How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[dad]

Those stories are all hearsay, mostly involving the adult.

The observed events of the life of Christ were witnessed by many people. He is still witnessed today by believers by His Spirit and word working. That is proof He rose from the dead. We have the witnesses, so we have observations. It was tested in many ways and it is tested today. We have tesability. We have repeatability. Now if prophecies had failed, and say, the temple was still standing, well the prophecy from Jesus would have been falsified.

I was talking about the baby, and unverifiable claims that no man was involved in the impregnation and anecdotes about angels are not physical evidence.

When God akes a woman pregnant, the only observation possible is after the fact. To pretend otherwise is worse than silly. The claims WERE verified by the Son of God being born, fulfilling the prophecies, and raising from the dead and sending His Spirit to help us! In what way are you suggesting science could now other than that?

 

[dad]

As I have said repeatedly, I'm not looking for the what. I'm looking for the how. You've failed to explain the latter.

In whatever way God sees fit.We now HOW He did it. He used witnesses and fulfilled the prophecy of a virgin conceiving, to come to earth. How would you suggest anything better? How would you cause a virgin to conceive in another way, that would satisfy your demands? Was it not good enough He sent angels to Joseph, Elizabeth, and Zechariah also? Was it not enough He sent angels to shepherds in the fields? Was it not sufficient that He sent a star in the sky to be observed by wise men to follow? Was it not sufficient that the year He was to be born was given hundreds of years before in Daniel? Was it not enough that Jesus fulfilled over 300 scripture promises, and healed literally multitudes in Israel? Was it not enough that He rose from the dead appearing to about at least 500 people!? Was it not enough that the giant temple, so many years in the building was destroyed as He said? Etc.

you bring Mary as an example of the supernatural being tested, but then you claim it's the past and we can't test that claim now (to verify that the supernatural was involved).

The test was with Mary, not you! You cannot time travel and test anything in the past. What color were Napoleon's socks? The level of denial is absurd.
Mary had a spiritual encounter and she tested it in her body. She was the test tube, and the reactions were bang on!

 

[durangodawood]

...The test was with Mary, not you! You cannot time travel and test anything in the past. What color were Napoleon's socks? The level of denial is absurd.
Mary had a spiritual encounter and she tested it in her body. She was the test tube, and the reactions were bang on!

The story doesnt present Mary's pregnancy as her test, nor anyone else's. It reads as God's will, not a test.

 

[dad]

The story doesnt present Mary's pregnancy as her test, nor anyone else's. It reads as God's will, not a test.

The test was there for all who were involved to see. She believed, and the result could be tested. Physically. Obviously having the honor of being the mother of God was not the test.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The level of denial is absurd.

Lol. Coming from dad, that is an extremely funny accusation.

dad: despite the evidence, nature was different in the past
dad: you cannot test the past
dad: there were no direct witnesses to certain key events in the bible
dad: stories written many years after an event, by biased authors, based on 3rd hand oral accounts are all the evidence we need

Lol

 

[dad]

Lol. Coming from dad, that is an extremely funny accusation.

dad: despite the evidence, nature was different in the past

Correction: No evidence exists to tell us what nature was like in the far past on earth that has ever been posted.

dad: you cannot test the past

You cannot test spirits. If you make claims about there being no spirits, you are talking opinion without a basis.

dad: there were no direct witnesses to certain key events in the bible

Obviously.

dad: stories written many years after an event, by biased authors, based on 3rd hand oral accounts are all the evidence we need

God confirmed records cannot be waved off by wishful doubters for no reason at all.

 

[pitabread]

The level of denial is absurd.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The observed events of the life of Christ were witnessed by many people. He is still witnessed today by believers by His Spirit and word working. That is proof He rose from the dead. We have the witnesses, so we have observations. It was tested in many ways and it is tested today. We have tesability. We have repeatability.

It's not proof of anything, it's just evidence that people believe the story. But people believe all kinds of nonsense. By those criteria, almost any religious story and belief from any religion must be true with 'testability' and 'repeatability'.

When God akes a woman pregnant, the only observation possible is after the fact. To pretend otherwise is worse than silly. The claims WERE verified by the Son of God being born, fulfilling the prophecies, and raising from the dead and sending His Spirit to help us! In what way are you suggesting science could now other than that?

I'm not the one claiming testable evidence on a science forum - I asked you how the baby was physically distinguishable from a normal human baby conceived in the usual way. All I'm hearing is claims about angels and spirits... I think that speaks for itself.

 

[dad]

It's not proof of anything, it's just evidence that people believe the story.

I find it also proof that some people disbelieve for no reason and deny and doubt as it suits their desire to wrap reality and science around a life of sin. Since hundreds of millions of people have tested it to see if God was true, I would not be quick to call them all liars. Since Jesus appeared to many hundreds of people after rising from the dead, that is not a matter of being a story anymore. Since thousands, if not tens of thousands or more were healed of blindness, leprosy, deafness, being lame or even dead, it is beyond reason to pretend it was all some rumor.

But people believe all kinds of nonsense. By those criteria, almost any religious story and belief from any religion must be true with 'testability' and 'repeatability'.

Nor would I dismiss other religions or the spirits that work in them out of hand! You seem to want to offend everyone on earth but the folks involved in origin science guessing here.

I'm not the one claiming testable evidence on a science forum

No you are not.

