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

[AV1611VET]

You rejected the universe as it really is the instant you said reality is not real.

I see.

I think that, what you don't understand is, there is reality, then there is reality.

Put another way, there is reality, and then there is Reality.

 

[Kylie]

I see.

I think that, what you don't understand is, there is reality, then there is reality.

Put another way, there is reality, and then there is Reality.

This is meaningless.

Reality is not a certain way just because you want it to be that way. The Bible does not override what actually happens in the real world, no matter how much you want to think so.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible does not override what actually happens in the real world,

That's because those overrides are miracles, but academia calls them "magic."

It seems mislabeling things is par for the course in science.

 

[Kylie]

That's because those overrides are miracles, but academia calls them "magic."

It seems mislabeling things is par for the course in science.

Miracles don't happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miracles don't happen.

That's because they're mislabeled.

It's like calling Pluto our ninth planet for seventy-six years, then rigging a vote to get it mislabeled, then saying Pluto was never our ninth planet.

 

[Kylie]

That's because they're mislabeled.

It's like calling Pluto our ninth planet for seventy-six years, then rigging a vote to get it mislabeled, then saying Pluto was never our ninth planet.

Absolutely wrong.

There has never been a case of the laws of nature being violated. Not in any verifiable way. Any example you can give will be hearsay at best, or the result of incomplete information.

 

[AV1611VET]

There has never been a case of the laws of nature being violated.

That's because academia considers the Bible as malware and firewalls It.

 

[Kylie]

That's because academia considers the Bible as malware and firewalls It.

That's circular logic.

The Bible doesn't produce any real-world outcomes because "academia firewalls it", and academia firewalls it because it doesn't produce any real world outcomes.

You don't understand how the real world works, do you? That probably explains why you are so eager to tell it to take a hike when the real world does something that doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas. If the claims in the Bible actually worked, the evidence would be indisputable. But they don't work, so there is no evidence that can withstand scrutiny. It fails every time. That's why there are no verified cases of actual miracles.

 

[SelfSim]

That's because academia considers the Bible as malware and firewalls It.

You've got that backwards and it has nothing to do with 'academia'.

Science however, may treat the import of the Bible as irrelevant because of the objectively untestable notions it presents.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the claims in the Bible actually worked, the evidence would be indisputable.

I disagree.

Academia would find a way to dispute it, if not only on paper.

But they don't work, so there is no evidence that can withstand scrutiny.

Have you ever seen my Apple Challenge?

That thread, which no longer is accessible, is my magnum opus here; with my Raisin Bread Challenge a close second.

It fails every time.

Only on paper.

That's why there are no verified cases of actual miracles.

They'd be firewalled.

Don't believe me?

Let's hear the academic technobabble as to how a miracle didn't occur in 1948 with Israel becoming a nation again in fulfillment of a major prophecy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science however, may treat the import of the Bible as irrelevant because of the objectively untestable notions it presents.

"Objectively untestable notions"?

You mean miracles?

Thanks for the QED.

 

[stevevw]

No. That is literally what we mean by matter in physics. If you have a problem with quarks, gluons, and electrons being called "matter", it's your problem, not ours. If you're going to use non-standard definitions of "matter" than I'm not sure any conversation about what is or is not matter have any value whatsoever.

I don't have a problem with the scientific description of fundamental reality from a material perspective. It has been tremendously successful. But I think the billiard ball schema idea at the fundamental level breaks down. At the tiniest level there are no actual particles as in the billiard ball schema but waves of potentiality.

 

[stevevw]

A lot of people contributed and many if not most such .
we're not positive contributions.

Love and joy are states of consciousness, so
don't present that it's equivalently ineffable
with consciusness itself.

In the event one gets the impression that you are
merely going pseudoscience on us, having presupposed
that consciousness is inseparably a part of a
supernatural- god- spirit- immaterial- transcendent .
belief system ( forcwhich zerk evidence exists)
and thus you try to use science to demonstrate that
there actually is evidence for your views.

Quite convincing for you perhaps but it won't work
on those who don't go with your foundation less assumptions.

Not really thinking about God at this stage. Cannot even get past the idea of consciousness let alone take on that one. But don't confuse being open to exploring possibilities with belief in God. If we take God out of the picture I think there are a lot of people who believe in the idea that there is some immaterial aspect to reality.

