Ken Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 I fail to see a coherent hypothesis here though. The thoughts about God are hard to follow in a coherent way. IMO, since I have not seen God and everyone has a different idea of what God is, we must start with a simple rational definition to be able to talk about it rationally. Before hypothesis, there must be a definition on which the inquiry focuses, since we have no accepted experimental evidence. The definition must be rational. It can not be absurd. It must be something that is possible. For example, I can not see and not see my finger. That is absurd, and not rational. Similarly, God can not be defined as nothing and universe at the same time. So first, the definition must be rational. If you substitute measurable for rational I would agree completely. Science, as a method of inquiry, deals only with measurable phenomena. So we can define God as universe, for example. Since universe is, then God is, and that is rational. It is possible. But more than that, by definition it is 100% true. It is 100% likely, or probable, by definition, because universe is by experience. Second comes the hypothesis: God is everywhere. We can test this hypothesis for possibility and likelihood based on the definition. If God is universe, and universe is everything, and since everything includes everywhere; then universe includes everywhere, and God includes everywhere. Then God is everywhere. This is rational, possible, and 100% likely. Third, we can hypothesize: God determines events everywhere. And this is where we get into a bind. There are three schools of thought: 1) experimental, 2) philosophical, 3) devotional. We have very similar notions. I would state it this way: There are three methods of inquiry: 1) Science, 2) Philosophy, and 3) Theologiy. The defining, and fundamental, difference between them is what constitutes a FACT. Experimentally, we know of nothing that controls events everywhere. Experimentally, this hypothesis is absurd. Philosphically, since God is universe, and axiomatically all events occur in universe, then all events occur in God. Then, universe could possibly control itself, or God could control all events. But the second inquiry is more interesting: what is the likelihood of that? What is the likelihood that there is God such that controls all within itself. In rational discussion, this is a matter of tehnology. For example, humans have two-hand, or two-feet, technology to control certain things. Technologically, humans are also limited to speed at which they can control events. Devotionally, the hypothesis is 100% true as a matter of strict following of a dogma. There is nothing to analyze or question. "God as a scientific hypothesis" falls in the category of philosophical definitions (rational definitions and hypothesis), and then scientific examination of technological likelihoods for the truth of the hypothesis. But the hypothesis must be narrowly constructed so that technologies can be carefully examined. Otherwise, there is no end to the inquiries. The key is that the questions have to be stated in quantifiable terms to be entertained by science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.