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

[dad]

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.

One thing He cannot do is lie. He already spoke and it was confirmed by Jesus. No mystery about creation, only belief or unbelief.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Prophesies are 100% accurate.

Of course the post hoc ones are. It would be a very sorry state if they weren't! But what about the ones that are wrong?

Your understanding is limited.

Indeed it is. Is yours?

 

[dad]

Of course the post hoc ones are. It would be a very sorry state if they weren't! But what about the ones that are wrong?

Indeed it is. Is yours?

They prove God exists from an evidence standpoint.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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.

The subjective experiences, claims, and beliefs of individuals, and the actions of those individuals, is not evidence of the objective (physical) reality of the spiritual, but is evidence only of the belief.

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.
... To the majority of all people of all ages that believe in the spiritual, they have evidence, or many of them do.

Once again, beliefs are not physical evidence for what is believed. That someone believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world is not evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world; that someone says their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero is not evidence that their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero - it is just a claim or an anecdote - however many people come to believe it.

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.

Clearly, women do fall pregnant and temples have been destroyed, but these are mundane events; they're not evidence of the spiritual or supernatural just because people tell and believe stories about them. Storytelling is as old as humanity itself.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They prove God exists from an evidence standpoint.

No, they don't. Failed prophecies demonstrate that men make incorrect predictions. There's nothing supernatural about that.

 

[dad]

The subjective experiences, claims, and beliefs of individuals, and the actions of those individuals, is not evidence of the objective (physical) reality of the spiritual, but is evidence only of the belief.

It is subjective to question spiritual experiences. It is not questioning based on facts! You simply want to declare realities and observations of others that are above all ability of science to deal with as not real. In other words, wave it all away for zero reasons and call that objectivity rather than what it is. Denial.

Once again, beliefs are not physical evidence for what is believed.

Physical evidence alone is not evidence of there either being spiritual realities or not. Mary knew her physical evidence was evidence of God and the truth that the angel spoke that she had observed and heard. It was evidence. For you and science, you cannot go there, it is in the past. Even if you could all you would see is a pregnant woman and have no ability to know how it came to be. In all ways science comes from and speaks from a position of ignorance on the matter.

That someone believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world is not evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world; that someone says their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero is not evidence that their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero - it is just a claim or an anecdote - however many people come to believe it.

That science believes there is or is not is of no real currency. The bible had evidence. Science cannot deny or verify.

Clearly, women do fall pregnant and temples have been destroyed, but these are mundane events; they're not evidence of the spiritual or supernatural just because people tell and believe stories about them. Storytelling is as old as humanity itself.

Temples that took 40 years to build do not fall on cue for no reason. The temple did not die a natural death! Whatever women generally do has nothing to do with what Mary experienced. Science simply has no power to deny with anything but ignorance and inability and denial for no reason.

 

[dad]

No, they don't. Failed prophecies demonstrate that men make incorrect predictions. There's nothing supernatural about that.

Good thing there is not one of those in Scripture. We deal with perfect accuracy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is subjective to question spiritual experiences. It is not questioning based on facts! You simply want to declare realities and observations of others that are above all ability of science to deal with as not real. In other words, wave it all away for zero reasons and call that objectivity rather than what it is. Denial.

Not really. It's quite simple - the phenomena are physically (objectively) real, they will have some observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, which makes them amenable to science. If they have no observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, they are not physically (objectively) real.

Physical evidence alone is not evidence of there either being spiritual realities or not.

That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically (objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.

 

[dad]

Not really. It's quite simple - the phenomena are physically (objectively) real, they will have some observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, which makes them amenable to science.

Not an effect that science could tell was any differently caused than a normal physical event. Mary was influenced by a real angel and a real God and had a real baby and had real relatives also see angels confirming it, etc. For you to deny this an opinion NOT supported by any facts. You have no objective position.
You just want to say that unless you can verify things you cannot see, they could not be real.

If they have no observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, they are not physically (objectively) real.

When lives are changed that affects lives, and the world around them. When a prophesy is fulfilled, it affected things. God affects the world and people. Just because science is blind to that does not mean it is not observable.

That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically (objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.

Baby Jesus was real. The angels were real, the shepherds were real, the wise men were real, etc. Your opinion that is was not is subjective.

 

[SelfSim]

That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically(objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.

Baby Jesus was real. The angels were real, the shepherds were real, the wise men were real, etc. Your opinion that is was not is subjective.

See the interesting point here is that we see two differently thinking minds attempting to describe how they give the word 'reality' its meaning. Different minds are thinking differently and so they have produced different meanings. More noteworthy however is that what they leave behind is objective evidence of how the human mind creates dissimilar respective meanings of that word: 'reality'.

Reality is not something which 'exists' independently from any human mind .. that's just another model created by a mind. What we have in the above sub-discussion, is just more evidence of minds at work.

Attempting to use the arbitrary notions behind the words 'subjective' and 'objective' doesn't help to justify the notion of true mind independent reality, either. Those distinctions have always called for a census across a thinking population of what people mean when they use those terms.

 

[SelfSim]

If the person is privy to unverifiable (scientifically) evidence, the truth remains true.

In other words: 'I hold that there exists an absolute truth, outside of the requirement to demonstrate that logically or objectively' .. (aka: a belief).

If they are wrong, mistaken, they are wrong.

More like, in that situation: 'What they said was false' because it would be unreasonable to claim that their (above) notion of 'truth', could be used to prove that they were 'wrong'.

If it is true, they are not wrong.

Their orginal notion of 'truth' was a belief .. and beliefs are never 'wrong' .. they're just beliefs.

If the plumber is right about your appendix,...

.. and he would never know that, unless science kicked in, and did its thing.

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.

Where his reasons for believing that he was right, were not based on logic or the scientific process, his belief would have been irrelevant to the outcome.

 

[Ophiolite]

See the interesting point here is that we see two differently thinking minds attempting to describe how they give the word 'reality' its meaning. Different minds are thinking differently and so they have produced different meanings. More noteworthy however is that what they leave behind is objective evidence of how the human mind creates dissimilar respective meanings of that word: 'reality'.

Reality is not something which 'exists' independently from any human mind .. that's just another model created by a mind. What we have in the above sub-discussion, is just more evidence of minds at work.

Attempting to use the arbitrary notions behind the words 'subjective' and 'objective' doesn't help to justify the notion of true mind independent reality, either. Those distinctions have always called for a census across a thinking population of what people mean when they use those terms.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
See the exemplar of them all.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good thing there is not one of those in Scripture. We deal with perfect accuracy.

You may continue to believe that, but it doesn't make it true. There are a number of well-known failed prophecies in the bible. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them but choose to deny they exist.

 

[SelfSim]

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
See the exemplar of them all.

Please explain.

 

[Kylie]

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.

If it is unverifiable, how can you call it evidence?

With your plumber example, how do you know he had access to some source of information and wasn't just guessing?

 

[Kylie]

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.

Not the answer I was expecting, but that's okay.

Still, a question. If God plans for me to believe, and thus I will believe sooner or later, doesn't that interfere with my free will?

 

[Kylie]

Believe what you like.

I do. And I believe that your claims have been entirely unsupported.

 

[Kylie]

That's nice.

Is that all you've got to say?

 

[Kylie]

Prophesies are 100% accurate. Your understanding is limited.

I have explained how prophecies can be wrong. Do you think that never happens?

 

[Ophiolite]

Please explain.

You address the miscommunication between two individuals as being a consequence of semantic differences (with a hint of elitism in the critique), while ignoring the dependence of your own argument upon idiosyncratic terminology. I just found it amusing.