Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

[Norris2k]

Scoobes sai:

Norris2k said:

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

As someone whose studies science you should also know that unlike faith and "belief", there is peer review, experimentation and critique. Even then, concepts are constantly reviewed, revised and updated. I don't think you can really compare a religious belief to the constant rigor of testing and self-improvement the scientific method has. Whilst I might not understand everything in science, I can view the data directly and discuss with people who work in the field. If I don't know about C14, I can go online and find a whole plethora of data from various instruments and learn how to interpret it.

Your third bullet is even making the same point. Science is contantly adjusting its models to an increasingly large pool of information whereas god/religion is a simplistic explanation that can never be tested or improved upon.

You miss the point about my first bullet. It's not about science and scientists, it's about you, and other people. It's about people that have a biased and very superficial understanding of science, and that, I think, is very similar in a bad way to faith. You could check the data, but you will not. You could discuss with people that knows (and even if I doubt you could understand proves), but you don't. You could learn how to interpret, but you will not. You have no idea how a a peer review works, how long it takes, the problem there is with peer review (lack of time, complaisance), but you don't doubt. You don't question the thing. Science is a lot (but not only), at last in physic, about finding a model that works to describe reality, and confront it with reality, that why everyone is searching for black hole and dark matter. The goal is to understand how things work, not why or who. I will quote a guy I kind of made fun about but I deeply respect, Newton. And please don't ignore that, think about it : "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Another guy, Einstein, said that regarding God he prefered "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

About my third bullet, again you miss the point. If science is adjusting models, you have to accept it's kind of wrong at any step. So, no arrogance, science is not Truth, it's a process for understanding, and we are at the very beginning of this process. And you compare science to God/religion in a way that shows you feel there is some form of competition. Science is not a religion, it should not be.