Is there a refined conception of God that might be acceptable to scientists?
541297
Good question. Rationally, you would expect science to at least consider all possibilities and seek to encompass them in a complete model.\n\nWhile a great many scientists have a personal belief in God, as an organized system, "science" itself is more akin to a religion, deliberately seeking to pit itself as a force against monotheism or any acknowledgment of a higher power.\n\nThe debate on Godel's theories, the uncertainty principle, the anomalies within Quantum and the rejection of all forms of paradox point to science (as a system) actively ignoring any possible signs of God, even at the expense of incomplete and broken theories.\n\nThis of course is not rational and against the very principles of science.  But it is where we find ourselves. Privately, scientists are happy to confess their belief and views on God, but collectively you'd have a better chance in getting them to admit in the existence of Santa Claus.\n\nUntil science (as a religion) accepts rational debate, there can be no theory that will suffice.
2251
Science is by nature empirical, if you can't observe or quantify something then it cannot be studied scientifically. For this reason, God cannot be proven scientifically (and technically, science can't disprove God, as you can never prove a negative), as you can't observe Him.\n\nThis is not to say that science and God are mutually exclusive. If God exists, and if His actions were observable then it would be studied scientifically.
1156995
You're right, there is NO scientific basis for god. If you keep thinking the way you are, you might end up being agnostic or atheist, so be careful!\n\n"I believe that until there is solid proof there never will be a true interpretaion of something you can't even prove."\n\nExactly, without proof (or evidence based on facts), there is nothing but interpretation. And since everyone interprets things differently, no one can be right or wrong, therefore no one can be right or wrong about god. Because of this, no one can say anything is true or false about god, because everyone sees it differently.
873708
Dear Atheist for Christians Banned:\n\nI find in our Category, here, that the great wealth of ideas and what has been learned is seldom shared. Rather, we shout small bytes at each other when, at least I, would prefer to get deeper into experiences and the lessons contained therein. Exploration about God is appropriate for the Religion/Spirituality Forum. Are we offering each other something of depth and richness to contemplate?  What is available to us - from each other?\n\nYes, I have read many articles on Evolution.  I like to dabble in Physics just enough to "stay up" with the latest information.\n\nAtheism has demanded, recently, that God be proven. They seem to feel that Christians are duped!  Yet, Atheism leads to our not acknowledging there is anything beyond or more than physical matter and human Intellect. Nothing more. No other concepts integrated .  Just Intellect examining a world of physical matter.\n\nScience, however,  has decided God can not be disproved or thrown away, after all. Physics has found itself smack up against Him and is desperate to prove Him. (String theories (all 5) or M-Theory). But I tell you, God will never be a mathematical formula.  It takes the soul or spirit-mind within,  to bring forth its Knowledge of its Creator (which it shares with the divine Presence).  Only soul/spirit can direct the Scientist to proper understanding of the Order of Creation. Science is, after all, inspiration ; inspired first - to learn of it's world and our Self. But, then, at best, you have still a cold calculation from Science - about the Created and it's Creator - with no experience of His divine nature; the ecstasy, the unlimited-ness, the Unopposed force of the Creative Being, of Who we are a part. \n\nThe Intellect is of logic and reasoning. It deduces and judges. God is Knowledge and Knowing. \n\nWe should be open to thoughts that behind the Intellect lies our soul or Spirit: The Seat of all Knowledge. Until we understand soul/spirit - we can not know our Self. \n\nIntellect is a mental exercise. It changes, shifts, and alters its thought processes.  But, Knowledge is unalterable.\n\nThe Evolution of Earth contains the Creator existing along with it.  This is Integration. \n\nBest regards, Lana
833483
Yes, assuming you actually meant "complement" not "compliment". \n\nPhysics will always leave some things unanswered.  No matter how much we understand, there is always another question, and a bit more that is unknown.  Some people find this circumstance uncomfortable. For them, religion can help them feel at ease. \n\nIf you mean as a part of science itself, the answer is "no." though you might say this is a semantic argument.  The moment an empirical observable enters the picture, it becomes a part of science. \n\n For instance, general relativity cannot describe the nature of the universe prior to the planck time.  A theory of quantum gravity is necessary for that.  Until then, one can easily say "God created the cosmic egg which expanded in the Big Bang" but that doesn't really help science move forward.  Eventually, maybe we unify gravity and the other forces and come up with a theory of quantum gravity. That will likely push our understanding closer to the origin, and maybe all the way to the origin of our universe, but probably won't explain the generation of the framework of natural laws that permitted our universe to originate. Again, you have room for a religious ultimate cosmology to explain where that framework came from, and again it does not help the physics at all, but will make some people feel better.\n\nReligion is not a part of the scientific method because it includes suppositions that are not based on the cycle of observe, hypthesize, test, observe. As soon as an element of religion enters that cycle, in my opinion it is a part of Physics.  I suppose you could say that Physics can be a subset of religion, but most religious dogmas conflict with science at some level; it does not have to be this way, but tends to be.  Note that I said "religious dogmas" and not "religions."  As near as I see it, most religions can get along side by side with Physics, it is only when people start making literal interpretations of religious teachings as descriptions of the physical world that they sometimes run afoul of science.
