Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

[nuckles87]

Scoobes said:

Norris2k said:

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.

We're debating in two different directions but we're actually making the same point. Science is not religion but my point always was that they're not comparable. Very often though, people turn to religion in these threads and pit proven scientific theories against heresay. Religion often assumes it has answers for the unknown, but on a number of areas where people take religious texts at face value, they deny robust and proven scietific theories in favour of unproven nonsense. At the worst and extreme end they'll believe religious therapies will cure them of life threatening illness and ignore the scientifically proven treatments that could actually save their life.

You can talk about people blindly having faith in science, but I like to think that most people with a reasonable high school education know enough of the scientific method to know the process of hypothesis, test, conclusion and review (I know I got taught this very basic principle at age 11 if not earlier). That scientific papers get rigorous scrutiny and that experiments are repeated by different groups. That when scientists fake data they get called up on it (the retracted Nature paper on STAP comes to mind). That the science industry has to adhere to a strict process and set of standards before any product born of that science can be released (ISO standards, clinical trials, GLP and GMP). Being a scientist, perhaps I take this for granted, but we're also living in the information age. Data and information is literally a mouse or touchscreen away. The excuses for not being educated in the scientific method are reduced every year.

The point is that science as a way of understanding the world is not comparable to religion, yet too many people put them in direct conflict. And as a method for understanding the world around us, a system that constantly improves its models and admits our ignorance in the face of evidence, science will always trump religion (which assumes knowledge based on heresay).

@bolded I know this is a quote, but why does there even have to be a "who"? This in itself is a completely human concept but one we have no true evidence for. The belief in god is a completely human construct based on a simple and very human view of the world. We give things meaning, we see design when we view and interpret the world/universe around us, but few people actually stop to think "why does there need to be a purpose? a design? or even a point?". And given our limited understanding of the universe (which is why the scientific method came to be), why do human beings attribute this unknown to a god or a religion? Would it not be more accurate to simply admit our ignorance than make assumptions and place meaning where their may be none?

This, exactly this. I couldn't have said it better if I wanted to, but thankfully I don't have to.

I will add, bad research is inevitably ferreted out when other scientists attempt to replicate the results in their own work for their own research. I believe this article is about the Nature papers you're referring to, Scoobes?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/health/time-stem-cell/