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

[Kylie]

Sure! Demons spirits can cause effects also.

Prove there are demons.

 

[Kylie]

One can only hope God will reach them somehow.

Why don't you pray that God will convince me?

 

[dad]

And I've told you why those things aren't valid evidence

You are wrong.

Prophecy isn't reliable - it could have been made after the fact,

Prove it.

it may have been vague and thuis fit lots of things,

Not applicable to the bible. The virgin birth, for example, in Bethlehem, from the seed of David is specific. Jesus foretelling the destruction of the temple was specific.

and the events which fulfilled it may not have actually happened.

The bible events did happen. Israel really went into captivity in Babylon for 70 years.

Miracles aren't valid because there's no way to eliminate all other causes.

False. Raising the dead or healing people lame since birth and have them walk and lea is not possible naturally. (add the hundreds of miracles cited in the bible to that list)

Resurrection is a story with no testable evidence.

If He is alive it is tested! If He was seen it is tested.

 

[dad]

Prove there are demons.

Prove the sky is blue.

 

[dad]

Why don't you pray that God will convince me?

OK

 

[Kylie]

You are wrong.

Do you really think that making statements is all that is required? Anyone can do that. Doesn't mean a thing. Come back when you have evidence.

Prove it.

Vaticinium ex eventu - Wikipedia

Not applicable to the bible. The virgin birth, for example, in Bethlehem, from the seed of David is specific. Jesus foretelling the destruction of the temple was specific.

If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I gave a few other examples of why prophecies are not reliable. They could have been written after the fact. Or the events that fulfilled the prophecy could be inventions.

The bible events did happen. Israel really went into captivity in Babylon for 70 years.

So? You think that if a source mentions one event that really happened, then ALL the events it mentions must have happened as well?

Well, Star Trek mentioned the moon landing of Apollo 11. AND it did it before the mission was launched AND it correctly prophesied what day it would launch on! Thus, not only has Star Trek been proven as a reliable source of prophecy, but it also proves that there are really Klingons out there.

False. Raising the dead or healing people lame since birth and have them walk and lea is not possible naturally. (add the hundreds of miracles cited in the bible to that list)

Of course, you are completely incapable of giving me anything more than stories of this happening.

If He is alive it is tested! If He was seen it is tested.

And all you have are stories!

 

[Kylie]

Prove the sky is blue.

When light coming from the open sky is measured, it gives a reading of 450-485 nm, thus the sky is blue.

Now, prove there are demons.

 

[Kylie]

OK

Do you think it will work?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to be insinuating that the apostles lied, and Jesus, and that some con job was going on with fake miracles.

No. It's a well-known characteristic in psychology that verbal anecdotes and stories become exaggerated and embellished with repeated retelling; it makes them more interesting, exciting, etc. There's typically nothing deceitful or mendacious about it, it's the way the brain, particularly with regard to memory, works. The same effect occurs with autobiographical memory - people primed to recall a childhood event that they didn't actually experience will recall the event and embellish it with details of their own. Episodic memories are surprisingly unreliable.

The child was understood to be the Son of God. You apparently are suggesting that the angels telling Elizabeth, Mary, Joseph and Zechariah that God sent the Messiah were lying as well as Jesus, His family and followers, and all who have tested Him since then.

Not at all; I think the angels were probably imaginary. People were primed for that kind of belief, the culture was awash with superstitious and supernatural memes, narratives, and explanations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying rape is holy? That's an interesting defence!

This is what you get with divine command theory, one horn of the Euthyphro dilemma - things are good purely by virtue of being commanded by God, regardless of how you feel about it. The everyday excuse for such things (holy rape, etc.) is GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways). It makes right and wrong subordinate to God's arbitrary whim, and appears to introduce a moral duality where God is no longer a moral exemplar, i.e. "Do as I say, not as I do".

When what is good is defined as what God does (or is), the very concept of good evaporates, it can be anything God decides - so 'God is good' == 'God is God'; 'God does what is good' == 'God does what God does'; 'God commands what is good' == 'God commands what God commands'.

If you plump for the other horn of the dilemma, that God commands what is good because it is good, then God is demoted from moral source to messenger for absolute morality.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Mary had nothing to do with that.

I thought she got pregnant. She had no say in the matter, and that's really the point I'm making. Getting a woman pregnant without her permission is not something you should celebrate.

 

[pitabread]

You cannot do it with evidence.

That's not how the burden of proof works. The onus is on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence to substantiate it.

If you want to claim that Mary was a real person, that Gabriel is a real angel, and that the alleged conversation was a real event, then you need to provide evidence to substantiate that.

But if you're trying to shift the burden of proof, then that is a sign of a weak claim.

Doubts have no value.

What makes you think that?

 

[jamesbond007]

You don't have to read the papers .. the press release explains:

This paper is 8 years old! The research I'm quoting was only published 6 months ago! In it they're saying they don't need aminos in water in order to form peptides.

Who ever said they did that?

Heh. You act like this was some great accomplishment. The problem with evolutionary thinking such as this is it lacks details and follow up. Look how short your explanations are .

Why don't you explain more about these precursors aminonitriles?

