In a thread a while back, the subject of why science could never explain the nature and existence of god(s) was briefly touched on. I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember which thread it was and can't find it.

While reading through a list of logical fallacies, I came across the logical fallacy of "Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable" which was defined thus:

I'm not concerned with the god of the gaps strategy example so much as the explanation for why science can never explain or settle the issue of the existence or non-existence of god and so I'd like to devote a thread to it, if anyone is interested in discussing it. I'm probably in a better place to make sense of the answers than I was a few months back. Unfortunately I can't at this point offer an argument or justification to kick-start it and I'm hoping someone else will provide that if required or that one will develop from any offered explanations.

Which god?

nvm

Thank you. Any you choose. Note the use of a lower case letter g in the word 'god'

I wouldn't have been so crass as to bring that up myself It's ok for you to do it though. In fact, you made me lol.

Just for clarification - from the thread title you seem to be asking:

"Let's assume for arguments sake that Zeus exists. What's the argument behind the claim that Zeus' existence is not only currently but pricipally unprovable?"

Yes/no/maybe?

This logical fallacy is also partly responsible for the many people that don't really know what atheism means. Lack of belief in Gods (until evidence otherwise) is not the same thing as believing that there is no God (forever).

Yes, using Scientific method (Methodological naturalism?) specifically. I'm sure the argument put forward was that science will never have the ability to prove or disprove the existence of gods.

Given the scattering of knowledge I've acquired on this recently, I'm hoping that I'll be able to follow any logical or philosophical discussion on the subject and perhaps broaden my understanding, and who knows, maybe even join in. Of course I don't expect anyone to simply educate me, I'm hoping at least two people will debate it.

Isn't the former soft atheism and the latter strong atheism? I'm not sure how that ties in with this particular fallacy?

Ok, we'd have to dig up an old greek for further insight on this but I'd assume that the common conception of Zeus is that he's a being that (at the very least) isn't bound by laws of nature. He can change into a bull, become invisible etc. etc.

None of these individual traits may be entirely unexplainable by science (for example, maybe he is capable of influencing the reflection of light off of him, thus rendering him invisible), but I'd assume that an old greek would claim he's not bound by the laws of nature, period.

Then the question would be: Why would we think that an apparatus that is bound by the laws of nature be able to prove the existence*** of something that is not?


***this is a somewhat stronger claim than just "produce evidence consistent with the claim that Zeus exists"

So one simple explanation is that there can't be a natural explanation for something that isn't natural? How do we know that gods aren't bound by the laws of nature, and that we simply haven't yet identified all the laws of nature and that they're may indeed be some that bind even the gods? Which would bring us back to the question of why couldn't science eventually explain gods wouldn't it?

Because per all current rationale no machine can ever explain everything.

This is because any machine that holds information does so in a manner decided by the workings of the machine. Thus to know how the machine affects the information, the machine would have to know itself.

But by learning about itself the machine adds to itself and changes itself. Thus it would have to know even more about itself.

Cue the endless loop.

Science isn't a machine learning about itself though, it's attentions are directed outward towards making new discoveries, so isn't this somewhat of a false analogy?

I'd actually use your analogy for Theology though but that's another discussion.

This is not an analogy. It is a basic principle of information-processing. It is attributed to the (rather awesome) Alan Turing.

I don't know that we know that of all gods.
Well, at least the christian notion of god is such that he was prior to any and all existence. So if he was still bound by some natural laws, it'd be laws that transcend our notion of natural law in that they hold even in realities that extend beyond the scopes of ours.

Also: google turing machine.

Thats an easy one!

2 Outcomes.

Axiom: Science is investigating everything in nature.

a) God (regardless of the state of its existence) does NOT interact with nature.
Result: Since he is NOT interfering in nature, investigations are irrelevant, thus God is not subject to science.

b) God DOES interact with nature.
Result: Since he IS interacting with nature, these interactions are observable by science, this God is subject to science.

And solved. Everything else can be thrown back to this.

So the that Turing principle (I do actually know of him from reading so much sci fi :P) applies to what information can be gathered and understood using scientific methodology?

Is that really the same thing as that Methodological naturalism assumes that everything has a natural explanation? We can't be investigating everything in nature when we don't know the extent of nature yet, we're actually investigating everything we find and looking for more, which might include god

Possible.

Or, god interacts with nature then deliberately hides his efforts. Is it possible that we'll one day be able to circumvent those methods and detect god anyway?

Assuming that no theist is proposing that their god is a Cartesian demon, shining1977 is spot on.

If its all gods the Pharaohs and other god/kings (including Jesus when he was human) can/could of been studied by scientific method.

I think so, although I think it would be more exact to say that those interactions are subject to scientific investigation, rather than saying "this God" is, although the distinction may only be important to a theologian, i.e as described by a distinction between God's essence and energies

First, the axiom has not much to do with what you said. Science simply is investigating the nature.

Regarding a)
its not important if it applies. No interaction means no change. No change means it is irrelevant. Example:
Phrase 1) is "This lamp burns"
Prhase 2) consists of no change of phrase 1).
Therefore, Phrase 2 is irrelevant.

Regardin b)
if he HIDES his efforts, it means there is, again, no interaction with nature.
It is really nothing more than that. If something (while that something can be anything) interacts with nature, it is subject of science. Otherwise it is not.

Agreed

Oh, i only labelled it god. I mean of course "any kind of interaction with nature is subject to science"

"God" can be replaced by any kind of action that causes an interaction with nature.

English is not my native language

Edith said: This is no contradiction to the non-determinism problem of certain small-scale size problems.

cheers shining. I didn't mean to nitpick you. Or I guess I did but I hope you'll forgive me :P

Id like to here responses to this. Apparently god is undetectable and unknowable. and yet, jesus was god, and was detectable and knowable.