Can science argue God's case?

Alduos Huxley once said, "at least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols."

This is not a thread about religion. I am not religious. I believe God exists and I believe the Bible eludes his existence, but I am not religious. I have to be honest; before I die I want to have some shred of truth that I hold dearly and earnestly in my heart. What that truth may be, I cannot now know. I cannot profess to even grasp that thing now much less have a hold of it.

However, who wants to live their lives on the premise of punishment, etc? Who wants to live under the fear mongering umbrella of religion? I need to know the truth. No truth can be decided for me by any other man as it were: fed to me without research, without experiment, without personal insight. I am starting this to study to attempt to show that the sciences (being plural because I plan not to use only one) in concordance with the Bible and a slight few other texts, all support God's existence.

This isn't Creation science either. This is merely science doing what science does. After all the definition of science is "a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."

If it should so turn out that in the end we conclusively find that no God is possible I will retire from the thread and let the atheists and others have the field in glory. But I plan to explore every available avenue in pursuit of total truth and hope that anyone participating will also do so in an unbiased manner. Please do not attack every piece of evidence I put here. If it is refutable, please address it an orderly manner with links to your data and in a kindly dialogue. There's no need to turn an intelligent study into a foul mouthed arguing and biting and what ever else generally ensues with these types of threads.

It's a bit late to post any material now but I will try and work up something starting tomorrow. Oh, and something I would like to address: Biblical translations. Anyone familiar with Bibles knows that there are hundreds of different English translations out there. This makes the text somewhat unreliable. Who are we to know if the publisher didn't have the translation printed in favor of their own personal opinions and or agendas? So, I will try to be using original Hebrew texts (as far as my capabilities allow me to go), the original King James version as authorized by King James in 1611 England, and some other translations. By cross referencing these different translations I hope to paint the over all picture or basic principles involved. As a note, I do not own a 1611 version and am waiting to order it online (can't find in bookstores yet) so some of this research may go slow as I sift online for passages, etc.

Also, this is a serious study, one of which I am working hard on. It may take days to for new posts appear as I collect and correlate data. Please don't expect me to reply to anything right away. If it turns out there's some flaw in my data then I will of course need time to go back and not only look through my own work but also explore any data you in turn provide me with. Thanks again for stopping by and I hope we can all learn something here.

For the record you are religious if you believe in god.
Being religious is believing in a deity.

So .. Your going to read your bible and come back with "facts" that prove god is real? Not just any god but god of the bible ... and your not religious ?

Okay good luck with that.

The very nature of most gods make them unprovable, assuming that they are real. If they are not real, and we can easily assume that most are not, then you will not find proof for their non-existence, as you cannot prove a negative.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by nophun
For the record you are religious if you believe in god.
Being religious is believing in a deity.

Religion is a set of beliefs, customs, laws, etc. Your daily life, if adherent to routine, custom, principle, is religious by definition. It is not just dependent upon a deity but can also be dependent upon an ultimate truth. An ultimate truth like say...we evolved? Even you yourself are religious if you have any ultimate truth you live your life by.

Originally posted by nophunSo .. Your going to read your bible and come back with "facts" that prove god is real? Not just any god but god of the bible ... and your not religious ?

I am not an evangelical preaching apologetics. I am doing my own research for my own personal reasons to determine whether or not a God of the Bible can be arguably possible. I would use a common medium both sides are familiar with; science.

Listen, I don't see the issue. Why is it so inappropriate to pose this question? Can science argue God's case? Furthermore, how would you expect me to propose any sort of data without the biblical verses? I mean...if I can't use the bible to correlate information than...how exactly would you suggest I go about seeing whether modern science could support a God as described in the Bible or not?

Again, this is my own personal study. One of which I thought I might be able to post here and have intelligent minds give advice and information. Maybe we could all learn something in the process.

Originally posted by nophunOkay good luck with that.

Thank you.

Also, I stated in my OP that I hoped to use science, the Bible, and other texts to support the existence of God. I never said I would be taking from any one pantheon, I also never stated I was out to prove God exists. There's men far more intelligent than myself that haven't come to that conclusion, I certainly am not naive enough to believe I would be capable of doing so.

My aim is to see if, when applied, science could support the existence of a God. Can the sciences be used to propose that God really is out there? That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe there's substantial amounts of information out there that should be examined and scrutinized.

First off.

re·li·gious (r-ljs) adj. 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Knowing evolution is fact is definitely not dogmatic. I do not live my life by evolution, this would be stupid.

If your going to use the bible or any other piece of fiction as empirical evidence ... you kind of have to prove it is not fiction ... good luck with that.

I heard they found Noah's ark .. again maybe that is a lead you could jump on.

Can science argue God's case?
Sure convince us that the world is 6000 years old or the Sun revolves around Earth .. and you might have a shot.

The bible is familiar with science? really ? you believe that ?
Ask Galileo Galilei how well they mesh.

