Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@wolfgang59 said
It does.
Science is interested in the phenomenon of religion (for instance).
It is studied.

Anthropology. Psychology. Couple of examples.

@fmf said
You are coming across as insecure in your faith and evidently feel the need to try to hijack the idea of "science" to bolster your assertions about supernatural causality.

God is the cause for the existence of everything, therefore everything that exists inherently evidences its creator.

To think or say otherwise is irrational.

The universe is clearly seen by everyone.

@secondson said
God is the cause for the existence of everything, therefore everything that exists inherently evidences its creator.

To think or say otherwise is irrational.

The universe is clearly seen by everyone.

You and KellyJay are free to believe and have faith in what you want in this regard but there is no need to try to hijack the idea of "science" to bolster the assertions that are based on your faith.

@kellyjay said
Since I believe the whole universe is evidence for God I see no lack of it.

At best Kelly, 'the whole universe' could be tendered as evidence for 'a' God. I think you will struggle to link it directly to your particular God of worship, to the exclusion of all other creation gods from other world religions.

To me (addressing the OP) the idea of God germinates from an uncertainty of the world around us. Science, on the other hand, gradually removes this uncertainty as it continually provides verifiable information. In this sense, science will never see God or evidence His existence. On the contrary. As science removes the uncertainty and provides answers to the key questions of existence, the very idea of God will become redundant.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
At best Kelly, 'the whole universe' could be tendered as evidence for 'a' God. I think you will struggle to link it directly to your particular God of worship, to the exclusion of all other creation gods from other world religions.

When I have tried to raise this obvious implication of belief in a creator being with KellyJay he has invariably assumed a completely partisan discursive foetal position.

@secondson said
God is the cause for the existence of everything, therefore everything that exists inherently evidences its creator.

To think or say otherwise is irrational.

The universe is clearly seen by everyone.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse there sir. It would indeed be true that 'everything that exists inherently evidences its creator'. First however you have to establish that:
1. A creator actually exists. (And is hence the 'cause' you speak of).
2. This creator is 'your' God, and not say the creator God of Hinduism.

The universe is indeed 'seen by everyone' but the 'creator' is not, and no logical link has been provided by you between the two. Indeed, an eternal universe is far more probable and negates the need completely for a divine creator.

And I'd ask you please not to play the 'irrational' card. I would feel equally justified to play that card in the majority of conversations I have with theists, but refrain from doing so for the sake of dialogue.

@kellyjay said
When you see instructions guiding process you think this is mindless?

What "process," what "instructions," do you have in mind? Assembling a piece of IKEA furniture? Sure, there is design in such a case.

@kellyjay said
Since I believe the whole universe is evidence for God I see no lack of it.

You use the word "evidence" in a manner inconsistent with scientific procedure. It certainly isn't the sort of evidence which would stand up in court (not since the Salem witch trial, anyway).


Of course, you are entitled to believe that the "whole universe" is evidence of God's hand; just don't imagine that your so-called evidence is persuasive to one who does not already subscribe to your belief system.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you are putting the cart before the horse there sir. It would indeed be true that 'everything that exists inherently evidences its creator'. First however you have to establish that:
1. A creator actually exists. (And is hence the 'cause' you speak of).
2. This creator is 'your' God, and not say the creator God of Hinduism.

The universe is indeed 'seen b ...[text shortened]... e majority of conversations I have with theists, but refrain from doing so for the sake of dialogue.

You do error sir in assuming I'm applying the term 'irrational' to you or anyone else in particular, with the exception of ToO.

No. What I'm saying is this; that the very existence of the universe itself, whether it be infinite or not, evidences a creator, that thinking the universe exists without a creator is irrational in that specific sense.

All of us here are rational human beings in virtually all other applications, but we all flounder rationally with respect to the ideas we hold to that explains existence.

After all, we're the newcomers here on the scene. This argument precedes us. We're just hashing out the same old story.

When I say 'irrational' it's not meant as a derogatory remark directed at a person, but at an idea. I'm looking at this from strictly an objective view.

@ghost-of-a-duke said

And I'd ask you please not to play the 'irrational' card. I would feel equally justified to play that card in the majority of conversations I have with theists, but refrain from doing so for the sake of dialogue.

Would the term "unreasonable" be more palatable? 🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you are putting the cart before the horse there sir. It would indeed be true that 'everything that exists inherently evidences its creator'. First however you have to establish that:
1. A creator actually exists. (And is hence the 'cause' you speak of).
2. This creator is 'your' God, and not say the creator God of Hinduism.

The debate about which God created the universe will be made once it is established that the universe was created.

I see the universe as the evidence that establishes it was created.

Science doesn't say that much.
Scientists say things; all kinds of things.

Don't ask "What does science say?"
Ask "What do scientists say? "

@ghost-of-a-duke said

The universe is indeed 'seen by everyone' but the 'creator' is not, and no logical link has been provided by you between the two. Indeed, an eternal universe is far more probable and negates the need completely for a divine creator.

That is correct. This we can agree on. We do see the universe, but not God.

Logic then dictates, if a creator exists, but is unseen, He therefore must be invisible.

So then, what does the universe show that evidences a creator? There's something there to see, and I think it's perfectly clear. I think creation is speaking volumes concerning its creator, and I think it's unreasonable🙂to ignore the evidence, or make an unsubstantiated claim that it isn't.

The claim that only matter exists is actually the only clause in an atheist's argument that he can use to negate the argument of a creator.

This is where I lose you. There one is standing on the earth looking out at an unfathomable array of stars and galaxies stretching as far as the imagination can allow, but sees only matter.

Frankly, I don't think there's a man made argument that can fix that.

Psalm 19

@secondson said
You do error sir in assuming I'm applying the term 'irrational' to you or anyone else in particular, with the exception of ToO.

No. What I'm saying is this; that the very existence of the universe itself, whether it be infinite or not, evidences a creator, that thinking the universe exists without a creator is irrational in that specific sense.

All of us here are rati ...[text shortened]... ry remark directed at a person, but at an idea. I'm looking at this from strictly an objective view.

"No one ever had the slightest success explaining existence." Emerson

As Christopher Hitchen noted, proving that God exists is the easy part; the hard part is still to come.

That a transcendent unmoved mover is needed to get existence going does not, by a long shot, establish that God exists, or that that God has anything to say to man, or that that transcendent unmoved mover is equivalent to the God of the OT or the NT, or that that God is the same as the man who died on the cross at Calvary. In some religions, the maker of the material universe is not the highest God, but a meagre demi-urge.

A transcendent unmoved mover to get the universe going might have been like a match which kindles a fire, moves on to the next candle, and is eventually extinguished. Simply another mindless force external to this present universe, with no ethical message for man, would suffice as an explanatory principle, how existence got going. No design or intelligence needed.

@secondson said
That is correct. This we can agree on. We do see the universe, but not God.

Logic then dictates, if a creator exists, but is unseen, He therefore must be invisible.

There one is standing on the earth looking out at an unfathomable array of stars and galaxies stretching as far as the imagination can allow, but sees only matter.

Frankly, I don't think there's a man made argument that can fix that.

Psalm 19

The problem with appealing to a creator to explain existence is that it does not explain anything; it replaces one mystery by an even greater one. If a theist wants to claim that God is self-explanatory, necessarily existent, and requires no further reason or cause to exist, then a philosopher can just as well make the same claims about existence: that it is self-explanatory, necessarily existent, and requires no further reason or cause to exist. Applying Occham's Razor, we should stop at the first unexplained visible mystery instead of compounding it with another unexplained invisible mystery.