There’s no argument, IMO, that God and Science can not exist together. The argument is that God is not a scientific explanation.
If you can't design an experiment to test whether God exists, then God is not a part of science.
You’ve touched upon an extremely interesting and valid point. Great post. I’d like to offer a counter opinion for you to consider. I'll apologise in advance for touching the co-existence argument briefly again.
Just because we as a species don’t have the mental capacity, intelligence or technology to design a scientifically viable experiment to prove something, does that immediately lead to the conclusion that the said something therefore doesn’t exist, and thereby cannot be an explanation?
What if billions of people experienced the said something ever since we became consciously aware as a species? Is that evidence in itself?
A very crude analogy would be gravity. It is a force. It has always existed. People (in fact everything that has ever existed in this universe) have always experienced it, everyday. The theory and evidence for gravity was only complied by Galileo and Newton in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But I think we can safely conclude that gravity existed before we had the mental capacity and intelligence to design an experiment to prove it.
Therefore I suppose you could rationalise that science and gravity didn’t and couldn’t co-exist before the late 16th century. Therefore gravity wasn’t a scientific explanation before that time of things falling to Earth. But nevertheless, the potential for discovery has always existed. It was just our limited intellectual capacity and awareness of our environment and scientific methodology and understanding that prevented this union.
Conclusion
Lack of human scientific method and evidence at a specified point in time is irrelevant to the continuing and ever-present existence of a natural law or phenomenon.
This rationale in the argument that “God is not part of science” maybe technically correct at this point in time, but it has serious flaws when the potential for future discoveries/revelations is considered.
Does the fact that people claim to have experienced this/a God for over 3 millennia place it in the realms of natural theory? Isn’t the job of sciences to investigate natural theories, even in the face of stubborn opinions guided by a Holy book?
The theory that a God exists is the oldest theory in human history. But don’t get me wrong, I am quite aware that science is the only legitimate way to investigate the natural world.
The question I put to you is how do you explain the quite often dramatic changes in personality and lifestyle upon finding and believing in this God? How do you explain the proposed healings at some Christian events? What about the proposed affects of prayer?
What about more popular mysterious natural occurrences often attributed to God? Such as the creation of the universe, abiogenesis (which has everything to do with evolution imho), evolution (of everything individual and collective), and the complexities of DNA?
What about human experiences, altruism for example. The pure, un-selfless love and kindness of a complete stranger who asks for nothing in return (think Good Samaritan), this has no place within the boundaries of evolution. Why is it built into us?
What about the theory that God drives everything in the universe, and therefore scientific progress itself?
Let us not forget that current scientific thinking and methodology is only just at the tip of the iceberg of understanding these above phenomenons. Do you think it is wise to just eliminate God from the argument as a proposed cause just because we are completely unable to grasp how to evaluate and measure His proposed contribution at this time?
I agree I would love to see qualitative evidence by questionnaire or population studies of the personality and lifestyle changes produced by finding God. Or to see quantitative scientific research examining brain biochemistry, physiology and electrical activity before during or after finding God, or during moments when people state they experience God’s presence or moments of altruism. Perhaps even medically viable research and valid and reliable measurement of the “healings” that are so often proposed to occur at some Christian gatherings. Or evidence from the realm of physics that a guiding universal force exists or from biology that ours and the universes evolution has been guided since time began.
At this moment in time, the only evidence we have is the subjective evidence of human’s communicating their experience of God (and all the scientifically viable weaknesses that come along with it).
Conclusion: I think more evidence and understanding is required before completely eliminating God as a factor. God is currently an unknown and un-measurable contribution. Maybe we should spend some time investigating whether scientifically viable models including God can be found.
You maybe partly correct, maybe in the rationalising minds of many people at this present snapshot in time God and science cannot co-exist together. Maybe they never will, maybe we will never have the ability to join these two disciplines, or maybe we are all kidding ourselves and we are truly alone with no majestic all-powerful and knowing force that guides life for good.
I personally believe (have faith with no real evidence) that the majestic force we call God has wonders completely unimaginable to us. All I know for a fact through personal experience is the amazing grace and love that can be felt and experienced from just accepting His gift of awareness taught to us by men who walked the earth, and it completely and unexpectedly changed my life for the better. Thus since I have experienced that side of God’s grace, I feel compelled to seek Him further in other areas He has been proposed to exist in. But everyone is perfectly entitled to justify their lives, experiences and opinions however they want. That’s freedom of choice, and the spice of life, and their own personal journey of life, this of course should always be treated with respect.
For the very little it is worth my journey includes a scientific research education in biochemistry and physiology, followed by a healthcare background in the medical profession. I have conducted recognised scientific research involving human subjects and am aware of the restrictions in this realm of scientific evidence. Hence my interest in these sciences vs. God threads, I simply would like to understand more. I found and experienced God after I had these qualifications, and I believe that if God wanted to reveal himself or his works in a manner that is scientifically acceptable, that there are many ways he could do it in the future.
Or of course, He could just do it in a way that makes scientific evidence completely irrelevant. Making the creationists very happy and leaving the rest of us completely mystified.
I also think given the highly controversial advances science will probably make in the next century. Including stem cells, nanotechnology (possibly into humans), robotics and genetic manipulation to name just a few. That considering the guidance of a force that only does the "highest" and "purest" choice in guiding the evolution of our race may not be a bad idea.
Conclusion
To atheists and agnostics the existence of God is a theory. A theory can be proved or disproved by sciences. The proposed existence of God is the ultimate question for science. Therefore God and Science are on an inevitable collision course. Unfortunately they seemed to have offended each other in the past to the extent they appear sometimes to be two incompatible disciplines.
There are potential ways that scientific methods could possibly provide insight into the works of God in the future, or more explicitly the affects of God on workings of humans or nature. Of course these results may or may not prove anything in either direction, possibly even eliminating God as a factor in some areas.
Maybe you are right. I should rephrase my argument to “Science and God can potentially co-exist for our species if and when scientific methods are refined enough to test for the works of God humans are said to experience. And/or/depending upon God wanting to be discovered”.
As Science develops in complexity it will need moral guidance for us to continue to evolve in most advanced way following a pure scientific path and prevent our own destruction and that of our planet. Considering guidance from a "higher" power may not be a bad idea if it exists. Ironically I think Science and God need each more than at any other time in history