Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Yasha Hartberg (
Sat, 06 May 1995 19:24:40 +0300

In article <>, (Kai
Henningsen) 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
> > it...
> Not quite. If God exists _and_causes_no_observable_phenomena_, then
> science can't tell us about that. If he _did_ cause such phenomena,
> science _could_ tell us about it.
> The interesting part is that religions often _do_ claim that he causes
> observable phenomena ...

No, I'm afraid you are still missing the point. Science _could_ tell us
about it it God _did_ cause such phenomena, IF AND ONLY IF, there existed
an absolute set of unambiguous parameters to define God. That criterion
cannot be met, therefore the experiment you have proposed is meaningless.
Whatever phenomena you are studying are simply natural phenomena without
the definition of God.

Yasha Hartberg
Texas A&M University
"The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's." Andy Warhol