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

[Kylie]

If you take her entire OP into context, considering she answered her own question - I was purely agreeing to that fact. We can't witness to those that need physical evidence for Gods existence, if they don't already have some inner understanding that something is behind it all, reading scripture alone will not pierce their hearts.

God makes himself known to anyone wanting to earnestly seek him - but it is through faith and not our physical senses that we come to see the truth.

Without some objective way to check if something is real, we can't be sure that it is real. History has shown that faith alone is not a good way to find any kind of truth.

How did you interpret the parables?

I don't see how that's relevant to scientific evidence for God.

 

[Kylie]

You can't convince a blind person to see, but you can try to appeal to their other senses to help them understand what something they don't see is like.
I tried and failed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth a try.

But you can give a blind person an objective way to determine the colour of something. A small handheld thing which they can put against a surface, it shines a light and measures which wavelengths are reflected back, and then speaks what colour it is. I use similar technology every few months on my computer monitor to make sure it is properly calibrated. Such objective determination is impossible when it comes to determining if God is real or now. All you can do is go on feeling, and there is no way to verify those feelings.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Without some objective way to check if something is real, we can't be sure that it is real. History has shown that faith alone is not a good way to find any kind of truth.

What is "objective" but a concept humans invented with the mind?

How has history "shown" that faith alone is not a good way to find any kind of truth? We are talking about faith in God here, not faith in ourselves.

I don't see how that's relevant to scientific evidence for God.

You said:

So why should I accept the argument that the Bible is more likely to be true if it has good morals in it?

So I asked you, how did you interpret the parables?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So I asked you, how did you interpret the parables?

I like the parable of the loaves and fishes, but that's not relevant here.

 

[YahuahSaves]

But you can give a blind person an objective way to determine the colour of something.

Exactly. Now apply that to spiritual sight.

All you can do is go on feeling, and there is no way to verify those feelings.

There is no verification needed once you personally know. It's like someone you've known your entire life... it's undeniable to you that it's a fact and not a "feeling".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But you can give a blind person an objective way to determine the colour of something. A small handheld thing which they can put against a surface, it shines a light and measures which wavelengths are reflected back, and then speaks what colour it is. I use similar technology every few months on my computer monitor to make sure it is properly calibrated. Such objective determination is impossible when it comes to determining if God is real or now. All you can do is go on feeling, and there is no way to verify those feelings.

Some folks go on a "feeling" about what they think the meaning of String Theory is, but somehow other folks aren't questioning it.

 

[Estrid]

That was exactly my point in responding to the OP on this thread.

No, not really.
You can't convince a blind person to see, but you can try to appeal to their other senses to help them understand what something they don't see is like.
I tried and failed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth a try.


No?
Refresh my memory.

In another thread someone figures I am blind
because I don't see their "giants".

I'm sure there is much in Chinese culture that
you would never "see".

Ancient middle eastern culture does not speak
to me. I don't believe their stories or in their God.

I need something to give credibility to a story.

Imstead i find Samson, his strength in his hair.
Unicorns. Talking animals. " Exodus" As if.
Flood, for goodness sake. I'm supposed to
believe that? I see a problem. Do you?
Blind is blind faith!

Christianity has some great ideas. I respect those,
and those who take them to heart.

You might be interested how much is the same
as we are taught.

If you sincerely hoped to win me to your religion,
thats nice, sorry to disappoint you.

Some pages back you were complaining about
atheists being here, proposing base motives etc.

If you forget, or better still changed your mind
good. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Kylie]

What is "objective" but a concept humans invented with the mind?

You misunderstand me.

If something is objective, then it will be the same for everyone.

If I measure the height of a tree, then you can come and measure the tree and get the same result. You might use a different method entirely to make your measurement, but the tree must really have one specific height, and we are both measuring that same height. The tree exists independently of each of us, so it can't have one height for you and a different height for me.

How has history "shown" that faith alone is not a good way to find any kind of truth? We are talking about faith in God here, not faith in ourselves.

And yet different people use this same tool and get very different results. This is not what would happen if the tool is reliable.

If Person A uses faith and gets result A, and Person B uses faith and gets result B, then one of them must be wrong. And if one of them is wrong, then it shows that using faith can lead to a wrong answer. So we need some other way to verify what the faith tells us. Faith alone is not enough to find the truth.

You said:

So I asked you, how did you interpret the parables?

How I interpret them is irrelevant. I was very clear. A story having a good moral does not mean the story is true.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly. Now apply that to spiritual sight.

Okay, and if you can tell me this process by which we can OBJECTIVELY determine the truth about spirituality?

Remember, if it's OBJECTIVE, it's the same for everyone.

There is no verification needed once you personally know. It's like someone you've known your entire life... it's undeniable to you that it's a fact and not a "feeling".

Feeling it very strongly does not make it a fact. And if it can't be verified, you can't claim it as a fact.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I'm sure there is much in Chinese culture that
you would never "see".

Human "Culture" is not from God.

Ancient middle eastern culture does not speak
to me. I don't believe their stories or in their God.

If you're talking about Islam, they have a false doctrine. They don't believe Jesus is God.

I need something to give credibility to a story.

You have it within you, but because your eyes are only looking at the natural surface things, you won’t find it.

Blind is blind faith!

To use a physically blind analogy again:
Does a blind person have faith in a dog to lead the way? They can't see the obstacles in their path, but the dog helps the person avoid them. Should the blind person rely on their blindness to walk down a hazardous path? Should they rely on their hands to guess the way ahead and possibly (likely) fall off a cliff edge?

If you sincerely hoped to win me to your religion,
thats nice, sorry to disappoint you.

