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

[Gottservant]

That is completely incorrect.

Evolution needs the following:

• Organisms must be able to reproduce themselves.
• The offspring must have some variation from the parent.
• The variations make the organism more likely or less likely to survive.
• The organisms that are more likely to survive will pass on the genes that caused them to be more likely to survive more often than the organisms less likely to survive will pass on their genes.

Evolution does NOT need for the organisms to have any concept of what evolution is.

"Anything goes" does not make for an obedient child - there is a problem with that style of Evolution right there.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Anything goes" does not make for an obedient child - there is a problem with that style of Evolution right there.

Children nowadays engage in transspeciesism due to species dysphoria.

And, of course, academia is in the background explaining it all, as if it's just Mother Nature expressing herself.

 

[Kylie]

"Anything goes" does not make for an obedient child - there is a problem with that style of Evolution right there.

You only think it is a problem because you have your own flawed idea of what evolution is, and when reality doesn't agree with it, you insist reality is wrong because you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that it's your flawed ideas about evolution that are wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You only think it is a problem because you have your own flawed idea of what evolution is, and when reality doesn't agree with it, you insist reality is wrong because you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that it's your flawed ideas about evolution that are wrong.

You got a lot more out of what he wrote than I did. I couldn't even figure out what he was saying.

 

[Gottservant]

You only think it is a problem because you have your own flawed idea of what evolution is, and when reality doesn't agree with it, you insist reality is wrong because you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that it's your flawed ideas about evolution that are wrong.

I'm glad you credit me with knowing what "reality" is.

You continue to deny individual agency, if you keep doing that, eventually you will give up.

I'm basically a life-saver that reads "don't give up".

 

[Gottservant]

You got a lot more out of what he wrote than I did. I couldn't even figure out what he was saying.

The key is to keep from keeping one interpretation in mind.

I don't write what I do, for people to have their mind made up.

As I write, I repeat what I am saying in my head, if that is a poor guide to sense, I guess I had better put my soul to work a little more.

 

[Kylie]

I'm glad you credit me with knowing what "reality" is.

You continue to deny individual agency, if you keep doing that, eventually you will give up.

I'm basically a life-saver that reads "don't give up".

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

I am saying you do not understand what reality is, since you insist on trying to force reality to fit your idea of what it should be. And your idea of what it should be is WRONG.

You are trying to force the square peg of reality through the round hole of your ideas, and it's not working. You can't understand that your idea is the wrong shape, so you have decided to try to change reality until it will fit into your incorrect ideas. And yet you can't change reality no matter how hard you try.

Your ideas about evolution are wrong. You need to abandon them. Toss them away completely. Start again from scratch.

 

[Gottservant]

You don't seem to have understood what I said.

I am saying you do not understand what reality is, [...]
Your ideas about evolution are wrong. You need to abandon them. Toss them away completely. Start again from scratch.

Actually there is a verse in the Bible that says "Levi, the seed of Abraham, who paid tithes to Melchizedek, paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham's loins" (Hebrews 7:6-9) this, combined with the idea behind Jacob showing a flock of sheep how to become speckled (Genesis 30), suggests that adults are able to develop an instinct, for what will be considered "Evolution" by later generations.

I am not just making this up, to suit "reality" how ever you want to use it.

We have from Jesus, that we can't change our hair colour by swearing about it (Matthew 5:36), so it would seem that changing our genetic definition by swearing we used to be monkeys won't work either.

What I haven't done is give up, on Evolution, even though it proposes the impossible, because it is a legitimately (qualifiably) functional way of looking at the world, as long as you don't invest in your seed becoming more monkey-like because the selection pressures around you favour that.

I mean you realise that is ridiculous, right? How monkey my seed is, is down to what I can do for monkeys? Not how much more human - following monkeys - I yearn to be?

 

[stevevw]

I have just got my internet connection back after moving house so I will endeavor to catch up on the posts I have missed. In reading the last couple of pages on evolution its inevitable that the two areas most associated with the OP are physics and biology will come up.

What I find interesting for both these domains is the problems they have in addressing the role of the conscious observer and participator as far as what influence they have on reality.
Both domains relegate the conscious being to a non-causal role and explain away behavior and experience as by-products of naturalistic mechanical processes.

But these materialistic explanations are inadequate. They don't explain away human agency but rather dumb down our ability to influence the physical world.We know that this is not the case and that we play an important part of what makes reality. In fact we play the main role and no amount of dismissing our intuition of this will ever over ride that.

