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

[Astrid]

Famous mathematician, Gödel, has a formal logic proof of God that has been verified on computer. It has a page on Wikipedia.

Simulation theory would mean anything is possible

Astral projection, near death experiences and shared death experiences show you’re more than you’re physical body.

A person who believes in astral projection
isn't going to be a good endorsement for other
sketchy claims.

 

[SelfSim]

Famous mathematician, Gödel, has a formal logic proof of God that has been verified on computer. It has a page on Wikipedia.

Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his 'philosophical beliefs' in his papers.

Points relevant to the ontological proof include

4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.

Testing the reality of those axioms falls well into science's purview of testing. (And is contingent on operational definitions of terms like: 'world').

13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.

Yet science doesn't deal in 'exactness' .. Sounds like a hangover from Godel's intense focus on the field of mathematics(?)

14. Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

Err: What??

 

[NagaMorningstar]

A person who believes in astral projection
isn't going to be a good endorsement for other
sketchy claims.

Why? Plenty of people can do it and you can ask them. The cia has a paper about their with the Monroe institute on astral projection.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That sounds like a miracle to me. Sacraments were sort of gateways one had to pass through in life in oreder to stay spiritually 'on track' I think(?)
We're going back to Angels dancin' on a pin again here, I think(?)

Yes - different interpretations and/or semantics.

Yeah ... the standing assumption, of course, was that we are all sinners .. so it can't be possible to have committed no sins over the period of a mere week or so. I remember being really screwed up by that .. well .. because I hadn't committed any sins over that period, so I was being forced into making them up ... which was lying!

Yes - I wonder what they'd have said if we had been honest and admitted the sin of making up sins to keep them happy!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Famous mathematician, Gödel, has a formal logic proof of God that has been verified on computer. It has a page on Wikipedia.

John Gould put a good analysis on Quora. Conclusion? One of the axioms assumes the existence of God... "The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To pay himself for his creation breaking
his rules.

It's too weird for me.

Of course, it's 'beyond understanding' - which apparently indicates how wonderful it must be...

 

[SelfSim]

John Gould put a good analysis on Quora. Conclusion? One of the axioms assumes the existence of God... "The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous."

Don't think I'd care to challenge his logic .. but the axioms, I think, are, as the Wiki article described them: 'Godel's philosophical beliefs'.

IOW: Belief goes in .. Belief comes out with, (likely .. being a little familiar with Godel's proof work), irrefutable logic(?)

 

[NagaMorningstar]

John Gould put a good analysis on Quora. Conclusion? One of the axioms assumes the existence of God... "The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous."

How is it proving God if it is already assuming God exists? I don’t get it. What is he actually proving then?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So your mother, who cared for your soul, took you to a priest, who cared for your soul, and you think this guy, who was doing his work, was "creepy"?

Could it just be that you're projecting his "creepiness" on to Jesus on the Cross, who died for your soul?

Some of the priests that took confession in our abbey and taught in our school were eventually prosecuted for sexual abuse of the pupils - at around the same time I was there - fortunately, it seems I wasn't suitable material, so I only found out later, when there was a fuss about the church evacuating one to a monastery on mainland Europe, out of reach of English law. So, for my part, I think I'm justified in calling them 'creepy'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How is it proving God if it is already assuming God exists? I don’t get it. What is he actually proving then?

Not what he intended to prove. Looks like he proved that trying to prove what you believe using complex modal logic can cause you to make unexpected errors...

 

[Kylie]

When I have more time, I can. But I'm not sure it matters.

You're not sure it matters?

That's literally the question I've been asking the whole time.

No, not exactly. But it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter? Answering the question that I asked you doesn't matter? Why did you bother responding at all then?

For you, it doesn't matter.

Kylie: *Asks question.*

2PhiloVoid: "Oh, the answer doesn't matter for you, so I'm not going to tell you. Luckily, I can make this decision, since, despite having never met you, I can tell what you need to know. And since you don't need to know this, I'm not going to tell you."

Your opinion is a partial expression of your Subjective thoughts and feelings which are present when you engage with the Objective world. So, yeah, it can affect your perception and willingness to engage. However, it won't change Hyers' position in the past ... unless we're in some Star Trek episode or Avengers movie.

Well, since the only thing I am interested in is what Hyers' position is, all that stuff about me doesn't make a difference, does it?

