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

[JacquelineDeane55]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

 

[pitabread]

Science works by using the idea of an objective universe to test ideas. You can't test a supernatural being in that same fashion, hence no scientific claims involving anything supernatural can have any meaning.

This is also why you see so many contradictory ideas in creationism; there is no way to test such ideas, thus no way to distinguish which ideas are correct.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

[citation needed]

 

[Tolworth John]

what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD

May I suggest two things.
1. To ask them what evidence would they accept as evidence that there is a God?

There is no point beating your head against a brick wall trying to demonstrate it is reasonable to believe in God, if they either will not believe or there requirements for evidence are unreasonable.

2. Ask them to explain how the universe began. Why science, logic and maths work? For there explanation for 'good and evil'?
Most people do not have reasonable explanations for these, they just assume science has an answer or because it works that is good enough.
Put them on the spot, their world view has to provide a reasonable explanation for these things or they have to say why they are believing what is unreasonable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

2. Ask them to explain how the universe began. Why science, logic and maths work? For there explanation for 'good and evil'?
Most people do not have reasonable explanations for these, they just assume science has an answer or because it works that is good enough.
Put them on the spot, their world view has to provide a reasonable explanation for these things or they have to say why they are believing what is unreasonable.

Not having an explanation for something doesn't mean that you are therefore believing something unreasonable, and no-one's world view has to provide a reasonable explanation for those things - as you said, if it works that is good enough for most people.

There are reasonable explanations for all those things, but we may never know if we have the correct explanation for some.

 

[Tolworth John]

Not having an explanation for something doesn't mean that you are therefore believing something unreasonable, and no-one's world view has to provide a reasonable explanation for those things - as you said, if it works that is good enough for most people.

There are reasonable explanations for all those things, but we may never know if we have the correct explanation for some.

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.
Yes one does not have to believe them.
But to hold to an unreasonable explanation while also calling the alternative unreasonable is simple foolishness.

 

[Ken-1122]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations

What is reasonable is subjective; just because you might find it reasonable doesn't mean someone else will

and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.

Science does not provide answers to everything, there is much science does not know

Yes one does not have to believe them.
But to hold to an unreasonable explanation while also calling the alternative unreasonable is simple foolishness.

But to admit to not having an answer yet still reject yours is an honest, and perfectly reasonable position to take.

 

[SelfSim]

... There are reasonable explanations for all those things, but we may never know if we have the correct explanation for some.

What do you mean by 'correct explanation'?
That sounds unreasonable to me, especially when its context is conditioned upon 'we may never know'(?)

 

[pitabread]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.

Example?

 

[SelfSim]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.
Yes one does not have to believe them.
But to hold to an unreasonable explanation while also calling the alternative unreasonable is simple foolishness.

When these 'reasonable Christian explanations' are dependent on beliefs, science can ignore them (but not reject them) on the basis of objective untestability.

I personally think the funadamental Atheistic belief then eagerly jumps in, thence producing the 'rejection'(?) .. but this position is not a scientific one. Athesim is optional .. as is Christianity because they're both belief based.

Informed (reasoned) beliefs are still beliefs .. They usually appear in response to unscientifically formed questions.

 

[SelfSim]

Example?

Chasing beliefs, eh?

 

[dad]

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

Correct

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.
Yes one does not have to believe them.
But to hold to an unreasonable explanation while also calling the alternative unreasonable is simple foolishness.

As Ken suggests, what is reasonable and what is foolishness is a matter of opinion and judgement.

But to claim that an explanation is unreasonable without hearing it seems unreasonable in itself - but let's see how it works in practice - please explain why the current scientific explanations are not reasonable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What do you mean by 'correct explanation'?
That sounds unreasonable to me, especially when its context is conditioned upon 'we may never know'(?)

An explanation that is in accordance with the facts and has no mistakes.

 

[SelfSim]

An explanation that is in accordance with the facts and has no mistakes.

Scientific explanations are now subject to Absolutism?
So we may never know the explanation, but nonetheless you are confident that there are facts in order for it to accord with?

 

[Strathos]

Short answer: You can't, nor should you try to.

 

[dad]

An explanation that is in accordance with the facts and has no mistakes.

The facts you are aware of may not constitute the bulk of facts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

The existence of God can be approached, or dealt with the same as any other assumption of science. So far, First Cause is the ONLY viable explanation for existence. We can't prove it to the satisfaction of those who don't want to believe it, but it does make sense. Many scientific pursuits have been based on weaker reason.

 

[pitabread]

So far, First Cause is the ONLY viable explanation for existence. We can't prove it to the satisfaction of those who don't want to believe it, but it does make sense.

In my experience (insofar as first cause arguments presented on this forum), first cause doesn't proffer any explanatory power for existence. Rather it just seems to unnecessarily complicate things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In my experience (insofar as first cause arguments presented on this forum), first cause doesn't proffer any explanatory power for existence. Rather it just seems to unnecessarily complicate things.

n
It does complicate things for those who insist there is no more logical reason for First Cause to be With Intent, or of a personhood, or even intelligent, than there is for simply mechanical fact to be first cause, or for the Whole of Existence to be that first cause. (In fact some even like to claim infinite regression of cause can itself be considered first cause). These have all been answered and shown to be illogical, but I think this isn't the thread for it, if you wish to discuss it. Message me, if you would, should you take it up as its own thread.

 

[Ken-1122]

The existence of God can be approached, or dealt with the same as any other assumption of science. So far, First Cause is the ONLY viable explanation for existence..

IMO the problem with the First Cause argument is that it claims there could only be one first cause dismissing the possibility of multiple, and it implies the first cause had to be more intelligent than everything that came after it.