• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's only quasi-religious in the sense that it's a mystery.

Where do you see the relationship between
mystery and quasi religious / pseudoscience
applied to said mysteries?

Vitalism has long been abandoned along with
astrology and " earth air fire water" as the four
elements.

The claim of "Mind" ( note the use of upper case
on the word mind) as being Fundamental and
separate from anything physical is as plainly
religious in nature as it gets.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,643
16,339
55
USA
✟410,822.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
It's only quasi-religious in the sense that it's a mystery.

It's far less mysterious than is being let on here. The proper way to resolve a mystery is to study it with rigor. Creating quasi-religions will solve nothing about our lack of understanding. (Though it may make us *think* we do.)
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
'The real world' is a descriptive model and in science, its a testable one.

The scientific model is a descriptive model at some level testable.
It describes models patterns of observations.

What the real world is underlying those observations is unknowable.
We only know how parts of it react with some of our senses.

The model a bat would develop, or even more limited a blind cave fish with no sight, would be way different from ours. Using sound for observation, a bat cannot know about remote stars.
Does the inability to sense remote stars negate their existence? of course not.

We cannot know how much of the universe is undetectable by us. Our senses are only a limited projection from potentially a higher dimension universe. So our models can only ever be empirical not fundamental. There will be one to many and many to one mappings caused by projection.

All we know is what interacts, and only then to the extent we have senses developed to improve chance of survival or so Darwin would have us believe.
Then the philosophical questions. Are we sensing an object or the shadow of one as in aristotles shadow world?

The scientific world and model are a close fit in many contexts, so that there is now a confusion between them. But it is utterly false philosophy that scientific realists try to pretend the scientific model IS the real world. It isnt. Its an abstraction from it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.

I never seen you adress any of the examples which more or less prove that the consciousness cannot be a process of the brain. Van lommel and others look at all of the potential hypothesis in brain chemistry and they simply cannot explain veridical NDE. Consciousness of procedures, remote places , conversations, during death, other people, when the brain is shutdown.

Its true. Sabom tried (indeed val lommel in longitudinal studies) tried putting "targets" in some of the operating theatres. But the absence of noting the targets means nothing. He points out that most cardiac arrests occur and treated elsehwere - so not amenable to that, but also the "focus" of the experiences is also elsewhere. Few remark on the specific theatre layouts, they remark on the procedures and conversations taking place during them. Also of remote places. Things the unconscious (essentially brain dead) patient can ever have known or guessed at.

Read them. An easy book to start is Laurin Bellg Death in ICU.
. "the self does not die" lists veridical experiences which are the most interesting.
Van lommel did longitudinal studies, and studies brain chemistry. Wrote papers in lancet.
NDE is far more frequent than criticics guess. It cannot be explained by residual brain function, so neither can consciousness.

I had not realised till I read those books.
1/ How cardiac arrests are normally fatal because the brain shuts down so quickly, and there are only minutes before damage is permanent,
2/ or that manual compression achieves some improvement but does not altar the general outcome that cardiac arrest is mostly fatal.
3/ that a significant proportion 15-20% of those back from the brink note an NDE. Its bigger than I thought

Before modelling the evidence itself needs assembling. And the evidence is king. Whether or not it fits present models. Or indeed whether it can be modelled (ie correlated)

Van lommel notes there is no correlation between any of the obvious factors you might think affected NDE, related to patient type, drugs or treatment type.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I never seen you adress any of the examples which more or less prove that the consciousness cannot be a process of the brain. Van lommel and others look at all of the potential hypothesis in brain chemistry and they simply cannot explain veridical NDE. Consciousness of procedures, remote places , conversations, during death, other people, when the brain is shutdown.

Its true. Sabom tried (indeed val lommel in longitudinal studies) tried putting "targets" in some of the operating theatres. But the absence of noting the targets means nothing. He points out that most cardiac arrests occur and treated elsehwere - so not amenable to that, but also the "focus" of the experiences is also elsewhere. Few remark on the specific theatre layouts, they remark on the procedures and conversations taking place during them. Also of remote places. Things the unconscious (essentially brain dead) patient can ever have known or guessed at.

Read them. An easy book to start is Laurin Bellg Death in ICU.
. "the self does not die" lists veridical experiences which are the most interesting.
Van lommel did longitudinal studies, and studies brain chemistry. Wrote papers in lancet.
NDE is far more frequent than criticics guess. It cannot be explained by residual brain function, so neither can consciousness.

I had not realised till I read those books.
1/ How cardiac arrests are normally fatal because the brain shuts down so quickly, and there are only minutes before damage is permanent,
2/ or that manual compression achieves some improvement but does not altar the general outcome that cardiac arrest is mostly fatal.
3/ that a significant proportion 15-20% of those back from the brink note an NDE. Its bigger than I thought

Before modelling the evidence itself needs assembling. And the evidence is king. Whether or not it fits present models. Or indeed whether it can be modelled (ie correlated)

Van lommel notes there is no correlation between any of the obvious factors you might think affected NDE, related to patient type, drugs or treatment type.
Consciousness of remote places during death. : D .

Right.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Consciousness of remote places during death. : D .

Right.

