Is God a Scientific Hypothesis?

Religion says God is not a scientific hypothesis for science is about the physical and God is not a physical being.  [It thinks this is a great triumph but it is not when you remember that not all theories need to be scientific theories.]

This claim fits Deism not Theism. Deism is the notion that God brings a universe that is wound up to do its own thing like a clock into existence. Theism however says God is more active than that.

So God as in Deism is not a scientific hypothesis.

God as one who is involved in the universe and how it runs and does miracles and intervenes to answer prayer is a scientific hypothesis.

We will not treat the argument that science sometimes argues that the universe makes itself in some way. That argument calls both Deism and Theism scientific theories.

Religion lies that God is not a scientific theory for it fears science and knows there is a rift between science and religion.

A theory in science is about explaining and must be backed up by evidence. Theories have to build on and connect with other theories. All theories are tested by working out what we must expect if the theory is true. The power to predict then functions as a test.

A theory in science or a hypothesis can refer to something proven. Science always wants to know where it went wrong which is why it never admits that proof is proof. Not all scientific theories are equally supported by the evidence.
 
Is God supported by scientific evidence? Is God a scientific hypothesis? Is the view that science is not about how the universe came to be, but is about the universe that exists any good? Is science about presupposing there is a universe and not how a universe could come to be?
 
The atheist does not necessarily claim that God is scientifically disproven. If science says it then the atheist is not saying it. Science is.
 
If there is no disproof of God that does not mean there may be a God. It only means there could be a disproof we may not have.
 
This is most likely to be a scientific disproof. We have all looked at the logical disproofs and if it is true as religion says that they are flawed, then that leaves only scientific proof that there is no God.
 
What we should think of science
 
Have this disposition, "Science and reason are methods and protect the truth and us from errors and contradictions. We may not use them perfectly but that is not their fault. I know that science and reason work for they are right methods." That is supposed to be a circular argument. But that is like saying that you feel something cold on the table for your sense of touch says so is arguing that "My sense of touch is right and I know it is right for I feel the cold." It is not the same thing. Even if the cold is not there and it's an illusion the fact remains you still feel cold. It is not a circular argument.
 
Science can test for God indirectly
 
How would science disprove God? As there are many versions of God it certainly does disprove many of them.  It would naturally have to regard the doctrine of a God that keeps babies healthy as false when they test a baby and find it is sick.
 
Religion answers that science cannot call God evil for science is not about good and evil. But that depends on what you mean by good and evil. All normal people see it as about what really does or does not give us wellbeing.
 
Science might not use the terms good and evil but it does not need to. It talks about them in a different way.
 
Religion also says that science has no way of telling that God should not let the baby suffer because he might have a purpose that makes it necessary. But the notion of divine plans is theology not science. The scientific method orders that we don't complicate things we do not need to complicate. Therefore science is opposed to theology. Therefore a God that keeps people strong and healthy is against science and is a mere superstition.
 
God being turned into a scientific theory
 
A scientific theory/hypothesis is something that is proven but it is called a theory/hypothesis because science has to always be open to new light. Even when something is proven science has to hold on to a little scepticism - this is to avoid anybody thinking they have proven things when they have not.
 
For God to be a scientific theory you start with the notion that God is real - he is not an abstract concept. God has properties.
 
The next step is to decide what God would be like.
 
The next step is to decide if God just sits there or does anything.
 
Then we have to work out a way of testing the previous steps. Testing reality to see if it functions mechanically and is not guided or controlled by a God is the most important one.

The only way to test is by observation and by experimentation.
 
If after all this we find that everything can be explained without a God we are justified in saying that science indicates we must not believe in God. Parsimony is an important principle in science. For example, if a dog gets an eye infection, science does a test and blames bacteria. It does not ask, "Did this dog eat something mildly toxic that helped the bacteria infect his eye? Though the bacteria is there, could it be innocent? Would he have been okay if somebody hadn't being using fly killer around him?" Too many what ifs means science gets nowhere.
 
It is said by some, "God is not a scientific hypothesis in the sense that you are allowed to deny his existence if the evidence is not good enough - the doctrine says that God can choose to hide his existence or work secretly." But a scientific hypothesis that is dogmatic is still regarded as a scientific hypothesis even if unorthodox. And some theories do complain that they seem immune to refutation.
 
Science also uses hypotheses in the usual sense of the word as a "might be true". If you do science and you concentrate on the evidence-based hypotheses you know that the non-evidence based ones are out there. You just regard them as food for thought. So they are not dismissed. They are just made irrelevant. God is a scientific hypothesis in that sense. He is a might.
 
We conclude that if the God theory does not belong in science the way we need to breathe does, it does belong as a might. Then a might is not much good if a God is that which alone matters and to which all things are to be 100% dedicated!
 
What would a Science God look like?
 
