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

[Mark Quayle]

Is that like a True Scotsman? Are origin sciences true? Is the TOE science?

Origin sciences are necessarily incomplete, and will be revised continually. But so far, they do not deny a 6-day creation. It is only the noisy ones who interpret them to do so.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I am not deciding to do anything if God is changing me.

Interesting this conversation came here, lol.

I repeat something I said (I thought) to you before: If you are free willing to decide in the face of your genetics, influences from without and within, etc etc, how is it any different if God is the one who set up those influences?

 

[SelfSim]

If you took the plumber's advice, and he happened to be right, how is his belief irrelevant?

His belief has no bearing on someone else's tummy pain.

Meanwhile, either you didn't explain yourself well, or I didn't follow, or maybe you are wrong, because you mostly seem to be saying that if something is not verified, it is only belief.

No a belief can be defined as that which is held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Notice its a notion held which is not arrived at via logic or science methods/rules .. nothing to do with 'not verified').

You don't understand what I'm saying because your beliefs are blinding you to what's in front of your eyes. That's the unfortunate side-effect of not distinguishing your own beliefs.

No Again --if it is true, verified or not, it is not only belief. My apprehension to it may be only belief, but if it is true, it is true.

The point is how do you know what is true? (Obviously you just believe it .. because 'tis written ...). 'True' is just another meaning assigned to that word. That meaning is subject to context and revision .. (and I get that you won't like that .. because of your faith).

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Someday you might get round to seeing that what I say is usually the end result of an objective test .. (aka: the application of the scientific method). Everything we write is dependent on how semantics are applied by our minds .. but you have to actually look to see the evidence of that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Someday you might get round to seeing that what I say is usually the end result of an objective test .. (aka: the application of the scientific method). Everything we write is dependent on how semantics are applied by our minds .. but you have to actually look to see the evidence of that.

Good advice. Had you followed it you would not have posted an irrelevant response.

 

[Michael]

No a belief can be defined as that which is held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Notice its a notion held which is not arrived at via logic or science methods/rules .. nothing to do with 'not verified').

Why are you limiting the concept of a "belief" to something which you subjectively describe as not following from something you're calling "objective tests"? I'd argue that even your 'belief' that there's such a thing an "objective test" is another belief that may or may not be true in all instances.

I would describe what you're describing as an "act of faith", not a belief. Astronomers for instance "believe" that exotic forms of matter and energy exist, but that belief is not based on purely "objective" tests, rather that belief is based on subjective interpretations of observations, like redshift and "missing mass". There's no such thing as an "objective test" without control mechanisms. Even the belief that all/some "scientific" ideas are based on "objective tests" is really a subjective "act of faith" in some instances.

 

[dad]

As my old Dad used to say, "how old was Adam when God created him?" And when I quote that to my relatives, they object, "Then God was lying when he made him grown up only 1 day old?" I say, "Here we are, writing stories and postulating theories on time manipulation, and congratulating ourselves on our cleverness, and we cannot allow the Creator of time the ability and right to do such a thing without lying?"

No, dad, I think he indeed created everything in 6 twenty-four hour periods.

OK.

But I think how he did it will surprise us all. Even modern cosmology claims (and does so as if it disproved religion) that time is relative to motion (position) of matter and energy and gravity, that all began with the big "sudden expansion".

Could be. But what could it also be as well?

What was the rate of time at that point compared to the rate at this point in the expansion?

Usually, expansion is thought to mean the time shortly after the big bang. Earth was already here at that time, so it does not fit. The term seems confusing. Perhaps you could explain what you think it means.

We really know next to nothing about it. God can do anything he wants to do, and he can do it however he wants, and we cannot gainsay it. If he did it in six days, and says he did, then he did.

Right. If science admitted knowing nothing, there would be no origins debate.

Science has yet to prove anything in the Bible to be wrong.

Science is a creature of the physical world only. It could no more confirm or deny spiritual realities of the present or past than swine could.

 

[dad]

What was vague? I said it's frustrating that you keep putting forward certain unsupportable, ignorant claims as if they have merit. Which part would you like me to clarify?

What is this a false acussathon? Boring.

 

[dad]

And I agree with it. It does not contradict what I said. When it says God cannot, that does not deny that it is impossible for him not to lie, by virtue of his very being what (or actually, I say who) he is.

To try to show what I mean: God does not do good because he decided that good is a good thing to do or be, but good is what it is, because God is good. God did not create himself --he simply is. He does not decide to be what he is --he simply is. You could say he cannot be otherwise, and that is true, but not because he chose to be true and consistent, but because he is.

This is how, or why, he is the only truly sovereign. We say, for our own understanding, that he is bound by his nature, and that's ok, but it is much more simple than that. He does because he is.

I think the point of discussing that He does and can't lie is that this means Scripture is true. So if anyone promotes some story of creation that does not agree with Genesis, we know who is lying.

 

[dad]

Origin sciences are necessarily incomplete, and will be revised continually. But so far, they do not deny a 6-day creation. It is only the noisy ones who interpret them to do so.

No. All of science defies Genesis in a full-frontal assault. There is no end to the nonstop blasphemy train that runs along their line.

