Experimental Sciences and the Existence of God
November 21st, 2007Note: some philosophical debates included here.
‘Who is God’ was a post in MEY, of that author, Nissim, who is trying to make a practical use of Common Sense in order to make the world a bit better. As usual, this big phenomenon called God, stimulated many people to comment on the subject, both Atheists and Theists… and again I failed to keep myself from the discussion.
In such debates, it is very common for people to ask/wonder if there is a ‘Proof’ for the existence of God. Honestly, I don’t know if there is such a flawless proof. But, besides my obsession about Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel (footnote), I want to share another point here: Experimental Sciences are inherently unable to prove anything.
When a guess about the function of an observable phenomenon happens to explain it better than other guesses, it turns into a theory. But this theory (a) neither ensures prediction of future experiences, and (b) nor is able to prove that it is the best possible guess. The latter (b) means that probably we may find out later that this theory has already failed to cover some aspects of past occurrences neglected in out first assessment of the phenomenon and the guess related to it. And the former (a) translates into the fact that we can never gather all the causes which might influence phenomenon.
Then, what do Experimental Sciences do? They provide evidences for us to conclude what is more likely to be true. Since examples usually make a better sense, let me say that: using all those Mechanic Theories, some engineers fabricate an airplane and say: “as we know, this device is more likely to fly if guided in a proper way, and will land safely if directed by an experienced pilot. But for sure, nobody has ever guaranteed that it would work, for there are lots of already unknown causes which might affect the behavior of this device and let it fail.” This statement is obviously from a deterministic point of view, from that point which believes every effect has a cause. Those who do not believe in causality as a universal rule, they have a much harder time speaking about the probability of something, for probability is only valid when causality is considered a rule.
One might argue: “yeah, one day we may be able to conclude all possible causes, and that day, we may prove Experimental Theories: Since we know all the possible causes, we may exactly predict the next stage or behavior of every conceivable phenomenon, and that is called Proof.” But an answer is that if some possible causes decide not to reveal themselves to us (whatever the reason), we can never conclude them. Therefore they are able to return/appear at any given time, influence current phenomena and consequently theories, and refute them.
Finally, seeking for an Experimental Proof for anything (including the existence of God)… that is called Mission Impossible.
Footnote: Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel states that in every system of logics, there is at least one true statement which will never be proved; also, there is at least one false statement, which may never be refuted.
Loading ...
Loading...
I am not sure I know what conclusion you are trying to reach.
To me, this makes it quite clear, that what theists and atheists believe, is a choice, a choice of an ideology that makes sense to them personally, what they feel comfortable living with and what they perceive as an acceptable reason/explanation for their existence.
There is no right and wrong with things that are not ‘provable’. They are at the end of the day, a theory, and we can chose to accept it or not.
Tamara:
you could not be any cloer to the mark than that!
Wikipedia:
I fail to relate this to god, assist me.
Mohammad Memarian:
Does not follow, quantum mechanics deals in probabilities in a non-deterministic environment.
I agree that experimental sciences deal in evidence rather than proof, theories rather than theorems. Why should we not still rely on them in the field of ontology?
Re: Tamara
Without an extreme version of doxastic voluntarism (a theory that individuals have complete control over their beliefs) I think it is difficult to so simply say that what people believe as per ‘God’ is a choice. If someone grows up w/in one tradition, it will be extremely hard to switch to another or even see where someone from another tradition is coming from – simply, it is hard to think beyond your tradition.
Also, in reference to it being merely a theory or an “acceptable reason” and there being “no right and wrong with things that are not ‘provable’”: just because something can not be proven does not mean that something is not the case. First, we can look at the point of the Gödel reference – there are true things that we can’t prove. Second, we can just as well also not ‘prove’ we exist as united selves, there hasn’t ever been a surviving response to the global skeptics…all we can really posit is that there is stuff. So just as far as we assume the world is ‘real’ we must also, on the same evidence and with the same standards of justification, recognize that certain explanations are far more elegant than others, and that, at the end of the day, is all that we have.
It is all brought into the fore by Pascal’s Wager, though it is far too often denigrated to the stature of a mere parlor game. The whole idea behind the wager is: There might be a God and you might not be able to prove it, but He, and the implications that follow, still might exist – what will you wager?
As far as we are concerned, and as far as we are acting from the limits of possibility that exist for us here, our thoughts on the existence of god can never be proven. Regardless of what may in fact be true. That is what I am saying. It is not worth all the fighting when, in this life time, we will never know the truth.
Ive already said this, and it is here that choice comes into play. We can either choose to keep with what we have grown up with, or we can choose instead to go with something that appeals more to us. Which ever path we take, more often than not, even if we don’t admit it aloud, we do have a personal choice in what we decide to believe.
And my belief in God does not exist because I am afraid of the possible implications of his existence. And I don’t think anyone’s faith should be based in fear.
it is so stupid. are you out of your mind? you should go to school and read more more….
classical mechanics is certain in every way! you can’t even talk about classical mechanics in Philosophy. go ask from a professor!
I don’t want even mention anything about quantum mechanics which obviously you didn’t heard of!
