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

[Bungle_Bear]

How do you propose to 'test' the past and future exactly?

According to you we can't test the past. That's why I asked why anyone should accept something they cannot be sure of.

The bible is tested and true. What it says about the past is now history.

How was the bible tested if we cannot test the past? You reject a lot of history, so being historical does not make the bible reliable or demonstrate testability (apparently).

 

[Kylie]

FYI, I wasn't expecting (or asking) you to provide any evidence "against" the notion that committing murder is (at least in some cases) a form of "mental illness", and you're welcome to disagree if you like, it doesn't matter to me.

As I mentioned, I can conceive of some instances (like self defense or by accident) where murder might be the only logical option or it's not intentional, but in such instances people are usually not convicted of 'murder' to begin with.

No, the issue is that you claimed people who murder are usually suffering from a mental illness. I asked you to back up that claim with evidence, and you said you weren't required to.

It need not "do the job as well" (or as often) as medicine, but why would someone want to take drugs to cure their depression if they have the same (or better) result by embracing (a) religion? I don't see that as being an "inferior" choice.

Except you can't even show that it does the job as well as or better than medication.

Can you demonstrate (via a study) that we can get rid of the religious aspects entirely and still get the same result, or are you expecting me to "disprove" that claim for you?

I could say, "I don't really feel obligated to do that," but I actually prefer to debate with integrity, and I'm happy to provide my sources. So, yes, I can.

I said it was likely the social interactions of going to church that created the improvement in mental health, not the religious aspects of church attendance. Here's a study supporting that. Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy

Now, since I have provided a source to back up my claims, I expect you to do the same.

Provide a source saying that people who commit murder usually do so because they suffer from mental illnesses.

 

[Kylie]

You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then. OK. Not really so impressive.

You are utterly incapable of proving that they do exist.

 

[Kylie]

No one made up spirits, good or bad. They are found in Scripture. You can deny for no reason at all, or you can respect the overwhelming majority of people's experiences and beliefs.

Doesn't make them real. And if there's not a single shred of evidence to support the claim, then why should I believe it?

Not really. When offering an unsupported opinion on demons, not sure anyone much cares.

I don't see many people turning to an exorcist to cure them of their mental illnesses though, do you?

No such thing as a burden of proof in the realm of physical evidence when talking about the spiritual. There is the burden of denial or belief.

Anything to squirm out of having to support your claims, huh?

What is the point of bring science into it, if it cannot discern spiritual things but only see the effects in the physical?

So you want to ignore the stuff that disagrees with you and only listen to whatever tells you what you want to hear.

Good luck getting the truth with that.

No. You cannot kill God or angels, or even demons.

I think you didn't understand what I am saying.

I am saying that the benefit they got was from having social interactions. They did not get the benefit because of the religious nature of going to church.

They could have gone to a games night and played games with their friends and socialised like that and they would have gotten much the same results.

Or they could send you somewhere...whatever.

Vague and ill-defined rudeness just shows what sort of person you really are.

 

[dad]

According to you we can't test the past.

Science cannot test what spirits existed or not. They can't test what nature existed here etc.

We can test Scripture by doing as God said and see if it works. It does. It always has, like Mary found out.

That's why I asked why anyone should accept something they cannot be sure of.

We can be sure if we do as God asked. He said if we do what He says then we will know. I am also sure that bible prophecy has been fulfilled. Done deal. Tried, tested proven and repeated. Science can't be sure because it does not have a clue on spiritual matters.

How was the bible tested if we cannot test the past?

The Scripture and spiritual WAS tested by Mary. She felt and heard and saw the proof.
The Scripture IS tested today by those who do what He says because they then know if it is true. It is also tested by looking at the prophecies that are now history.

You reject a lot of history, so being historical does not make the bible reliable or demonstrate testability (apparently).

The issue is not accepting all of history as gospel, but whether we accept the fundamental ground rules of life when it was written. We do not need to know that a king conquered all the other guys that he claims, for example. But when a king says he ate food, that should be valued as evidence that food was eaten at that time. If a record has spirits in it, we can take that as evidence that spirits were considered real at that time.

 

[dad]

Doesn't make them real. And if there's not a single shred of evidence to support the claim, then why should I believe it?

You thought most people of all ages believed in spirits with no evidence? No. There is plenty. None of which science can deal with.

I don't see many people turning to an exorcist to cure them of their mental illnesses though, do you?

Why would they since there are many reasons for illness besides evil influences of spirits?

So you want to ignore the stuff that disagrees with you and only listen to whatever tells you what you want to hear.

Nothing to ignore.
Do not confuse people not accepting your beliefs as ignoring things.

I am saying that the benefit they got was from having social interactions. They did not get the benefit because of the religious nature of going to church.

