@the joint
I think it was earlier in this thread that you were discussing the FSM analogy and how it was invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, as a monotheistic god relies on a priori as opposed to a posteriori knowledge. I've been thinking about this a little and I still don't fully understand where you're coming from, I was hoping you could be a bit more specific as to what sort of a priori knowledge a monotheistic god would require, as opposed to a polytheistic god.
Yeah, that was either this thread or the 'Christian BS' thread lol.
Yes, I believe the FSM analogy is invalid when referring to a monotheistic god, but would be applicable to polytheistic gods.
The defining characteristics constituting polytheistic gods are such that they described as finite. They are stated to be real and inhabiting a real space that is greater than they are. They are real actors in a real Universe, and so accordingly there should be real evidence of their finite existence if they do indeed exist. Accordingly, FSM analogies are relevant to polytheistic gods. The general purpose of the FSM argument is to demonstrate that it's silly to believe in the existence of something simply because you imagine that it could exist. We can imagine polytheistic gods to exist, and for imaginary reference we can look to, for example, the portrayal of ancient Greek gods.
The defining characteristics of a monotheistic god are very different. Monotheistic gods are not finite. They are described as omnipotent, and accordingly there is nothing greater or more comprehensive than a monotheistic god (i.e. if monotheistic gods are not bound by Universal law, then it follows that they operate at an equal or higher order of operative syntax). Because monotheistic gods are at least as comprehensive as the real universe, it is impossible to imagine a monotheistic god, and therefore impossible to ever find evidence to constitute proof for the existence of such an entity. Specifically, it is impossible because our scope of observation would need to be at least as comprehensive as the entire Universe.
As a result, the question posed in the subject heading of this thread (i.e. " Scientific proof that God exists?" can be answered in two words -- "Not possible."
The take-home message from everything written to this point is this: It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.
Now, with regards to 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge: Polythestic gods as well as the FSM could be proven true via 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. by way of evidence). In other words, we can imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that polytheistic gods or the FSM exist. If a giant monster made of spaghetti flew into your room through an open window, you would be able to claim proof for the existence of the FSM. If some jacked guy wearing a diaper started throwing down lightning bolts everywhere, you would be able to claim proof for Zeus.
There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere. So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists? Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer. 'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract. A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge. A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge. Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.
The debate about the existence of God should be a logical one founded upon sound ideas. So, the type of 'a priori' proof needed for the existence of god is a theory that demonstrates that God either must or must not exist by logical necessity. But, it would be a mistake to just take some arbitrary definition of God and prove whether that definition exists (to do so would be to commit an inductive fallacy, for how would you ever know that you were right about the thing that you just proved?). So, it's probably not the best route to even start with any preconceived notions about god.
Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself. Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!
To answer your question about what 'a priori' knowledge would constitute proof for the existence of a monotheistic god, I think that if a theory of theories demonstrates that theories -- which are inherently mental and
must require an intelligent theorizer -- are solely responsible for all real physical and abstract phenomena including other theories, then I think this is proof for a monotheistic god.
Your stance is based upon the preconception that a monotheistic god cannot choose to take physical form (ie. a burning bush) and in fact keep such a form if it so desires indefinately. If we all agree that a truely omnipotent being could do anything if it so wills it, then it must be true that this includes taking form of a teapot or FSM. Although we might believe it to be improbable or even rediculous that god would actually choose to do this, it does not make it impossible. Therefore, I believe the FSM analogy is acceptable, however unpalatable.
