Proving a negative is almost always impossible to do. Scientists aren't in the business of proving that God doesn't exist. Rather they prove (or if "proof" is too strong a word, provide strong evidence) that, contrary to what is said in the Bible, the Earth wasn't created 6,000 years ago, with there being a first man and first woman (and first of each animal), but that the Earth formed billions of years ago and that animals evolved over time from single-celled organisms.

Of course, if you're willing to take the creation myth of Christianity (or any other religion) as a metaphor and simply believe that there is some all-powerful being that kicked off the Big Bang then feel free to do so. All the (atheist) scientist will do is ask you what evidence you have of such a thing. Absent any evidence they will argue that such a belief is unfounded, and like any unfounded belief will refuse to accept it as true.

I've come a long way in my thinking since those days. — MikeL

All due respect, it doesn't seem so. There are many religious scientists, and many scientificallly-informed believers. It isn't, and couldn't be, a 'one or the other' scenario. The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. It is eminently possible to wholeheartedly pursue science and still have profound religious faith.

All the (atheist) scientist will do is ask you what evidence you have of such a thing. — Michael

All the (religious) scientist need do is gesture in the general direction of the Universe. 'There', she might say, 'is the evidence.'

Except "here's a universe, therefore there's a God" isn't valid. There's a missing premise, e.g. "if there's a universe then there's a God". But then what's the evidence for that?

the point is, the believer claims that the universe IS the evidence, that it wouldn't exist at all had it not been created. But if you think about it, that can't possibly ever be a scientific hypothesis.

it wouldn't exist at all had it not been created — Wayfarer

That's the claim that needs evidence.

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your input. You've taken a very safe position: which is OK. I will counter by saying that in science there are laws and theories and most scientists don't have too much of a problem in accepting and defending the theories, even though the evidence is often pretty thin, but the God theory seems to be not only shunned, but disdained.

Take the Big Bang theory: it's so thin it's almost transparent. Surely a God theory can be mapped out to rival it. Why doesn't the scientific community at large try and do that, I wonder? Why do they instead stand back and demonise it, treat it as the enemy, take a them or us approach to it? That's a very unscientific way to go about the discussion. No wonder they can't find any evidence of it. They refuse to look.

In a way, God was the first attempt of critical thinking people to explain their universe. Why not try to build on this idea within science and look for evidence to support it?

it wouldn't exist at all had it not been created
— Wayfarer

That's the claim that needs evidence. — Michael

But, all due respect, you're missing the point. I don't think this particular religious believer is saying that some particular thing is 'evidence' of God, but that the whole universe, the entire shebang, is evidence. You see how that could never possibly be an empirical claim, right? Because there's nothing to compare it with. You can't compare universes; and, had the Universe not existed, then....

So the point I'm trying to make is that asking for 'evidence' misplaces what it is that is being suggested. According to this believer, God is not one amongst some other possible explanations for some particular thing, but the reason that anything exists whatever.

Now, this believer might be wrong, and you might choose to totally disregard her. But you can't do that on the basis of evidence, because your notion of what constitutes 'evidence' is of a different order to what she is suggesting.

Why doesn't the scientific community at large try and do that, I wonder? — MikeL

Because that's not what scientists do.

Hey, google the Wikipedia article on Vera Rubin. And, while you're at it, Georges Lemaître.

I don't think this particular religious believer is saying that some particular thing is 'evidence' of God, but that the whole universe, the entire shebang, is evidence. — Wayfarer

But that's a claim that needs to be justified. If I claim that my dog barking is evidence that it will rain tomorrow then I need to justify this claim. What evidence (or reasoning) supports such an assertion? So the theist can claim that the universe is evidence that there's a God, but then the atheist is quite right in asking what justifies such an assertion. Absent any such justification the claim that the universe is evidence that there's a God is unfounded, as is my claim that my dog barking is evidence that it will rain tomorrow.

Or if you prefer, consider my claim that the existence of the universe is evidence that I will win the lottery tonight. It's prima facie as unreasonable as the theist's claim.

Based on the premise that science relies on proof, can science prove that the universe is infinite? Surely they would need to go to the point of infinity to prove that.. but hang on... that can't be proved so surely science must reject the notion of infinity not only of the universe, but in all its connotations? Does that serve as a reasonable comparison for this argument?

But that's a claim that needs to be justified — Michael

I don't know. She could say - take it or leave it. The claim is after all made in the context of a philosophy forum, which, hopefully, is situated in the context of the history of philosophy. So it's not a completely arbitrary and meaningless claim, like that of a 'dog barking', unless indeed we have come to the point where the whole idea of God has become completely otiose. In which case - nothing to discuss.