So, you're a defeator of illogic, ay?

So, you can answer questions, ay?

 

[Kylie]

Sometimes, it's not even subjective opinion. There's better, more fitting words for those instances of bias: Subterfuge is one. Sabotage is another. Sophistry is a third.

But now, there's a problem in your little counter-claim above. It sounds like a deduction, but it fails.

Lots of claims, but you don't back any of them up.

What did I post that was subterfuge? What did I poste that was sabotage? How did what I said fail?

 

[Kylie]

Has this thread stopped talking about the topic in the title?

It needs to go back to a zero base.
Since I am back from abroad , here is An attempt to bring back on track.

1/ Science is an observation model from our senses, not the underlying reality of the universe.
2/ There is also a method to build that model that relies on what does repeat naturally or can be repeated. Science can say ittle about anything else. It has a problem dealing with one offs or conscious experience which is the bedrock of all observation.

I'd put forward that if what we know about one of these "one off experiences" contradicts something that science has told us, then that experience is scientifically impossible.

3/ The model 1/ does not exist in the universe, it is not the same as the universe, it does not "underpin" the universe, it is just an observation model of it, limited to our senses of things which intereact with our senses or instrumentation. The model cannot state that what normally happens, will always happen, or that what happens at one place and time, always happens everywhere else and for all time. The model is limited to its own observation space.
Everything in the model man put there. It lives on paper and computer models.

However, the model can be used to make very accurate predictions about what will happen. That's how science works.

It is a good fit and valuable model ( as a scientist I used it for math modelling complex things) , but materialists cannot pretend the model IS the universe. The two are wrongly conflated. What the universe truly "is"and all that is in it is unknowable.

4/ "Scientific proof" in the title is therefore a misnomer. It is simply a conformance statement to the existing model.
Everything else that does not conform can be valid evidence or even proof of existence.
The absence of conformance to the present model is neither here nor there. it does not invalidate evidence of existence that does not conform to the model.

I agree, technically. Science doesn't do proof like that. We can't PROVE that time slows down the closer you get to light. All of our experiences have indicated that this is the case, but we never know, tomorrow might be when we do an experiment where we get a result that doesn't match with it, so we'll have to discard that idea.

But we can conclude that if all those experiments show that time slows down as we approach the speed of light, and all the results are in agreement with each other, and no experiment has ever contradicted that idea, then the idea is PROBABLY correct.

So while I agree that we can't say that science is definitely a reflection on the way the universe is, that doesn't mean it's just a wild guess.

5/ The scientific model does not include God. God is not "repeatable" therefore hard to model. There is no "Godness" test.
Therefore science cannot "prove" God. Whether or not he exists. It is a limitation of science and philosophy not God.

This renders God unfalsifiable, and without falsifiability, we can never be sure. A claim that is unfalsifiable is ultimately meaningless.

6/ So the question is not scientific "proof" God exists, the thread title is a self defeating proposition, it is evidence God exists. That exists in abundance.

The trouble is that everything that can be proposed for the existence of God can also be interpreted as evidence for something else that is not-God. As I said in my previous point, we need something falsifiable. We need something that we can check is evidence for God and only God.

7/ And what is that evidence that God exists? It is
a- phenomena that do not conform to the model
b- that violate a prime tenet of the model (eg prophecy beyond the predictable that therefore violates the time arrow) so science cannot accomodate the phenomena
c- that point at an aspect of theistic belief.

As I said before, these things could also be considered evidence for something else that isn't God. All of those things are consistent with the idea that the universe is a computer simulation and someone is playing with the cheat codes.

8/ eg God said he could create, and that after the eucharistic blessing , bread would become His flesh.
The forensic pathologyEucharistic miracles shows bread did indeed become living flesh. It was created.
And since only God said that He could do that, it is reasonable to attribute to Him.
It is only scientific evidence not proof of God - but that is the BEST that SCIENCE can do, because of LIMITATIONS of SCIENCE.
As that example shows, God apparently can do anything. Creation is the ultimate ability. So He has no apparent limits.

I think this specific example warrants its own thread. I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for this claim.

 

[NagaMorningstar]

How is it proving God if it is already assuming God exists? I don’t get it.

How is it proving God if it is already assuming God exists? I don’t get it. What is he actually proving then?

