A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[Bernard Gui]

Believers are challenged by non-believers to give scientific proof that God exists, as if there were some sort of experiment that could be devised that consistently forces God to reveal Himself to whomever tries it. Such an experiment would have to preserve the agency of man. An experiment does exist, but it sets certain conditions that must be met in order for it to succeed. It is described in the parable of the seed in Alma 32:

Quote

 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

But can this experiment satisfy the demands of non-believers? The conditions for this experiment to succeed are specified by the missionary Ammon in Alma 26:

Quote

 18 Behold, we went forth even in wrath, with mighty threatenings to destroy his church.

 19 Oh then, why did he not consign us to an awful destruction, yea, why did he not let the sword of his justice fall upon us, and doom us to eternal despair?

 20 Oh, my soul, almost as it were, fleeth at the thought. Behold, he did not exercise his justice upon us, but in his great mercy hath brought us over that everlasting gulf of death and misery, even to the salvation of our souls.

 21 And now behold, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent.

 22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance.

Can a person test God without having a sincere and transparent intent to be willing to repent and accept all that follows from discovering God's existence? Is this an experiment non-believers are willing to perform? If not, would someone propose such an experiment that would be acceptable? (Cutting off a head or leg and having God restore it has already been spoken for).

Edited May 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

Looking at Alma 32 "scientifically", can you explain to me the range of expected results from the "experiment", and which of those results would be quantified as a "positive" response and a "negative" response.

Also, what would be the expected incidence of false-positives and false-negatives?

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Looking at Alma 32 "scientifically", can you explain to me the range of expected results from the "experiment", and which of those results would be quantified as a "positive" response and a "negative" response.

Also, what would be the expected incidence of false-positives and false-negatives?

Alma calls it an experiment, not an "experiment," and he promises results if the conditions are met. Obviously, as I pointed out, this is unacceptable to non-believers. Would you please suggest an experiment that would be?

Edited May 15, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

Even if an angel cake down in full view of witnesses who submitted to tests to prove they were real and had powers it would fail on rigor unless you could call down an angel at will.

[Thinking]

Quote

Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

If a seed of doubt is planted and it begins to grow, is it a good seed?

[BCSpace]

John 7:17 is a test with predicted results.  It's way too hard for anyone besides those with a real desire to learn the truth.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If a seed of doubt is planted and it begins to grow, is it a good seed?

It depends on how the fruit tastes.

[TheSkepticChristian]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Believers are challenged by non-believers to give scientific proof that God exists,

That is not true, it's a straw-man. Most non-believers simply want good evidence or good reasons, they are not asking for absolute proof. 

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 The conditions for this experiment to succeed are specified by the missionary Ammon in Alma 26

Selection can also explain Alma 26. If Alma 26 works for you, of course you will convert. If Alma 26 doesn't work for you, you will not convert. 

During testimony meeting, you will only hear that people that are converted. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Sanpitch]

Long statements such as Alma's, sound to me like a lot of words that have very little meaning.  However a question comes to my mind.  Present day prophets over the last 150 years have made statements that are no longer accepted as true; speaking as a man and etc.  Prophets seem to be  allowed to express their own opinion without it being gospel truths.  Why would statements in in the BofM be any different?  Could Alma write on the metal plates his own opinion that really has no solid basis in fact?

Edited May 15, 2016 by Sanpitch

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Long statements such as Alma's, sound to me like a lot of words that have very little meaning.  However a question comes to my mind.  Present day prophets over the last 150 years have made statements that are no longer accepted as true; speaking as a man and etc.  Prophets seem to be  allowed to express their own opinion without it being gospel truths.  Why would statements in in the BofM be any different?  Could Alma write on the metal plates his own opinion that really has no solid basis in fact?

Nope.

[sunstoned]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Believers are challenged by non-believers to give scientific proof that God exists, as if there were some sort of experiment that could be devised that consistently forces God to reveal Himself to whomever tries it. Such an experiment would have to preserve the agency of man. An experiment does exist, but it sets certain conditions that must be met in order for it to succeed. It is described in the parable of the seed in Alma 32:

But can this experiment satisfy the demands of non-believers? The conditions for this experiment to succeed are specified by the missionary Ammon in Alma 26:

Can a person test God without having a sincere and transparent intent to be willing to repent and accept all that follows from discovering God's existence? Is this an experiment non-believers are willing to perform? If not, would someone propose such an experiment that would be acceptable? (Cutting off a head or leg and having God restore it has already been spoken for).

In your opinion can this  "scientific" test be falsified?  

[TheSkepticChristian]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In your opinion can this  "scientific" test be falsified?  

That is very important. Mormonism is not falsifiable. 

[sunstoned]

28 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is very important. Mormonism is not falsifiable. 

So according to science, if a theory does not make a testable prediction, it is not real science.

[mfbukowski]

Science by definition does not accept personal experiences which cannot be verified by someone else.  No two people can objectively have the same spiritual experience- how could you prove that YOUR experience was the "same" as mine??