Based on the premise that science relies on proof, can science prove that the universe is infinite? Surely they would need to go to the point of infinity to prove that.. but hang on... that can't be proved so surely science must reject the notion of infinity not only of the universe, but in all its connotations? Does that serve as a reasonable comparison for this argument? — MikeL

The scientist doesn't need to directly observe the thing conjectured (e.g. the Big Bang). They just need to be able to observe the expected effects. We hypothesise that the universe is infinite (or finite) and then determine what that entails. If we observe the entailment – and if nothing else explains this observation – then we can be said to have proved the conjecture.

I don't know. She could say - take it or leave it. The claim is after all made in the context of a philosophy forum, which, hopefully, is situated in the context of the history of philosophy. So it's not a completely arbitrary and meaningless claim, like that of a 'dog barking', unless indeed we have come to the point where the whole idea of God has become completely otiose. In which case - nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

Sure. My point is just that the scientist doesn't need to prove that the theist is wrong. He just needs to ask for reasons to accept the assertion, and if none are offered (or if they don't work) then he is free to reject it.

But Mike, saying that science doesn't need to directly observe the thing conjectured, merely observe its effects, sounds an awful lot like a God theory to me.

of course. And in doing that he doesn't need to appeal to science, he just declares such matters out of scope for the work he's doing - which they are.

But I do have to add this - the reason I mention Lemaître is that he, as I'm sure you know, originally published the idea of the 'big bang'. Now as it happened, Lemaître was a Jesuit. And furthermore, when his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' was published, to not much fanfare, in an obscure journal, he got a lot of push-back because the whole idea sounded, well, kind of religious. After all, he's saying the whole universe emerged from an infinitesimally small point, which sounded spookily like 'creation from nothing' to a lot of people. And then, the Pope got wind of this, and said, 'aha! Scientific proof of creation ex nihilo!' And Lemaître was very upset about this. He lobbied the Pope's science advisor to please tell His Holiness not to go around saying that, because he, faithful Catholic that he was, did not want for one minute to muddy the waters by trying to find theological justifications for science, and vice versa. And in that, Lemaître should surely be applauded, in my opinion. That is what I regard as an act of scientific integrity, and solid religious faith.

But here's another fact: it is now quite unknown, and may forever remain unknown, why the Universe that emerged in that instant from the 'primeval atom' has the qualities it does, and not some other attributes, that subvert the appearance of life altogether. Again, something we can never know. So I think that the believer is justified in arguing that it might be the case that the whole of creation is the expression of a 'divine plan' - but I don't think that can ever be proven, for the reasons I stated above, and because it exceeds the limits of science to try and prove such things. But, given that, there is no difficulty in following scientific discovery wherever it leads, either.

Here's something to consider. In the Old Testament, when Moses asked God, who are you, God answered "I am that I am". "I am" commonly refers to being at the present. Further, many people interpret Einstein's special theory of relativity as stipulating that there is no such thing as the present. These people, if they hold and believe in the truth of special relativity, deny the possibility of God under this fundamental definition of God.

Hey Wayfarer, good to get your input. It seems that Lemaitre had a problem with where the discovery led. If he was petitioning the Pope not to drag his theory into religion his beliefs may not have been as solid as they first appeared.

The Big Bang theory is really just as flimsy as a God theory. Both call for something that cannot be proven in its initial state, and the support for a Big Bang theory seems a little too high given some major problems with it.

Talking about muddying the waters, I see that religion is being brought into play. I have my own opinions on religion and it's ways throughout history, but I want to stick to the idea of God as a scientific theory that the scientific community refuses to accept or investigate. In fact that they deny.

Mike, in terms of Einsteins present, obviously there is one, we are in it right now and now and now, but I think the point he was making was that time can be viewed linearly, as it is, but rather than travelling from one end of this linear string to the other, the entire string may be moving in one motion sideways instead so that the past present and future of the string occur at once.

What we really need is a good definition of God, would you agree? Once we have defined what God is, then we can look for evidence of it? And once we look for evidence of our definition then we are bound to find it, as we controlled the initial conditions of the definition. So, I think it is very easy to prove the existence of a God, so long as we can define it. It seems like such an easy fix.

Mike, in terms of Einsteins present, obviously there is one, we are in it right now and now and now, but I think the point he was making was that time can be viewed linearly, as it is, but rather than travelling from one end of this linear string to the other, the entire string may be moving in one motion sideways instead so that the past present and future of the string occur at once. — MikeL

The problem remains though. The way that most people interpret special relativity is directly incompatible with the definition of God "I am that I am", provided in the Old Testament. To believe in both SR and God, is to hold contradictory beliefs. So either one has to shift their interpretation of SR, or shift their notion of God.

Mike,
We are getting into religion rather than God, but what the hay, this is fun. When I hold a meter ruler level with my eye, I do not see the length. It is only when I turn it to 90 degrees that the dimension of 1 meter materializes. It's relative. I don't have to adjust my beliefs about a meter ruler to accept both ideas as true, do I?

