence' will usually have two more commonly used senses, and the one which is pertinent (definition-wise) in the case of gods and goddesses, is the matter of cognitive executive function--basically as in the brain, or a model of brain processing. The to-date, empirically demonstrated, sound and valid knowledge that we have accumulated through scientific method has already shown that we know of no brain processing in nature beyond brains, or ganglion plexi, themselves.⁽¹⁾ We thus have no room whatsoever to presuppose the external existence (that is, not just in the mind) of a center of intelligence (a brain, or an equally similar brain-like processing entity) in nature. It would be best, therefore, not to make application of the term 'intelligence.'

 

While the title of this thread does allow for a totally different discussion, the simple fact that it lies in the 'Religion' sub-forum, and includes the matter of a deity, or a god (or goddess), more heavily brings out the matter of: 'scientific method reasoning being able to determine if there is evidence to understand that a certain god, or goddess, actually exists externally, as a factuality of nature.' Well, of course, we are at least now in the position of knowing the fallacy of starting off with the assertion (hypothesis) that there is this certain god, or goddess (and one can pick any one of the thousands that mankind has come up with through our Homo history), and then working to see if we can ascertain evidence to falsify that claim.

 

That's right, today we have no sound and valid choice but to start with the understanding that no to-date offered god, or goddess, has demonstrated itself beyond the information sources which describe and prescribe that particular god, or goddess, to be an external reality of nature at large, and work to see if we can find evidence that such a god, or goddess, does, in fact, exist. (and here on out I will simply type 'exist(s)' with that modification understood)

 

Do you see what I mean, Alan? In this manner, we can pick, for example, Baal. We can check out the information source on that particular god, see what is described and prescribed, the detail of overlap with prior god models, and such, and then test that against what sound and valid knowledge we today have. If the results of that testing demonstrates that the majority of assertive claims made by the information source are false, then we can conclude that no such god exists; and chalk it up to another fancifully created story (myth for a purpose at the time) by humankind.

 

The notion of a 'mover,' or of a 'first cause,' divorced from the Platonic mishap that it generally tends to come from, and be married to, need not be anything other than what we can know about nature at large through the best means that we do have for thinking and learning about it at all, namely, scientific method. (And I do use that in it's broadest sense, not just the academic, professional sense.)

 

To sum up this much, therefore, I agree that your methodology is correct in not taking any particular god, or goddess, of any of the theist-involved religious belief systems which we humans have developed over time, and holding firstly that that particular god, or goddess, is an external fact of nature at large, and then arguing from there. One thing that follows, however--and is where you have made a misstep--is that we therefore have no sound and valid grounds upon which we can argue that we need to use the word 'god,' or for that matter, 'goddess,''deity,''divine,' and so on and so forth. I most humbly do hope you can follow through on the reasoning leading to this more sound and valid conclusion. If we are not talking about gods--and the word is fixed in limited definition, actually, and honestly, speaking--then we are not talking about gods.

 

Thus if science finally comes up with a Theory of Everything and it can be proved as fact would this exclude the need for a god to explain existence?

It is thus shown that even while it will more likely not be the case that we humans will have a theory (as opposed to hypothesis, or educated guess) of everything within the reign of our existence (as I reason), we already have fairly and substantially enough come to learn through sound and valid knowledge, that we do not need any gods, or goddesses, to explain the fact of nature at large. (And this is as close enough to fact, actually, that we might as well go ahead and put it in that class of understanding.) The question posed by the title of thread, therefore, has been answered. It is an open topic, but pragmatically reasoning on it tells us that we will probably never get to the level of a 'theory of everything' (holding the term 'theory' is its strictest sense). However, we have already come to know, through this pragmatic reasoning, that no gods, or goddesses, exist. (And I am holding these in their prime senses; we all know that some hold Elvis to be a god, but that is not the prime sense, right?!) I hope you can follow through on this, Alan. Of course, it is nothing new to you from me, we both know.

 

 

 

1. In that I appeal to 'nature at large,' it could be held that AI is as much a development of natural activity as the evolution of the Homo genus, and that therefore we do find intelligence (in the sense of brain-like processing outside of the condition of being ganglion/brain). However, I reason (for now, at least) that doing so only leads to a great potential for confusion and misunderstanding. I hold that we have a need to maintain our classifications and category groupings--even if simply for the sake of progressing along with our understandings, and efforts to understand. (We can always adjust them later, based on any better, sound and valid knowledge that arises.). I do not include AI in this presentation, but hold it on the side as a human activity (for now).

[Alan McDougall]

LimbicLoser

 

Before I address your post, I cant say KJ means anything to me, except you might be someone who believes in some sort of a loving light force , if that is you we can address the topic further, if not I will answer your post as if it comes from a stranger?