I meant what was he intending to prove?

 

[Lost Witness]

But why would God not want unbelievers to 'see the light of the gospel' if that might make them believers?

The Lowercase 'g' is in reference to another 'god', (Capital 'G' Is in reference to GOD ALMIGHTY)
in that particular instance it's in reference to 'satan'

Here's the NLT version, "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."

 

[Astrid]

How is it proving God if it is already assuming God exists? I don’t get it. What is he actually proving then?

Nothing except demonstrating again that there's no proof to be had

Why? Plenty of people can do it and you can ask them. The cia has a paper about their with the Monroe institute on astral projection.

So you say. You, though, cannot confirm
these statements.
More points off credibility, sorryah.

Of course, it's 'beyond understanding' - which apparently indicates how wonderful it must be...

But not to me

 

[SelfSim]

I meant what was he intending to prove?

Its an 'ontological argument' that seeks to define God into existence by the excruciatingly careful definition of terms that can still have different meanings in different contexts.
Godel's proof contains a bunch of axioms (which he asserts as being) true, but doesn't support how they are true in all cases (because that can't be done).
His argument can be logically 'true', but not so from a scientific viewpoint due to the absence of objective test data supporting the axioms.

PS: I'll try an upload of his proof from a reputable source below (translation: A: axiom, T: theoerm, D: definition, C: corollary):

 

[NagaMorningstar]

Nothing except demonstrating again that there's no proof to be had

So you say. You, though, cannot confirm
these statements.
More points off credibility, sorryah.

But not to me

It doesn’t make sense to me that Gödel would intend to make a proof of God doesn’t prove God. He is like one of the best mathematicians ever so it feels like I’m missing something.

As for AP, I can only get to vibration stage so far. I may have done it once but it was while in between awake and asleep and I was floating in the air and could feel the sensations of fear of heights and all that like it was real but it was in someone else’s house in astral realm, so I’m not sure if it was actually AP or not since I was expecting AP to be where you leave your body and see your own body still lying there but maybe that is something else entirely like an out of body experience? I definitely have visions of spirits and places in my mind and have heard that called astral projection.

Also when I sat in throne next to God (per rev 3:21) I was like transported to heaven and that is something I can confirm for sure. Didn’t Jesus appear to people in the spirit? I’ve seen a religious leader appear in my room like a projection (don’t say it was a demon because I know it wasn’t as I have seen evil spirits in my room too). When I was in heaven, it is kind of like how I imagine Paul was talking about when he said he knew someone that was taken to “third heaven” that wasn’t sure if he was in or out of his body. When I saw jesus with eyes of fire (rev 1:14), i think it was a vision not being transported but not sure. I was somehow put face down on hard tile floor without being injured like how Ezekiel and others fell face down when they saw him.

 

[SelfSim]

I might add that this is a classic example of how pure logic alone, cannot demonstrate objective existence .. only science can establish existence.
Logic can only track a truth value against its axioms .. (which are usually philosophically held beliefs anyway).

 

[Astrid]

It doesn’t make sense to me that Gödel would intend to make a proof of God doesn’t prove God. He is like one of the best mathematicians ever so it feels like I’m missing something.

As for AP, I can only get to vibration stage so far. I may have done it once but it was while in between awake and asleep and I was floating in the air and could feel the sensations of fear of heights and all that like it was real but it was in someone else’s house in astral realm, so I’m not sure if it was actually AP or not since I was expecting AP to be where you leave your body and see your own body still lying there but maybe that is something else entirely like an out of body experience? I definitely have visions of spirits and places in my mind and have heard that called astral projection.

Also when I sat in throne next to God (per rev 3:21) I was like transported to heaven and that is something I can confirm for sure. Didn’t Jesus appear to people in the spirit? I’ve seen a religious leader appear in my room like a projection (don’t say it was a demon because I know it wasn’t as I have seen evil spirits in my room too). When I was in heaven, it is kind of like how I imagine Paul was talking about when he said he knew someone that was taken to “third heaven” that wasn’t sure if he was in or out of his body. When I saw jesus with eyes of fire (rev 1:14), i think it was a vision not being transported but not sure. I was somehow put face down on hard tile floor without being injured like how Ezekiel and others fell face down when they saw him.

I do feel sincerely sorry for you, which is about all
I have to say other than I wish you well.