- I asked you how the baby was physically distinguishable from a normal human baby conceived in the usual way.

Well, Gabriel does not visit directly from the throne of the Almighty God to tell other moms that the she will conceive wit no man involved at all and that the child would be God.
Most moms would not have an angel appear to an old woman that was way past childbearing who also miraculously got pregnant that also told her Mary was carrying the Holy Child. Nor does a mother find that an angel appears to her husband to assure him she was not cheating, and confirm she was pregnant from God!

All I'm hearing is claims about angels and spirits... I think that speaks for itself.

Scripture records lots of those. That is the name of the game. So do other religions. You trying to wave it all away for no reason says it all.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hearsay is a powerful medium if people are saying what you want to hear.

People's opinions are not evidence or meaningful tests.
Anecdotes are not evidence or meaningful tests.
Beliefs are not evidence or meaningful tests.
Opinions, anecdotes and beliefs recorded in writing are not evidence or meaningful tests.
Everything you have thus far claimed to be evidence or a meaningful test is not.

 

[pitabread]

I find it also proof that some people disbelieve for no reason

If you want to find out why people don't accept the Bible the way you do, perhaps you should try asking them why they don't believe it.

 

[SelfSim]

... You seem to want to offend everyone on earth but the folks involved in origin science guessing here.

Any of science's counterintuitive findings would be offensive to anyone driven by beliefs.
The offence is taken because of the belief (inferred) .. ie: the counterintuitive finding is taken as being an 'override' of the untestable truth underpinning the belief.
Truth can be reassigned .. that's how wisdom operates.

 

[dad]

If you want to find out why people don't accept the Bible the way you do, perhaps you should try asking them why they don't believe it.

If no reason is offered and no reason is possible, then no reason it is. Can you give any reasons why someone would claim Gabriel never appeared to Mary for example? There can be no reason, no one can check.

 

[dad]

Any of science's counterintuitive findings would be offensive to anyone driven by beliefs.

Science does not say what the poster said that was his opinion. Science has no idea about spirits.

The offence is taken because of the belief (inferred) .. ie: the counterintuitive finding is taken as being an 'override' of the untestable truth underpinning the belief.

No. Doubting spirits for NO reason overrides nothing!

Truth can be reassigned .. that's how wisdom operates.

Wisdom comes from asking God. Truth also. No one can reassign either.

 

[SelfSim]

If no reason is offered and no reason is possible, then no reason it is. Can you give any reasons why someone would claim Gabriel never appeared to Mary for example? There can be no reason, no one can check.

It doesn't require a reason to disbelieve a belief.
Beliefs, by definition, don't require any reason .. and so they can be dismissed on the same basis.

 

[SelfSim]

Science does not say what the poster said that was his opinion. Science has no idea about spirits.

An objective test can be devised where an opinion can be demonstrated as being based on a belief (eg: such as 'spirits').

No. Doubting spirits for NO reason overrides nothing!

Then believing in them must have the same effect.

Wisdom comes from asking God.

The source is irrelevant where it results in an alteration of what was believed as being true.

Truth also. No one can reassign either.

Done all the time .. otherwise wisdom would be completely without meaning.

 

[dad]

It doesn't require a reason to disbelieve a belief.

It does require a reason to claim spirits do not exist or that a recorded encounter with angels is false.

Scripture can't be dismissed. It can be rejected.

 

[dad]

An objective test can be devised where an opinion can be demonstrated as being based on a belief (eg: such as 'spirits').

No. It certainly cannot. Gad sends angels where and when He likes. You can't test it. Nor can you question it with any evidence or reason.

Then believing in them must have the same effect.

People have reasons for believing in spirits! Reasons like they heard from heaven or saw an angel etc. You have NO reason to try to claim such events false.

The source is irrelevant where it results in an alteration of what was believed as being true.

False. The wisdom that s from above is from God. It is very relevant that we get it from Him.
The wisdom that is from below is not of God. Just because man has some wisdom does not mean it is from God! Science should remember this.

Done all the time .. otherwise wisdom would be completely without meaning.

Truth is either true or not. One does not reassign the truth. Jesus, for example IS the Truth. No one reassigns Him.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If no reason is offered and no reason is possible, then no reason it is. Can you give any reasons why someone would claim Gabriel never appeared to Mary for example? There can be no reason, no one can check.

It appears you do not understand the difference between making a specific claim (Gabriel did not appear) and failing to accept somebody else's claim (I have no reason to believe your claim that Gabriel appeared).

 

[SelfSim]

False. The wisdom that is from above is from God. It is very relevant that we get it from Him.
The wisdom that is from below is not of God. Just because man has some wisdom does not mean it is from God!

Glad you agree its all still wisdom then .. (regardless of its source).

Truth is either true or not. One does not reassign the truth.

It was once true that the Sun & planets revolved around a flat Earth .. somehow that truth changed!?

Jesus, for example IS the Truth.

There are a large populations of other religions where this is simply not the case.

One does not reassign the truth.

It seems the other religious folk I referred to above, did though.

Truth is either true or not. One does not reassign the truth. Jesus, for example IS the Truth. No one reassigns Him.

Yes .. that's what you take as being your truth .. In science truth is nothing more than the last best tested theory. Scientific theories are always subject to contextuality and provisionality .. (aka: their 'truth' is reassignable with new data .. eg: as with the transition from Geocentric to Heliocentic models of the Solar System).