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

[Astrid]

This is whatever created the energy (universe) in the first place. I call this 'it' because we don't know what the cause of the universe was. It could have been God, it could have been a Multiverse, It could have been some unknown cause that we have not discovered yet.

Who says it was created?

 

[Mountainmike]

Who says it was created?

Steven hawking for one in the “ grand design”
He stated:
“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist”

So we just disagree on agency not outcome. And since hawking wasn’t there to witness it, his opinion is no better than ours!

mind you… hawking was known for telling convenient porky pies as he did on Hawking radiation..but that’s another story.

 

[stevevw]

Who says it was created?

Well the energy had to come from somewhere. As far as I understand even a quantum vacuum has energy. So where did that come from. One way some people like Lawrence Krauss get around this is to pose that the quantum vacuum (empty space) is really what we call nothing which is a bit deceptive because it is something as it requires vacuum energy. But where did that vacuum energy come from.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well the energy had to come from somewhere. As far as I understand even a quantum vacuum has energy. So where did that come from. One way some people like Lawrence Krauss get around this is to pose that the quantum vacuum (empty space) is really what we call nothing which is a bit deceptive because it is something as it requires vacuum energy. But where did that vacuum energy come from.

1. The total energy of the Universe is ~0, so maybe not that much energy is needed.

2. Kraus isn't being deceptive. The quantum fields exist everywhere. If you insist on a "vacuum" having none of those fields, then there is no vacuum anywhere in the Universe.

3. It's highly likely that there was no "nothing" and that the Universe emerged from "something". That "something" probably always existed. That something could be a substrate from which a universe can "quantum fluctuate" into existence, or an eternally inflating multiverse, or a god. The arguments for god that depend on "something from nothing" are almost certainly not of any value.

 

[Astrid]

Well the energy had to come from somewhere. As far as I understand even a quantum vacuum has energy. So where did that come from. One way some people like Lawrence Krauss get around this is to pose that the quantum vacuum (empty space) is really what we call nothing which is a bit deceptive because it is something as it requires vacuum energy. But where did that vacuum energy come from.

" Come from"= came from some place where it already
existed.

Huge and utterly unsupportable notions,
the second of which is that "common sense"
has any capacity, whatever, to penetrate the
profoundly non / counter i ntuitive nature of physics.

" Common sense" never figured out
whether heavy rocks fall faster than light ones.

Your reasoning is useless.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well the energy had to come from somewhere. As far as I understand even a quantum vacuum has energy. So where did that come from. One way some people like Lawrence Krauss get around this is to pose that the quantum vacuum (empty space) is really what we call nothing which is a bit deceptive because it is something as it requires vacuum energy. But where did that vacuum energy come from.

Just explaining @Hans Blaster answer a bit further:

The conjecture of a near zero net energy assumption is that positive matter energy is balanced by negative field potential energy. Alas there is still an apparent imbalance in as far as anyone can tell. So who knows? the idea is way old.

 

[Mountainmike]

" Come from"= came from some place where it already
ecisted.

Two huge and utterly unsupportable notions,
the second of which is that "common sense"
has any capacity, whatever, to penetrate the
profoundly non / counter i ntuitive nature of physics.

" Common sense" never figured out
whether heavy rocks fall faster than light ones.

Your reasoning is useless.

He made fair comment : if field energy exists, where did it come from as in how did it arise? That question is perfectly valid. An answer would have been better than insult.
( field energy incidentally is a far better model of black hole evaporation than the particle pair spontaneous creation mentioned by hawking in his popular book)

 

[partinobodycular]

Pretty much what they say about people who think consciousness can be out of body. Sabom. Van lommel. Bellg. The list is long. But you will be surprised how many now believe it as a matter of medical experience, not faith. If you want to read up on that, try pim van lommel.

And with the acceptance consciousness is separate from body - the entire basis of life as a product of chemistry , and dawkinsian and Darwinian beliefs die the same day. That’s why materialists will fight tooth and claw to prevent that conclusion. They can no longer explain life. Awkward for atheists,

well you did ask…. So I answered.
The moon exists. Or something exists we perceive as the moon.
There is a soul and a body, but the consciousness needs the body to interact, but not to observe. You are being watched!

I'm curious, your basic argument leads to three possible conclusions.