Do you see the same subjective "red" I do?  The quesiton is meaningless because it cannot be answered

Until and if science finds some way to show that YOUR experience of God speaking to you is the same as MY experience of God speaking to me, it will never be scientific as we now define the terms

But philosophers HAVE criteria for both science AND religious questions and in what contexts they can be called "true"

I have detailed these many times here.  My siggy contains the answer.  Both religious statements and scientific statements are based on human experience.  All we can do is do the best we can to compare their results and this is found in Alma 32.  Alma 32 is actually the scientific method as it applies to all truth.  Science works and so is "sweet" to us- we get things done.  Religion in its sphere gets done what it needs to- gives us hope and purpose in life and is "sweet" to us

The fact that both science and religion "work" for their purposes as tools is the best we can do to compare the two spheres.

Using science as verification for religion is like using a screwdriver as a hammer.  The realization is that we must use the right tool for the right job but they are both tools

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

30 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

So according to science, if a theory does not make a testable prediction, it is not real science.

Not necessarily, but testable predictions are extremely valuable for science. 

So what about empirical evidence? or evidence that we can measure? Is there any evidence that our church is true? 

[Atheist Mormon]

20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Can a person test God without having a sincere and transparent intent to be willing to repent and accept all that follows from discovering God's existence?

"Repent & accept"? 

Bernard We atheists know already there's no god, no reason to repent, no reason to discover...How can one discover anything not seen, untouchable or supernatural? Give us a hand show us a way or a sign....

[sunstoned]

27 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Not necessarily, but testable predictions are extremely valuable for science. 

So what about empirical evidence? or evidence that we can measure? Is there any evidence that our church is true? 

well, what do you think?  I resigned my membership last year, so you probably can guess what my answer is.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

If a seed of doubt is planted and it begins to grow, is it a good seed?

I suppose, if it is delicious to you. Please stay on the topic or leave the discussion. Can you propose a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is not true, it's a straw-man. Most non-believers simply want good evidence or good reasons, they are not asking for absolute proof. 

Selection can also explain Alma 26. If Alma 26 works for you, of course you will convert. If Alma 26 doesn't work for you, you will not convert. 

During testimony meeting, you will only hear that people that are converted. 

Yes, it is true. Please stay on the topic or leave the conversation. Can you propose a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

Long statements such as Alma's, sound to me like a lot of words that have very little meaning.  However a question comes to my mind.  Present day prophets over the last 150 years have made statements that are no longer accepted as true; speaking as a man and etc.  Prophets seem to be  allowed to express their own opinion without it being gospel truths.  Why would statements in in the BofM be any different?  Could Alma write on the metal plates his own opinion that really has no solid basis in fact?

Please stay on the topic or leave the conversation. Can you propose a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In your opinion can this  "scientific" test be falsified?  

What do you mean "falsified?" Please stay on the topic.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

In your opinion can this  "scientific" test be falsified?  

The question is, "please suggest a scientific experiment that can prove or disprove the existence of God."

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Science by definition does not accept personal experiences which cannot be verified by someone else.  No two people can objectively have the same spiritual experience- how could you prove that YOUR experience was the "same" as mine??

Do you see the same subjective "red" I do?  The quesiton is meaningless because it cannot be answered

Until and if science finds some way to show that YOUR experience of God speaking to you is the same as MY experience of God speaking to me, it will never be scientific as we now define the terms

But philosophers HAVE criteria for both science AND religious questions and in what contexts they can be called "true"

I have detailed these many times here.  My siggy contains the answer.  Both religious statements and scientific statements are based on human experience.  All we can do is do the best we can to compare their results and this is found in Alma 32.  Alma 32 is actually the scientific method as it applies to all truth.  Science works and so is "sweet" to us- we get things done.  Religion in its sphere gets done what it needs to- gives us hope and purpose in life and is "sweet" to us

The fact that both science and religion "work" for their purposes as tools is the best we can do to compare the two spheres.

Using science as verification for religion is like using a screwdriver as a hammer.  The realization is that we must use the right tool for the right job but they are both tools

 

When non-believers ask for scientific proof of the existence of a god, are they asking a question that science cannot answer? I am thinking of a recent interview on NPR where two people reported fasting for 40 days, but not having any kind of special spiritual experiences that would prove to them that God exists.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

"Repent & accept"? 

Bernard We atheists know already there's no god, no reason to repent, no reason to discover...How can one discover anything not seen, untouchable or supernatural? Give us a hand show us a way or a sign....

Do you know this through science? If so, how? If not, then yours is just an opinion like any other. I found love. Have you seen any love lately? Science did not help.

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When non-believers ask for scientific proof of the existence of a god, are they asking a question that science cannot answer? 

Yes. Science cannot answer questions about purpose or morality either.  In fact science cannot answer any questions which are important in our lives, whom to marry, why it is wrong to kill people, where we came from. where we are going, or what college we should attend.

It restricts itself to theories about how things work.  Obviously how things work is important but they are not the most important questions in anyone's life