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

[AV1611VET]

Depends on what you consider to be blasphemous. I guarantee that some of the things that I find to be blasphemy you do not.

Would the country be in better shape then, if it took what YOU think is blasphemy more seriously?

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

By the time science can prove His existence it won’t matter anyway because unfortunately it’ll be too late for those who don’t believe.

 

[Estrid]

Depends on what you consider to be blasphemous. I guarantee that some of the things that I find to be blasphemy you do not.

You could both come here and
blaspheme the good Chairman talking*
to my old uncle, late of the Red Guard.
I'd actually reccomend not getting him
started.

* Get some else to translate if your Cantonese is weak.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could both come here and blaspheme the good Chairman talking* to my old uncle, late of the Red Guard.

I'll pass.

I'll let Ruthie do it, if she wants to.

 

[ruthiesea]

They can't become more intolerant, in my opinion.

You can't get more intolerant than convert-or-die, can you?

You obviously know very little about Islam.

 

[ruthiesea]

You could both come here and
blaspheme the good Chairman talking*
to my old uncle, late of the Red Guard.
I'd actually reccomend not getting him
started.

* Get some else to translate if your Cantonese is weak.

My father was fluent in Cantonese. I am not.

 

[Estrid]

My father was fluent in Cantonese. I am not.

Interesting.
But still best not to get Uncle started.
He is REALLY tiresome.

 

[Estrid]

You obviously know very little about Islam.

Are there good things to say about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You obviously know very little about Islam.

They're trying to correct that for us, aren't they?

 

[Kylie]

US and western jurisprudence has clearly been based and influenced on Christian principles. We can't just pretend they don't.

That doesn't mean that it's okay for states to promote Christianity. And need I remind you that the treaty of Tripoli expressly claims that the USA was not founded to be based on the Christian religion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think you have just identified the difference between a universe with consciousness and one without. We don't have to experience something to recognize that there would be a different kind of universe without consciousness. Because we are here now and we can contemplate that as rational beings.

Sure, we can recognise and contemplate that a universe without consciousness would be a different kind of universe - because it would have no consciousness in it.

We can describe and enumerate all the properties such a universe might have - but what we can't do, by definition, is to say what it would be like to experience.

We can acknowledge that the experiences we have now in thinking of a universe without meaning would be not the same and we can acknowledge that it would be a great loss that we could not have those experiences.

Sure. But the experiences we have thinking about something are not experiences of that thing. The experience of thinking about being in a vacuum or on a roller-coaster is not the same as the experience of being in a vacuum or on a roller-coaster.

... the fact is we are here and our universe has consciousness. We now know the difference because we have experienced one side of that possibility and we know that the opposing side will lack all that we experience now.

We don't know the difference because, by definition, we can only experience 'one side of that possibility'. IOW, we can't know what it is like to not have consciousness - that's an oxymoron.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But like some scientific ideas this is mute because we can never validate this because to experience a universe with no consciousness is impossible. As soon as we arrive to experience that universe its no longer a universe without consciousness.

Exactly, that's what I've been trying to tell you.

BTW, 'mute' means silent or dumb - did you mean 'moot'?

So we have to go off what we know now. Otherwise we cannot even contemplate this which I think should not stop us from acknowledging certain aspects that should be the case in that universe like not having beings in it that can pose these scenarios in the first place.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but what we know now is a universe with conscious beings which can attribute meaning to things.

... what about love. We could not have love in a universe without consciousness.

We would not be in a universe without consciousness

The concept of love only exists for beings that can love, be loved, enjoy love, miss love, or imagine love. Love is meaningless and irrelevant in the absence of such beings.

The point is evolution has produced something that can contemplate and enact these things which seem to go beyond evolution.

In what way do the things we enact 'go beyond evolution'? Individuals still vary, various forms of selection still mean that some are more and some are less reproductively successful than others.

 

[ruthiesea]

Are there good things to say about it?

Yes. For two thousand years Christianity has been misused to justify war, oppression, and prejudice. That is no different than Islam being misused to justify the same.

 

[ruthiesea]

Would the country be in better shape then, if it took what YOU think is blasphemy more seriously?

No.

 

[Estrid]

Yes. For two thousand years Christianity has been misused to justify war, oppression, and prejudice. That is no different than Islam being misused to justify the same.

Faint praise

 

[AV1611VET]

That is no different than Islam being misused to justify the same.

After the 9/11 attacks, I got tired of hearing the term "radical Muslim."

To me, a "radical Muslim" is one who helps little old infidels cross the street.

 

[ruthiesea]

After the 9/11 attacks, I got tired of hearing the term "radical Muslim."

To me, a "radical Muslim" is one who helps little old infidels cross the street.

Based on history, even recent history, I could day the same about Christians. I don’t because my faith teaches us to remember but not as a reason for hate. To be free, you have to let go of hate. That one of the lessons of taught in Exodus.
And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.~ Exodus 22:21

 

[AV1611VET]

Based on history, even recent history, I could say the same about Christians.

But what you can't say, is that Christians did it with proper respect to the Bible.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials: all done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

I don’t because my faith teaches us to remember but not as a reason for hate.

This has nothing to do with hate.

This has to do with being wise enough to know the difference between one religion and another.

A difference that could save your life.

 

[SelfSim]

Sure, we can recognise and contemplate that a universe without consciousness would be a different kind of universe - because it would have no consciousness in it.

.. and there's nothing to say what 'would be a different kind universe', too.
We need consciousness to infer both 'is' and 'universe'.

We can describe and enumerate all the properties such a universe might have - but what we can't do, by definition, is to say what it would be like to experience.

We'd have to start from scratch in order to distinguish, (which is an experience btw), ourselves from other sensations.
In that situation, there's no guarantees we'd necessarily infer 'a universe external from ourselves'.

... We would not be in a universe without consciousness

The concept of love only exists for beings that can love, be loved, enjoy love, miss love, or imagine love. Love is meaningless and irrelevant in the absence of such beings.

So too, is 'what a universe is'.

 

[SelfSim]

But what you can't say, is that Christians did it with proper respect to the Bible.

More like it was done with an extreme respect of it in mind.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials: all done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.This has nothing to do with hate.

Extreme respect of anything, always results in hatred of unalike things.