71374
It actually seems that a predisposition to believe in god may exist on a genetic level. This idea has been popularized by Dean Hamer, a bigwig at the National Cancer Institute.\n\nI haven't yet read the book, but I'm very curious as I seem to lack whatever genetic component this is.\n\nI certainly can't accept this as proof of a deity, but I'd like to know more about it.
221596
NEVER SAY NEVER!\n\nThey have made great strides in science and every day we know more and more of our biological home:)  Nothing is impossible just undiscovered.  If god does exist then their is some form of physical existence weather we understand it or not.
812818
Its beautiful, its elegant and it  holds promise. Its true that its some what stagnant in last few years but that doesn't mean we should start disbelieving it. If you cannot test something  experimentally that does not mean that it is incorrect.  You can refute something straight away only when you have proved it to be wrong.  While  thinking about a theory of everything, we must always keep a open mind. We should also for similar reasons give heed to other attempts towards a theory of everything.
910324
I agree God has shown us what he has and we choose to accept the free gift he has given us i don't need to look at science because God is bigger than science i just need to look at God.\n\nNow i have a dare for you read this passage http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2023;&version=31;
1141051
Yes, based upon these laws of physics you just described.  No one has ever been able to prove that God existed in this manner.  But, that doesn't mean he/she doesn't exist.  It just means we have yet to figure out how to prove it.  I saw Jesus once, but then I realized that was just his nickname, he was actually Chris Furgeson.
1003316
Firstly, thanks for asking this question.  I've probably answered it about twenty times already, but i think you're the first person I've seen with an actual interest in the answer.\n\nYou're asking two questions here.\n1) What proof do we have that God does not exist?\n2) Isn't evolution just a theory and not a fact?\n\nBoth of these questions touch on a more fundamental question:\n"Why do atheists believe what they believe?"  I'd like to address that question first, because it will make it easier to answer the other two.\n\nI can't speak for all atheists (I'm actually agnostic), but many attempt to base their beliefs in scientific reasoning.  Modern science is based on the facts that human knowledge is limited and human perception is faulty.  All the tools that scientists use to discern the truth (falsifiablility, replication, lab controls, measuring devices, statistical analysis, the scientific method of inquiry, etc.) are all designed specifically to limit errors in human perception.  \n\nNonetheless, mistakes are made and scientists are often wrong.  That's why scientific belief is pliable.  You may hear people talk about "margin of believe" and "index of suspicion".  Basically, these terms represent the degree of belief, which varies with experience.  For instance, I have a high index of suspicion that the sun will rise tomorrow.  There is the slightest possibility that it won't.  Based on historical records, mathematical calculations, and what we know of the natural world, it's a good bet that it will.  Similarly, I have a high margin of disbelieve in the theory that aliens abduct cows on Earth.  There is a very small possibility, but it's very unlikely.\n\nWhen we consider a belief's worth, we're really just raising or lowering our margin of disbelief.  Generally speaking, most beliefs are given an "a priori" possibility of 50%.  Evidence that does not support the belief (it fails to conform to theories that we already have good reasons to believe, it is internally inconsistent, it violates known natural laws, it fails to explain certain phenomenon within its scope, it doesn't make accurate predictions, etc.) raises our margin of disbelief.  Evidence that supports the belief (it makes accurate predictions, it's reproducible, it supports existing theories and known natural laws, etc.) lowers our margin of disbelief.   Once the margin of disbelief is high enough, we can treat the belief as an untruth for practical purposes.  (Bigfoot ate my baby.)  If our margin of disbelief becomes low enough, we can treat the belief as fact.  (My car still has gas in its tank).  Basically, not all beliefs are created equal.  We should have more faith in beliefs with lots of evidential support, and less faith in beliefs with little evidence to back them up.  Conversely, we should doubt beliefs that the available evidence doesn't support.\n\nContrary to what many atheists say, it is possible to prove a negative and prove negative existence.  Assume that I state that you have no quarters in your pockets, then force you to turn out your pockets.  If there are no quarters in there, I have proven (within the limits of perception) negative existence.  The problems with disproving the existence of God are matters of definition and perception.  I can say that there is no god in your pocket and show it to you.  You could reasonably respond that God is invisible and we can't see him.  It all depends on how we define "God" and how powerful our ability to "see" him is.\n\nSpeaking specifically of the the Judeo-Christian god, we can say that it is very unlikely that it exists.  The existence of an omnipotent intelligence defies the Law of Conservation of Energy.  The concept that the universe was created out of nothing defies the Law of Conservation of Matter.  These laws, together, establish the basis for all of physic
1050133
Actually, Hawking has admitted he sees no way out of recognizing the existence of a Supreme Being....he does not recognize that being as "God" in the theologic sense but sees God as a supreme intelligent factor...one which cannot be denied in light of the billions of "accidental" yet logical coincidences and conveniences of the universe.
337877
i think there might be a god, but i'm not sure. i don't think a god would be as judegmental as christians make him out to be. what would really make me a believer would have to be a personal experience of some kind.
12530
I don't really think that that type of 'god' exists.
767679
That is the idea.\n\n" It cannot be described, and the most one can say is that It is absolute existence, absolute knowledge, and absolute bliss (sat-chi-ananda). \n\nIt is unborn, self-existent, all-pervading, and the essence of all things and beings in the universe. It is immeasurable, unapproachable, beyond conception, beyond birth, beyond reasoning, and beyond thought".\n\n God cannot be defined in terms of any specific manifestation, nor indeed in terms of their sum total. He is beyond all possibility of definition. \n\n"Though I manifest Myself in all things, I am identified with none of them".\n                                            -The Bhagavad Gita
701803
The idea of 'a god' cannot be disproved.  Because a god doesn't necessarily exist in a physical sense or impact on anything in a measurable way, there's no way it can be shown that one doesn't exist.\nThe Christian/Jewish/Islamic God as described in their holy books can be shown through evidence to not exist, as these religions are wrong about the creation of both the earth and life.  There is scientific evidence to support this, in the theory of evolution by natural selection, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and various other scientific theories which are inconsistent with those religions.
605799
Your question refers to science filling in knowledge that had once been attributed to God's doing.  The latest controversy being Intellectual Design/Creationism.  In years gone by, it might have been simply the weather that the gods/God was responsible for.  This concept of God is generally known among clergy as the "God of the gaps" That is, "if you can't explain it, then God is responsible"\n\nThis makes for a fairly small concept of who/what God is, as far as I'm concerned, and one that leads eventually to a vanishing God as science progresses.\n\nBelief in god in whatever form (Allah, Christ, Hindu, etc) has existed in every culture in every time period. Many smart people have spent their lives trying the impossible, to figure out God.  And indeed, some, don't try to understand God, but to simply try their best to follow what they see as God's will for their lives.