The scientific god model

[richardlowellt]

Define a scientific God model, a theory of God. A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes.

1.) God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
2.) God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
3.) God steps in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties.
4.) God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity where human beings are special in relation to other life forms.
5.) God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood.
6.) God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy.
7.) God revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history.
8.) God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective process of science.

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument.

1.) Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
2.) Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
3.) Look for such evidence with an open mind.
4.) If such evidence is found, conclude that God MAY exist.
5.) If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does NOT exist.

Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than to verify one. The best we can do if the data supports a particular God model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religion that worship any Gods that fail to agree wit the data.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I disagree with that falsification, Richard, because you'd only be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with those properties does not exist. But you'd never be able to discern what the actual properties of God are. You'd be disproving (likely incorrect) assumptions. That doesn't prove anything. But it's certainly better than nothing.

This may all be fine and dandy where you can observe a naturalistic phenomenon and make some accurate assumptions about it and do the same. But where do you begin to assume when it comes to a God? And this only postulates against an interventionist God. What of a deist God? That would be much more difficult to falsify.

 

[richardlowellt]

I disagree with that falsification, Richard, because you'd only be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with those properties does not exist. But you'd never be able to discern what the actual properties of God are. You'd be disproving (likely incorrect) assumptions. That doesn't prove anything. But it's certainly better than nothing.

This may all be fine and dandy where you can observe a naturalistic phenomenon and make some accurate assumptions about it and do the same. But where do you begin to assume when it comes to a God? And this only postulates against an interventionist God. What of a deist God? That would be much more difficult to falsify.

The science model is of an interventionist God, specifically Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. The actual properties of God are dictated by those who believe in this God, the eight points listed are the properties they say this God has, and because there is no observable evidence of this God these are the only properties available. So this does not disprove an assumption, but rather their position on the attributes this God is suppose to have.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The science model is of an interventionist God, specifically Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. The actual properties of God are dictated by those who believe in this God, the eight points listed are the properties they say this God has, and because there is no observable evidence of this God these are the only properties available. So this does not disprove an assumption, but rather their position on the attributes this God is suppose to have.

Fair enough. I'll accept that then.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I realize this thread is fairly old, but for anyone interested in persuing this line of thought some more I recommend reading Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. I recomment it even though I didn't find it to be one of those great reads I can enthusiastically recommend. It is worth investing the time to read this though because Stenger manages to effectively present in a systematic way the case for looking at the God question as we would any other extraordinary posited claims. He attemts, and succeeds (even if somewhat crudely) in holding the popular notion of God up to critical analysis. I would not call the book an excellent philosophical work, but it does bring some valuable perspective to the "Does God exist?" debate. For anyone pasionately involved with this debate, or at least likewise interested, this is a volume they should make themselves familiar with.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It is a mutation linked to insanity; the mind is evolved to recognize agency, so when a non-standard signal processor occasionally disassociates and exposes the illusion of objective reality by momentarily processing simultaneity the machine either adapts or fails. As the primary function of the brain is the simulation of a consistent visual environment, generating a vaguely comfortable figure keeps a social primate spreading them jeans. It is my contention that a certain group of yahoos noticed a trend, did what any self-respecting tool using ape would do. Experiment, devise a tool of utility; run with it. What they actually performed was a scientific analysis of a type of witchcraft, but who cares, it works and now we're special. Yay us. Until, of course, repeated exposure grew tolerance; what once was perhaps god, what now is. is merely us. What to do? What do we do when our miraculous technology suddenly becomes an embarrassment? Sell it to our enemies, of course; so that they can kill us later with it. Only this most unfortunate group had enemies of epic design. Gee willizers, they declared, our wicked cool wizbang device, it is down to the last whammy. Why let it happen? Why not direct? Human's first medical casualty of mad science is half the world's lord and savior; humanity's first mad scientist was of course Paul. And the indulgence of a Roman empire was succeeded by Roman psychological dominion, and like any good mutation it skipped a breed, found a suitable environment, and prospered. Now we got a western culture half full of zombies, and eastern middle-age revival brewing in the desert. Cause we're all advanced and tolerant and stuff, democratic and all, with a reprogrammed moral mandate to keep "electing" the same old same old while we decay in our comfort, speak to each other on cell phones in the same room, and wonder; whatever happened to us?

Caveat emptor.

Everything you think you know about the advance of western civilization, prophets of peace, religious tolerance, and other unnatural concerns derives from those two words. Buyer beware. Customer is never right, merely prey; and the wealth of a nation built on diversity goes where? To save the planet. From what? Developmental technology, for one. Gee golly willikers, ya know what? No one has to work on this planet, much less starve or go hungry; but wowzers those breads and circuses have yet to fail us. if you are curious to see how democracy doesn't work, watch c-span; if you wonder about starving children in Africa, count the churches in your neighborhood; for how long has the rights of devotion kept the poor humble and giving, and what was achieved besides the creation of an underclass to sponsor more guilt? We have become an automation, a conditioned response to accepting our sin, expecting our fate, we are compassionate but unworthy beings, sold on the illusion of freedom so well that we do not speak lest we offend, content to accept moral guidance from what is actually a weapon... it makes me wanna burn a creationist. I know god wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind, but my Gwynnies would be sad

 

[chinu]

The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective process of science.

They will ever remain STILL TESTABLE
Because: Science can work only in "TIME" & "God" is beyond "TIME".

The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument.

We are almost unable to tell about the birth of our own FATHER,
So, how can we tell about the birth of the FATHER OF UNIVERSE.

Hah...! Science thinking herself more intelligent than his FATHER.

_/\_Chinu.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Sorry. I fell in a hole of despair... I may have peeled some Christians of their faith... it was odd. Whatever malfed in the brainpan; there was a sense of vampiric witchcraft, and like a hole... and it was laterz. This unit is not expected to maintain functionality for much longer. Insane is one thing, non-standard deviation is not sustainable. Oh, and I was watching Dawkins talk earlier about the brain's propensity to ascribe agency... and a large, ovoid, black fish casually swam by. I take it the LC ain't exactly impressed.