If nature is designed then science can see that. All it has to say is that it is designed and let others suggest what the design is. Design can be tested. But science does NOT say that nature is designed and is clear that it is is NOT. Science is unjustly accused by believers of bias against God but that is not true for an experiment showing design does not necessarily mean there is a God.
 
A Science God then looks like nothing! Simple!
 
Why something rather than nothing?
 
Religion says science is about the how and religion is about the why. Religion claims that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not a scientific question. So God is not a scientific answer. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is indeed a scientific question. We know that by a process of elimination. It is not a religious or moral question. If it were, the only question that would matter is why is there objective morality when there might be none. So it is a scientific question.
 
Religion lies about the question being non-scientific for it is afraid science has disproved God. It wants to protect its idea of God from refutation.
 
Religion says that God is not just a being but is what he does. He is his wisdom. He is his love. He is his creative power. So if you could show by scientific reasoning that there is no explanation for the existence of energy and matter but that it came from nowhere then have you found God? Yes if the doctrine of creation by God is true. God's activity is the same as God himself. If the scientist won't call it God it is still God. The word does not matter. The trouble is that there is no reason to think God really created for the doctrine of God creating is self-refuting.
 
Religion says that science can never show why there is something rather than nothing. But it is guilty of telling science what it cannot know. That is for science to decide. Religion is banning a scientific explanation and banning science from investigating that issue. It is a cruel waste of time and money for science to investigate why the universe exists. If the universe came into existence for no reason and popped into existence science is not allowed to know.
 
Religion fears that this may be the case and is trying to make people ignore science should it be scientifically verified. Religion lies that there is no conflict between science and religion.
 
So religion by teaching the existence of God is sticking its nose into science.
 
Is God a scientific theory?
 
Some people feel that to say that God made all things magically and uses magic to make them work is to advance a scientific hypothesis.
 
But magic contradicts science and any theologian or scientist pretending to be competent agrees. If magic is possible then it makes as much sense to say the tooth fairy magicked the universe into existence as it does to say it was God. There is no reason to prefer one suggestion over the other.
 
In fact involving magic would be to abolish science. Science at best would be a hobby not a tool to discern the truth.
 
If science wants to allow for God even as a tiny possibility, it has to reject the notion of a magical God outright.
 
The trouble is that if God made all things and used nothing to make them then you need proof that that would not be magic. But there is no proof. All agree that no human being can understand how God could do it. You don't know if you are talking about magic or not. You cannot give any evidence that you are not. And science needs evidence.
 
Some theologians say that God gives his evidence that he is there in the heart and by changing lives. They say God is best understood as a verb not as a noun. They see a call to believe in God primarily as a call to love for God is love. They do not mean God is just love. They mean that love is somehow a person. That is how God is taken out of the scientific hypothesis category.

But it doesn't work and they are being disingenuous. Science can measure and test if people become better people than expected or possible.
 
Also, if God is a verb we would expect to see his activity and mark on the universe. But we don't. We don't see anything indicatory of intelligent design.
 
It is more important for us and the universe that God be thought of more as a verb than a noun. Thus we can be sure that there is enough there to call God a scientific hypothesis.
 
Supernatural
 
God is the ultimate supernatural being. His supernatural power is boundless. Even if he never does miracles he is still supernatural in himself. A witch is still magical even if she never uses her magic.

The supernatural means a power that can change the way nature works. For example, it can cause a man who is dead a week to come back to life. It is bigger than nature.
 
The concept raises some questions.

Could the supernatural only work in restricted ways? Perhaps it can cure brain tumours but not lung cancer. Perhaps it can start life off but be unable to look after life. The fact that we can see does not mean we have eyes in the back of our heads. The supernatural being bigger than nature does not mean it is unlimited. It may only be bigger than nature under certain conditions.
 
How strong is the supernatural? Is it able to make you live if you are dead a day? Is two days too late? How long can you be kept alive?
 
Is it able to raise an ant from the dead but not a man?
 
Is it able to make it look like a man rose from the dead by making his coma look like death?
 
The supernatural can work on nature for it is stronger than nature. But that does not mean it actually does work on nature. It may be able to and not bother.
 
If the supernatural seeks to act on nature, perhaps there is another supernatural power that blocks it from doing so? Given all the conflicting magical and supernatural reports in the world, one might wonder if the supernatural is able to agree with itself!
 
Even if science regards the supernatural as possible, it does not regard it as a useful concept. Not all true things or things thought to be true matter. Science only cares about what is testable in principle and in practice.
 
The supernatural by definition is neither.
 
What is useful comes first. Science then is superior to religion and supernatural beliefs.

FINALLY
 
Jerry Coyne: “Does it really matter whether what you believe about God is true - or don’t you care? If it does matter, then you must justify your beliefs; if it doesn’t, then you must justify belief itself.”

God seen as a being who is involved in helping organise what is happening now is anti-science.  Belief in him is anti-science.  Nobody tries to justify because nobody can.  Religion seeks to evade justification by lying about the boundaries of science.