Maybe God is beyond Science?

[jimmorrisonbabe]

I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

[karadan]

If god revealed himself to the world through a means impossible to fake in any way, he'd still be definable through science. Very advanced science maybe, but still explainable.

[Davin]

I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

If god exists but one must be irrational in order to believe in him, what is the point? You believe in god for no rational reason or you don't believe in god because you're rational. The problem with this is that most people don't want to be crazy, because most people want to be sure their friends are actually mindless zombies before going on a zombie hunting/killing spree.

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

I believe in stop signs, billboards, yield signs, promotional signs... but as for signs that come from beyond the physical laws, I'm gonna have to decline. The problem is that if it were a sign, and it was made by some dude who is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful, then the sign would be something rational and clear.

The second thing, atheism just means that you don't believe in a god, that is all there is to that "notion." One could believe in ghosts, faeries, walking toothbrushes, aliens and even Sasquatch and still be atheist as long as they don't believe in a god.

[Chewbie Chan]

For all I know there may be a god (or many) that are beyond the boundaries of our (current) scientific knowledge. However, if such a being were to exist I very much doubt the beliefs of our religious folk would be descriptive or indicative of it in any sensible way. Why? Lots and lots of reasons. I could write an entire book about that. I could write a whole series. This is my casual answer: Because the signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc. they take as somehow related to their god are so silly.

[Ellainix]

Maybe God is a turtle?

[SSY]

Maybe god rides on a turtle? Look at this compelling evidence I found

[Ellainix]

Turtles!

[hvargas]

Science was created by men and later by women as well to explained his/her sorroundings. Science is like a taylor making a suit that will fit the wearer just like the Universe fits its wearer for the exception that it did not have a TAYLOR. God was a creation of men and later women to dominate other men and women. Later God became a super being that was unseem and that supported the will of the ones in POWER over other men. Now God has taken another route of being beyond science to be explained, it no longer recites in the near but in the far and beyond. The more men and now women advance in science the farther God goes in being explained which is understandable. The day that science explained God by science then that day will have " A THEORY OF EVERYTHING " . First science must prove the existence of God as a fact and not as just FAITH. This question is self-defeating.

[karadan]

Hvargas, you are the one proclaiming the existence of god. The onus is on you to provide proof. Not the other way round.

Your tailor analogy is a little wobbly. I'll fix it for you:

The tailor is a scientist, the suit is science and the body it is being fitted to is evidence. You have a 'body' of evidence which we use science to understand. The science must fit snugly against the body to make comfortable sense. The tailor is not happy with the results until everything fits properly.

I'm not going to touch the stuff you just said about super beings... I'm sorry but i don't quite feel the need to make my eyes bleed today.

[Chewbie Chan]

Karadan your misinterpretation of what hvargas wrote is spectacular. It made me read both your posts three times and I still chuckled.  

[elliebean]

Karadan, I think you read hvargas's post too hastily. Easy to do, givien his (or her?) writing style. Hvagas doesn't seem to be proclaiming or even defending a belief in a god, but rather (somewhat ineloquently) critiques the premise of the OP. I'll try to edit it for clarification. Changes in bold text:

Scientific inquiry was discovered by men (and later by women as well) to be an effective and reliable means to explain his/her sorroundings. Science is like a taylored suit that will fit the wearer, just like the Universe fits its wearer (ie. us) except that it did not have a TAYLOR (ie. CREATOR). The concept ofGod, on the other hand, was a creation of men and later women mainly for the purpose of dominating other men and women. Later, this idea of God was elevated to the status of a super being that was unseen and that used to reinforce the will of those in positions ofPOWER over other men. Now, this new idea of God is being taken yetanother route, being redefined as "beyond science" to insulate it from all possible scrutiny, inquiry or logical criticism. It no longer resides in percievable reality but in it's own 'realm', beyond 'human understanding'. The more people advance in scientific knowledge the farther away the definitions and explanations of the alleged existence ofGod is removed from anything remotely understandable. The day that scientists explain God by scientific means is the day we will have "A THEORY OF EVERYTHING". Unfortunately science would be required to firstprove the existence of God as a fact, using factual evidenceand not rely on FAITH to reach this conclusion. Thus,this question of God being beyond scienceis self-defeating, as it removes the possibility of a meaningful answer.

That's more or less how I read it, though I'm not sure what is meant by the "theory of everything" part.


I like your revision of the taylor analogy.  

[SSY]

TAILOR! Arrrrggggghhhhh!

[elliebean]

TAILOR! Arrrrggggghhhhh!

Ha! Sorry, I thought that looked wrong, but I forgot to check it.  

[Evolved]

Hey jimmorrisonbabe, it's nice to have you on the forum.

... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science

Herein lies the problem with religion, superstition, and matters of faith in general.  Look closely at religion, astrology, dowsing, alternative medicine, etc. and you will find that they all boast the same quality of being untestable by the scientific method (at least that's what their supporters claim).  An excellent example is the study on prayer funded by the Templeton Foundation.  This was a well-done double-blind study.  Here is one of several reports on it:  http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html.  The long and the short of it was that heart patients that were prayed for and didn't know it fared no better than heart patients that were not prayed for and didn't know it.  Funnily enough, heart patients that were prayed for and knew it actually did worse.  If you read comments by religious apologists on the results of the study, you will hear all sorts of reasons why it failed to link prayer with healing, including the idea that God cannot be tested.  Basically, the Almighty knew what was going on and decided to mess with the results of the study (although if you think about it, it would have been in his favor to skew the results in the other direction).

If everything else in the universe can be (or will eventually be) explained by the rigors of the scientific method, why would a god be the only thing immune?  Does that make sense?  

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific

All of the evidence that you suggest here is subjective.  Subjective, personal experience that cannot be generally applied to other people is useless with regard to explaining how the universe works.

[hvargas]

The problems with many people is that they think or feel that science is " GOD ". The second problem is that " science is the answer or will be the answer to all of their questions ". All of the books that I had read by noted scientists claimed that science may never be able to answer many of its most pressing questions such as " why things are as they are ". Let alone prove the existence of God. So, there are a lot of theories going around that many people take for granted or accept them as facts. We live in a Universe that has a Galaxy called the Milky-Way and in this Galaxy there is a planet called Earth. This planet called Earth is the home of " HUMANS " and other animals. It is taylor made to support such life. The word "MADE" in this case is not to mean that its a design but rather that it just the way it is. The third problem is that for most people its better for them to place God beyong science and the sentence or question " Maybe God is beyond Science " , is to create a being thats beyond any explanations or any kind or type of descriptions. You can then only say that its attributes are infinite/finite and by saying this you get stuck with some sort of character. There was nothing there and then there was something, this something became " LIFE ". Now this life can't understand why it came to be. This question science will never be able to answer and becouse science can't answer it most are looking towards " GOD " but that then comes into conflicts. If we are to say that maybe God is beyong science then science must discover " WHAT OTHER SCIENCE IS THAT ? ". Now tell me that you don't understand this. And yes, there are scientists searching for a " Theory of Everything "  this means one theory that will explained everything instead of so many . I'm not a believer in GOD. I will tell you something else; when you believe in something there is room for doubts and when you truely know something there is no room for doubts. When you need to prove to others what you know -- you are not certain. I KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY EXISTENCE.