Originally posted by nophun
If your going to use the bible or any other piece of fiction as empirical evidence ... you kind of have to prove it is not fiction ... good luck with that.

What is this stupidity that the bible is made up? its a historical manuscript! most reputable Historians do not doubt its authenticity!

if you start saying that the bible is fictional then you may aswel say that all other historical manuscripts are false

first off

there is a problem here

the reality is that is impossible for us to be here without a "god", thats the reality

the problem is that most people believe that God must be a person or god must be our image, or even that God cares about this specific planet or universe.

the reality is that we are part of a big system and, this system probably didnt appear out of thin air, just because we dont know who created it doesnt mean it doesnt have some kind of creator

but you cant say that this creator is our image and that it follows us; there are billions of stars in this own galaxy, plus, there are billions of galaxies that were detected

so, thats why I stay away from religion and thats why I think we should invest our time researching the universe, thats the only way we will get closer to "god" ...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Faiol]

Originally posted by Faiol
first off

there is a problem here

the reality is that is impossible for us to be here without a "god", thats the reality

the problem is that most people believe that God must be a person or god must be our image, or even that God cares about this specific planet or universe.

the reality is that we are part of a big system and, this system probably didnt appear out of thin air, just because we dont know who created it doesnt mean it doesnt have some kind of creator

but you cant say that this creator is our image and that it follows us; there are billions of stars in this own galaxy, plus, there are billions of galaxies that were detected

so, thats why I stay away from religion and thats why I think we should invest our time researching the universe, thats the only way we will get closer to "god" ...

[edit on 2-5-2010 by Faiol]

the first thing we learn i the bible isnt that God is in our image. but we are made in Gods image. as soon as we say God is our image thats when things get squiffy

reply to post by acapablemind


This might really help with some direction, and I guarantee that reading the second will have you considering the science with which we think. It explores the limitations of examining everything from a scientists yardstick, the reasons why science was secularized as it was centuries ago, and what is missing from our calculations now. It gives insight into the formation of universities as the portals to power which they are, as pertains to modern world order. I found it a little confusing to follow, but not so bad after the second read.

Intelligent Design

www.allaboutscience.org...

The Faustian Face of Modern Science: Understanding the Epistemological Foundations of Scientific Totalitarianism

www.conspiracyarchive.com...

The Incorruptable Saints - Catholic Saints preserved without artificial means, and without decay.
www.belowtopsecret.com...

I would also look into Bible prophecy fulfilled, and speaking in tongues on the net.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by Northwarden]

Originally posted by nophun
Knowing evolution is fact is definitely not dogmatic. I do not live my life by evolution, this would be stupid.

So you mean to tell me that while you believe evolution to be a fact, you indeed don't live according to this belief? What do you mean here?

Originally posted by nophunIf your going to use the bible or any other piece of fiction as empirical evidence ... you kind of have to prove it is not fiction ... good luck with that.

I never said the Bible contained any empirical data. I said I would like to use empirical data to correlate biblical claims such as the ones in Genesis.

Originally posted by nophun

Can science argue God's case?
Sure convince us that the world is 6000 years old or the Sun revolves around Earth .. and you might have a shot.

Would you provide the verses that make these claims? I'm not familiar with them and can't argue them. However, there are different levels of discourse and individuals who have studied the bible have theories that certain passages are poetic and symbolic rather than literal in translation. Thus days becomes years, decades, maybe even eons. I'm not making a defense, only adding theories and information.


And I just saw your Dawkins quote. Well, this explains a lot of the discourse thus far. I'm sure prior to your coveted Dawkins' campaign, he indeed had to study and compare the bible with what he'd learned. That is all I'm attempting to do; decipher the truth for myself. What harm is it that I'm only now coming to the investigative stage? I've spent years as a Christian and as I learn more the more inquisitive I become and the more I research. This is only part of that journey.

I've already stated that if I find sufficient evidence in my studies I am willing to walk away. I don't want to live a lie. So why the malicious comments? If you have data you can provide me with, why not do it? Enlighten me here, give me some sort of information to make my own judgments rather than berate me.

The bible may be a sham. I'm only trying to compare it against science, that's it. Does it support some of the claims? Does it not? Plain and simple. If you'd like to participate and teach me some of what you know, then do so. If you're only going to dissect every thing I say you're being of no help at all. Instead of arguing could you please point me in the direction of information i.e. academic links, etc?

Believing in God does not make you religious, ever heard of spiritalism?
To answer the OP question depends on how you view God to be. If like christians and muslims in which they view God sitting on a throne surrounded by angels living in some other dimension then science cannot prove that EVER.
However if you think that God and the universe are one and the same then science can explain. The universe in the western philosphy is changing paradigms to an eastern view because of quantum physics and the observer effect. IT seems that consciousness plays a part in keeping the universe together and it is this very consciousness that we call God.
To give an analogy if you was a germ living in a human body and you wanted to explore it work out how it works etc then you could easily derive a mathematical formula to describe all the things happening in the body. Now armed with all this knowledge you accumulated could you as the germ(without leaving the body, just as we humans can never leave the universe) say that you was living inside a conscious intelligent being?
This is how I see how the universe works.