You're still trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Atheist scientists and you are desperately trying to come up with abiogenesis or just another form of spontaneous generation. Are you going to claim that we will need a billion years for the chance that what these scientists claim will happen? Water will seep through. There is probably no experiment that we can continue beyond our lifetimes.

Besides, you're still a long ways away from forming amino acids, let alone proteins, from peptides. These atheist scientists and you are overlooking chirality, the universal solvent of water, and most importantly how God designed these things.

If you cannot provide more information than what you said above, then I can just move on.

ETA:

The devil's in the details. Here's a more recent rebuttal that I read -- Origin of Life: Can Peptides Form Naturally in Water? | CEH.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Jesus was about fulfilling hundreds of prophecies, and virgin birth, and having angels from heaven announce Him, and having the Father confirm it, etc. You made up the storytelling part.

Just presenting a more plausible alternative hypothesis.

Try to find something you know something about. Your slander about Jesus and the gospel being a story is made up nonsense with no basis in fact or evidence.

It uses exactly the same evidence base as the supernatural claims, but unlike them, has a basis in empirical human psychology and behaviour. Calling it 'made up nonsense with no basis in fact or evidence' is telling projection, consistent with a strong emotional commitment to those imaginative confabulations.

 

[dad]

Do you really think that making statements is all that is required? Anyone can do that. Doesn't mean a thing. Come back when you have evidence.

You made a statement. So I also made one.

If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I gave a few other examples of why prophecies are not reliable. They could have been written after the fact. Or the events that fulfilled the prophecy could be inventions.

No. Not in the bible. When Daniel told a king of Babylon what kingdoms were to follow after his, it turned out to be reliable, and Daniel lived many centuries before the other kingdoms came to the fore.

So? You think that if a source mentions one event that really happened, then ALL the events it mentions must have happened as well?

When most bible prophecy is now history, and none failed, yes, of course. God is like that. He usually gave the prophet a local event that would happen, so that they would also believe the things prophesied further in the future. Like a Royal Signet and seal.

Well, Star Trek

No comparison. One is fiction. The other is God's word and record.
Baseless doubts do not cut it.

 

[dad]

When light coming from the open sky is measured, it gives a reading of 450-485 nm, thus the sky is blue.

Now, prove there are demons.

When people foamed at the mouth, cut themselves and talked words from devils, people knew they had demons. When Jesus cast them out the people were of sound mind.

 

[dad]

No. It's a well-known characteristic in psychology that verbal anecdotes and stories become exaggerated and embellished with repeated retelling; it makes them more interesting, exciting, etc. There's typically nothing deceitful or mendacious about it, it's the way the brain, particularly with regard to memory, works. The same effect occurs with autobiographical memory - people primed to recall a childhood event that they didn't actually experience will recall the event and embellish it with details of their own. Episodic memories are surprisingly unreliable.

Wishful thinking. Prophets who lied were to be killed in ancient Israel. A prophet had better be telling the truth. Jesus had His life witnessed by multitudes. It is not a sound proposition to claim all were delusional and making it up. Jesus stated clearly that He was going to His Father in Heaven, and would send His Spirit back to men to assure that they remembered the things He said and did completely correctly. It is an affront to the Almighty to claim that He messed it all up and was not able to perform what He promised. All of your reasons omit God.

Not at all; I think the angels were probably imaginary. People were primed for that kind of belief, the culture was awash with superstitious and supernatural memes, narratives, and explanations.

Today, most believe in spirits as well, if I recall a survey I saw. All cultures of all ages of history on the planet also believed in the spiritual. Rather than all of mankind being primed, I suggest you are primed for disbelief.

 

[dad]

I thought she got pregnant. She had no say in the matter, and that's really the point I'm making. Getting a woman pregnant without her permission is not something you should celebrate.

Completely false. She was tickled pink! She agreed wholeheartedly.

Lu 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

[pitabread]

When people foamed at the mouth, cut themselves and talked words from devils, people knew they had demons.

There was a time when a lack of understanding of illness (particularly mental illness) led people to misattribute such things to the supernatural. Fortunately we have a much better understanding of those things today and don't need to resort to supernaturalism to explain them.

When Jesus cast them out the people were of sound mind.

So the stories go. But as you've explained to us, since that happened in the past we can't verify those stories today.

 

[Kylie]

You made a statement. So I also made one.

The difference is that I added an explanation to my statement, you did not.

No. Not in the bible. When Daniel told a king of Babylon what kingdoms were to follow after his, it turned out to be reliable, and Daniel lived many centuries before the other kingdoms came to the fore.

Unfortunately, the bits about the prophecy in Daniel were added by anonymous authors after the fact. (Collins, John J. (2002). "Current Issues in the Study of Daniel". In Collins, John J.; Flint, Peter W.; VanEpps, Cameron (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. ISBN 978-9004116757.)

When most bible prophecy is now history, and none failed, yes, of course. God is like that. He usually gave the prophet a local event that would happen, so that they would also believe the things prophesied further in the future. Like a Royal Signet and seal.

Plenty have failed.

No comparison. One is fiction. The other is God's word and record.

Star Trek is the word and record of the Great Bird of the Galaxy, how can you deny it?

Baseless doubts do not cut it.

Except I've explained the basis for them, haven't I? You're the one who makes unsupported arguments.