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

[dlamberth]

'Objectivity' is defined by the scientific method itself. Wherever the method is able to be applied, (as decided by way of its criterion of testability), objectivity is determined.

You'll find this differs from broadly defined dictionary definitions, which are usually so generalised to the point of practical uselessness only ever producing circularity .. unlike science's definitions.

Yet at the same time useful to the person experiencing the moment. That moment of "aweness" when seeing a rainbow has a way of touching the person directly.

 

[dlamberth]

Whether you or he were conscious at the time is not
a matter of how anyone feels about it.

It seems to me that without conscious awareness, how can a person be aware of their surrounding? And with each person's awareness subjectively different from each other.

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you proposing that gravity is the force that mediates between the spirit and the brain? If not, this is irrelevant..

It is completely relevant to the demonstration that as with gravity, science does not give you the physical mechnanism :it observes it does not explain in any fundamental sense. The names you give are to empirical patterns of observations not underpinning laws of the universe.

No, it isn't. Not interesting at all.

It is certainly interesting that the evidence demonstrates consciousness cannot be a process of a physical brain.

So the materialist view point does not work and is thereby buried.

Thats if science interests you of course, rather than reinforcing your faith in a specific philosophy of nature.

Above all a scientist should be interested in the nature of phenomena in the world around him
The scientific model is just a model of a universe for which we only have limited observation. We cannot know what is actually there.. The Science of one century is almost unrecognisable centuries on, and so it will be with this.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems to me that without conscious awareness, how can a person be aware of their surrounding? And with each person's awareness subjectively different from each other.

Your interactions with your surroundings is your business.

But when your surroundings start telling you things that go against Scripture, then you need to learn to put your surroundings in its place.

Scientists think SN1987A has been speaking to us for some 170,000 years when, in reality, it is telling us it is 170,000 light years away.

But today's science can't put their surroundings in its place, because today's science is ... well ... run by another source.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is completely relevant to the demonstration that as with gravity, science does not give you the physical mechnanism :it observes it does not explain in any fundamental sense. The names you give are to empirical patterns of observations not underpinning laws of the universe.

Do you think gravity is the force mediating between the "spirit" or "mind" and the body, or is your miscomprehension about gravity just a red herring?

It is certainly interesting that the evidence demonstrates consciousness cannot be a process of a physical brain.

So the materialist view point does not work and is thereby buried.

Your "evidence" was "veridical experiences" that as best I can understand are just things people claimed happened to them. There is plenty of actual scientific data about the nature of consciousness from controlled studies.

 

[dlamberth]

Your interactions with your surroundings is your business.

But when your surroundings start telling you things that go against Scripture, then you need to learn to put your surroundings in its place.
.

My surroundings tell me that God is WAY bigger than any Scripture can ever be.

 

[AV1611VET]

My surroundings tell me that God is WAY bigger than any Scripture can ever be.

As I said ...

Incidentally, have you read the Bible?

And, if so, does it bug you that, when Jesus told nature what to do, nature did it without question?

It certainly bugs academia.

 

[SelfSim]

Yet at the same time useful to the person experiencing the moment. That moment of "aweness" when seeing a rainbow has a way of touching the person directly.

I had a leech latch onto my ankle just recently .. I also felt it 'bite' into me, which I found curious. Because of past encounters with these beasties I knew instantly how to sort this one out. I ran back to my car (with leech attached) and retrieved my trusty personal insecticide. He was no match for that stuff!

So there ya go .. lots of objective survivability science (and revulsion) in that one!
Aren't ya glad we're so nicely integrated by having objective/subjective distinctions at our fingertips in order to survive in nature?

I almost stepped one of the world's most highly venemous snakes half an hour later too .. an objectively measurable heart-thumpin' experience that one was too!

 

[SelfSim]

Moses.

Deuteronomy 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

A mountain was involved when Moses came across those writings too, eh? Perhaps they were his subjective experience also?

 

[SelfSim]

And, if so, does it bug you that, when Jesus told nature what to do, nature did it without question?

It certainly bugs academia.

I told that leech I encountered the other day to 'Bug off' out aloud! (Saying it out aloud reminded me of the name of my trusty insecticide).

(I can't say out aloud what I said when I saw the snake here, mind you).

 

[Kylie]

The fact I am talking about is that consciousness is qualia. This is well acknowledged. As mentioned there are no facts about consciousness at present as far as verifying its fundamental nature. But we can say that conscious experience can only be understood from the subject and this is about qualitative experiences.

So in principle as science can only deal with quantifying the world then consciousness is beyond science. Science can only describe the behavior of consciousness, it cannot explain what it actually is.

In fact science cannot even tell us what matter is. It can only describe its behavior. So if we don't even know the fundamental nature of matter how can science help with consciousness.

Let me repeat myself, since you seem incapable of answering the question that I actually asked.

Then you should have no problem providing the scientific studies that were done to establish those facts.

 

[Kylie]

Sure it is. With out that experience, a person is consciously dead.

So a person who is unconscious is dead? Or are they conscious of their unconsciousness?

 

[Kylie]

But when your surroundings start telling you things that go against Scripture, then you need to learn to put your surroundings in its place.

In other words, when reality and the Bible disagree, reality is the one that is wrong.

 

[Astrid]

It seems to me that without conscious awareness, how can a person be aware of their surrounding? And with each person's awareness subjectively different from each other.

Bacteria and plants are aware enough to react to
their environment.
There's a continuum from there to "higher" organisms.

Your common dog- hound is attunrd to smells
and sounds we are totally unaware of.
A dolphin lives in a sensory / reaction world
beyond our imagination .

I don't know what you mean by subjective.
Every clam is going to experience life differently
fromevery other clam.
.
What does any of that have to do with consciousness being
anything but the function of the nervous system?

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, when reality and the Bible disagree, reality is the one that is wrong.

That is correct.

Or, as I like to put it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

 

[Astrid]

In other words, when reality and the Bible disagree, reality is the one that is wrong.

That has been reviewed b4

 

[Kylie]

That is correct.

Or, as I like to put it:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

So, just to clarify:

Reality is not always real.

 

[Astrid]

Sure it is. With out that experience, a person is consciously dead.

We are not conscious of this form of being dead
having been accepted by the editors of Lancet.

 

[Astrid]

My surroundings tell me that God is WAY bigger than any Scripture can ever be.

Mine tell me that "god(s)" are just reflections
of a persons own mind, that serve only to block
the view of what is really there.

 

[sjastro]

So, just to clarify:

Reality is not always real.

Don't lose sight of the fact this is all about AV's distortions of the Bible.
While he wants to quote his "heuristics" ad nauseum, the real "heuristic" in operation is this.

1. Bible says x, AV distortion of Bible y = go with y

I'm still waiting on him to address the Bible quote about those who take the Bible out of context.

...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1: 20-21)