1. There is a physical reality, the product of which is consciousness.
2. There is consciousness, the product of which is the illusion of a physical reality.
3. There are two separate components of reality that work in conjunction with each other, yet neither of them are the product of the other.

You seem to claim that there's evidence that #1 is demonstrably false, and that #3 is demonstrably true. But what evidence do you have that #2 isn't just as valid of a conclusion as #3 is?

 

[Mountainmike]

4/ there is a physical reality but it is unknowable , our window on it of observation is limited, blurred, and in part subjective. Our models are therefore limited too.

A part of it rather than a product of it is consciousness. Just as a part of it, not product of it is a physical body. Life is consciousness. The body is a temporary home.

I also think consciousness is non local in a physical sense , can interact with other consciousness and also escapes the constraints of time and place.

You did ask…

 

[partinobodycular]

4/ there is a physical reality but it is unknowable , our window on it of observation is limited, blurred, and in part subjective. Our models are therefore limited too.

I can't really argue with that, but I'm not sure how it differs in substance from #3. Physical reality and consciousness are concurrent phenomena, in which neither is responsible for giving rise to the other.

But how does this disprove #2, that physical reality is simply an illusion manifested solely within the confines of a conscious mind, and with no independent existence outside of it?

 

[Kylie]

That's OK lol. But the point being that if our universe was created from no previously existing energy then all the energy is created ex nihilo. Where did that come from.

Any answer to that would require knowledge of what it is like when we remove our universe and all the laws governing it, and we just don't have that

knowledge.Ask Ethan: How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing?

 

[partinobodycular]

But the point being that if our universe was created from no previously existing energy then all the energy is created ex nihilo. Where did that come from.

This assumes that there was a "before" the universe came into existence. But if there was truly "nothing" then there was no "before", hence the universe has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere.

 

[SelfSim]

But the point being that if our universe was created from no previously existing energy then all the energy is created ex nihilo. Where did that come from.

This assumes that there was a "before" the universe came into existence. But if there was truly "nothing" then there was no "before", hence the universe has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere.

.. (with the most important aspect being that an eternal universe is inconsistent with observations of our own).

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

We can’t say that human DNA proves God’s existence, but it is strong evidence supporting His existence.

 

[stevevw]

This assumes that there was a "before" the universe came into existence. But if there was truly "nothing" then there was no "before", hence the universe has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere.

How do we know it always existed. That seems a non-verifiable claim.

 

[stevevw]

Any answer to that would require knowledge of what it is like when we remove our universe and all the laws governing it, and we just don't have that

knowledge.Ask Ethan: How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing?

The link you provided has a pay wall. The laws that govern our universe are not a material thing so there is nothing to create. So how did they come about. If the ingredients of our entire universe were present at the beginning of our universe then something must have put those ingredients into the makeup of our universe including intelligent conscious life.

 

[stevevw]

" Come from"= came from some place where it already
existed.

Huge and utterly unsupportable notions,
the second of which is that "common sense"
has any capacity, whatever, to penetrate the
profoundly non / counter i ntuitive nature of physics.

" Common sense" never figured out
whether heavy rocks fall faster than light ones.

Your reasoning is useless.

Just like it always existed is an unsupported idea. Cause is a scientific idea inherent in its method so its logical to ask what caused something.

 

[SelfSim]

How do we know it always existed. That seems a non-verifiable claim.

Its not a claim .. its a conditional assumption.

 

[SelfSim]

We can’t say that human DNA proves God’s existence, but it is strong evidence supporting His existence.

I would say its strong evidence of a high fidelity self replication mechanism.

 

[stevevw]

1. The total energy of the Universe is ~0, so maybe not that much energy is needed.

But its only zero because of gravity so now we have another force to explain how it got there.

2. Kraus isn't being deceptive. The quantum fields exist everywhere. If you insist on a "vacuum" having none of those fields, then there is no vacuum anywhere in the Universe.

But the quantum fields as far as I understand have energy. So are you saying this was always there.

3. It's highly likely that there was no "nothing" and that the Universe emerged from "something". That "something" probably always existed. That something could be a substrate from which a universe can "quantum fluctuate" into existence, or an eternally inflating multiverse, or a god. The arguments for god that depend on "something from nothing" are almost certainly not of any value.

Either is the argument that the universe came from something that was always there. Its on par with God as an idea. The causal principle tells us that everything has a cause and effect.