Just like mind can influence matter we can influence evolution. In fact I think living creatures control the course of evolution on par with natural selection if not more.

Until we incorporate consciousness as a fundamental part of reality methodological naturalism will always be inadequate to understanding how reality works.

 

[sjastro]

I have just got my internet connection back after moving house so I will endeavor to catch up on the posts I have missed. In reading the last couple of pages on evolution its inevitable that the two areas most associated with the OP are physics and biology will come up.

What I find interesting for both these domains is the problems they have in addressing the role of the conscious observer and participator as far as what influence they have on reality.
Both domains relegate the conscious being to a non-causal role and explain away behavior and experience as by-products of naturalistic mechanical processes.

But these materialistic explanations are inadequate. They don't explain away human agency but rather dumb down our ability to influence the physical world.We know that this is not the case and that we play an important part of what makes reality. In fact we play the main role and no amount of dismissing our intuition of this will ever over ride that.

Just like mind can influence matter we can influence evolution. In fact I think living creatures control the course of evolution on par with natural selection if not more.

Until we incorporate consciousness as a fundamental part of reality methodological naturalism will always be inadequate to understanding how reality works.

An observer in physics doesn't have to a human but any device which interacts with a quantum mechanical system and in the process of making a measurement alters the system.
According to your logic this means the measuring device must be conscious observer in order for the measurement and subsequent alteration to be made.

In fact we don't need quantum mechanics to show how a measurement can effect a system.
Take the humble thermometer which has a non-zero heat capacity.
If you dip one into warm water, its temperature will be slightly decreased as heat is used to raise the temperature of the thermometer.
What causes the temperature change of the water is the thermometer itself, not existence of a conscious mind watching it.

 

[Kylie]

Actually there is a verse in the Bible that says "Levi, the seed of Abraham, who paid tithes to Melchizedek, paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham's loins" (Hebrews 7:6-9) this, combined with the idea behind Jacob showing a flock of sheep how to become speckled (Genesis 30), suggests that adults are able to develop an instinct, for what will be considered "Evolution" by later generations.

I am not just making this up, to suit "reality" how ever you want to use it.

We have from Jesus, that we can't change our hair colour by swearing about it (Matthew 5:36), so it would seem that changing our genetic definition by swearing we used to be monkeys won't work either.

What I haven't done is give up, on Evolution, even though it proposes the impossible, because it is a legitimately (qualifiably) functional way of looking at the world, as long as you don't invest in your seed becoming more monkey-like because the selection pressures around you favour that.

I mean you realise that is ridiculous, right? How monkey my seed is, is down to what I can do for monkeys? Not how much more human - following monkeys - I yearn to be?

Just no.

When it comes to evolution, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Stop trying to look at science through a religious lens. It's not going to work. So please, just stop doing it.

 

[stevevw]

An observer in physics doesn't have to a human but any device which interacts with a quantum mechanical system and in the process of making a measurement alters the system.
According to your logic this means the measuring device must be conscious observer in order for the measurement and subsequent alteration to be made.
In fact we don't need quantum mechanics to show how a measurement can effect a system.
Take the humble thermometer which has a non-zero heat capacity.
If you dip one into warm water, its temperature will be slightly decreased as heat is used to raise the temperature of the thermometer.
What causes the temperature change of the water is the thermometer itself, not existence of a conscious mind watching it.

Basically from what I understand any measure is fundamentally about information. The observer gives meaning and representation to that information of what is happening and thus knowledge of reality.

So basically everything is about information and knowledge and there is no physical/material aspect to reality at the fundamental level because its only something the observer creates or gives meaning and reference to.

Therefore Mind is fundamental. As the observer owns the Mind that is observing and giving representation the observer is central to any measurement of reality. I think the Neumann–Wigner interpretation” of QP supports this idea.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Basically from what I understand any measure is fundamentally about information. The observer gives meaning and representation to that information of what is happening and thus knowledge of reality.

Obviously, but the meaning and interpretation is done by us for our sakes. They do not cause reality. Only God does.

So basically everything is about information and knowledge and there is no physical/material aspect to reality at the fundamental level because its only something the observer creates or gives meaning and reference to.

