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

[Kylie]

Sorry. I'm not clear on what you want. You originally asked for a 'brief' summary. I gave you that. And....now I guess you're wanting me to elaborate further on some point? I wasn't attempting to offer evidence by referring to Conrad Hyers, but rather scholarly elucidation about the kind of ancient literature I think Genesis 1, beyond simply citing "genre." I fully realize that elucidation doesn't provide "evidence," which I'm guess is all you're interested in? If that's the case, then I guess you and I will quickly find ourselves running out of things to talk about ...

I asked for a brief overview of Conrad's position on Genesis 1.

Your answer was, "Hyers thesis is that Genesis 1 is theological cosmogony rather than cosmology. It's purpose was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic cosmogonic structures of "creation" that permeate the mythos of the surrounding cultures which existed at the time Genesis 1 was written --like early Babylon, for instance, etc."

This was difficult to understand, since you used plenty of complex words like cosmogony and polemic. There's a bit of writing advice: "Don’t use a big word when a singularly unloquacious & diminutive linguistic expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary need." I would have found it much clearer if you'd said, "It was written as a monotheistic explanation for the creation of the universe rather than the polytheistic explanations most cultures of the time had."

Anyway, I found this answer confusing. First of all, cosmogony (the study of how the universe started) would seem to be a subcategory of cosmology. Secondly, immediately after you said his position was that Genesis 1 was written as a theological account of how the universe started, you said, "Genesis 1 wasn't written to explain 'how' the world was created, especially not in a scientific way." This seemed contradictory to me. The only way I could see to make it work was if he had taken it to be a metaphor, and yet when I sugested that, you said no.

You then claimed it was "Princeton level analysis and attempting to call the literature what it was." But this doesn't clarify what he took it to be at all, it's simply a comment on how good his analysis was. I'm still confused as to what the result of his analysis was. From what you've said (at least, what I've taken from your posts), he doesn't think it was meant literally, yet he doesn't think it was meant metaphorically either. I can't think of any third option, and you haven't provided one. So, as I said, I don't know what his position actually is.

 

[Kylie]

Post 961

Yeah, not the same thing.

I wasn't saying, "This is what AV believes." I was saying, "This is what it appears to me that AV believes, based on what he's posted." The words "from what I can tell" are pretty important there.

 

[Kylie]

That's the quadrillion dollar question, isn't it, Kylie? And we both know the answer, don't we?

The way I came to approach the whole religious fiasco is to start with the Skeptical, Existential position (ala Sagan and Sartre) as assumed ... not the Bible as assumed.

Why not start with the idea that BOTH of them are assumed, put each one to the test, and see which one provides useful results?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

As you have been told, E=mc² only applies for particles with mass that are not moving (rest-mass energy). Photons do not have mass and are moving. For photons (light) E=pc. (p == momentum)

​

"As you have been told" you don't tell people what to do on this forum you are not in charge here. Are you saying that you boss people around on this forum. i don't think so. that is where you need to get you attitude right. we are here to discuss, not here for you to bully people when you get mildly upset or when someone say something you don't like or disagree with.

That is fantasy technology.

I noticed you worded that very carefully. you did not invalidate the science behind it. If you would have disagreed with it you would have been summarily attacked by this forum for most of them accept is a valid application of the principle and what is possible. That just shows you are not serious. Nice manipulations. when you want to be serious I will talk with you, but not anymore.

[/QUOTE]

What o


I don't think @sjastro nor I are being unreasonable.

of course you don't. that is what allows you to act and react however you want

but I came here to talk about science. God is not a topic that interests me in general, but I have participated in this "scientific evidence for god" thread because of the science, not the god. As I suspected when I spotted this as new thread 3080 post ago I had no hope for actual proof, but it might be amusing...

If God dose not interest you then you are in the wrong place. the is a forum about for God and a thread about God. you are not here for science if you were you would not be so defensive and hostel. I have seen many people like you come into these forums and claim they are looking for evidence and then dismiss the evidence that is given them. That is what you did. you must decide if you really want evidence or not. and clearly you don't. you must decide what "evidence" you will accept. no one knows that except you. if you choose to inform people then that would make it easier

You're not the one that decides this. That is up to the owners, managers, and mods, and so far they have allowed me to stay, particularly in the "open to non-Christians" sections.

you are right, the owners decided and you are in violation. you seem to think you decide.

When you misuse general knowledge (E=mc2) by applying it where it is not applicable and someone with more specific knowledge corrects your usage it is not out of bounds on the science sub-forum and it is definitely not your "right" to insist that the more complete knowledge is irrelevant.

