How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

Give a concrete example of something that is in reality, and we can learn some things about it.

The Earth is an example of a physical entity that is in reality which we can learn things about.

 

[Michael]

You're woefully ignorant of the scientific method and logical syllogisms, and I'm tired of holding your hand.

As I said, I won't proceed with you until you read these two links and demonstrate rudimentary understanding.

Last chance.

First you need to demonstrate that the items you mentioned are even applied in science in the same way that you're trying to apply them to the topic of God.

Show us how these definitions apply to the topic of cosmology for instance, and then I'll have some confidence that they are applicable to the topic of God, and have value in "science".

 

[Chriliman]

By that definition even a static eternal universe would somehow not be 'scientific'. That's too restrictive of a definition.

Hasn't it been determined that the universe as we know it began or at least went from a state of not being the knowable universe to being the knowable universe?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But that cuts both ways--it means that you cannot use science to prove the existence of God to the unwilling.

Freudian slip? If you can't prove something, it's a logical problem, and it makes no difference whether the audience is willing or unwilling (ignoring, for simplicity, that science doesn't do proofs).

 

[Michael]

Hasn't it been determined that the universe as we know it began or at least went from a state of not being the knowable universe to being the knowable universe?

It would be more accurate to suggest that it's been "proposed" that all the various elements of matter which make up this material universe had a "beginning" at some point in history. Only in *one specific* cosmology theory would that even be the case, and there's no guarantee that the one cosmology theory in question is "true".

It could be that we simply live inside of a static, eternal universe too. It wouldn't be logical to suggest that the study of such a universe is "unscientific".

 

[Speedwell]

Freudian slip? If you can't prove something, it's a logical problem, and it makes no difference whether the audience is willing or unwilling (ignoring, for simplicity, that science doesn't do proofs).

Yet many creationists attempt it. The entire purpose of ID is to "prove" the existence of a "designer" using science, so that atheists will be forced to accept it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the realm of "science", the need for falsification is entirely *optional*. One cannot falsify M-Theory for instance, or QM oriented ideas about gravity. It's not really possible to falsify *every* concept of "dark matter/energy" either even if it were possible to falsify a *specific* definition of each item.

That's fair enough - but strictly irrelevant - as HitchSlap said, "Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without", not that only falsifiable models with predictive capabilities are acceptable. You're flogging a dead straw horse.

p.s. You're welcome to argue what 'work better' was intended to mean...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet many creationists attempt it. The entire purpose of ID is to "prove" the existence of a "designer" using science, so that atheists will be forced to accept it.

Ah, OK - sorry, I misread your point

(nevertheless, my logic was impeccable )

 

[Michael]

That's fair enough - but strictly irrelevant, as HitchSlap said, "Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without", not that only falsifiable models with predictive capabilities are acceptable.

You're welcome to argue what 'work better' was intended to mean...

The term "work better" tends to become highly subjective. It's also completely inapplicable to some areas of "science". Another cosmology theory (or many others) might 'work better' in the lab than LCDM theory, but that hasn't prevented LCDM from becoming more "popular" than other theories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The term "work better" tends to become highly subjective. It's also completely inapplicable to some areas of "science". Another cosmology theory (or many others) might 'work better' in the lab than LCDM theory, but that hasn't prevented LCDM from becoming more "popular" than other theories.

You could do worse than to ask HitchSlap what it meant...

 

[HitchSlap]

The term "work better" tends to become highly subjective. It's also completely inapplicable to some areas of "science". Another cosmology theory (or many others) might 'work better' in the lab than LCDM theory, but that hasn't prevented LCDM from becoming more "popular" than other theories.

Rather than take in all competing hypotheses, and attempt to understand them, you come across slightly less than an unhinged lunatic with an ax to grind. I find it extremely hard to take you with anything more than a grain of salt.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Hitch, no need to go to science, everyday things like babies are good enough for examples of our concurred on two items from you:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.

So, you will now quit from our sustained exchange, because you want to talk science but not everyday things which also are good for scientific study, like babies.


