Can the Scientific Method Validate the God Hypothesis?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the scientific method, outlining its key components: observation, hypothesis formulation, prediction, and experimental testing. It emphasizes the importance of a well-structured hypothesis, particularly in the context of physics, where causal mechanisms and mathematical relations are crucial. The conversation introduces a hypothesis regarding the existence of an omnipotent being, proposing that such a being would possess the ability to measure with infinite precision, thus influencing the laws of the universe. The dialogue touches on the limitations of measurement due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, suggesting that true precision is unattainable. It also explores the implications of integrating the concept of God into scientific observations, questioning whether this introduces bias or circular reasoning. The historical reference to Laplace's dismissal of God in scientific explanations highlights the tension between scientific inquiry and theological considerations. Overall, the discussion reflects on the evolving nature of hypotheses in scientific exploration and the need for rigorous evidence to support or refute them.
the_truth
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
Scientific Method.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


God.

This is a proper hypothesis which remains unproven, which is a step forward from the seemingly completely out of the blue hypothesis of god. The aim of this hypothesis is also to provoke discussion on how do you choose a hypothesis, that most malleable element of scientific method and one which is very relevant to today's physics. Possibly also the element which einstein refused to work with and led to his stagnation.


1:

Observation 1.

You cannot measure anything certainly due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle and also because you cannot measure anything precisely. You cannot for instance say a ruler is exactly 30 cms long as the chances are it could very well be

30.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

cms long and you cannot measure with such precision and if you could measure with such precision you still wouldn't know whether the ruler is

30.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

cms long or not.


Observation 2.

You would need to be able to measure things to an infinite degree of precision in order to know the exact length of the ruler.


Observation 3.

If there was an omnipotent sentient being he would have the ability to measure things to an infinite degree of precision and thus with the laws of the universe be able to predict the entire universe. God is also creditted with being the creator of the universe and that the laws of the universe exist becasue he is a watchmaker god, whom does not externally influence the universe after it has been set in motion.


2:

Hypothesis.

The relationship between observation 1 and 2 with observation 1 is not a coincidence. Bear in mind observation 3 is an observation of irrational opinions.


3:

Evidence.

The possibility of the relationship being a coincidence is unknown. There is also the possibility that the idea of god has caused me to introduce it into my observations, which would be circular. However it is an observation and allowed by scientific method and so should not be ignored on that basis. More scientific observations which correlate with ancient ideas of god are required before the possibility of this relationship can no longer be considerred a relationship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't measure infinites. I like your speech. I'm only posting a conversation from about 200 years ago, adn that's all because I think it says everything I need/think:

Napoleon-I have heard that you haven't included god, in your explenation about the universe?

Laplace-No; I didn't require that hypothesis.

Napoleon-Oh, it's a very good theory, it explains many things. :smile: :smile:

Poor Napoleon, he was very inteligent for strategy though.
 
Yeah.. Shuffle 500000 men into Siberia, great idea.
 
Thread 'RIP Chen Ning Yang (1922-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Chen-Ning ( photo from http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~yang/ ) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/science/chen-ning-yang-dead.html https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxrzzk02plo https://www.cpr.cuhk.edu.hk/en/press/mourning-professor-yang-chen-ning/ https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/physics/about/awards_and_prizes/_nobel_and_breakthrough_prizes/_profiles/yangc https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/physics/people/_profiles/yangc...
Thread 'In the early days of electricity, they didn't have wall plugs'
Hello scientists, engineers, etc. I have not had any questions for you recently, so have not participated here. I was scanning some material and ran across these 2 ads. I had posted them at another forum, and I thought you may be interested in them as well. History is fascinating stuff! Some houses may have had plugs, but many homes just screwed the appliance into the light socket overhead. Does anyone know when electric wall plugs were in widespread use? 1906 ad DDTJRAC Even big...
Back
Top