What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 09:13 AM
What if God is a provable phenomenon?
I was listening to the end of Seth's audiobook "Deconverted" today and had an interesting thought. I had an enjoyable, mentally stimulating discussion with the users of this forum yesterday, so I thought that I'd throw it out there and see the atheist perspective on it.

When I was listening to Seth, he frequently uses mocking terms to refer to God such as "a magic man in the sky" or a "space wizard" and then contrasts it with the age of reason and enlightenment in which we live today with our many technological achievements. It occurred to me that many of our current accepted scientific theories would have been fluffed off in a similar manner many years ago.

Imagine a scientist in the middle ages trying to convince his brethren that all matter is made up of atomic particles, or describing the idea of radiowaves. The ideas at the time would be unprovable based on current science, and the scientific community likely would have fluffed the scientist off as believing in "magic". There are many levels of scientific discovery that would be necessary to prove either theory, but we know now that both theories are be sound.

So, that brings me to my question:

What if God is a provable phenomenon, but science just hasn't developed to the point that it can prove it?

First of all, I must use a disclaimer, for the purpose of this discussion I use God in the broadest sense ie. the ever-existent creator of the universe, not a particular God of any religion and not necessarily a God who gives a crap what goes on with humankind

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves should have been treated by scientists if it were thought of in the middle ages: as a theory which explains and fits the current evidence, but which science does not have the current capability to prove or disprove? Considering the amazing advancements that science has made in the last 50 years or so, who's to say the capabilities that science will have in 100 years or 1000 years...who is to say that the ability to prove the existence of God isn't just a matter of time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I was listening to the end of Seth's audiobook "Deconverted" today and had an interesting thought. I had an enjoyable, mentally stimulating discussion with the users of this forum yesterday, so I thought that I'd throw it out there and see the atheist perspective on it.

When I was listening to Seth, he frequently uses mocking terms to refer to God such as "a magic man in the sky" or a "space wizard" and then contrasts it with the age of reason and enlightenment in which we live today with our many technological achievements. It occurred to me that many of our current accepted scientific theories would have been fluffed off in a similar manner many years ago.

Imagine a scientist in the middle ages trying to convince his brethren that all matter is made up of atomic particles, or describing the idea of radiowaves. The ideas at the time would be unprovable based on current science, and the scientific community likely would have fluffed the scientist off as believing in "magic". There are many levels of scientific discovery that would be necessary to prove either theory, but we know now that both theories are be sound.

So, that brings me to my question:

What if God is a provable phenomenon, but science just hasn't developed to the point that it can prove it?

First of all, I must use a disclaimer, for the purpose of this discussion I use God in the broadest sense ie. the ever-existent creator of the universe, not a particular God of any religion and not necessarily a God who gives a crap what goes on with humankind

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves should have been treated by scientists if it were thought of in the middle ages: as a theory which explains and fits the current evidence, but which science does not have the current capability to prove or disprove? Considering the amazing advancements that science has made in the last 50 years or so, who's to say the capabilities that science will have in 100 years or 1000 years...who is to say that the ability to prove the existence of God isn't just a matter of time?

You are mischaracterizing the position of most atheists here.

I do not have a belief in any gods since there is no evidence of any gods.
I make no assertion about the possibility of the existence of a god.

I am an agnostic atheist as that is the intellectually honest position.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Chas's post
16-01-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
From what I know, god is a fascist.

So as a proud citizen of a Republic, I would go into resistance to his claim to power, even should he show himself.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
16-01-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  .

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves ?
Because its 100% proven and accepted by theists and atheist alike that human cultures invent Gods.
And Atomotic theory and radiowaves are testable and falsifiable.

Your comparing Astronomy with Astrology .

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like sporehux's post
16-01-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  What if God is a provable phenomenon, but science just hasn't developed to the point that it can prove it?

If God is in principle amenable to scientific investigation, then all modern religions are false.

Making, as they do, claims about God which are currently testable and more to the point found wanting in spades.

So there's that.