I did not misuse use general knowledge, you are being overly pedantic. I have seen this tactic before. you are attempting to drown the idea in details that are not relevant to the topic. so you can dismiss the subject, because you don't want to deal with. you were given evidence and you dismissed it. that is what you did. until you want to deal with it instead of dismiss it. we can go not further.

 

[SelfSim]

@Adventist Heretic:

You need to correct the attributions (or quotes) on your immediately last post #3124.

You have mixed in your own words and made it look like others have said them.

This is an extremely obnoxious posting technique .. and you need to repair the damage immediately.
Take this advice how you like ..

 

[YahuahSaves]

Now if you are going to come here and say to us it is not possible and we won't believe it, until you prove to us that it is possible. then there is no point in trying to speak with you. you have already made up your mind that it is not possible. so what is the point and why are you here?

So they can bash Christians? I thought that was obvious

 

[Kylie]

So they can bash Christians? I thought that was obvious

You've been here a month, so perhaps you don't know, this site is fiercely Christian. They do not allow any threads that say that being trans or gay is okay. I even had a thread shut down about astrology because it was promoting a non-Christian religion. This site is very pro-Christian. there's just no justification for you to play the "Christians are victimized here" card. Believe me, if Christians were coming here and just bashing Christians as you claim they are doing, they would be very quickly banned.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well considering the OP's context, and the fact I was responding directly to her initially as another believer, there was no problem with that. Regardless if it's a scientific sub-forum, it's still a Christian forum overall. You guys kept responding to me. It's the only reason I'm still on this thread. Do you want to part ways now? Agree to disagree?

Disagree about what - the forum rules?

It might also be worth noting that because the 'Physics & Life Sciences' are about... well, science, posters are generally expected to be able to support any claims and assertions either with evidence or reasoned argument. This is why we usually discuss testable claims (miracles, the efficacy of prayer, the authenticity of holy relics, evolution, biblical historicity, etc) rather than untestable assertions of belief which, apart from their psychology, are broadly outside the scope of scientific dscussion.

I only say this because you may not have been aware how science forums work, and you seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

Exactly the point of my initial response to the OP. God requires faith.

Belief in God requires faith

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So?

It's relvant context.

 

[YahuahSaves]

They do not allow any threads that say that being trans or gay is okay.

Of course not because God doesn't make mistakes, he created us and we are fearfully and wonderfully made just as we are. Satan is at work in the world in a big way but only Christians can see it.

God loves us and can heal us when we turn to him. I know your stance on things enough to guess you will probably not be interested to hear it, (but just incase) please take a moment to listen to someone's genuine testimony of how God healed them. I will post the 1st part here and leave it up to you to watch it including the 2nd part.

I even had a thread shut down about astrology because it was promoting a non-Christian religion.

Because Astrology is a form of sorcery according to Gods word. People predicting their own futures, dabbling in the occult, etc is not what God wants.

if Christians were coming here and just bashing Christians as you claim they are doing, they would be very quickly banned.

Yes because brothers and sisters in Christ are meant to uphold each other and keep the peace. We symbolise the body of Christ, we're not supposed to be divided. Atheists coming against the word of God is a different story, we're meant to tell the truth that is in God's Word.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know what that means ..

It was kind of a joke - note the smilie...

 

[YahuahSaves]

only say this because you may not have been aware how science forums work, and you seem to have got off on the wrong foot here.

I initially saw the OP's question on the main page (not taking notice of the sub-forum) checked the context in her post, saw it was relevant to my input (directed to her) and answered. I then got told repeatedly my original post wasn't relevant, to which I stated it was relevant due to the OP asking how to witness to non-believers who need physical proof. I didn't just choose to be in the sub-forum. I have no interest in it as a basis for God because I'm already a believer. Do we agree to disagree on my belief vs. Your unbelief? You obviously have no interest in God going by your flippant responses to me, so I have no more reason to engage with you.

 

[Astrid]

I'll Choose Truth Over a Comforting Lie, Any day.

How do you know you chose right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No need, God has everything under his command.

Oh good; one would never know I'm reminded of the philosopher who, after studying the problem of evil, pointed out that all the 'problem of evil' arguments used to support the idea of a good God, work better when turned upside-down to support the idea of an evil God...