Maybe refresh our memory here with your attempted parable. Who exactly was going to church, and why should we care?

 

[Kylie]

You thought most people of all ages believed in spirits with no evidence? No. There is plenty. None of which science can deal with.

They often had a very low standard for what counted as evidence, and they often didn't bother checking it. Also, superstition played a much bigger part in their lives because they didn't know how the world worked.

Why would they since there are many reasons for illness besides evil influences of spirits?

If there are many influences other than spirits, why do you bother invoking spirits at all? Can you give me a single example of anyone who had any mental illness that was coinfirmed to be the result of an evil spirit?

Nothing to ignore.
Do not confuse people not accepting your beliefs as ignoring things.

You literally said you wouldn't bother with science because it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.

Maybe refresh our memory here with your attempted parable. Who exactly was going to church, and why should we care?

Is this a new technique? Ask me to get you back up to speed on what we were talking about, perhaps hoping I'll decide it isn't worth the bother?

Michael posted a link showing that religious people were happier.

I said that the increase in happiness was probably a result of the increased social interaction that comes with going to church, and that the same benefits will come from having similar social interaction, even if church is not involved.

 

[MissRowy]

I see someone has crawled out of their chasm to cause havoc...causing trouble again dad?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science cannot test what spirits existed or not. They can't test what nature existed here etc.

We can test Scripture by doing as God said and see if it works. It does. It always has, like Mary found out.
We can be sure if we do as God asked. He said if we do what He says then we will know. I am also sure that bible prophecy has been fulfilled. Done deal. Tried, tested proven and repeated. Science can't be sure because it does not have a clue on spiritual matters.
The Scripture and spiritual WAS tested by Mary. She felt and heard and saw the proof.
The Scripture IS tested today by those who do what He says because they then know if it is true. It is also tested by looking at the prophecies that are now history.
The issue is not accepting all of history as gospel, but whether we accept the fundamental ground rules of life when it was written. We do not need to know that a king conquered all the other guys that he claims, for example. But when a king says he ate food, that should be valued as evidence that food was eaten at that time. If a record has spirits in it, we can take that as evidence that spirits were considered real at that time.

Special pleading. Beats all comers and requires no support. The fallacy of choice of everyone who knows they are wrong but is too proud to admit it.

 

[Michael]

No, the issue is that you claimed people who murder are usually suffering from a mental illness. I asked you to back up that claim with evidence, and you said you weren't required to.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Either you agree or you don't, but either way I don't really care. However, if you insist....

Method of homicide and severe mental illness: A systematic review

While it is only a minority of individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) that are likely to commit homicide, a large proportion of convicted homicide offenders are diagnosed with SMI (Joyal, Côté, Meloche & Hodgins, 2011).

Except you can't even show that it does the job as well as or better than medication.

The fact it does it *without* medication makes it "better" in my book. Just look at the number of people who overdose every year.

I could say, "I don't really feel obligated to do that," but I actually prefer to debate with integrity, and I'm happy to provide my sources. So, yes, I can.

I said it was likely the social interactions of going to church that created the improvement in mental health, not the religious aspects of church attendance. Here's a study supporting that. Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy

Now, since I have provided a source to back up my claims, I expect you to do the same.

Provide a source saying that people who commit murder usually do so because they suffer from mental illnesses.

Are we done now?

My original point was that religion has positive effects on mental health, not that *other* things do not.

 

[dad]

I see someone has crawled out of their chasm to cause havoc...causing trouble again dad?

Not sure beliving in spirits in a thread about God and evidence etc is havoc.

 

[dad]

They often had a very low standard for what counted as evidence, and they often didn't bother checking it. Also, superstition played a much bigger part in their lives because they didn't know how the world worked.

They saw Jesus back from the dead doing miracles again and chatting it up. That works for me.

If there are many influences other than spirits, why do you bother invoking spirits at all?

Well, if there are many ways to get to the store, such as bicycle trails, forest paths, side roads, main roads, helicopter, etc why would I focus only on say, bicycle paths as the only way to get to the store? There are many factors at work in the world, and that includes spiritual ones.

Can you give me a single example of anyone who had any mental illness that was confirmed to be the result of an evil spirit?

Yes, the guy in the bible that was out of his gourd because of bad spirits. People confirmed it by recognizing the fact. Jesus confirmed it by sending the foul spirit away and the guy was completely sane again.

You literally said you wouldn't bother with science because it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.

In the matter of spirits, one would be silly to ask physical only science.

Michael posted a link showing that religious people were happier.

I said that the increase in happiness was probably a result of the increased social interaction that comes with going to church, and that the same benefits will come from having similar social interaction, even if church is not involved.

Ah, OK. So why would you speak to me about Michael's link? I do not go to church so am not too concerned with that. I would respect the changed lives of Christians in the world who are less selfish though.