I don’t have a "religion". That was created by humans, not God.

I'm not trying to "win" you to anything. Just responding to your posts directed to me.
Do I hope it may help you think about the deeper meaning of life and ultimately lead you to Jesus? Absolutely. That's my hope for everyone.

Some pages back you were complaining about
atheists being here, proposing base motives etc.

I was complaining? I seem to recall it was the other way around.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Human "Culture" is not from God.

All culture is from humans as it is a human artifact. (Not sure why "culture" is in "quotes" here.)

If you're talking about Islam, they have a false doctrine. They don't believe Jesus is God.

I agree about Islam it is like all religion, and I also don't believe Jesus is god.

You keep talking about doctrine. That isn't relevant.

 

[YahuahSaves]

something is objective, then it will be the same for everyone.

Not true of the definition, because nothing can be proven to be "real" by just observing it. Physical? Yes. But the supernatural is just as "real" as the natural is. Perspective is clearly not the same for everyone. Heights of trees differ, so does the shape, texture and color from tree to tree, but we still only identify it as a "tree" when we look at one. Does that mean the qualities of the tree itself cease to exist?

objective

əb-jĕk′tĭv

adjective​

1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.

If Person A uses faith and gets result A, and Person B uses faith and gets result B, then one of them must be wrong.

If person A has faith that a chair won't break when they sit on it and person B with the same faith sits on a chair believing it won't break and it does - does this mean faith is the problem?

How I interpret them is irrelevant. I was very clear. A story having a good moral does not mean the story is true.

The parables are not about morals.

 

[YahuahSaves]

All culture is from humans as it is a human artifact.

Exactly my point.

and I also don't believe Jesus is god.

And that's why you don't see the truth and believe instead that the natural is all there is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And that's why you don't see the truth and believe instead that the natural is all there is.

This is an odd selector. Muslims (the people who were originally referred to as "not believing Jesus is god") do not think that the natural is all there is. They believe in a supernatural/spiritual aspect to the world and in a god (or in Arabic "allah").

"see the truth" "believe" are terms that have no place in a discussion of evidence and proof.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Remember, if it's OBJECTIVE, it's the same for everyone.

In the case of "spirituality", that's not true.
I said the supernatural and natural exist simultaneously. spirituality is personal.
When it comes to God (supernatural) he can be known by all, which then makes God significant personally.

Feeling it very strongly does not make it a fact. And if it can't be verified, you can't claim it as a fact.

So if you've known someone your whole life, you would call that a feeling and not a fact?

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is an odd selector.

I was responding to your earlier experiences you've mentioned about religion.

 

[Kylie]

Not true of the definition, because nothing can be proven to be "real" by just observing it. Physical? Yes. But the supernatural is just as "real" as the natural is. Perspective is clearly not the same for everyone. Heights of trees differ, so does the shape, texture and color from tree to tree, but we still only identify it as a "tree" when we look at one. Does that mean the qualities of the tree itself cease to exist?

objective

əb-jĕk′tĭv

adjective​

1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.

If we extend this, then we could all be brains in a jar. I'm sure you don't want to take it that far. So the question is, where do we draw the line?

In any case, we can both be standing before a tree and we can both measure that tree and we will get the same result.

You have not been able to show that the supernatural is real. You agree that there are things we can do to show that some physical objective objectively exists. You also claim that spiritual things are objectively real. How can you demonstrate that? I've shown how we can both measure the same physical object and get results that agree. How do you propose to do that for spiritual things? How can you measure something spiritual, and I measure the same thing, and we get the same result? Because if the spiritual thing really does exist independent to either of us, we SHOULD get the same result, shouldn't we?

If person A has faith that a chair won't break when they sit on it and person B with the same faith sits on a chair believing it won't break and it does - does this mean faith is the problem?

Yes, because perhaps they failed to consider that Person B is heavier than Person A, and while Person A wasn't heavy enough to cause the chair to collapse, Person B was. Or perhaps the chair was damaged and Person A weakened it to the point where the next person sitting on it would cause it to collapse, no matter what their weight was.

And, I must point out that if they had actually bothered to examine the chair to verify the chair's stability, they could have avoided the whole thing. See how relying on faith and faith alone can get you into trouble?

The parables are not about morals.

I'm not talking specifically about morality, I'm talking about the message that the parable is intended to convey. They aren't relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God.

 

[Kylie]

And that's why you don't see the truth and believe instead that the natural is all there is.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd be happy to believe in anything - literally ANYTHING - provided there was some testable evidence for it.

I've seen many atheists say the same thing too.

If we are given a good reason to believe in something, we'll believe it. But faith is not sufficient reason, since it doesn't produce reliable information about the world.

 

[Kylie]

In the case of "spirituality", that's not true.
I said the supernatural and natural exist simultaneously. spirituality is personal.
When it comes to God (supernatural) he can be known by all, which then makes God significant personally.

Then it exists only within the person holding the belief. If there really is a God that exists as an independent being, then such a God is more than personal. Such a God would exist in objective reality.

So if you've known someone your whole life, you would call that a feeling and not a fact?

Do you really think that people have never been wrong about another person? "I've lived next door to him all my life, there's no way he could be a murderer!"

 

[Lost Witness]

I can only speak for myself, but I'd be happy to believe in anything - literally ANYTHING - provided there was some testable evidence for it.

I've seen many atheists say the same thing too.

If we are given a good reason to believe in something, we'll believe it. But faith is not sufficient reason, since it doesn't produce reliable information about the world.

Look into Lee Strobel,
He Was an investigative journalist in 1980 who was an avowed atheist,
Who Tried to Debunk the Resurrection of Christ,
pretty interesting.