You hit on a good point though that these debates do seem to be underpinned by philosophical beliefs and its hard to keep them out. IMO they are inherently linked. Just as we cannot separate ourselves from any scientific equation we cannot separate ourselves from metaphysics.

 

[stevevw]

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.

As mentioned there is no scientific test you can do at the moment. But the questions I asked you were like a test, just a different kind of test to determine things and help understand what I was saying.

 

[Mountainmike]

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?
.

Materialists love their straw men . I nowhere said gravity was a red herring. I noted it was an observation model. It describes what happens in a formulaic manner. That is not an explanation of why it happens. It just does.

So when you asked for an explanation of how a separable consciousness could interact with a brain the lack of such explanation matters not one iota to whether or not it happens.

Materialists confuse the scientific model with the real world.
The world trumps the model. The lack of ability to explain in the framework of the model, does not invalidate the evidence. It says you need a new model.
Our science today is unrecognisable 200 years ago. Our science in 200 years and model will be unrecognisable today. The model is after all - just an abstract.
It fits where it touches in some places badly. It is not the universe that we cannot know. We only know how it interacts with our senses.

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.

There is a mass of veridical evidence in which others (and in many cases medics) validate details that the patient cannot possibly have known if their consciousness was confined to a functioning brain.. Not least because in the case of cardiac arrest , after less than a minute they are dead. Assystole. No functioning ECG.

Yet MANY in that state describe lucid consciousness of medical procedures, places they can never have been, conversations in other places, , interactions that they can never have known if consciousness WAS confined to the brain, the details of which are validated by a third party. Way beyond random chance.

I suggest you read "self does not die" van lommel and others such as sabom or bellg, for the studies that confirm that the veridical NDE cannot be the result of hallucinations, dreams, or a myriad of other attempts to explain them away. It simply does not account for the evidence. There are longitudinal studies that show clearly such experiences happen and can never be explained in the "consciousness as a brain process" hypothesis.

You disappoint me Hans Blaster.

You have lost all the curiosity a scientist needs to make progress in questioning the status quo. You are trapped in materialist viewpoint and you ignore compelling evidence that not only disputes it, but in essence disproves it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't have a problem with the scientific description of fundamental reality from a material perspective. It has been tremendously successful. But I think the billiard ball schema idea at the fundamental level breaks down. At the tiniest level there are no actual particles as in the billiard ball schema but waves of potentiality.

"waves of potentiality" is nonsense. They are quanta of a fundamental field that have wave-like properties. There is no requirement that they be "tiny billiard balls". I'm sorry physics doesn't work the way you think it should.

 

[Astrid]

Not really thinking about God at this stage. Cannot even get past the idea of consciousness let alone take on that one. But don't confuse being open to exploring possibilities with belief in God. If we take God out of the picture I think there are a lot of people who believe in the idea that there is some immaterial aspect to reality.

You hit on a good point though that these debates do seem to be underpinned by philosophical beliefs and its hard to keep them out. IMO they are inherently linked. Just as we cannot separate ourselves from any scientific equation we cannot separate ourselves from metaphysics.

Your response is quite disconnected from.what I said.
You spoke of " contributions" as if all
contributions are positive, insane they are not.

I point out that your pseudoscience is stating with a
conclusion about consciousness being something
immaterial and you counter with that I am.confused.

Then make up a " point" I didn't offer or.agree
with about " philosophy" and gibberish about how
we can't separate ourselves from metaphysics.

In the grant biz that gets stamped "UNRESPONSIVE'
and circular filed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Materialists love their straw men . I nowhere said gravity was a red herring. I noted it was an observation model. It describes what happens in a formulaic manner. That is not an explanation of why it happens. It just does.

Oh boy. *I* said that your "gravity" diversion was a red herring. You brought up the "do we know how gravity works" thing in what seems like an attempt to distract from or dodge the question (which as I recall wasn't specifically aimed at you originally as you'd been off the site for a while) about how the "spirit" and "body" interact. (Hint: It ain't gravitationally.)

As for the rest of your post I see no point in responding to it, nor do I find any value in "discussion" with you at this point.

 

[SelfSim]

Materialists confuse the scientific model with the real world.
The world trumps the model.

'The real world' is a descriptive model and in science, its a testable one.

 

[Astrid]

'The real world' is a descriptive model and in science, its a testable one.

Someone is confused, for sure.