"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[Antonio the Sixth]

Technically speaking, science cannot ever "prove" anything.

The only things that can be proven are a priori truths, like most mathematical theorems (but even those have to rely on axioms that we basically take on faith). Everything else has to start from our sensory perceptions, which we have no way of knowing are true.

Aren't repeatable observations also a priori truths in the same category as a axiom? It is an axiom of mathematics that when equals are added to equals the wholes remain equal. Is that observation of math (Euclid called it a common notion) any different than an observation that the sun and planets move on a highly regular and predictable schedule? I claim these observations have the same status as mathematical axioms and become the same sort of fundamental truths.

From these observations I can generate the scientific equivalent of theorems, as rigorously tested as one in mathematics. One might interject that these scientific truths are not absolute but change over time, much as Newton's Universal Gravitation gave way to Einstein's General Relativity. I would respond that mathematics was once limited to real numbers, but new observations discovered problems that required complex numbers to be solved, and this made some theorems no longer universal but restricted to real numbers only. In the same way Newton's Gravity remains correct when restricted to its original set of facts.

That is a very fair way to look at this, yeah. I don't think it invalidates my argument though: the point is that any kind of "science" first requires making some kind of leap of faith. In the case of math, this involves axioms, and in the case of natural sciences, it's trusting that our senses give us a largely correct picture of reality. Neither can truly be "proven" (or disproven) - it's all a matter of how far we can go with them.

Of course the nature of any axiom is that it cannot be proven, but must be assumed to be true. Mathematical axioms are selected such that reasonably educated mathematicians would make the same observation about the truth of the axiom. Scientific facts are based on the same philosophical criteria that reasonably educated observers would come to the same conclusion about the fact.

I guess I'm saying that there is no leap of faith to accept a "common notion" mathematical axiom or measurable scientific observation if I start with the belief that there are true but unproveable statements about the universe. I believe there is a kernel of facts one must accept without proof in order to be rational beings and that includes things like axioms and observations.

It's a leap of faith in the sense that it is not, in the epistemological sense, knowledge. It is something that you choose to believe in order to give meaning to your sensory experiences that would otherwise lack any. You can defend the validity on your axioms on the ground of "common sense", but "common sense" is, at its heart, nothing more than an intuition, and I don't think it's necessarily a more valuable intuition than the one that draws some people toward religion.

[muon2]

Technically speaking, science cannot ever "prove" anything.

The only things that can be proven are a priori truths, like most mathematical theorems (but even those have to rely on axioms that we basically take on faith). Everything else has to start from our sensory perceptions, which we have no way of knowing are true.

Aren't repeatable observations also a priori truths in the same category as a axiom? It is an axiom of mathematics that when equals are added to equals the wholes remain equal. Is that observation of math (Euclid called it a common notion) any different than an observation that the sun and planets move on a highly regular and predictable schedule? I claim these observations have the same status as mathematical axioms and become the same sort of fundamental truths.

From these observations I can generate the scientific equivalent of theorems, as rigorously tested as one in mathematics. One might interject that these scientific truths are not absolute but change over time, much as Newton's Universal Gravitation gave way to Einstein's General Relativity. I would respond that mathematics was once limited to real numbers, but new observations discovered problems that required complex numbers to be solved, and this made some theorems no longer universal but restricted to real numbers only. In the same way Newton's Gravity remains correct when restricted to its original set of facts.

That is a very fair way to look at this, yeah. I don't think it invalidates my argument though: the point is that any kind of "science" first requires making some kind of leap of faith. In the case of math, this involves axioms, and in the case of natural sciences, it's trusting that our senses give us a largely correct picture of reality. Neither can truly be "proven" (or disproven) - it's all a matter of how far we can go with them.

Of course the nature of any axiom is that it cannot be proven, but must be assumed to be true. Mathematical axioms are selected such that reasonably educated mathematicians would make the same observation about the truth of the axiom. Scientific facts are based on the same philosophical criteria that reasonably educated observers would come to the same conclusion about the fact.

I guess I'm saying that there is no leap of faith to accept a "common notion" mathematical axiom or measurable scientific observation if I start with the belief that there are true but unproveable statements about the universe. I believe there is a kernel of facts one must accept without proof in order to be rational beings and that includes things like axioms and observations.