He is the creator and we are the created. He answers prayer according to HIS will. I will give you an example: one morning early in my walk of faith, I was struggling to pray, my mind would just go blank. So I said OK God, what do you want me to pray about? I don’t know what to say. Then a thought came to me to "pray for (lady from church), her husband is in palliative care". (The latter I didn't know until 2 days later). So I prayed that God would heal her husbands cancer. A week later, he passed away. I was very upset at God, I didn't understand the point of him telling me to pray a prayer he wasn't going to answer? I was talking to my mum (who is born again) and she said, think about what God actually said... pray for the wife, not the husband...and then it clicked. God wanted me to pray for the wife who would be grieving her husband very shortly. No, we don't always get what we ask for, but as the scripture says: HIS will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

This serves to make my point - a prayer unanswered and a reason/excuse found post-hoc.

This largely involves the psychology of confirmation bias, the big brother of cherry-picking, which disposes us to select whatever matches our expectations, however weakly (& even reinterpret or massage the evidence to fit), and to discard, forget, or excuse whatever doesn't fit. This bias applies across human experience, but is particularly noticeable in certain religious, psychic, and superstitious claims and beliefs, e.g. prophesies, prayers, miracles, mind reading, remote viewing, Tarot, palmistry, fate, luck, coincidence, and gambling.

I wasn't just talking about the afterlife. Eternity with God is wonderful, yes.. but the kingdom of God is here and now, while on earth. We make a choice to enter it daily.

"Eternity with God is wonderful" is an interesting claim - which is by definition, impossible to know; no one can know, has known, or will know what eternity is like.

Woody Allen played with this idea when he said, “Eternity is awful long time, especially towards the end.”

I'm curious too. I cannot understand unbelief in God, any more than you can understand belief in God. But all I can go on is what the scriptures say about the farmer scattering seed.

Perhaps the best way to understand unbelief in God is to think about your own unbelief in any of the thousands of other gods people worship or have worshipped, for example, Brahma, Zeus, Ptah, or Izanagi and Izanami (the Japanese brother & sister gods of creation).

 

[Astrid]

I asked for a brief overview of Conrad's position on Genesis 1.

Your answer was, "Hyers thesis is that Genesis 1 is theological cosmogony rather than cosmology. It's purpose was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic cosmogonic structures of "creation" that permeate the mythos of the surrounding cultures which existed at the time Genesis 1 was written --like early Babylon, for instance, etc."

This was difficult to understand, since you used plenty of complex words like cosmogony and polemic. There's a bit of writing advice: "Don’t use a big word when a singularly unloquacious & diminutive linguistic expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary need." I would have found it much clearer if you'd said, "It was written as a monotheistic explanation for the creation of the universe rather than the polytheistic explanations most cultures of the time had."

Anyway, I found this answer confusing. First of all, cosmogony (the study of how the universe started) would seem to be a subcategory of cosmology. Secondly, immediately after you said his position was that Genesis 1 was written as a theological account of how the universe started, you said, "Genesis 1 wasn't written to explain 'how' the world was created, especially not in a scientific way." This seemed contradictory to me. The only way I could see to make it work was if he had taken it to be a metaphor, and yet when I sugested that, you said no.

You then claimed it was "Princeton level analysis and attempting to call the literature what it was." But this doesn't clarify what he took it to be at all, it's simply a comment on how good his analysis was. I'm still confused as to what the result of his analysis was. From what you've said (at least, what I've taken from your posts), he doesn't think it was meant literally, yet he doesn't think it was meant metaphorically either. I can't think of any third option, and you haven't provided one. So, as I said, I don't know what his position actually is.

Obscurantism has a purpose other than communication.

 

[Astrid]

Oh good; one would never know I'm reminded of the philosopher who, after studying the problem of evil, pointed out that all the 'problem of evil' arguments used to support the idea of a good God, work better when turned upside-down to support the idea of an evil God...


This serves to make my point - a prayer unanswered and a reason/excuse found post-hoc.

This largely involves the psychology of confirmation bias, the big brother of cherry-picking, which disposes us to select whatever matches our expectations, however weakly (& even reinterpret or massage the evidence to fit), and to discard, forget, or excuse whatever doesn't fit. This bias applies across human experience, but is particularly noticeable in certain religious, psychic, and superstitious claims and beliefs, e.g. prophesies, prayers, miracles, mind reading, remote viewing, Tarot, palmistry, fate, luck, coincidence, and gambling.


"Eternity with God is wonderful" is an interesting claim - which is by definition, impossible to know; no one can know, has known, or will know what eternity is like.

Woody Allen played with this idea when he said, “Eternity is awful long time, especially towards the end.”