Don’t mix religious non-sense to science.
we can’t call it choice! you should call it brainwashed!
we can’t call it choice! you should call it brainwashed!
hemm Wrote:
Are you talking to me? Because if you are, I only mentioned Quantum Mechanics as an example of probabilities being valid in the absence of causality, thus refuting Memarians assertion that that couldn’t happen. There is no religious nonsense in that argument.
Or are you talking to Mohammad? If you are I think I already made your point, only coherently.
My Comment:
Tor:
(a) That theory of Gödel in its very mathematical form states that every consistent, finitely recursive logical system (like Math as a system of logics) is incomplete, i.e. in that system of logics there are some ‘Undecidable’ statements which can neither be proven true nor be refuted. Some schools of philosophy extend that theorem to some more general systems of logics and say that generally there might be some undecidable statements. And, here I want to know if ‘Existence of God’ is one of such statements which are absolutely out of the league of proof/refutation.
(b) About Causality & Probability: I said that ‘Probability is only meaningful if we believe in Causality as a universal rule’. As I noted and you mentioned with direct reference, Quantum Physics states that some events might happen as a result of absolutely random states. Though that theory proposes some probability models to cover such phenomena, the occurrence of ‘absolutely random events’ essentially undermines any possible basis on which probability might be established. In another words, if absolutely random events might occur, we can never try any probability model to cover them. Let me know if there is any need for further explanation.
By the way, even if we can’t make an agreement about this, we may agree about general topic that these are just probabilities, not proofs.
Daniel and Tamara:
Good points. Indeed ‘Positivism’ was a school of philosophy of science which claimed that a statement could only be assumed scientifically valid if it is proven true. Rise and demise of this school of thought was in 20th century… for many people, as thoughtful as you are, showed that we are unable to prove such statements… we can just ‘Suggest’ that some explanations are (far) more elegant.
Hemm:
“Classical mechanics is certain in every way!”
You would better visit a professor somewhere to tell you how many things are certainly for sure known to human kinds, while there are some skeptics who even doubt our very existence…
Mohammad,
I’m not sure I understand your point directed at me.
Hemm,
Indeed there are people, from every religion that are brainwashed. But I believe that more often than not, people are free enough, at least in their own mind, to decide for themselves what they believe.
Agreed, general systems of logics may contain undecidable statements besides the Godel statement.
Well, since since observations of reality, as made by the experimental sciences, are not axioms, God can only be proven not to exist if the defining attributes of God can be shown to contain a contradiction, or if God is defined to be non-existent. The same holds true for dogs, cats, trolls and unicorns. This is the field in which the natural sciences operate, and they deal in evidence not proofs, theories not theorems.
I see no reason why a proposition of the existence of gods should be treated any differently than propositions of the existence of aliens, elves or albino fish. To the extent the natural sciences are ever applicable, they are applicable in determining the validity of the god hypothesis.
In regards to probbility, are you saying that if the range of possible results can not be determined probabilities go out the window? Events can still be defined which will either happen or not happen, and probabilities can be established for these, and for composites of them. I am not sure this is relevant to the topic of gods existence though.
Absolutely.
Is this about the possibility of formally proving/disproving the existence of gods, or is it about the applicability of the natural sciences in trying to discern it?
I believe in the latter, but not in the former, unless the definition of god is inconsistent, or contradict the hypothesis of gods existence.
Tor:
It is about the applicability of the natural sciences in trying to discern it.
@ Tor:
I was at mohammad.
@ mohammad
you’re so out of your mind. no wonder why this stupid article came from you. I wrote about Classical Mechanics! not many things?!! do you understand plain english? os should somebody translate to your own language? in which school did they teach you to fallacy in that stupid way! I am sure it’s a religious school.
@ Tamara
For sure and there is no argument about it. just I was arguing about what we grow with. I personally believe that we grow with our parents knowledge, society and environment. for instance if you grow in a christian family, usually you do have tendency towards christianty. just I can’t call this type of tendencies, choice!
Hemm:
I recommend you again to visit some profossors, either professionals of mechanics or else, and they will tell you that none of those theories you have heard of are something for sure. they are just ‘guesses’.
if you had ever read a scientific paper, you could have known that in the Colclusion part, they use the word ’suggest’: “this study suggests that…”, “our findings suggest that…” , for its already known that none of those equations you see in even classical mechanics books are either based on proofs or known for sure.
Mohammad Memarian Wrote:
Alright, we can stop harping about the natural sciences not providing formal prof then, because that’s par for the course with the natural sciences.
I fail to see why the god hypothesis should be treated any different then the unicorn hypothesis, either observable inferences are drawn, and observed, or the hypothesis falls to occams razor.
Another religion says this, not scientists.
TOr:
told you honestly that “I don’t know if there is such a flawless proof” for the existence of God. there are few things I can point out here, but prefer to leave them for a time in which I find stronger arguments to defend his Holliness!
but the only thing I might say right now is that I feel comfortable with religion… that seems enough; ye?
So be it, get back to me when you have arguments in need of debunking.
You are free to entertain any idea you want to, of course, but I can’t say I find comfort a compelling reason to consider something true. Positions held on those grounds would in other fields, such as history or economics for example, not be given much leniency, and I find comfort equally out of place in an argument on the origin or nature of existence. At least fundamentalists think their views have merit based on evidence, however wrong they may be in that regard, in that respect they are actually easier to understand than sensible religious people.
Until later
Tor