(16-01-2014 09:13 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  First of all, I must use a disclaimer, for the purpose of this discussion I use God in the broadest sense ie. the ever-existent creator of the universe, not a particular God of any religion and not necessarily a God who gives a crap what goes on with humankind

So, why is the concept of the existence of a God rejected outright by atheists instead of treated in the same manner as atomic theory or radiowaves should have been treated by scientists if it were thought of in the middle ages: as a theory which explains and fits the current evidence, but which science does not have the current capability to prove or disprove? Considering the amazing advancements that science has made in the last 50 years or so, who's to say the capabilities that science will have in 100 years or 1000 years...who is to say that the ability to prove the existence of God isn't just a matter of time?

Because God is not a theory. God is an anti-theory which explains nothing in the most useless way possible.

Furthermore, a testable theory is precisely the last thing religious believers want.

I could explain chemistry to an alchemist. I could explain cosmology to an astrologer. But those things are immediately testable as soon as one is aware of them, and so are not very apt comparisons.

I could (given sufficient time) go on to explain quantum mechanics and relativity to any willing audience at any point in history. They might even listen to me. Do you know why? Because I would be offering an internally consistent explanation for otherwise inexplicable (to them) phenomena. And I could explain how - in principle - everything I was saying was eminently demonstrable and testable.

God is none of those things. It is at best a label for the presently inexplicable.

Moreover anything which is amenable to scientific investigation is, by definition, not supernatural. Personally I would contend that nothing supernatural does or can even exist; this is therefore a redundant qualifier. But with respect to the usually incoherent believers' definitions of God it is not...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
16-01-2014, 09:37 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:25 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  From what I know, god is a fascist.

So as a proud citizen of a Republic, I would go into resistance to his claim to power, even should he show himself.

Most fascist states were republics.

Perhaps you meant democracy?
Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
I feel like lookingforanswers is desperate, hence his handle. I, too, felt like you during my "deconversion." You so desperately want there to be a god so the first X amount of years of your life weren't a religious waste and total lie. And so as you start to doubt, you look for someone to give you assurance that there's something divine out there to give your life meaning.

Eventually you will learn it's OK to have doubts, and that "spirituality" you mention is just your subconscious clinging to a childhood security blanket that you need to put away in the closet.

It's a very typical religious thing to say, "Scientists are always trying to prove god doesn't exist," when in fact that statement couldn't be more wrong. Scientists want to prove what is true about the natural world and aren't on a crusade to prove any god doesn't exist. So, in your case, why would scientists want to prove one DOES exist? They have no interest in fake supernatural beings, only truth.

I'm time you will see the truth.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
16-01-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:37 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Most fascist states were republics.

Perhaps you meant democracy?
Tongue

Nope. A republic is governd by representatives a fascist police state is not.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:44 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
First of all, Chas, I should apologize. I read through a definitions answer on my other thread and I didn't mean to paint all atheists with the same brush. I should have said "strong atheist" or something to that effect.

Sporehux, atomic theory and radiowaves are testable and falsifiable now, but were they testable or falsafiable 1000 years ago, or 5000 years ago by human science? The point of the question is that we don't know where science will be 100 years from now or 5000 years from now, so how can you reject a theory outright that may be provable or falsifiable eventually?

As for your other point, I hope that you can understand the concept of "inventing" vs "discovering". The middle age scientist in my original question didn't "invent" atomic theory or radiowaves, those concepts already existed and he just figured them out. If God does exist, then cultures aren't "inventing" God, they are developing theories of the nature and attributes of God. Just because you reject the specific theories about the nature and attributes of God doesn't mean that God doesn't still exist (albeit with different attributes).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 09:48 AM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 09:41 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Nope. A republic is governd by representatives a fascist police state is not.

That is not how republic is defined.

Again I suspect you mean elected representatives, in which case, again, democracy is the word you're looking for.

Italy, Japan, Romania - monarchies. Hungary - technically a vacant throne. Germany, Spain, Portugal, all the way down to San Marino - republics.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: