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

[Astrid]

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?

And the wall of assumption that any of it
it is accurate? No "nend to question ".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, it's the change is in the heart of the believer. They begin to talk differently, walk differently and they can no longer compromise with Gods word and what he requires of us.

OK, that's promising; if they talk and walk differently, the difference between spiritual life and spiritual death is, in principle, amenable to scientific investigation - but how do we tell if that difference really is due to moving from 'spiritual death' to 'spiritual life' and not due to the difference in belief of 'coming to Christ'?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do you know? Do you study the brain?

Yes, I studied the brain at university and I try to keep abreast of developments in neuroscience.

It was a suggestion that was "scientific".

Indeed - but, as I said, it would seem to be an objective way of revealing a belief in God rather than God per se.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the wall of assumption that any of it
it is accurate? No "nend to question ".

Is any of it accurate, Estrid? And even if some of it is "accurate," that wouldn't pull its butt out of the fire of being incoherent.

So, back to my Skepticism and Existentialism I go .................

 

[YahuahSaves]

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

And this serves to prove my point. That you don’t actually absorb what a Christan says, solely because of the label they have.

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

You clearly defined idols there. ^

(Or did you miss that point too)?

That's why I follow the one true God. (The Holy Trinity).

So how did you get here?

Try reading my previous post again.

My responses are not generally intended to be flippant.

See your previous quote.

so the implication is that I think complexity & sophistication can arise without an intelligent designer.

If you say so.

Many Christians say that. Did you really not know?

I'm not "many Christians".

 

[YahuahSaves]

Yes, I studied the brain at university and I try to keep abreast of developments in neuroscience.

Then study away.

Indeed - but, as I said, it would seem to be an objective way of revealing a belief in God rather than God per se.

Better than nothing isn't it? But, you're right, it won’t reveal God. He's smarter than that.

 

[timewerx]

Albert Einstein actually found scientific proof late in his life when working with data from one of his studies.

However, he seemed so disturbed by it, he took the knowledge of this discovery to his grave or perhaps, he has been told to shut up about it.

He did left us a clue that we should always be on the lookout for "outliers" in "datapoints". Something about the work of data analysis in scientific studies and also "things hidden in plainsight", particularly in nature.

What could even be more disturbing than being ridiculed by his peers?

He did say that humanity isn't ready yet to handle such knowledge. So apparently he had stumbled on something far greater than just proof that God exists or the intelligent design in the Universe because if it is the mere existence of God or intelligent design, we already have the Bible to tell us that.

 

[Astrid]

Is any of it accurate, Estrid? And even if some of it is "accurate," that wouldn't pull its butt out of the fire of being incoherent.

So, back to my Skepticism and Existentialism I go

It's accurate enough with things like "Egypt" or
"fish".
So ( my question unanswered) off you go.

 

[Astrid]

Albert Einstein actually found scientific proof late in his life when working with data from one of his studies.

However, he seemed so disturbed by it, he took the knowledge of this discovery to his grave or perhaps, he has been told to shut up about it.

He did left us a clue that we should always be on the lookout for "outliers" in "datapoints". Something about the work of data analysis in scientific studies and also "things hidden in plainsight", particularly in nature.

What could even be more disturbing than being ridiculed by his peers?

He did say that humanity isn't ready yet to handle such knowledge. So apparently he had stumbled on something far greater than just proof that God exists or the intelligent design in the Universe because if it is the mere existence of God or intelligent design, we already have the Bible to tell us that.

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as proof in science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's accurate enough with things like "Egypt" or
"fish".
So ( my question unanswered) off you go.

I think you're misunderstanding me, Estrid. I'm not parodying the Skeptical and Existential positions. Rather, I'm telling you, out of my own long lived experience and thinking, how I think of the epistemological problems facing me (or potentially anyone) who might deign to place a finger upon a religious book that lays within their grasp...

I AM a skeptic and existentialist. That's where I start.

 

[Astrid]

Then study away.


Better than nothing isn't it? But, you're right, it won’t reveal God. He's smarter than that.

It's actually worse than nothing

I think you're misunderstanding me, Estrid. I'm not parodying the Skeptical and Existential positions. Rather, I'm telling you, out of my own long lived experience and thinking, how I think of the epistemological problems facing me (or potentially anyone) who my think about laying a finger on a religious book within their grasp...

I AM a skeptic and existentialist. That's where I start.

Nobody understands answers you don't give

 

[YahuahSaves]

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as proof in science.

*gasp* Maybe that's why? Einstein took the only scientific "proof" of God to the grave!
Now we'll never know! Until Jesus returns, of course. (Just like he planned long ago).

 

[YahuahSaves]

It's actually worse than nothing

So what's better than nothing? You have to compromise somewhere. You either seek your way or seek Gods way. But put some effort into the way you choose, at least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's actually worse than nothing

Nobody understands answers you don't give

I'm not here to give answers, especially not Ultimate Answers. I'm here to resist other people's gratuitous assumptions about...anything.

And if folks don't like it, then............................................

 

[timewerx]

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as proof in science.

There is if you have enough consistent data to prove something.

You probably don't realize the bulk of scientific work is about going through rows upon rows of data.

Anything can be proven with data (hence, science) if you just know where to get the right reliable data each time.

The problem trying to prove God is finding the right place to get reliable data.

 

[Astrid]

There is if you have enough consistent data to prove something.

You probably don't realize the bulk of scientific work is about going through rows upon rows of data.

Anything can be proven with data (hence, science) if you just know where to get the right reliable data each time.

The problem trying to prove God is finding the right place to get reliable data.

"You probably don't know..."


Google "can science prove"
Here is one.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

EVERY single link will say science
cannot prove anything, and explain
why.
The reasons are so basic to science
that your believing the opposite, not
even bothering to check, indicates
you aren't ready to offer any
scientific insights to others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"You probably don't know..."


Google "can science prove"
Here is one.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

EVERY single link will say science
cannot prove anything, and explain
why.
The reasons are so basic to science
that your believing the opposite, not
even bothering to check, indicates
you aren't ready to offer any
scientific insights to others.

I've always enjoyed a good bite of Philosophy of Science... I guess you do to.

Good article, Estrid!

 

[Astrid]

I'm not here to give answers, especially not Ultimate Answers. I'm here to resist other people's gratuitous assumptions about...anything.

And if folks don't like it, then............................................

It's not so much about "like" and
nothing about "ultimate".

I asked about your assumptions. You
change the subject, turn on the fog
machine toss in a strawman, and
dart away like a squid.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not so much about "like" and
nothing about "ultimate".

I asked about your assumptions. You
change the subject, turn on the fog
machine toss in a strawman, and
dart away like a squid.

What assumptions besides those of the typical Cartesian Style Skeptic would you like me to present, Estrid? Do you have a special epistemic laundry list you'd like me to check off? If you do have such a list, then present it to me rather than poking me in the rib with your accusations, especially if you're going to post as an interrupter of a conversation I was having with Kylie.

 

[Astrid]

What assumptions besides those of the typical Cartesian Style Skeptic would you like me to present, Estrid? Do you have a special epistemic laundry list you'd like me to check off? If you do have such a list, then present it to me rather than poking me in the rib with your accusations, especially if you're going to post as an interrupter of a conversation I was having with Kylie.

Maybe I meant octopus