This is logically unusable. The vague claim, "basically everything is about", does not logically precede "there is no physical/material aspect to reality at the fundamental level", nor is it supported anyhow. Reality is what it is regardless of any sentient (or other) being observing it, expect, at best, God. And even then, his observing of it must, in such a case, mean more than what we mean by 'observing'.

Therefore Mind is fundamental. As the observer owns the Mind that is observing and giving representation the observer is central to any measurement of reality. I think the Neumann–Wigner interpretation” of QP supports this idea.

Central to the measurement, perhaps, but "central to the physical/material aspect of reality" does not follow.

 

[sjastro]

Basically from what I understand any measure is fundamentally about information. The observer gives meaning and representation to that information of what is happening and thus knowledge of reality.

So basically everything is about information and knowledge and there is no physical/material aspect to reality at the fundamental level because its only something the observer creates or gives meaning and reference to.

Therefore Mind is fundamental. As the observer owns the Mind that is observing and giving representation the observer is central to any measurement of reality. I think the Neumann–Wigner interpretation” of QP supports this idea.

I see you are a proponent of the anti-rationalist principle where having an opinion is far more important than the facts, in this case the science, to back up your assertions.

Here is an experiment for you.
Take an image with your digital camera under low light conditions, wait for 24 hrs before looking at the image on your camera.
The image will be grainy and is an example of quantum or shot noise due to the statistical nature of light and is a demonstration of quantum mechanics.

You have two scenarios did the image form when you looked at it, or was it formed during the camera process where the analogue light signal is converted into a digital signal from which the image is produced?
Clearly the first scenario is false as images carry information such as a date stamp which indicates the image was formed during the camera process.
This leaves the second scenario where by your conclusion the camera must have a mind.
If you believe this it’s fine by me but it is not science and belongs in another forum.

Attempting to use science as justification by invoking the Neumann-Wigner interpretation also fails as it is outdated and has very little support amongst scientists today.
By the 1980s it was realized quantum decoherence was information loss to the environment and is a major issue in the development of quantum computing.
A system that is completely isolated from the environment can remain in a quantum coherent state indefinitely but is impervious to measurement irrespective if the observer has a mind or not.
To keep the system in a coherent state for as long as possible in quantum computing before a measurement is made, it is the environment which needs changing such as reducing the temperature and the effects from electric and magnetic fields.
The mind of the observer plays no role whatsoever in the environment.

 

[Yaaten]

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?

Verificationism: the belief that only that which can be demonstrated to be true using the scientific method of enquiry, in association with the provision of hard, physical evidence, should be accepted as being a fact. That's what this reminds me of, and I can understand why so many these days seem to have this mindset, because we're constantly bombarded with the message, from the time we're in school onwards, that one should demand "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims".
In any case, there is evidence within our physical reality that points squarely at the existence of God, and that is the fact that the constants of nature are so "finely-tuned" for the appearance of life. Others have pointed to the irreducible complexity of the living cell as further proof.

 

[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.

Not only do scientists use reason to do what science does, but what they are looking for is reasons to believe (or to disbelieve) what they conjecture to be true. Sure they would like independently empirical verification of a logical projection, but even their conclusions from their experiments are logically drawn from logically considered results.
Whether they like it or not, scientists are philosophers.

The fact of existence demands a logical cause. An atheist, if honest, will not say that any other proposed cause for existence makes as much sense as First Cause does. But they will "scream and wiggle" to show why First Cause does not make enough sense.

 

[SelfSim]

.. The fact of existence demands a logical cause.

How the word 'existence' acquires the meaning we give it, is demonstrably, the necessary and sufficient logical cause.

An atheist, if honest, will not say that any other proposed cause for existence makes as much sense as First Cause does. But they will "scream and wiggle" to show why First Cause does not make enough sense.

.. especially when the phrase 'First Cause', whenever its been presented, is completely empty and meaningless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How the word 'existence' acquires the meaning we give it, is demonstrably, the necessary and sufficient logical cause.
.. especially when the phrase 'First Cause', whenever its been presented, is completely empty and meaningless.

Fact is fact regardless of whether any of us is seeing it or talking about it. We don't know most facts; they don't depend on our words. It seems ridiculously strange to even have to say this.

 

[stevevw]

You seem to have missed my point - you can't lose what you never had.

I realize this. OK let me put it this way. Because we have experienced consciousness nothing else will do. We would not swap it for anything regardless of what the alternative would be like. In other words there's no substitute. .

