A Scientific Test for God's Existence

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wasn't speaking of apologetics, but merely of science.  I thought you were discussing science here.  Am I wrong?  Archeologists and historians regularly examine ancient literature and artifacts for historical authenticity.  Perhaps you don't know what that entails, or how significant science is in the  examination of historical claims.  Are you changing the goals posts?

I am just saying that apologists find creative explanations, so the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable. 

but if you really want the Book of Mormon to be falsifiable, you think Ether 15:2 will survive scientific scrutiny? I can point to many other examples. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Thinking said:

I was simply pointing out the flaw in the description of the experiment in your quoted text from Alma 32 from the OP. How is that off topic?

As far as a scientific experiment goes, I don't think we could create one that would prove absolutely whether God exists or doesn't.

Not looking for a critique of Alma, but I appreciate your second comment, with which I agree. Such an experiment would have to assume God can be forced to reveal Himself at the whim of a non-believer's request.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 11:04 PM, sunstoned said:

Perhaps you need to educate yourself on the subject.  The topic is a scientific test.  As such if must be falsifiable. 

No, the topic is what would you propose as a scientific test. And I don't appreciate insults. I don't give them.

Please refrain or take yourself elsewhere.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is not for the yahoos, but an impartial summary of the present state of philosophy of religion can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/

Sorry that it actually takes time and a lot of words to read.

Let me summarize it for you

The idea that religious ideas can or must be verified by science is dead.

There.  Was that short enough for everyone?

 

Thank you. I will read the whole thing. This is exactly what I believe, but we are still challenged... my own kids get this regularly from not-so-well meaning friends.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Alma 32 does represent the experimental method, even though a good many atheists might balk at having to exercise any faith at all -- even for a test.  However, Buddhist and Hindu masters/gurus often require just such mental commitment from their students in order for there to be measurable progress (physiological responses to the training are real).

Another method applies strict science and statistics to the problem, as for Hoyle & Wickramasingh, in which the universe is seen to be "fine tuned" (and "just right" for Goldilocks) too often to be mere happenstance.

It would seem to me that if one is unwilling to meet the criteria for the experiment, one is therefore not qualified to specify the results. I like "just right" universes. They are beautiful to behold and exciting to live in.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 0:01 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

You did not read what I said, again. 

Then I will ask you again to answer the question of the OP. Is it possible to devise an experiment that will prove or disprove the existence of God? If so, please propose one. If not, say so. 

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 0:20 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

How is our church falsifiable? Falsifiability is the ability of something to be proven false. Just ask any apologist, that will never happen no matter what. 

and that makes it non-falsifiable. 

It is not a scientific method. It might work for you, but just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. Please see 2:15 to 3:30. 

Religious experiments might be real, but they are not science. "we're all subject to preconceived expectations, personal biases, even perceptual errors. Only by proper testing where we control for all of these variables can we learn whether something actually works, as opposed to working only according to some individual's expectations. A good scientist won't even bother trying a product or scheme himself, because he knows that his own personal perception of its effectiveness is practically worthless." - Brian Dunning 

 

i

I clearly stated that the Alma experiment would not be acceptable as science. Of course it is not scientific. It is a religious experiment with a promise, however, but it is based on the assumption that the experimenter has the proper motive to conduct the experiment.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 3:57 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

Please stay on topic. You, as the believer, must provide a scientific experiment that proves the existence of God. A non-believer cannot, by definition, prove the existence of something that isn't. Equally so, a non-believer cannot dis-prove something that isn't.

I think you've painted yourself into a corner. 

Non-believers regularly claim that science proves there is no God. The topic is, "If this is true, can you suggest a scientific experiment that will prove or disprove the existence of God?" I think it is the non-believers who have painted themselves into the corner. Perhaps you can get them some paint remover and suggest such an experiment?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 11:21 PM, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps someone else needs education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Kuhn_and_Lakatos
 

 

In the school where my wife teaches, they no longer refer to "the scientific method."

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 7:13 AM, James Tunney said:

The problem with Alma 32 is that it is a sales method that works on pretty much everything.  Assume the conclusion you want (faith).  Then try out the religion or product.  Have an emotional experience.  Then the handlers (missionaries or advertising execs) guide or manipulate you to think that the emotional response is related to what you were supposedly "testing."  And voila, a conversion!  Bonneville calls this HeartSell.

Again, I am not asking for a critique of Alma, but for your suggestion for a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Ahab said:

First don't you think it would help to define what God is?  Othrrwise how would anyone know when they saw him/her/it?

The person I usually refer to as God is our Father in heaven, and logically we all must have a Father otherwise we would not exist.  Or at least that is logical common sense in my mind.  Is that "scientific" enough for y'all?