 

[SelfSim]

Why are you limiting the concept of a "belief" to something which you subjectively describe as not following from something you're calling "objective tests"? I'd argue that even your 'belief' that there's such a thing an "objective test" is another belief that may or may not be true in all instances.

.. (no two minds think exactly alike, and so what 'truth' means is predicted to vary across a population of thinkers).

The alternative to what you say above, is to base an argument on the belief in 'a something' which exists completely independently from the mind that conceives it .. which I find as being a totally nonsensical argument, seeing as a mind is required to conceive all of that in the first place.

The idea is to put the mind back into everything we conceive .. which is abundantly supported via objective testing, whereas the alternative of 'a mind independent something' returns exactly zip evidence.

I have no explanation as to why the mind that's doing all this thinking is always left out in such discussions!
Do you?

I would describe what you're describing as an "act of faith", not a belief. Astronomers for instance "believe" that exotic forms of matter and energy exist, but that belief is not based on purely "objective" tests, rather that belief is based on subjective interpretations of observations, like redshift and "missing mass". There's no such thing as an "objective test" without control mechanisms. Even the belief that all/some "scientific" ideas are based on "objective tests" is really a subjective "act of faith" in some instances.

Your problem is that you believe in 'things existing' independently from any human mind (philosophical Realism) and that view has zip objective evidence supporting it .. and you just can't let go of that .. even for an instant in order to contemplate what I'm saying.
(Hint: all this is just an extension of Relativity's notion of shifting a frame of reference, mixed in with equal portions of various philosophies, and also recognises overlays of evidenced psychology and neurological research).

You also have an extensive track record of misconceiving just about everything science has to say, (I think), because of that rather fixed belief. In so doing, you disqualify yourself from achieving an understanding of what 'objectivity' means in science.

 

[SelfSim]

Good advice. Had you followed it you would not have posted an irrelevant response.

Unevidenced opinion duly noted.

 

[Michael]

Your problem is that you believe in 'things existing' independently from any human mind (philosophical Realism) and that view has zip objective evidence supporting it .. and you just can't let go of that .. even for an instant in order to contemplate what I'm saying.

You're certainly right about the fact that we seem to have a fundamental *difference of opinion* in our "belief(my case)"/"lack of belief(your case)" that "objective reality" exists independently of the human mind. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but it does seem to be a core disagreement between us.

I can contemplate your opinion of course, but it simply doesn't jive with the fields of archeology, astronomy, evolutionary theory, etc. The archeological record for instance suggests that many lifeforms predated human existence on Earth, and underlying physical realities like gravity and EM radiation allowed that to happen. I don't therefore *agree* with your belief that a human mind is necessary for objective reality to exist and to have a physical influence on physical objects and living organisms.

I would even disagree about your belief that there is zero evidence to support the idea of an "objective reality" that exists in the absence of a human mind. I'm not even sure how you can "hold belief" in *any* particular cosmology model, save perhaps YEC, without believing in laws of physics which predate the Earth, humans and human minds. Your position on a need for "mind" seems to be incompatible with large swaths of physics and science, at least to me (my mind).

(Hint: all this is just an extension of Relativity's notion of shifting a frame of reference, mixed in with equal portions of various philosophies, and also recognises overlays of evidenced psychology and neurological research).

How would you explain the first life forms appearing on our planet in the absence of laws of physics, and things like gravity which would need to predate the human mind for life to even exist?

You also have an extensive track record of misconceiving just about everything science has to say, (I think), because of that rather fixed belief. In so doing, you disqualify yourself from achieving an understanding of what 'objectivity' means in science.

Meh. About the only area of science where you and I even seem to fundamentally disagree is cosmology. I doubt for instance that you reject evolutionary theory, or quantum mechanics, etc.

 

[Michael]

No. All of science defies Genesis in a full-frontal assault. There is no end to the nonstop blasphemy train that runs along their line.

I would say that all of science defies your *literal interpretation* of Genesis, but not necessarily an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Catholics for instance have no real conflict with science, or find it to be at odds with the book of Genesis, but they typically don't try to interpret that book "literally".

 

[dad]

I would say that all of science defies your *literal interpretation* of Genesis, but not necessarily an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

Give a few examples.

Catholics for instance have no real conflict with science, or find it to be at odds with the book of Genesis, but they typically don't try to interpret that book "literally".

I would prefer to believe thanks.

 

[Kylie]

I agree. And yes, I can fool myself, and in fact have fooled my self, rather bullheadedly at that. No, I don't think science should kiss the rear end of Religion. I prefer for people to think for themselves and to believe what they have come to believe, although I insist, like you, I expect, that if new information, or other compelling reason demands updating what one believes, one should consider it honestly. (I remain open-minded, (so to speak, lol), but nobody has been able to show me where I am wrong yet). I have a healthy dose of skepticism toward everything I hear, even if it fits my own ideology.

But how do you make sure that what you learn through non-scientific methods is real?

 

[Kylie]

 

[Kylie]

Because there is not one failed prophesy in Scripture.

I ask you to do more than just make the claim, and your response is to just make the claim.

How do you know there are no failed prophecies in the Bible?

 

[dad]

..

No.

 

[dad]

I ask you to do more than just make the claim, and your response is to just make the claim.

How do you know there are no failed prophecies in the Bible?

I haven't seen any.