Thank you to the rest of you!

I missed your comments while responding to the previous comments. I will indeed check your sources and links and post here about what I find. Thanks so much guys!


loner-

I have been reading a lot about consciousness lately and have even began reading about Quantum mind theory, etc and believe there may be more to this than anything else. Thanks for you input!

---capable

This is worth a read too!
Why science fails to explain God.

www.ummah.com...

reply to post by acapablemind

Listen, I don't see the issue. Why is it so inappropriate to pose this question? Can science argue God's case? Furthermore, how would you expect me to propose any sort of data without the biblical verses? I mean...if I can't use the bible to correlate information than...how exactly would you suggest I go about seeing whether modern science could support a God as described in the Bible or not?

It isn't necessarily inappropriate, and I don't want to discourage you from a life's calling. However, there are several fundamental flaws in your proposed methodology.

First, this is a lifetime enterprise, not a summer research project. As I said, I don't want to discourage you from an avocation if that is what you feel it is, there are thousands of dedicated scholars that have done exactly what you are proposing to do for the last few thousands of years. Is there more to learn? Undoubtedly. But it is foolhardy to throw away the work of those thousands of honest people. Do you honestly think you can provide a more satisfactory translation of some verse by studying it for a few weeks than someone who has spent a lifetime immersed in it? I am just saying recognize your limitations and the level of dedication required.

Second, the KJV is not in Hebrew and was translated from Greek (if I recall correctly). How is a KJV going to help you with the Hebrew? Further, as I recall, the emphasis with the KJV was specifically to produce a 'literary' Bible, not necessarily a technically accurate translation. And the idiom of the 17th century is now almost impenetrable by anyone other than a life long scholar of the subject.

Third, what if you find that the God of the Bible is wrong. Does that negate the God of the Koran? The God of the Purana's? The Gods of the Zoroastrians? The Hindu's? The Bhuddists? The Aztecs? The Plains Indians? The Bushmen of the Kalahari?

Again, this is just some dangers to look out for.

Good luck.

reply to post by Northwarden

This is worth a read too! Why science fails to explain God. www.ummah.com...

That is a good read. Its only flaw is that a "Professor of Philosophy" would necessarily understand both ends of the argument. It would have been better had the 'Professor' been a Scientist of some sort.

But that is only a minor quibble.

By the way there is a third point of view on this, that of the Gnostics. Are you familiar with how they would have handled the Professor's question?

reply to post by rnaa


Thank you for your interest. I find your post perhaps the most sensible and unbiased thus far (no offense to anyone else, you've all contributed great stuff). I can answer you that no, I don't expect to accomplish what thousands haven't nor do I expect to find one season's time what others have spent lifetimes investigating.

In regards to translations, I had only meant that to my knowledge, the 1611 version was the first English translation and thus, less likely to contain any kind of format errors, etc. It wouldn't necessarily have any direct aid with the Hebrew except as the first English translation.

I have to be honest about your third question: After reading different texts I am coming to this theory that it isn't necessarily the God that would be untrue, but the bible itself. Most texts share this common principle beneath all of the rhetoric. I'm not sure how to put this into a cognizant dialogue format, as it is, this idea only exists as such and remains vague at that. What would I do? Continue investigating. The truth is out there somewhere.

reply to post by acapablemind

In regards to translations, I had only meant that to my knowledge, the 1611 version was the first English translation and thus, less likely to contain any kind of format errors, etc. It wouldn't necessarily have any direct aid with the Hebrew except as the first English translation.

Actually the KJV is the third English translation.

Just remember that the KJV was NOT designed to be an accurate technical translation. It is just as suspect as any other translation, perhaps more than some more modern ones.

The original authors of the KJV were just as subject to personal bias and political influence as any other 'mere mortal', in fact King James' specific instruction was to ensure that the translation conformed to then current ecclesiastical teachings. And they were more than willing to purposely change words to ensure it conformed to the then current teachings of the Church, but also to make it more poetic, and to censor ideas they thought unworthy or dangerous.

There is nothing special about it other than it is the first 'authorized' English translation (and the word 'authorized' was not attached to it for 200 years). It is what it is, a beautiful work of art, and a wonderful achievement in the history of the English language. But it is also not a technically accurate translation of the Bible. And no format is any more correct than any other format.

Originally posted by the illuminator

Originally posted by nophun
If your going to use the bible or any other piece of fiction as empirical evidence ... you kind of have to prove it is not fiction ... good luck with that.

You are completely right, The God of the bible is the one "real" god, Earth is 6000 years old, There was a global flood 4000ish years ago, Jesus rose from the dead, Noah died at the age of 950, Man was created from dirt and not evolved from another species.

Prove any one of them as fact and I will stop calling the bible fiction.

reply to post by acapablemind


No. And both science and religion suck.