God’s Existence Is Not Scientific

Atheists often speak in scientific terms to support their view of God’s non-existence. They’ll say things like, “I do not see any evidence that God exists, so I reject your hypothesis.” 

This idea that God’s existence is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested and either confirmed or rejected is incompatible with the definition of science.

According to Google, science is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Even the most fervent Christian would admit that if God exists, He certainly doesn’t exist in the physical world as we know it. God is a supernatural being whose existence is more akin to the existence of the number 2 than to say… a rubber ball.

Yes, we have a way of drawing the number 2 so as to represent the concept, but you can’t really put your hands on the number 2 like you can a rubber ball. 

You can have 2 of something, but again, that’s different than a singular, physical thing.

God’s existence is like the number 2. You can’t touch Him in a physical sense, but that’s not the same as non-existence.

So, if God cannot be proven through scientific means, how should we frame our debates surrounding His existence?

Cue the Philosophers

To start, I think we should have realistic expectations about what we can hope to accomplish through philosophical debate and examination. Perhaps the famous American philosopher, Peter van Inwagen, said it best: “There are certainly successful arguments, both in everyday life and in the sciences. But are there successful philosophical arguments? I know of none. (That is, I know of none for any substantive philosophical thesis.)” (Inwagen, 2006)

Dr. Inwagen is not saying that there is nothing to be gained from philosophy. (He has made a very successful career debating its many topics.) He is only proposing that philosophy, unlike science, has no clear “right” answers. 

Hypotheses are not tested. There will be no resulting data sets to analyze or graphs to chart. Philosophy, in a nutshell, is simply the pursuit of maximum coherence of ideas.

The philosophers job is to very closely examine ideas and beliefs to identify gaps and inconsistencies. And… this may come as a shock, but according to Dr. Inwagen, every philosophical argument has gaps and inconsistencies.

In a recent interview regarding the contemptuous relationship between science and philosophy, Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein said, “The kind of progress philosophy is after isn’t the same as the progress sought by the empirical sciences, namely to discover the nature of physical reality. And it isn’t the same as progress sought by mathematics, which aims to discover conceptual truths about abstract structures. Rather, it’s a kind of progress that has to do with us, the complicated reason-giving creatures who happily coexist with many inconsistencies, and it’s the business of philosophy to make that coexistence a less happy one. 

“Philosophers pay careful attention to what’s being asserted, separating out different possible meanings with their associated truth conditions, forcing hidden premises out into the open and proving arguments and intuitions behind them, laying out the range of possibilities revealed when you’re forced to justify your inferences, which often reveal new possibilities that are worth pursuing in their own right. And sometimes these possibilities feed new scientific research (as philosophical analysis opened the way for interpretations of quantum mechanics beyond the “Copenhagen interpretation” of Neils Bohr) or even mathematical research (the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Goedel are a good example) or they help us to make moral progress, as when our general ethical intuitions concerning the rights and dignity of human beings were philosophically demonstrated to be incompatible with say, the practices of slavery.”

What is the Relationship Between Science and Philosophy?

Science and philosophy rely on different techniques in their pursuit of truth. This does not mean, however, that the two are mutually exclusive. As Dr. Goldstein points out, philosophy has helped point the way for science in its understanding of quantum mechanics.

Science has also helped point the way for philosophy. For example, the cosmological argument — the argument that time and space were created and thus must have a creator — described within this blog relies heavily on the Big Bang Theory for support.

The inverse is also true for the atheist. Their lack of belief in God can certainly be inspired by their review of scientific discoveries, but it can never be proven by them.

While distinctly different, science and philosophy also complement each other. The advancement of one discipline relies heavily on the advancement of the other. 

Conclusion

The debate surrounding God’s existence is a philosophical one. Christians must understand this and adjust their arguments accordingly. We must stop engaging in nonsensical “scientific” discussions with atheists over our beliefs.  

Instead of quietly accepting that we have “no scientific basis” for our faith, we must point out the obvious. 

OF COURSE, IT DOESN’T HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BASIS! It’s a philosophical argument. Which, by the way, atheism is as well. 

The fact of the matter is that both atheists and theists have simply reviewed the evidence and reached different conclusions. No more, no less. 

---

If you enjoyed this post, please share it with your friends on social media.  Help other Millennials discover the rational case for God.

Also, please check out our other blog posts on the ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God. 

And don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to our blog and join the campaign to bring Millennials back to the Faith!

---

Bibliography

Inwagen, P. v. (2006). The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of St. Andrews in 2003. Oxford University Press.