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

[sjastro]

What if it's the cheerleaders for the Dallas cowboys

What they leave in the pool would be as gross as anyone elses leftovers.

 

[ruthiesea]

Should we get rid of the Ten Commandments from public places? prayer? the Bible?

Of course not. The problem is when government gets involved. Religion is personal and the state has no business in sticking its nose in.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is when government gets involved.

Ya ... "we the people" don't like parts of the Bible on public display, do we?

Who is it that points to these parts of the Bible on display and demands their removal?

 

[ruthiesea]

Ya ... "we the people" don't like parts of the Bible on public display, do we?

Who is it that points to these parts of the Bible on display and demands their removal?

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? I couldn’t care less about displays of the Bible (mine or yours), the Koran, the Vedas, or any religion so long as is doesn’t involve taxpayer’s money.

Keep the government out of the religion business.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? I couldn’t care less about displays of the Bible (mine or yours), the Koran, the Vedas, or any religion so long as is doesn’t involve taxpayer’s money.

LOL ... How about I go buy one with my own money and put it up on the courthouse lawn then?

(With approval, of course.)

Would that be okay with you?

And since the taxpayers already funded it back in the 1960's, why remove it today?

It's like buying a candy bar, bringing it home, and throwing it away.

 

[AV1611VET]

Keep the government out of the religion business.

IN GOD WE TRUST

 

[SelfSim]

And since the taxpayers already funded it back in the 1960's, why remove it today?

It's like buying a candy bar, bringing it home, and throwing it away.

A 62 year old candy bar? Yuk!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who's gonna be there to test it, then?

By definition, nobody will be there, but that doesn't make an untestable hypothesis a belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A universe with conscious beings is a better place than one without. One without conscious beings would be meaningless.

Meaningful and meaningless are only relevant to conscious beings, as are qualitative values like 'better'. A universe without conscious beings has none of that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think 'better' would be that there was meaning and the universe what not just a cold, meaningless place.

Interesting emotional tell... what about a warm meaningless place? would that be better?

 

[SelfSim]

By definition, nobody will be there, but that doesn't make an untestable hypothesis a belief.

By definition, it aint no hypothesis then .. so what are you talking about there?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By definition, it aint no hypothesis then .. so what are you talking about there?

I'm talking about hypotheses that conscious beings can have about universes without conscious beings. Like our hypotheses about our universe before consciousness arrived, or about hypothetical universes without conscious beings (in the multiverse, perhaps). They may or may not be untestable now, but if they're currently untestable that doesn't mean they always will be.

There is also the question of how we treat the untestable predictions of accepted, well-tested theories.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm talking about hypotheses that conscious beings can have about universes without conscious beings.

Like our hypotheses about our universe before consciousness arrived, or about hypothetical universes without conscious beings (in the multiverse, perhaps).

So we're back to mind dependent hypotheses, followed by mind dependent tests then?
Or is the universe supposed to know about what a multiverse is, (for eg)?

 

[sjastro]

This type of thread with its emphasis on reality raises questions on whether mathematics is discovered or invented.
I've have raised this issue in the past such as Laguerre polynomials invented by mathematicians was discovered to be a solution by physicists to describe the energy levels of the hydrogen atom about half a century later and was a triumph for quantum mechanics.

The Nobel prize winner for his work on electroweak theory Steven Weinberg who is probably better known to some for his strong views on religion, (“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”) gives his take on the question.

 

[stevevw]

Interesting emotional tell... what about a warm meaningless place? would that be better?

I think a cold meaningless place has more impact as far as our conscious experience is concerned.

 

[stevevw]

Meaningful and meaningless are only relevant to conscious beings, as are qualitative values like 'better'. A universe without conscious beings has none of that.

Yes but the fact is we are here and we know about the difference conscious beings make compared to there not being any. I think with that knowledge we are justified in saying that a universe with conscious beings is better in some ways even considering the horrible stuff we do.

Otherwise devaluing a universe with conscious beings would be rejecting ourselves which I don't think we can do. Maybe a universe that produces conscious beings is inevitable and the pinnacle of evolution where the universe has actually produced a being capable of altering evolution and nature itself and thus reality. Maybe they are one and the same thing.

 

[stevevw]

Not quite .. More like:

'A universe without conscious beings, is an untestable belief',
and therefore we can conclude that:
'One without conscious beings, would be anything that believer so chooses'.

I'm only going off what we know and experience. We can know what a universe without conscious beings would be like. Heck there's plenty of real estate out there with no intelligence. We may be the only ones so all we have to do is blot out the tiny bit we occupy.

But once you know something you can never go back. Because we are here we know what difference we make to things and I think we can say that we make a pretty significant difference to the universe in a number of ways but mostly our ability to contemplate something beyond the universe.

 

[Kylie]

Ya ... "we the people" don't like parts of the Bible on public display, do we?

Who is it that points to these parts of the Bible on display and demands their removal?

If a person wants to put up signs displaying the Ten Commandments or other parts of the Bible in their front yard, that's fine. I got no problem with that, and I doubt many people would. Including atheists.

But when the local court puts a tax-payer funded piece of carved stone with the ten commandments engraved on them, then there is a problem. Why? Because it violates the First Amendment.

Specifically, the First Ammendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In other words, you can't have a state-supported religion. The state can't do anything to show it supports one religion over another. And if the court has a taxpayer funded stone with the ten commandments written on it, then that is using government money to support one religion over others.

If you don't understand it, think of it like this: If your Muslim neighbour had a bumper sticker that had a quote from the Quran, say, "And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it. 8:61," I'm sure you would have no problem with it. But if your local court used taxpayer monies to fund a stone carving of a passage from the Quran, then I'm sure you and many Christians would complain.

 

[AV1611VET]

But when the local court puts a tax-payer funded piece of carved stone with the ten commandments engraved on them, then there is a problem. Why? Because it violates the First Amendment.

Then why did they do it in the first place?

 

[stevevw]

Why is a universe with humans and meaning "better" than a universe without them?

Well I guess we would have to ask conscious beings what that means exactly. Could mean a number of things.

And you said, "That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise." In that sentence, what do you mean by "information"?

It doesn't matter what information means only that there would be additional information that exceeds the universe without life.

But more importantly there would be consciousness which would be a new dimension to the universe that was not there. It may not equate to information but another level of fundamental reality that we have come to know.