Can the Scientific Method Validate the God Hypothesis?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Scientific Method to the God hypothesis, emphasizing the need for rigorous observation, hypothesis formulation, and experimental validation. Key observations include the limitations of measurement due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the implications of an omnipotent being's ability to measure with infinite precision. The conversation references historical figures like Napoleon and Laplace to illustrate the tension between scientific inquiry and the concept of God, ultimately arguing for the necessity of further scientific observations to explore the relationship between these ideas.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Scientific Method, including hypothesis formulation and experimental validation.
  • Familiarity with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of philosophical implications regarding the existence of God and its relation to scientific inquiry.
  • Awareness of historical perspectives on science and religion, particularly the views of figures like Laplace.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and its implications for measurement in physics.
  • Explore the philosophical discourse surrounding the God hypothesis in scientific contexts.
  • Investigate historical debates between science and religion, focusing on key figures like Laplace.
  • Examine contemporary scientific studies that address the intersection of faith and empirical evidence.
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, scientists, theologians, and anyone interested in the dialogue between science and religion, particularly those exploring the implications of the God hypothesis within the framework of the Scientific Method.

the_truth
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
Scientific Method.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


God.

This is a proper hypothesis which remains unproven, which is a step forward from the seemingly completely out of the blue hypothesis of god. The aim of this hypothesis is also to provoke discussion on how do you choose a hypothesis, that most malleable element of scientific method and one which is very relevant to today's physics. Possibly also the element which einstein refused to work with and led to his stagnation.


1:

Observation 1.

You cannot measure anything certainly due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and also because you cannot measure anything precisely. You cannot for instance say a ruler is exactly 30 cms long as the chances are it could very well be

30.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

cms long and you cannot measure with such precision and if you could measure with such precision you still wouldn't know whether the ruler is

30.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

cms long or not.


Observation 2.

You would need to be able to measure things to an infinite degree of precision in order to know the exact length of the ruler.


Observation 3.

If there was an omnipotent sentient being he would have the ability to measure things to an infinite degree of precision and thus with the laws of the universe be able to predict the entire universe. God is also creditted with being the creator of the universe and that the laws of the universe exist becasue he is a watchmaker god, whom does not externally influence the universe after it has been set in motion.


2:

Hypothesis.

The relationship between observation 1 and 2 with observation 1 is not a coincidence. Bear in mind observation 3 is an observation of irrational opinions.


3:

Evidence.

The possibility of the relationship being a coincidence is unknown. There is also the possibility that the idea of god has caused me to introduce it into my observations, which would be circular. However it is an observation and allowed by scientific method and so should not be ignored on that basis. More scientific observations which correlate with ancient ideas of god are required before the possibility of this relationship can no longer be considerred a relationship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't measure infinites. I like your speech. I'm only posting a conversation from about 200 years ago, adn that's all because I think it says everything I need/think:

Napoleon-I have heard that you haven't included god, in your explenation about the universe?

Laplace-No; I didn't require that hypothesis.

Napoleon-Oh, it's a very good theory, it explains many things. :smile: :smile:

Poor Napoleon, he was very inteligent for strategy though.
 
Yeah.. Shuffle 500000 men into Siberia, great idea.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K