It's a leap of faith in the sense that it is not, in the epistemological sense, knowledge. It is something that you choose to believe in order to give meaning to your sensory experiences that would otherwise lack any. You can defend the validity on your axioms on the ground of "common sense", but "common sense" is, at its heart, nothing more than an intuition, and I don't think it's necessarily a more valuable intuition than the one that draws some people toward religion.

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

[RFayette]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

How do you draw the line between an axiom and an unprovable assertion?  It seems that if one defines 'reality' (or more precisely, the component of it we are testing)  as 'that which we appear to be observing and testing in a repeatable manner,' then it seems we would be able to have justified knowledge.   This seems little different than the initial definitions that constitute mathematical axioms (such as the definition of a line, ray, point, plane, etc.). 

[muon2]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

I'm using the traditional philosophical definition of knowledge from Aristotle through at least the mid 20th century. The phrase "justified true belief" is not mine; here's a Venn diagram of a classical view of knowledge from Wikipedia.


I'm curious as to how you define knowledge? Are there particular philosophers whose definition you find suitable?

[HisGrace]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

I'm using the traditional philosophical definition of knowledge from Aristotle through at least the mid 20th century. The phrase "justified true belief" is not mine; here's a Venn diagram of a classical view of knowledge from Wikipedia.


I'm curious as to how you define knowledge? Are there particular philosophers whose definition you find suitable?

I'm familiar with the classical definition of knowledge, yes. I'm not sure if I buy it entirely, but I haven't come across a better one so I wasn't going to try and dispute it. Anyway, my argument was rooted in this particular definition and you haven't addressed it.

[DC Al Fine]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

[muon2]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

I'm using the traditional philosophical definition of knowledge from Aristotle through at least the mid 20th century. The phrase "justified true belief" is not mine; here's a Venn diagram of a classical view of knowledge from Wikipedia.


I'm curious as to how you define knowledge? Are there particular philosophers whose definition you find suitable?

I'm familiar with the classical definition of knowledge, yes. I'm not sure if I buy it entirely, but I haven't come across a better one so I wasn't going to try and dispute it. Anyway, my argument was rooted in this particular definition and you haven't addressed it.

For the classical definition of knowledge to make any sense then we must agree that there are justifiable true beliefs or there is no knowledge at all. Justification is specifically not proof nor is it intended to be. Otherwise the definition of knowledge can become circular as it would require knowledge to prove the justification that something is knowledge.

So it is part of the classical definition that my propositions need not be proved, just that they are well justified. Are you arguing that either of my propositions are poorly justified?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I start with the proposition that there are true but unproveable assertions about the universe. Then the key leap would be that such assertions can be established by a group of appropriately educated observers. After that I wouldn't think that accepting any specific observations, scientific or mathematical, would require a leap of faith as they follow from those propositions.

The classical epistemologist would say that knowledge is justified true belief, and my propositions fall within that definition. I get the sense that you take a more modern approach and would not accept the classical definition. To discuss the point further, I would need to know what epistemological definition of knowledge you favor.

How exactly can you say that the belief is justified, if you yourself admit that it relies on unprovable assertions? If an assertion is unprovable, then by definition it cannot be justified, and so even if you believe it and it is in fact true it still wouldn't qualify as knowledge. So yes, conditional on this initial assertion being true you can then build on it with real knowledge, but it still requires this initial step that still feels like a leap of faith to me.

How do you draw the line between an axiom and an unprovable assertion?  It seems that if one defines 'reality' (or more precisely, the component of it we are testing)  as 'that which we appear to be observing and testing in a repeatable manner,' then it seems we would be able to have justified knowledge.   This seems little different than the initial definitions that constitute mathematical axioms (such as the definition of a line, ray, point, plane, etc.). 