Study the evidence first.
Comment second.
Thats the scientific way.
Ive listed a few books to try
These are not written by quacks or wishful thinkers.
They are written by ED doctors, cardiac specialists, neurologists.
They performed longitudinal studies.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,147
3,177
Oregon
✟930,012.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
It's far less mysterious than is being let on here. The proper way to resolve a mystery is to study it with rigor. Creating quasi-religions will solve nothing about our lack of understanding. (Though it may make us *think* we do.)
How does one study the Spark of Life? Can it even be defined? It's a mystery.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Life is woo woo and doesn't exist?
As I breath and type away, I don't buy it.

Earlier you did t want to talk to me
Now you are misquoting me to make what
I said about the SPARK of life sound stupid.
What gives?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
SelfSim said:
Mountainmike said:
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.
...
The scientific model is a descriptive model at some level testable.
It describes models patterns of observations.

What the real world is underlying those observations is unknowable.
We only know how parts of it react with some of our senses.
So your description underlined there, is your model for what the 'the real world' is. It is unknowable. That's your model.
...
Mountainmike said:
We cannot know how much of the universe is undetectable by us. Our senses are only a limited projection from potentially a higher dimension universe. So our models can only ever be empirical not fundamental. There will be one to many and many to one mappings caused by projection.

All we know is what interacts, and only then to the extent we have senses developed to improve chance of survival or so Darwin would have us believe.
Then the philosophical questions. Are we sensing an object or the shadow of one as in aristotles shadow world?

The scientific world and model are a close fit in many contexts, so that there is now a confusion between them. But it is utterly false philosophy that scientific realists try to pretend the scientific model IS the real world. It isnt. Its an abstraction from it.
The only confusion here, is caused by your immovable fliter of absolute beliefs.
You say 'the real world' trumps science's models, yet you claim that 'the real world' is 'unknowable'. Then you go onto to explain some things you alone, (somehow), know about it, which science doesn't. :confused:

So how do we know it trumps anything?

How your view 'trumps' anything of practical value, is completely delusional. :confused:

Science only ever tests its models and never tests 'the actual thing'.
Science's models, therefore, are our only view of the objective universe, (or your 'the real world'). You can't even offer any objective test which would lead us to distinguish between science's models and your 'the real world'. The two are therefore exactly the same .. with the exception for your fixed beliefs
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok then another simple question that may help. How do you scientifically test say 'love', 'pain' or maybe 'happiness'.

Are you seriously asking me how I would objectively measure something that is, by definition, a totally SUBJECTIVE experience?

It can be easily shown how a person's brain activity changes when they experience love. But the experience of it is unique to that person.

I would have thought this was obvious.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry just had to jump in here as a thought struck me. The creation of the universe would only be an increase in energy if there was some energy already in existence because creation from nothing 'if we really mean nothing' will also create the energy. There is no comparison of measure to determine any increase.

As far as I understand all the energy of the universe was contained in the singularity. Which according to the materialist view was the result of a multiverse or some other unknown source of energy. But then this leads to an infinite regress where at some point new energy had to be introduced from nothing.

No, even if there was nothing before, then the creation of the apple would increase the amount of energy. Remember, Einstein's e=mc^2 tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable. As long as something is created without using pre-existing materials, then there must be an increase in the total energy of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,147
3,177
Oregon
✟930,012.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Earlier you did t want to talk to me
Now you are misquoting me to make what
I said about the SPARK of life sound stupid.
What gives?
I don't think I ever said that I didn't want to talk to you. That's not like me.
I think your confusing me with someone else.

Edited to add: It does seem rather silly to me when someone denies the Spark of Life aspect of Life itSelf.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't think I ever said that I didn't want to talk to you. That's not like me.
I think your confusing me with someone else.

Edited to add: It does seem rather silly to me when someone denies the Spark of Life aspect of Life itSelf.

Whatevs.
Go with Vitalism if you think it's sensible.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Are you seriously asking me how I would objectively measure something that is, by definition, a totally SUBJECTIVE experience?

It can be easily shown how a person's brain activity changes when they experience love. But the experience of it is unique to that person.
Hmm .. why wouldn't the measures of:
i) reports of the experience of love from the experiencer and;
ii) noticeable changes in brain activity when they experience love;
not be objective measures applicable to the experience?
Is what the individual experiences, really of any relevance to the objective experience?
(I mean after all, Newton never attempted to describe a cause for gravity .. ?)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
20,147
3,177
Oregon
✟930,012.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Whatevs.
Go with Vitalism if you think it's sensible.
Na...don't think so. Though I do agree that life can not be reduced to mechanical process alone. For instance, there's something in the smile of an infant, the light if you will, that is not a mechanical response. But comes from somewhere else.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Na...don't think so. Though I do agree that life can not be reduced to mechanical process alone. For instance, there's something in the smile of an infant, the light if you will, that is not a mechanical response. But comes from somewhere else.

Semantics I guesd.

To me the " spark" is some mysterious (God breathed)
force that animated " lifeless matter".

In the context of this thread that is what is meant
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Na...don't think so. Though I do agree that life can not be reduced to mechanical process alone. For instance, there's something in the smile of an infant, the light if you will, that is not a mechanical response. But comes from somewhere else.
Hormones(?)
:)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.