No, I don't think a definition would be more fun onerous than helpful. Each definition of God would require its own unique test. If science has proven God does not exist, there must have been some scientific process that determined his non-existence. What would that experiment be? For the sake of ease, let's ask for an experiment that proves the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster that is frequently proposed as God.

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On May 16, 2016 at 2:25 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not demanding that all experiments under laboratory conditions, I am simply saying that Alma 32 is not science. Personal experiences are not scientific experiments. 

 

I am in a hurry, so I will be brief. I can't prove the world is real, I can't prove we are not living in a computer simulation, but we can observe that the scientific method works. 

Scientific studies are useful, medicine is useful, science works. 

No one is claiming Alma is a scientific experiment. Sounds like you believe we can't prove much of anything that we can't observe. If we can't observe God, how can we prove or disprove his existence scientifically? What experiment would you devise that could prove this? I have found Alma's experiment useful for me and quite a few people I know. It works.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 a scientific experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of God.

1. To answer your question you first need to tell me how do you define God? When you say God, what do you mean? What or Who is God? 

2. I think your question is not useful. A better question "Is God necessary (or required) to explain our existence?" 

Edited May 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bernard Gui]

On May 19, 2016 at 5:24 PM, James Tunney said:

I used it in the mission field.  It was useful to get someone to stop smoking, or to try out some principle, etc.  Anyway, I still believe that it is a sales pitch of sorts that works for almost anything.  The key is the concept of faith.  One has to believe first or assume the conclusion with Alma 32 to start off.  Get them to start saying yes right away by getting them to assume that what you're selling is right for them.  This is what faith is - a prepackaged belief in a desired conclusion.  The conclusion could be that Mormonism, Islam, Judaism or Evangelicalism is the truth or that a certain product is right for you.  Then you try out the seed or religious philosophy or product.  The sale is made easier by assuming the conclusion right off the bat.  You stay while they try it out or return after a short time making more conclusory statements about how good it was to try it out.  Wasn't it great to do X?  Wasn't it great to relax in your new car while you test-drove it? That shows that it's true, so let's make a commitment.

I don't agree. They don't have to accept anything at all. They simply have to be willing to perform the experiment. That is where the non-believer leaves the stage, because he is not willing to give it an honest go. Alma does not ask you to accept the conclusion until you determine the validity of the experiment by the fruits that you see being born. Having had the conversion experience myself and having seen it work in profound ways in others, I can't share your cynical approach to the Alma experience. 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. I will read the whole thing. This is exactly what I believe, but we are still challenged... my own kids get this regularly from not-so-well meaning friends.

When I am dictator of the universe, philosophy classes will start in about 8th grade, and be mandatory.

If you have any questions, pm me and I will be glad to try and help you out, from one pole-cat to another.

[Bernard Gui]

On May 19, 2016 at 10:05 PM, James Tunney said:

I think Alma 32 was used as an example of the commitment pattern if I recall correctly. I think it was referred to often by the G.A.s in that context when I was in the MTC and in the field. It makes sense too as planting the seed of faith seems to be a great sales metaphor. Anyway, my point is that it can be used in almost any persuasive endeavor and any religious conversion. Prepare the poor, invite to plant the seed, and follow up by asking if the seed turns into something delicious.

I suppose one could look at it that way. However, it also seems to work well with other economic classes and educational levels, not just the poor. Humility, diligence, faith and effort have some part to play. Many won't perform the experiment because they lack those things.

I have to say, however, that when the Applestore guy showed me the new MacBook, my heart swelled within me. However, it hasn't filled me with everlasting joy, great though it is, nor convinced my to buy the iWatch. It will eventually break or be replaced with something superior and I will sell or discard it.

Through my life's work with Alma's experiment, I have learned to tell the difference between the spiffiness of my VW Gti (which now has over 100,000 miles and is starting to loose its oomph) and the eternal goodness of the concept that I am a child of God (which bears new fruit on a regular basis). I think Alma describes this difference quite well:
 

Quote

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When I am dictator of the universe, philosophy classes will start in about 8th grade, and be mandatory.

If you have any questions, pm me and I will be glad to try and help you out, from one pole-cat to another.

Ah.... when I rule the world, everything will be different, and bigos will be served at every meal.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

1. To answer your question you first need to tell me how do you define God? When you say God, what do you mean? What or Who is God? 

2. I think your question is not useful. A better question "Is God necessary (or required) to explain our existence?" 

I don't think it matters what "God" means. Can an experiment be devised to prove he/she/it exists? If so, what is it? We can start with the premise that God is necessary. Now let's prove that he exists. Or we can start with the premise that God is not necessary. Now let's devise an experiment that proves this.