I don't disagree with this (and I'm not arguing that axioms and unprovable assertions are different! I think I've agreed to put them in the same category). The leap of faith, to me, lies exactly in your definition. Sure, the vast majority of people instinctively assume their observations to be true in some fundamental sense (as do I, don't worry), but there is, at the end of the day, no way for them to know that they aren't in a Matrix-like program or being tricked by Descartes' evil demon. Sure, you could argue that if they have no way of knowing that, they might as well assume it's all true, and I agree, but that doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the classical definition of knowledge to make any sense then we must agree that there are justifiable true beliefs or there is no knowledge at all. Justification is specifically not proof nor is it intended to be. Otherwise the definition of knowledge can become circular as it would require knowledge to prove the justification that something is knowledge.

So it is part of the classical definition that my propositions need not be proved, just that they are well justified. Are you arguing that either of my propositions are poorly justified?

That's a fair point. I guess it means I can't quite adhere to the classical definition of knowledge, since if justification doesn't have to be proof then the justification becomes nothing more than a hunch and might as well be faulty (I guess faulty justifications are where we get Gettier problems from, as well, so it makes a lot of sense to me now).

My proposal is to define all knowledge as conditional on unknowable assumptions. That means that, yes, fundamentally, no one can ever actually "know" anything, but if we take the initial leap of faith I was talking about and accept certain propositions as true without proof, then yes, we can say that we "know" all the propositions that derive from it. I guess this means we're mostly just disagreeing on semantics, but I'll insist on my terms.

[Karpatsky]

Kind of defeats the purpose of science when you set out from the beginning with such dogmatic priors. Hopefully as he matures he will gain more perspective on this issue.

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

[HisGrace]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

[°Leprechaun]

Another issue is that if God is beyond human comprehension it would be impossible to prove such a Supreme Being exists, since in order to comprehend God one would have to be omniscient in the first place. If I were to be omniscient enough to comprehend God, that would make me God.

To know God is to claim omniscience, to question God's existence, therefore, would be to take the more humble path.

[Mopsus]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

A god that forces itself on humanity is of the kind craved by slaves. That knowing God requires sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity, proves what kind of follower He desires. You might ask yourself why you aren’t amongst that number.

[°Leprechaun]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess.  

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess.  

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

A god that forces itself on humanity is of the kind craved by slaves. That knowing God requires sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity, proves what kind of follower He desires. You might ask yourself why you aren’t amongst that number.

That number is 144,000 out of many billions, that's why. A sophisticated and mature person doesn't need a god, right?

[Mopsus]

A sophisticated and mature person doesn't need a god, right?

Disagree, obviously. Did you need to ask?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Another issue is that if God is beyond human comprehension it would be impossible to prove such a Supreme Being exists, since in order to comprehend God one would have to be omniscient in the first place. If I were to be omniscient enough to comprehend God, that would make me God.

To know God is to claim omniscience, to question God's existence, therefore, would be to take the more humble path.

Acknowledging God's presence isn't the same as comprehending God.  Knowledge and comprehension are very different things.

[Greatest I am]

Boy, 11, graduates from college and still plans to continue education

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/11-year-old-graduates-college/818815002/

Impressive, but if he can use science to prove the existence of a god or goddess..
what then?

The story title may be slightly misleading. He has an associate's degree.
Still impressive however.

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

[HisGrace]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

I mean, if I sat and watched children get raped and people get murdered all day and sat there and did nothing I think everyone would agree I was a terrible person. If an omnipotent god exists, then that's what he does. One of the reasons I find the descriptions of a benevolent god in major religions a bit hard to believe.

[Mopsus]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

I mean, if I sat and watched children get raped and people get murdered all day and sat there and did nothing I think everyone would agree I was a terrible person. If an omnipotent god exists, then that's what he does. One of the reasons I find the descriptions of a benevolent god in major religions a bit hard to believe.

Do you also malign the Sun for shedding its light on evil?

[HisGrace]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

I mean, if I sat and watched children get raped and people get murdered all day and sat there and did nothing I think everyone would agree I was a terrible person. If an omnipotent god exists, then that's what he does. One of the reasons I find the descriptions of a benevolent god in major religions a bit hard to believe.

Do you also malign the Sun for shedding its light on evil?

The sun isn't an intelligent being, so no. There's no ethics to anything it does, it just is.

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

I'm normally not one to get in arguments about that. If someone just wants to say "I have faith" and trust that everything about their beliefs will make sense in the end, fine. I'm not going to do that, but I'm not going to bully someone who does either.