Dear readers, I ask you, are babies not a good subject for science to take up, and they are perfectly an example of the two items from Hitch and I have concurred on with him:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.


Anyway, is it good-bye by you from our sustained exchange of thoughts?

I guess so, because you give me a warning, last chance.


Paging Loudmouth, let us resume our exchange on babies as the evidence of God existing from my part, and from your part for God not existing.

We were talking about babies are caused by their parents, what do you say - again?

 

[Chriliman]

Correct!

Great!

If it can't be tested, then how do you determine it's real?

Wait, your question assumes that there are some things in reality that are not testable, what reason/evidence do you have to make that assumption?

If none, then why ask?

 

[Pachomius]

I think it was with Freodin, but it is okay with Loudmouth.

 

[HitchSlap]

Great!

We'll see.

Wait, your question assumes that there are some things in reality that are not testable,

My question assumes that anything in reality can be (or potentially be - as technology improves) tested. Assertions of supernatural claims are precluded from being tested. Therefore, the best you've got is essentially the equivalent of you saying "pleeeeease believe me."

what reason/evidence do you have to make that assumption?

Because anything & everything we've ever come to know has been a result of the scientific method.

If none, then why ask?

It's incumbent upon you, to prove your god/s exist. If you can't, which I believe you just did, just say so and we can move on from this topic.

 

[Michael]

Rather than take in all competing hypotheses, and attempt to understand them,

When did you get into the mind reading business, and what makes you think I didn't?

you come across slightly less than an unhinged lunatic with an ax to grind. I find it extremely hard to take you with anything more than a grain of salt.

The issue I'm pointing out to you isn't even directly related to any particular cosmology theory or scientific theory, it's related to your *insistence* that a given theory has be "falsifiable" and/or make unique predictions.

 

[Michael]

You could do worse than to ask HitchSlap what it meant...

A "falsification" mechanism isn't even technically a requirement in "science", so I'm more interested in *why* HitchSlap is even personally deciding to impose that particular requirement on the topic of God in the first place.

It's not a requirement in QM concepts of gravity, or a requirement of M-theory, or a requirement of "space expansion" claims either, so why does he insistent on that requirement as it relates to the topic of God?

 

[HitchSlap]

A "falsification" mechanism isn't even technically a requirement in "science", so I'm more interested in *why* HitchSlap is even personally deciding to impose that particular requirement on the topic of God in the first place.

It's not a requirement in QM concepts of gravity, or a requirement of M-theory, or a requirement of "space expansion" claims either, so why does he insistent on that requirement as it relates to the topic of God?

For the love of god, does no one read links any more. lol

 

[Michael]

For the love of god, does no one read links any more. lol

Lots of cosmology theories "work better" in the lab than the most 'popular' one.

 

[Chriliman]

We'll see.
My question assumes that anything in reality can be (or potentially be - as technology improves) tested.

The question you just asked does not assume that.

Here's an example of a question that does: Is testing a viable way of determining what is real? Answer: Yes, however, how you test things does matter.

Compare that to your question:

If it can't be tested, then how do you determine it's real?

Answer: There's no reason to assume anything in reality can't be tested. If you have a reason, give it.

See the difference?

Assertions of supernatural claims are precluded from being tested. Therefore, the best you've got is essentially the equivalent of you saying "pleeeeease believe me."

I haven't made any assertions of supernatural claims. I'm only pointing out facts, which you can accept or reject of your own will.

Because anything & everything we've ever come to know has been a result of the scientific method.

I'm in agreement that the scientific method is the height of human knowledge, but you have to admit that it can't reveal anything about infinite or eternal realities that may have caused this universe and our existence. Note you already agreed to that fact here.

It's incumbent upon you, to prove your god/s exist. If you can't, which I believe you just did, just say so and we can move on from this topic.

I'm in agreement with others on this board that God cannot be proven via the scientific method because it depends upon falsifiability. However, this doesn't mean that we can't make informed assumptions about God, based on valid information apart from the scientific method.