Atheists are full of good questions, one of which was recently broached at Common Sense Atheism in the post A question online theists refuse to answer? – that question is

‘Can you prove to me that God exists in a way that will also show that Zeus does not?’

I initially responded by citing my series on Pascal’s Wager, explaining that, while there is no direct empirical evidence for the existence (or non-existence!) of God, there are plenty of other methods for showing a difference in the believability of the various Gods.

One atheist responded that I had missed the point, writing:

What you *really* want here is an experimental test. Show us this goddy thing, and let us fire protons at it.

So let me take another stab at it – rather than giving him the sensible argument I gave (there is no empirical test, but that does not mean that we don’t have other methods by which to distinguish between metaphysical claims), I’ll try another valid one – that is, empirical science is not yet able to measure the spiritual – it can barely quantify, measure, or understand the psychological realm, so what makes us think we can evaluate the spiritual?

Hubris abounds in metaphysical discussions – both sides calling the other idiots for what is patently obvious (God exists, god does not exist), and neither admitting the limits of their own reason, empirical methods, and experience.

Atheists have a very good objection, however, to Christian faith and experience – how come you can’t measure it to show that it is more than imaginary?  Appealing to authority (“the Bible says so”) or to experience (“God is real because He changed my life”) are not really valid logical arguments.

That does not mean that such claims are untrue, only that this is not really proof.  But I would like to suggest that empirical proof for God may be around the corner, and atheists need to suspend judgment.

I’ll add that experiments that have seemed to show that prayer does not change things may be premature, and in and of themselves are not entirely damning or conclusive.

Simple Science

In the beginnings of science, very little of the actual mechanisms behind reality was known. And before instruments were invented to view objects far away, very small, or otherwise invisible to our senses, the existence of such things as galaxies, DNA, or cosmic rays was unknown, and even if postulated, was not confirmable with empirical science.

But then the microscope was invented, and a host of other methods and instruments in physical science, driven by Newtonian physics and advances in chemistry and biology.  Suddenly a whole new realm of reality was available for empirical evaluation.

The Relativity Revolution in Science

Before Albert Einstein, the physical sciences were ruled by the Newtonian view of physics, and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.   Unfortunately, they did not explain some of the empirical observations we were making.  As it turns out, gravitational effects, and the behavior of light were just not well enough understood, not to mention the implications when including the fourth dimension of time.

However, Einsteinian theory led to many more discoveries and empirical methods that we could use to explore our reality.  And a whole new realm of reality was now understandable and quantifiable.

The Quantum Revolution

Quantum physics, however, is opening up yet another realm of reality.  One of the most interesting expermiments is the Double Slit Experiment,