Are God's Actions Falsifiable?

[thomas t]

Hello everybody,

 

the following assertions...

1) "God did it"
2) "man did it"
3) God did it not"
... are they testible and falsifiable?

 

I would answer as follows:
1) No, you can't rule out that God intervened in on way or another.
2) Yes, you can make up a setting in which any sort of human intervention can be ruled out.

3) To give an answer to this, I'd like to have a look on the circumstances that, in my opinion, would imply a "no". JDavis recently brought up what Harvard's Richard Lewontin had to say about the relationship between God and science:¹
 

in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, [...] we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. [...]
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

In an a priori commitment, he takes God out of any possible interpretation of scientific facts. Following this approach, as I see it, it won't be possible to figure a scientifically relevant scenario which would make (3) falsifiable. Taking God of the equations is, in my opinion, nothing more than a matter of convention following the outlined approach which might be representative for the work of the whole scientific community.

My last question would be: Is God relevant for science?
Yes, I would answer. For God himself is the author of science and creator of all things.

Thomas

 

¹ the entire quote can be found here.

[JDavis]

I believe that testable and falsifiable are two separate conditions that should be taken individually. 

 

I will go back to the example I used in a different thread...

 

I am walking along the beach with my friend and we come across a group of shells that spell out my name.   There are no other marks or footprints.

 

There are two basic conclusions one could draw, either this is a quirk of nature and the shells just happened to randomly spell my name, or some intelligent source did it by design.

 

So I say to my friend, I think someone did this by design.  He then says to me, "is that theory falsifiable?" to which I would have to say "no".  Thus, by limiting hypotheses to what is falsifiable, I cannot say that this was done by intelligent source. 

 

This is what modern science has done, they have taken away the ability to follow the evidence where it may lead.

 

The idea that science must be falsifiable is a fairly young idea, dating back to the previous century.

[JDavis]

A group of geologists come across a large u-shaped valley, and after a bit of study they conclude it has all the characteristics of a glacially-eroded valley.  Then a creationist pipes up, "No.  God just made it look that way to test your faith."

 

Is his explanation testable, falsifiable, and therefore scientific?

 

As we've been over in other threads, the answer is "No".

 

can it be proven that the valley was not the result of glacial erosion?

can it be proven that the valley was the result of glacial erosion?

[JDavis]

As you correctly observed in other threads, science does not operate in "proof", but rather in probabilities.  Therefore, the hypothesis of glacial erosion for that valley is testable and falsifiable, and is thus scientific.

 

What about the assertion, "God just made it look that way to test your faith"?  Is that testable and falsifiable?

 

how can you falsify the hypothesis that this valley was the result of glacial erosion?

 

but I do agree that the assertion, "God just made it look that way to test your faith"?  is nonsense.  But since I have never seen talked to a person that put that forth as a hypothesis it seems you are again tilting at windmills

[JDavis]

 

how can you falsify the hypothesis that this valley was the result of glacial erosion?

 

By collecting a set of data that is inconsistent with glacial erosion of a valley and would cumulatively lead you to reject that "glacial erosion" hypothesis.  Just like any other scientific hypothesis.

 

but I do agree that the assertion, "God just made it look that way to test your faith"?  is nonsense.  But since I have never seen talked to a person that put that forth as a hypothesis it seems you are again tilting at windmills

 

 

Fine, take out the "to test your faith" part.  Is the creationist assertion "God made it look that way" (as in "apparent age creationism") testable and falsifiable? 

 

 

no, it is neither testable nor falsifiable (to separate things, there should not be an "and" between them).  which is why you would never find me supporting such nonsense.   Young earth creationism is not based on any science at all, it is 100% a religious point of view.

[thomas t]

A group of geologists come across a large u-shaped valley, and after a bit of study they conclude it has all the characteristics of a glacially-eroded valley.  Then a creationist pipes up, "No.  God just made it look that way to test your faith."

 

Is his explanation testable, falsifiable, and therefore scientific?

 

As we've been over in other threads, the answer is "No".

 

Hello Gerald,

could you please provide a link for the source, so that everyone may see who was it that told the geologists so?

I agree with you in that God's intentions are not testable and therefore the answer wasn't scientific, I think. I hope I've answered your question with this. Thank you for your input..

Thomas

[MorningGlory]

how can you falsify the hypothesis that this valley was the result of glacial erosion?

By collecting a set of data that is inconsistent with glacial erosion of a valley and would cumulatively lead you to reject that "glacial erosion" hypothesis. Just like any other scientific hypothesis.

but I do agree that the assertion, "God just made it look that way to test your faith"? is nonsense. But since I have never seen talked to a person that put that forth as a hypothesis it seems you are again tilting at windmills

Fine, take out the "to test your faith" part. Is the creationist assertion "God made it look that way" (as in "apparent age creationism") testable and falsifiable?

You proceed on the assumption that God can be tested and is, therefore, on your level. He isn't. YOU are a mortal; YOU know nothing of His plan for the universe. YOU can't test or falsify anything He does.

edited by candice

[Guest]

Are God's Actions Falsifiable?

 

~

 

A group of geologists come across a large u-shaped valley, and after a bit of study they conclude it has all the characteristics of a glacially-eroded valley.  Then a creationist pipes up, "No.  God just made it look that way to test your faith."

 

Is his explanation testable, falsifiable, and therefore scientific?

 

As we've been over in other threads, the answer is "No".

 

~

 

"Yes"

 

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

 

And You Are Being

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

 

Tested Too

 

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

[thomas t]

 

could you please provide a link for the source, so that everyone may see who was it that told the geologists so?

 

I'm not sure what you're asking for.  What I described is a hypothetical.  I guess you could read through THIS.

 

I agree with you in that God's intentions are not testable and therefore the answer wasn't scientific, I think. I hope I've answered your question with this. Thank you for your input..

 

 

I think this particular question (Is "God did it" testable and scientific) has been answered here several times in the last week or so.

 

 

Oh this was something hypothetical... However, in my opinion, you painted the chistian group really idiotic.

Please refer to real statements the next times, would that be ok for you? Christians aren't idiots.

 

Yes, indeed you answered this particular question several times during the last week. My point in this thread is that "man did it" is testable in contrast, in this I didn't agree with JDavis.

 

My second point is that under the paradigm described above, the opposite of "God did it", namely "God did it not", isn't testable either. So anybody who laments a bit over God's actions not being testable could lament the non-testablility of the complete absence of God, as well, in my opinion. It's just a matter of choice, I think.

 

When Lewontin concludes "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", he could have said the same exact argumentation again, but concluding this time with the result: "we cannot allow the complete absence of God in the door". His words to me are interchangeable.

 

Have a good day

Thomas

[MarkNigro]

 

Oh this was something hypothetical... However, in my opinion, you painted the chistian group really idiotic.

Please refer to real statements the next times, would that be ok for you? Christians aren't idiots.

 

It would help if you were more specific.

 

My second point is that under the paradigm described above, the opposite of "God did it", namely "God did it not", isn't testable either. So anybody who laments a bit over God's actions not being testable could lament the non-testablility of the complete absence of God, as well, in my opinion. It's just a matter of choice, I think.

 

When Lewontin concludes "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door", he could have said the same exact argumentation again, but concluding this time with the result: "we cannot allow the complete absence of God in the door". His words to me are interchangeable.

 

 

But in a scientific context, neither one adds anything to our understanding.  That's why science doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about God.

 

But atheistic origin science reasons as if God has done nothing in the last 6000 years which would be miraculous. So it does have an opinion about God.

 

That is why it violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.