 

[dad]

Special pleading. Beats all comers and requires no support. The fallacy of choice of everyone who knows they are wrong but is too proud to admit it.

Facing the obvious fact that physical only disciplines cannot and do not cover anything spiritual is not special pleading.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Facing the obvious fact that physical only disciplines cannot and do not cover anything spiritual is not special pleading.

Indeed not. But claiming your beliefs are not subject to the same requirements for support as others' is.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If a record has spirits in it, we can take that as evidence that spirits were considered real at that time.

Even you admit here that they were only considered real, not that they actually were real. And I'll agree with this conclusion.

 

[dad]

Even you admit here that they were only considered real, not that they actually were real. And I'll agree with this conclusion.

People considered trees real also. Mountains, etc. If you claim it is not real you would need some evidence.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Either you agree or you don't, but either way I don't really care. However, if you insist....

Method of homicide and severe mental illness: A systematic review

If you had read the article, they are examining only those murderers who have been found to be mentally ill. They are NOT looking at all murderers to see if there is a pattern of mental illness among them.

The fact it does it *without* medication makes it "better" in my book. Just look at the number of people who overdose every year.

Does it have the same long term outcomes? Does it have the same efficacy? Does it work as reliably as medication?

Are we done now?

My original point was that religion has positive effects on mental health, not that *other* things do not.

And just now you've said that you consider religion to be a BETTER course of treatment than medication. You also haven't shown it can produce a beneficial outcome as reliably as medication.

 

[Kylie]

They saw Jesus back from the dead doing miracles again and chatting it up. That works for me.

No, you have read stories about how they saw Jesus come back, and you have no way of verifying those stories.

Well, if there are many ways to get to the store, such as bicycle trails, forest paths, side roads, main roads, helicopter, etc why would I focus only on say, bicycle paths as the only way to get to the store? There are many factors at work in the world, and that includes spiritual ones.

How about you look at all the ways that you can get there and then only concentrate on the ones that actually work, and don't use the ones that are blocked, overgrown, washed out, etc?

And to make it clear, I am saying that we should only use analytical techniques that have produced results that can be verified.

Yes, the guy in the bible that was out of his gourd because of bad spirits. People confirmed it by recognizing the fact. Jesus confirmed it by sending the foul spirit away and the guy was completely sane again.

Using your stories as evidence for your stories doesn't work. There is no way to check the details. What was the guy';s name? Where are the eyewitness accounts?

In the matter of spirits, one would be silly to ask physical only science.

In the matter of anything, one would be silly to rely on something that produces results that can't be verified.

Ah, OK. So why would you speak to me about Michael's link? I do not go to church so am not too concerned with that. I would respect the changed lives of Christians in the world who are less selfish though.

Michael posted in post 445.

I replied to Michael in post 455.

You then replied to my response to Michael in post 462.

So don't barge into a conversation I was having with someone else and then ask why I'm bothering talking about it with you, okay?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

People considered trees real also. Mountains, etc.

Trees and mountains are demonstrably real now, so your point is completely meaningless.

If you claim it is not real you would need some evidence.

Actually, no. You're the one making positive claims (spirits were/are real) so you're the one who needs evidence.

 

[dad]

No, you have read stories about how they saw Jesus come back, and you have no way of verifying those stories.

I have met Jesus because of their testimony and we know it is true. Millions have met Jesus, He is still alive and well. He has said that He will come in and be part of our lives if asked. So it is by the living proof that we know, not just the testimony of holy men and women giving their lives to verify they were telling the truth.

How about you look at all the ways that you can get there and then only concentrate on the ones that actually work, and don't use the ones that are blocked, overgrown, washed out, etc?

Most men on earth in all ages know the spiritual works.

And to make it clear, I am saying that we should only use analytical techniques that have produced results that can be verified.

No such thing as far as spirits go! Why make stuff up? Who are you gonna call to analyze a ghost exactly?

Using your stories as evidence for your stories doesn't work.

Because it does work millions have tested and proven it.

There is no way to check the details. What was the guy';s name? Where are the eyewitness accounts?

Yes, there is. If we check out Jesus and He is real, it is all true!

In the matter of anything, one would be silly to rely on something that produces results that can't be verified.

They can be and are and have been and continue to be. Science cannot verify or deny. It would be foolish to apply physical scientific methods to the spiritual!

Michael posted in post 445.

Fine. He was right. Belief in Jesus or what some call religion has a great track record of charity.

I replied to Michael in post 455.

You then replied to my response to Michael in post 462.

So don't barge into a conversation I was having with someone else and then ask why I'm bothering talking about it with you, okay?

Ok, if I had noticed that I would probably not have been all that interested.