Originally posted by TriPack
Ok let's take a different line of thought for a bit. Let's talk about not just proving the bible is historically accurate, but let's look at proving that a person who claims he is god is (or isn't) actually god.
Let's say a person who claimed he was god appeared in a room full of the world's preeminent scientists, who had all of the best and most advanced scientific equipment on hand and of course these scientists knew how to use it. This person then submits himself to be examined in every way by the scientists. How would the scientists go about proving or disproving that this person was or wasn't God or god? Which branch of science would hold the answer to unlocking the true identity of this person?
Alhough some branches of science may be better suited,
all that is required is a group of people that understand
the scientific method and more importantly, know how to carefully
perform ubiased (double blind for example) studies of
this person.
After hours and days of examination, maybe the scientists would say, well if you are god, prove it by performing a miracle, because in spite of all the tests we have performed, we certainly can't show one way or other that you have omnipotence or omniscience as you claim.
Excellent idea. Words alone mean nothing.
So the person performs a miracle, turning the water in the water cooler into something else such as wine. So the scientists spend days analyzing the wine, taking samples, theorizing on how it turned into wine. The scientists then come to the conclusion that they needed a sample before the test to prove that the water in the water cooler wasn't in fact wine originally instead of water,
Any decent scientist would not have made such a blatant mistake.
The water would be verified as water well before the test,
and measures to prevent tampering would be in place. Using
seals or whatever method they deamed fit.
so they tell the person that they need advanced notice of what miracle will be performed, so he says he will turn the wine back to water for his next miracle. The scientists take samples and then give the ok. The wine turns back to water (including the samples) and the scientists are left to argue a multitude of theories including mass delusion.
If only one test by a small group of people was performed,
then mass delusion/trickery for something that we understand
as impossible, is a valid case.
Scientists HAVE been fooled by magicians in the past.
But they eventually catch them.
Let's say some of the scientists believe that a miracle was in fact performed: at what point would science be able to say that the person was in fact omnipotent or omniscient? How many miracles would this person have to perform to definitively prove that he was omnipotent?
Science requires replication.
The following would probably happen.
The first group of scientists would try the tests and be amazed.
They would try a few more times and would not be able
to figure out how the person was doing this.
At this point, they would report their amazing findings, like
all scientists do for peer review.
The scientific community would call BULLSHIT, as they should.
Then ANOTHER group of people would attempt to replicate
what the first group did. Hopefully, a group of higher calibre
scientists with a few EX-magician debunkers thrown in the
mix. The Amazing Randi for example who is good at catching
tricksters.
The amazing Randi actually offers 1 million dollars reward
to anyone who can prove super natural powers.
Randi would FAIL to prove this guy is a hoax and the guy
would collect his 1 million dollars.
Several more groups of researchers would fail to prove
this guy was a tricker of sorts.
Once peer reviewed, and no errors in the experiment
are found, the scientific community would accept that
this guy is capable of some supernatural powers.
How many factual questions would this person have to answer correctly to prove that he was omniscient?
Omniscience is not that tricky to prove.
It could be tested with random number generators, etc.
The same peer reviewed/controlled studies/scientific process would be used.
What if the answers to factual questions given by the person were all correct but some of them contradicted what science knew as fact?
In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation.
Einstein later replaced this with his new theory of Relativity.
Do you think science simply accepted Einsteins theory?
No way in hell. They attempted to shoot it down the best
they could and when they FAILED, it was accepted.
Science uses replication and peer review in an attempt
to raise the probability that new knowledge is in fact true.
Science is also self-fixing. When a scientist brings forth
new knowledge, which is then tested, and proven true,
science will ABSOLUTELY accept this knowledge as true
EVEN IF it contradicts previous knowledge. The old knowledge
is discarded, as it should be. Thats why science keeps
progressing. (And religion stands still).
This is very common and part of the mechanism of the
scientific method.
What if the person refused to perform any miracles or answer any factual questions? Could science by itself come to the conclusion that this man was in fact omnipotent and omniscient?
No. There would be no way to rationally tell him apart
from any other story teller/psychic who claims to have
all kinds of freaky powers.
The point I'm trying to make is that the only way science would be able to come to the conclusion that a person actually has supernatural powers is for that person to demonstrate those powers over and over and over again until the scientists become convinced that this must be the case.
Absolutely.
It is very likely that after hundreds of miracles and years of observation the majority of respected scientists remain skeptical and are unable to come to the conclusion that the person in question has omnipotence and omniscience.
Absoutely false.
Science is NOT close minded.
Scientists around the world would be able to peer review
all the evidence collected in the first set of tests, including
video tape etc, by recognized expert researchers, and
would HAVE TO draw the same conclusion as them if they
were unable to find a real FLAW in the experiments.
My editorial: Science of itself is poorly equipped to determine the question of god because the only thing science can determine is what the person decides to demonstrate. If the person chooses not to satisfy the scientists curiosity then science has no way of determining that the person they are examining is what he claims to be even when he is in fact what he claims to be.
A person making grand claims and providing NO EVIDENCE
should NOT be believed by any rational person.
Do you believe that Benny Hin can heal people?
He does it on stage all the time right?
Think Benny Hin would take the challenge of
a double blind, peer reviewed, scientific experiment?
Dont think so
I would say if you really want to find out about god, look not to science but look to god for answers as he is the only one capable of providing those answers.
