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
I'm only going off what we know and experience.
And yet you have no experience of 'a universe without conscious beings' therefore you don't know what that's like at all.
stevevw said:
We can know what a universe without conscious beings would be like.
No .. you can't.
stevevw said:
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.
So you are only talking about how lonely you'd feel. That's not 'a universe without conscious beings' now, is it?
stevevw said:
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.
Circular argument .. you're just re-inforcing how lonely you'd feel if you were the only conscious being in the universe .. (sorry).
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It doesn't matter what information means only that there would be additional information that exceeds the universe without life.
No.
The total information in the universe remains constant.
stevevw said:
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.
Consciousness does not represent additional information, nor new dimensions for the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then why did they do it in the first place?

Why did who do what?

Why did people put a taxpayer funded stone carving of the ten commandments up on public property? Probably because they think their religion gives them the right to do whatever they want, or because they don't understand what "separation of church and state" means.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes but the fact is we are here and we know about the difference conscious beings make compared to there not being any.
Well, not really - we know what a universe with conscious beings is like. We can't know what a universe without conscious beings would be like in terms of conscious experience, because that wouldn't be a universe without conscious beings. IOW, we can only say what the experience would be like if there were conscious beings there to have experience, i.e. it is not a universe without conscious beings...

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.
You may think that, but it's not a justification; for that, you need an argument. For example, in what ways is it 'better'?

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.
Nobody's 'devaluing' a universe with conscious beings.

Evolution doesn't have 'pinnacles' - whether some trait or creature is 'best', or a 'pinnacle' is contingent, contextual, and subjective.

Reality is altering all the time as events occur, even in the absence of living things. Living things and humans are just part of that process, changing reality in ways that non-living and non-human things, respectively, do not. Evolution changes without human activity; but human activity can make otherwise highly improbable changes.
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,071
512
Uk
✟114,864.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.
There is a spiritual agenda to disprove the existence of God. Its been going on within the scientific community since Charles lyell. "...if they will not receive you, shake the dust off your feet..." matt. 10:14

Charles Lyell free science from Moses - creation.com
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
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.

I think it's a bit of both - we invented maths to represent the relationships we discovered in the world. Without the regularities, patterns, and symmetries we observe, the structured world we are part of wouldn't exist.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Of course; only minds (or the products of mind) make hypotheses and test them.
You are speaking about a pure thought experiment.

There is no way for a thought experiment to ever escape being anything more than a pure fantasy, when the Independent variable, cannot possibly be removed from the experiment. That is a necessary empirical condition, namely because that's what Independent means. In this case, that variable is the mind of the person conducting the experiment.

It is therefore an untestable experiment, or an untestable hypothesis, no matter how long you wait for it to be conducted.

The notion that it is a valid experiment (or a scientific hypothesis) is itself, an untestable belief, or just another fantasy, merely held as being 'true'.
Its a test in pure logic .. not a scientific (objective) test. Logic and science do not follow the same method.
 
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
I think it's a bit of both - we invented maths to represent the relationships we discovered in the world. Without the regularities, patterns, and symmetries we observe, the structured world we are part of wouldn't exist.
Maths, science and religion all require a thinking human mind (selected from the total spectrum (or population) of all thinking human minds). Science helps in exploring certain persistent, (and consistent), perceptions across that population of human minds .. exposing perceptions that may have been concealed inside prior ones, and exploring new ones. Math just keeps our tracking 'honest' during that process of exploration.

Math is logical .. and nature doesn't exhibit prior logical necessities. There are numerous examples of mistakes in thinking that nature does, eg: even Einstein was caught out there when QM came along. Another example - take a simple mathematical system: the integers have the property that all integers have another integer that directly precedes them, but one cannot argue, as a logical necessity, that this requires a 'first integer'.

For this same reason, there is a fundamental problem with envisaging math as being a first logical necessity for nature, (in this view).
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why did who do what?

Why did people put a taxpayer funded stone carving of the ten commandments up on public property? Probably because they think their religion gives them the right to do whatever they want, or because they don't understand what "separation of church and state" means.
But you educated atheists do ... right?
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Maths, science and religion all require a thinking human mind (selected from the total spectrum (or population) of all thinking human minds). Science helps in exploring certain persistent, (and consistent), perceptions across that population of human minds .. exposing perceptions that may have been concealed inside prior ones, and exploring new ones. Math just keeps our tracking 'honest' during that process of exploration.

Math is logical .. and nature doesn't exhibit prior logical necessities. There are numerous examples of mistakes in thinking that nature does, eg: even Einstein was caught out there when QM came along. Another example - take a simple mathematical system: the integers have the property that all integers have another integer that directly precedes them, but one cannot argue, as a logical necessity, that this requires a 'first integer'.

For this same reason, there is a fundamental problem with envisaging math as being a first logical necessity for nature, (in this view).

Picking a nit.
The jury is still out on the implications of QM

In saying what it is not, putting Einsteins objective deterministic world into question.
Science is still in dispute as to what it actually is!
Seems the model works for calculation but cannot reconcile the question of "what exists" if anything, prior to observation. And it is not nature that "does it" its the model of nature that has the problem. Nature can only be observed indirectly, and disentangling observation strikes at the heart of what is is possible to know. So it is not nature at fault, but the model of it.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Picking a nit.
The jury is still out on the implications of QM

In saying what it is not, putting Einsteins objective deterministic world into question.
Science is still in dispute as to what it actually is!
Seems the model works for calculation but cannot reconcile the question of "what exists" if anything, prior to observation. And it is not nature that "does it" its the model of nature that has the problem. Nature can only be observed indirectly, and disentangling observation strikes at the heart of what is is possible to know. So it is not nature at fault, but the model of it.
Spoken as frozen-in, paid in full, genuine, card carryin' Truthseeker .. (So it doesn't register as a scientific viewpoint ... )
Just keep calculatin' @MM .. (whilst keepin' ya lips zipped!)
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Spoken as frozen-in, paid in full, genuine, card carryin' Truthseeker .. (So it doesn't register as a scientific viewpoint ... )
Just keep calculatin' @MM .. (whilst keepin' ya lips zipped!)

Speaking as an electronic physicist. The model is fascinating.

Einsteins conjecture on QM was called into question, but no other alternative satisfies either. The world of physics is still very divided on alternatives. Bohrs alternative not wholly accepted either. The math seems to work. The rationalisation , not so much.
 
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

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,281.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think it's a bit of both - we invented maths to represent the relationships we discovered in the world. Without the regularities, patterns, and symmetries we observe, the structured world we are part of wouldn't exist.
Figured out math
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do what? Think we have the right to do whatever we want? Understand the separation of church and state? Please try to be clear.
You're in Australia, aren't you?

What do [or would] they do if someone puts up a display of the Ten Commandments on your courthouse lawn?
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're in Australia, aren't you?

What do [or would] they do if someone puts up a display of the Ten Commandments on your courthouse lawn?
I know you want to turn the US into the religious republic of Baptististan but here in Australia is a copy of our constitution.
4887992.jpg

This reflects on our courts as well (in Victoria don't know about the other states and territories), one has the option of swearing on the Bible, Koran or other religious texts.
In the case of atheists they don't have to swear on any religious text hence having a display of the ten commandments on a courthouse lawn seems inappropriate.
 
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

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You're in Australia, aren't you?

What do [or would] they do if someone puts up a display of the Ten Commandments on your courthouse lawn?

I'd point them to the Constitution of Australia, specifically Chapter 5, section 116: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.