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No one is claiming Alma is a scientific experiment. Sounds like you believe we can't prove much of anything that we can't observe. If we can't observe God, how can we prove or disprove his existence scientifically? What experiment would you devise that could prove this? I have found Alma's experiment useful for me and quite a few people I know. It works.

He is stuck on this.  Religion is about changing your attitude and giving you peace, and he still thinks it is about something outside your head like factual events.

Alma says the goal of religion is finding a belief "sweet" to you, not factually "correct".  From this he thinks that it contends that "sweet" therefore equals factually correct, which is absurd.  Sweet = sweet, and has nothing to do with the way the world is- it is about the way YOU are and changing the way YOU are.

It's about learning HOW to think about the world, not WHAT to think about the world.

The scientific method is not itself a "fact"- it is a method. The method does not teach any facts, it teaches how to find or define what we call "facts"

Same with religion.  Religion is an attitude about the world which helps one get through life, it is not about facts or experiments or observations.  Happiness is not a fact and my happiness is not about the world- it is about me being happy.  You cannot prove "happy" through experiment.  Maybe you can prove someone IS "happy" by defining a brain state chemical test etc- but that's not it.  "Happy" is not a fact- a religious attitude is not a fact.

I don't know why people cannot see that.  It really bugs me

Edited May 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't think it matters what "God" means. 

Yes it does. Are you talking about the God of Spinoza? A Deistic God? A powerful alien?  Nirvana? A force? Love? Some say God is love. A personal creator God? Did he use Evolution yes or no? Does God obey the laws of Physics? Please define God. 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Can an experiment be devised to prove he/she/it exists? 

It depends, how do you define God? 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

. Or we can start with the premise that God is not necessary. Now let's devise an experiment that proves this.

Now that is a much better question. Is God necessary to explain our existence? We don't know, science doesn't have all the answers, but science can explain the origin of our species and our world. 

How Was Earth Formed?

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it does. Are you talking about the God of Spinoza? A Deistic God? A powerful alien?  Nirvana? A force? Love? Some say God is love. A personal creator God? Did he use Evolution yes or no? Does God obey the laws of Physics? Please define God. 

 

This is critically important. I hold to the same concept of God that Spinoza held to. God is quite simply everything that exists. And so of course God's existence can be directly verified by all, even if most do not define God that way. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Gray

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This is critically important. I hold to the same concept of God that Spinoza held to. God is quite simply everything that exists. And so of course God's existence can be directly verified by all, even if most do not define God that way. 

You have a proof in search for a definition. Please explain how science verifies your  concept. An experiment to verify it would be a starter.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Yes it does. Are you talking about the God of Spinoza? A Deistic God? A powerful alien?  Nirvana? A force? Love? Some say God is love. A personal creator God? Did he use Evolution yes or no? Does God obey the laws of Physics? Please define God. 

It depends, how do you define God? 

Now that is a much better question. Is God necessary to explain our existence? We don't know, science doesn't have all the answers, but science can explain the origin of our species and our world. 

How Was Earth Formed?

 

God could be anything to anybody. The list could be billions long, each requiring a separate inquiry. Many atheists claim "God" does not exist and either demand scientific evidence for "his/her/its" existence or simply make the assertion that science proves non-existence. I am asking about the global concept of a God, not a specific notion such as the one expressed by a philosopher I met on my mission who showed me a matchbook and said,  "This is my God. Prove it is not." Alma's test, though obviously not a traditional scientific test (which non-believers are incapable of performing), is for the specific God of the Lehites. It is a test, nevertheless.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You have a proof in search for a definition. Please explain how science verifies your  concept. An experiment to verify it would be a starter.

Science doesn't verify that everything exists should be called God. That's a subjective judgement call. But science does verify the existence of things that exist (ie the universe). 

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I don't think a definition would be more fun onerous than helpful. Each definition of God would require its own unique test. If science has proven God does not exist, there must have been some scientific process that determined his non-existence. What would that experiment be? For the sake of ease, let's ask for an experiment that proves the existence of the Great Spaghetti Monster that is frequently proposed as God.

 

You seem to have missed my point.  About how it might possibly help to first determine what is being referred to as "God" before we seek scientific evidence that such either does or does not exist.

Let's see if this helps you to see what I mean.

Let's say we say that by "God" someone says he is referring to some... whatever... that is said to exist both everywhere and nowhere at once, outside of both space and time, without any specific form or substance except when some person who says this "God" exists believes this "God"... thing... is manifesting itself/himself/herself/whatever to the people who say they have seen it/him/her/whatever.

Do you see what I mean now???