Perhaps the best way to understand unbelief in God is to think about your own unbelief in any of the thousands of other gods people worship or have worshipped, for example, Brahma, Zeus, Ptah, or Izanagi and Izanami (the Japanese brother & sister gods of creation).

One person's inabi,ity is incorrectly assumed to
mean others share said issue.

As a child I believed in things of a
supernatural nature that I don't
believe now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I initially saw the OP's question on the main page (not taking notice of the sub-forum) checked the context in her post, saw it was relevant to my input (directed to her) and answered. I then got told repeatedly my original post wasn't relevant, to which I stated it was relevant due to the OP asking how to witness to non-believers who need physical proof.

I was making a general comment rather than referring to any specific interaction.

I didn't just choose to be in the sub-forum.

So how did you get here?

I have no interest in it as a basis for God because I'm already a believer. Do we agree to disagree on my belief vs. Your unbelief?

I think we agree that you believe in God and I don't.

You obviously have no interest in God going by your flippant responses to me, so I have no more reason to engage with you.

My responses are not generally intended to be flippant. I am fascinated by God as an idea and an object of belief - as I have already said. if you want to know what I think about something, don't guess, just ask.

Once again, you seem to misconstrue my responses to what you say as personal - they're not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I asked for a brief overview of Conrad's position on Genesis 1.

Your answer was, "Hyers thesis is that Genesis 1 is theological cosmogony rather than cosmology. It's purpose was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic cosmogonic structures of "creation" that permeate the mythos of the surrounding cultures which existed at the time Genesis 1 was written --like early Babylon, for instance, etc."

This was difficult to understand, since you used plenty of complex words like cosmogony and polemic. There's a bit of writing advice: "Don’t use a big word when a singularly unloquacious & diminutive linguistic expression will satisfactorily accomplish the contemporary need." I would have found it much clearer if you'd said, "It was written as a monotheistic explanation for the creation of the universe rather than the polytheistic explanations most cultures of the time had."

So, if I give an "brief" overview of an author/book/source I've read or used, you'd prefer for me to not used the specific terms that author/source used? I don't remember that being a requirement when I when to uni. But maybe your university was different?

Anyway, I found this answer confusing. First of all, cosmogony (the study of how the universe started) would seem to be a subcategory of cosmology. Secondly, immediately after you said his position was that Genesis 1 was written as a theological account of how the universe started, you said, "Genesis 1 wasn't written to explain 'how' the world was created, especially not in a scientific way." This seemed contradictory to me. The only way I could see to make it work was if he had taken it to be a metaphor, and yet when I sugested that, you said no.

Hyers wasn't trying to "prove" that the Bible is divine or inspired. He was actually explicating his point in support of the fact that he didn't think that Creationism should be taught in the classroom. He wasn't offering "evidence" for belief; he was offering evidence that the Bible is, as he put it, "Cosmogony, not Cosmology."

But I get it. You place a high priority on discussions about scientific evidence, so a book by an author who favors science over religion in the science classroon isn't going to be of any interest to you.

You then claimed it was "Princeton level analysis and attempting to call the literature what it was." But this doesn't clarify what he took it to be at all, it's simply a comment on how good his analysis was. I'm still confused as to what the result of his analysis was. From what you've said (at least, what I've taken from your posts), he doesn't think it was meant literally, yet he doesn't think it was meant metaphorically either. I can't think of any third option, and you haven't provided one. So, as I said, I don't know what his position actually is.

What position are you expecting?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not start with the idea that BOTH of them are assumed, put each one to the test, and see which one provides useful results?

As far as I'm concerned, if the Bible is reported to be a literal, inerrant, inspired "history," then it's game over by chapter 2, maybe even by chapter 1.

What is there left to test when I already can't get over or through the conceptual WALL that Adam and Eve aren't, and never were, historical persons, Kylie? Do I need to question [or test] the rest of the Bible after that, chapter by chapter, book by book?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because you said this:

The idea of a creative designer or even sophisticated design for our universe is not "redundant" as per your definition (IMO).
But since you come from the viewpoint of evolution with nothing behind it, your post makes sense. I do enjoy science you know. God does use these tools to achieve his purpose, but science is not the authority, God is.

Saying that I think an intelligent designer is unnecessary or redundant doesn't mean that I think 'the universe and everything in it that we understand about it so far' is not complex or sophisticated; it clearly is - so the implication is that I think complexity & sophistication can arise without an intelligent designer.

Who says the benefit was solely for us?

Many Christians say that. Did you really not know?