Are you calling me Mike? If so, that's OK, I like the name. How is your spatial analogy related to how we conceptualize time, unless you are already presupposing that time is just a dimension of space?

You're not Mike? Sorry, somehow I must have overlapped who I was talking too. My spatial analogy of time gives the sense that past present and future are relative concepts. Just as a meter ruler can have a very definite length when viewed one way, that definition changes with perspective. I'm not giving any real definition of time here, just trying to illustrate an example.
Time as a dimension of space seems to be the truest model I can see. Well, its the one I like the most anyway. Time slows in gravity and accelerates in non-gravity. Is that right? There is a lot of fun to be had linking time to matter to wrinkles in space. Is there a contradiction you can see?

You're not Mike? Sorry, somehow I must have overlapped who I was talking too. My spatial analogy of time gives the sense that past present and future are relative concepts. Just as a meter ruler can have a very definite length when viewed one way, that definition changes with perspective. I'm not giving any real definition of time here, just trying to illustrate an example. — MikeL

OK, now compare this with what is said about God in the OT, "I am that I am". How can it be true that the present is relative, unless God is relative. If God is relative, then relative to what?

Here's something to consider. In the Old Testament, when Moses asked God, who are you, God answered "I am that I am". "I am" commonly refers to being at the present. Further, many people interpret Einstein's special theory of relativity as stipulating that there is no such thing as the present. These people, if they hold and believe in the truth of special relativity, deny the possibility of God under this fundamental definition of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay Metaphysician Undercover, I have your statement. I have glossed over it a bit too easily, so I'll take another look at it even though we are talking religion here and not God.

To say that "I am" commonly refers to being at the present, by your own admission does not predicate it in every instance, and while I am sure you are correct in this translation, it seems a bit of a stretch to me. You say that many people interpret Einstein's relativity as stipulating no such thing as the present, again if I do concede this to you, "many people" is not all people. So we have one highly ambiguous statement stacked upon another ambiguous statement, drawing from a document written by Israelites thousands of years ago in Babylon and juxtaposed against a theory of the universe written in the 1920s in order to draw out a contradiction on the nature of God.

I admire your tenacity, but its a bit all over the shop for me.

Okay Metaphysician Undercover, I have your statement. I have glossed over it a bit too easily, so I'll take another look at it even though we are talking religion here and not God. — MikeL

How are you distinguishing "religion" from "God"? I've provided a definition of God, one derived from religion of course, and we are discussing this. But you say we are discussing religion, not God.

To say that "I am" commonly refers to being at the present, by your own admission does not predicate it in every instance, and while I am sure you are correct in this translation, it seems a bit of a stretch to me. You say that many people interpret Einstein's relativity as stipulating no such thing as the present, again if I do concede this to you, "many people" is not all people. So we have one highly ambiguous statement stacked upon another ambiguous statement, drawing from a document written by Israelites thousands of years ago in Babylon and juxtaposed against a theory of the universe written in the 1920s in order to draw out a contradiction on the nature of God. — MikeL

Yes that is exactly the point I made. One can claim to believe in special relativity and to believe in God (as I am that I am), both at the same time, but this is "a bit of a stretch". It is a stretch, because it requires either interpreting "I am" in an unusual way, or interpreting special relativity in an unusual way. To interpret these two both in the normal way makes them incompatible.

I take your point that the two statements, as you chose to interpret them, are indeed incompatible. I also see you have provided a definition for God and through this definition have sought to disprove God or Relativity. It's a good way to go about it, but in this instance it's a pretty long bow to pull I think.

I would contend that your definition of God through this archaic reference written by men thousands of years ago may need some modification.

So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. — MikeL

This doesn't really lead anywhere, other than, as you suggest, a never ending debate.

One can take the stance that:

A) there are outside omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent forces that were born out of some singular event such as God/Big Bang, in which case one can quickly perceive the similarities without much differences other than the lexicon being used, or

2) there are no such external forces, but rather an Intelligence (creative mind) that is evolving while learning that has both the nature of habit and the potential for novelty. (Daoism and ancient paganism that preceded it might be one such example).

I choose the latter because the evidence is within me and evidenced by everyone I have experienced in lives from birth to death. Others may claim they have experienced God and others may claim they have experienced the Big Bang via the Natural Laws that created and guide them.

At the end, I guess, it is a matter of taste, and to what practical value each philosophical outlook presents. I have found the notion of creative evolution and evolving intelligence very practical in my everyday existence, most crucially in the manner it offers choice and purpose, but also in a philosophical approach to relationships and health.

Hi Rich,
Can you elaborate on point 2? I don't quite understand your meaning.

Creative intelligence would be the vital force of life (Bergson's Elan vital) that is self-motivated and is continuously experimenting, exploring, and learning via novelty and willful movements of choice. There are no external drivers out guides that are fating actions.