Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Yasha Hartberg (Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu)
Thu, 04 May 1995 11:59:30 +0300
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com.COM
(Richard Ottolini) wrote:
> In article <Yashafirstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Yasha Hartberg <Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu> wrote:
> >Not quite. The existence of God is not a scientific question. It cannot
> >be addressed by the scientific method. This is fundamental to the method,
> >not a limitation of current technology or of scientific understanding. If
> >God exists, science cannot prove it. If God does not exist, science
> >cannot prove it. If God existed once, but doesn't any more, science
> >cannot prove it. If God will exist in the future, science cannot prove
> I agree partly. However if God interacted with the universe in some
> testable or distinguishable way, then God might be relevant to science.
> But so far people haven't found such an interaction. It is possible that
> someone might devise something testable in the future, but I can't
> image that now.
The problem is not with how God may or may not interact with the
universe. It is in the lack of a testable definition of God. Unless
everyone on the face of the earth agrees to a set of testable parameters
to define God, science cannot address the question. And even if such an
agreement could be reached, if science tested those parameters and they
came up negative (no God), religion would always be free to change the
parameters. Not now, not in the future, not ever, will science be able to
verify or disprove the existence of God.
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol