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

Status
Not open for further replies.

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
dad said:
Spiritual evidence is invisible and is not something we send in the post or 'present' on a table in a lab. Millions know all about it. Science knows nothing about it.
1) The 'spiritual' part is never tested in science.

2) Science doesn't 'know' things .. humans do that.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Observations of deep space phenomena form the basis of our models of physical constants and physical laws. If they didn't, the laws would be updated to recognise the different contexts (eg: Newtonian vs Einstein physics).

Nothing in deep space tells us what time is like there in any way. Laws in the fishbowl do not matter. We know what those are in this present time! We do not know what they were in the distant past here. Looking into deep space is NOT looking into deep time. That was just a fantasy you believed because you assumed time was homogeneous.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If spiritual evidence is as you describe, i.e. inaccessible to science, then it has no direct objective influence on the world
False. Prophecies that are fulfilled are direct evidence as is the resurrection, miracles, spirits that were seen and felt and heard, God working in people and etc. The good that people do as a result is an influence on the world.
- if it did, that influence would be detectable and so, amenable to scientific inquiry.
Got a meter to measure greater love? Got a ghost detector? Got a time machine to travel to each miracle and check it out? No. Scientific inquiry is less effective in these matters than conversing with swine or cattle.
So, it would seem that the spiritual has no objective physical reality, but is a subjective experience, which can only influence the world indirectly, through the individuals who have such experiences.
False. To the majority of all people of all ages that believe in the spiritual, they have evidence, or many of them do.
In that case, the subjective experience of the spiritual is as open to scientific study as any other experience, but having no physical reality itself, the spiritual is not; it is an abstract, a concept, an idea, a belief.
It has a physical reality. Mary was pregnant for example. The temple was physically destroyed as Jesus said. Etc. Science cannot tell us anything by the physical! All it does is sit around philosophizing about how it all happened without anything BUT the physical! Insane reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Agreed. I have a problem with those that do that --both believers and non-believers.

Now, then, supposing something real happens to someone, that is not accessible to current scientific methods, yet experiential to that someone nonetheless. Would you say that because they are unable to even describe it well, nevermind to prove it, that it is therefore made up, imagination or delusion, or perhaps actual --real? No, I am not suggesting that such a thing should be pursued by science, but to say that such a thing is not rational seems to me a bit much. Most people I know who claim God is real to them are as rational as anyone else. They may not be entirely logical or debate ready, but rational, yes.

I would say that we have no way of determining that what happened is what they claim, or that they merely interpreted it as such.

I mean, someone may think they've been touched by God, but how do we tell the difference between someone who really was touched by God and someone who wasn't touched by God, but experienced something they believed was being touched by God?

And if something has no evidence and can't be tested in any way, how do you claim it is rational?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This has digressed into you stating opinions on sacred things. Great, we get it.

YOU believe them sacred. I am under no obligation to do the same. I am perfectly entitled to claim there is no evidence and thus should not be believed as fact.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Things are perfectly explained by a flat earth for some also, so what? The trick is having more than beliefs to base a scientific claim upon. Work on that.

For some? How does that work? Reality is the same for everyone. People who think that a flat earth can explain everything perfectly lack understanding of what is really going on.

In any case, I have more than just beliefs. I have testable and repeatable evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You were told bible prophesies are 100% accurate. Is that it? You thought you could just tell us stuff? Maybe I should include a prayer for your husband as well as you! Ha.

I've been told many things. But that doesn't make them true. I've explained to you how prophecies can be inaccurate. If you choose to ignore that, then it's on you, not me.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I would say that we have no way of determining that what happened is what they claim, or that they merely interpreted it as such.

I mean, someone may think they've been touched by God, but how do we tell the difference between someone who really was touched by God and someone who wasn't touched by God, but experienced something they believed was being touched by God?

And if something has no evidence and can't be tested in any way, how do you claim it is rational?
Agreed (I am more than familiar with my ability to fool myself), but on the other hand, unless you have some evidence to support the idea that they are irrational, how can you say they are irrational?

If otherwise, they appear to have their wits intact, and to exhibit sound judgement etc etc, why say they are irrational?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
OK. I hope you are saying God created all things in six days.
Yes, I do. In fact, I have my own reasons to distrust the whole mindset that credits evolution, but that is for another day.

Meanwhile, God can do anything he wants to do, or he is not God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
If the description they give is not able to be articulated in a way which science can objectively test, then it is (at best) a belief.

(A belief is that which is held to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic).

Where any set of statements believed in as being true, leads to contradictions, there is no requirement to drop those beliefs .. but it is reasonable to accept that those beliefs are not a means of proving things.

Beliefs can be rationalised .. I'm not sure 'delusions' can be though ..

Beliefs also form a particular kind of reality (faith based), but science's process of objective testability produces objective reality.
Of course they are not able to prove it, particularly to good science --I thought at some point I had said as much.

Beliefs, however, while perhaps not logically provable, can be entirely rational, such as the God of the Gaps Theory --it works, it fits, much as how most science is conducted.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Agreed (I am more than familiar with my ability to fool myself), but on the other hand, unless you have some evidence to support the idea that they are irrational, how can you say they are irrational?

I'd say that if someone believes something when there is no verifiable evidence for that thing, and when there is evidence against that thing, then it is indeed irrational, since it requires a dismissal of reality.

Of course, it all depends how you define "irrational." How would you define irrationality?

Also, you are asking me to justify my claim that such a belief is irrational, which is fine. But I would say also that if you are claiming that such belief is rational, you are also obliged to show that it is rational.

If otherwise, they appear to have their wits intact, and to exhibit sound judgement etc etc, why say they are irrational?

I think that's dangerous. I mean, I can say that a plumber is well trained and very experienced, so when he tells me my tummy pain is probably appendicitis, I should believe him. Just because a person has their wits about them and can exhibit sound judgement, doesn't mean they are always going to be right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I do. In fact, I have my own reasons to distrust the whole mindset that credits evolution, but that is for another day.

I'm curious in knowing why you discredit evolution. If you'd like to discuss it, send me a private message, as it would be a bit off topic here.

Meanwhile, God can do anything he wants to do, or he is not God.

Does God want me to be a believer in him?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I'd say that if someone believes something when there is no verifiable evidence for that thing, and when there is evidence against that thing, then it is indeed irrational, since it requires a dismissal of reality.

Of course, it all depends how you define "irrational." How would you define irrationality?

Also, you are asking me to justify my claim that such a belief is irrational, which is fine. But I would say also that if you are claiming that such belief is rational, you are also obliged to show that it is rational.



I think that's dangerous. I mean, I can say that a plumber is well trained and very experienced, so when he tells me my tummy pain is probably appendicitis, I should believe him. Just because a person has their wits about them and can exhibit sound judgement, doesn't mean they are always going to be right.
If the person is privy to unverifiable (scientifically) evidence, the truth remains true. If they are wrong, mistaken, they are wrong. If it is true, they are not wrong. If the plumber is right about your appendix, he is right. I'm not saying you should believe anything the plumber says. I'm only saying he could be right, and might even have some valid reason to believe he is right.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm curious in knowing why you discredit evolution. If you'd like to discuss it, send me a private message, as it would be a bit off topic here.



Does God want me to be a believer in him?
I don't know if he does or not (unless you want to get particular about what it means for God to "want"-- he is not like us). If he does, i.e. if he plans for you to believe in him, you will believe in him, sooner or later.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
dad said:
SelfSim said:
Observations of deep space phenomena form the basis of our models of physical constants and physical laws. If they didn't, the laws would be updated to recognise the different contexts (eg: Newtonian vs Einstein physics).
Nothing in deep space tells us what time is like there in any way.
Our minds tell us that. You just used your own mind to deny it .. (but that's expected).

dad said:
Laws in the fishbowl do not matter. We know what those are in this present time! We do not know what they were in the distant past here. Looking into deep space is NOT looking into deep time.
Oh yeah? .. What was it that did the 'knowing' and what is it that does the 'looking' then?
Now try showing me exactly how that can be accomplished without using the same kind of human mind that also devised the laws you speak of.

dad said:
That was just a fantasy you believed because you assumed time was homogeneous.
Please don't tell me how you think I think.

That time in science is a testable concept developed by human scientifically thinking minds, is itself testable and produces objective evidence. It thus cannot be a belief.

The meaning of the generally used concept of time, (which you, yourself use), can also be demonstrated objectively as being dependent on the same kind of human mind mentioned above, which achieves this meaning by thinking differently (non scientifically). When that mind speaks of time in the distant universe, there is no evidence that it magically acquires some different meaning.

Time is thus the same locally as in the distant universe because its the same mind doing the conceiving of the distant (and local) universe .. no matter where it happens to be located.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... Beliefs, however, while perhaps not logically provable, can be entirely rational, such as the God of the Gaps Theory --it works, it fits, much as how most science is conducted.
I have no idea of what you mean by 'God of the Gaps Theory' here ..
You have not yet succeeded in demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of science - its principles and processes, so you are not qualified to say how science is, and isn't conducted.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For some? How does that work? Reality is the same for everyone. People who think that a flat earth can explain everything perfectly lack understanding of what is really going on.

In any case, I have more than just beliefs. I have testable and repeatable evidence.
That's nice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I've been told many things. But that doesn't make them true. I've explained to you how prophecies can be inaccurate. If you choose to ignore that, then it's on you, not me.
Prophesies are 100% accurate. Your understanding is limited.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.