Of course consciousness is part of reality - we are conscious, and our consciousness has some effect in the world, for example, it allows us to discuss it. But to say that this means that it "undermines the materialist view and the assumption that reality is fundamentally matter and all causes are naturalistic" is begging the question -

How can it beg the question when as you have acknowledged consciousness has some influence on reality. If that's the case then any measure according to methodological naturalism is undermined and any explanation for reality is incomplete because it has not included the influence of consciousness.

all the scientific evidence tells us consciousness is a process, a brain function; it is material in origin and entirely natural. What's the problem you have with that?

The problem I have is that this claim is not justified and even most scientists acknowledge that we don't know what the fundamental nature of consciousness is and that's it may even be beyond science (Hard problem of consciousness).

Again, if you want to talk about whether reality is fundamentally matter or not, you need to define what you mean by 'matter' and 'reality". Colloquially, 'matter' is stuff made of fermions, i.e. solids, liquids, gases, & plasmas (+ a couple of exotic states); no one would argue that's all there is to reality when we can reliably and repeatedly observe the effects of gravity and electromagnetism.

According to scientific materialism fermions are the building blocks to matter. I liken this to a 'billiard ball schema' or a 'mechano set reality'. Things are reducible to natural mechanical processes according to the ' Closure of the Physical) where everything is traced back to a physical cause.

This is opposed to the immaterial nature of conscious experiences which are about qualia and more abstract. Under this view ideas like Mind, Information, Math, Art, Imagination are immaterial phenomena and cannot be reduced to mechanical physical processes.

You keep making vague statements like this without argument or evidence to support them. Scientists don't talk about what is fundamentally material or immaterial, they talk about what can be observed, inferred, and deduced. How you wish to categorise it is immaterial (see what I did there?).

I have alluded to the evidence. I think consciousness is still a developing paradigm. Its not so much any specific idea but that all ideas have things in common in that they pose something immaterial as fundamental reality. Call it Mind, Information, Spirituality, Simulation theory, the observer effect they all claim that the material world is an illusion and there is some Mind behind everything.

It seems to fit well with the data because any theory needs to include the observer or participator because we cannot separate this out of the equation. You only have to do a quick search and you will find various scientific articles on this. It seems these ideas are becoming more mainstream now. Here's a couple of examples.

The Consciousness of Reality
The Consciousness of Reality
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Science as we know it can't explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167

John Wheeler47
In short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.

The ontological ground of information: according to the proposed framework, mind is the sole ontological primitive and ground of all reality.
http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf

If you want to suggest 'alternative understandings' that 'fit what we are finding better', perhaps you could give some examples of things you feel need 'better' explanations, why you think so, and what a 'better' explanation might look like (I have previously described what makes a good explanation - #1146).

But that is what I am disputing that we have to conform to your list of criteria for explaining fundamental reality. If consciousness is beyond the material brain and methodological naturalism can only measure naturalistic material stuff then this is biased towards one set of criteria based on a restricted measuring method.

There needs to be a paradigm shift as to what is included in any measure and how this is measured. Maybe experience is a better measure and we have to take our experiences more seriously as evidence because the measure from our sense data is too unreliable.

We have an enormous amount of evidence from 1st hand experiences over thousands of years that have proven true and reliable in understanding reality. Just because it doesn't conform or fit with empirical sciences doesn't make it Woo or unreal.

While in the mindset of thinking that physics is on its way to giving a complete picture of the fundamental nature of reality, panpsychism seems improbable as physics does not attribute experience to fundamental particles. But once we realize that physics leaves us completely in the dark about the deep nature of the entities it talks about, and indeed that the only thing we know for certain about the deep nature of the universe is that some of it is taken up with consciousness, things look very different. All we get from physics is this big black and white abstract structure, which we metaphysicians must somehow color in with concrete categorical nature.

Assuming the falsity of substance dualism,16 we know how to color in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are colored in with consciousness. How to color in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to color in the rest of the world with the same pen.
The Consciousness of Reality

Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation…”(H. P. Stapp,

What else is there? What argument or evidence do you have to support this? How is this not just you wishing for magic?

You ask "What else is there?" like there is only one answer and science has already found it. That is the issue I disagree with in the first place that you already know the answer and are unwilling to be open to other possibilities. That's more about an ontological claim then science.

In any case, if reality is such a slippery and ambiguous concept that you can't even define what you mean by it, it seems perverse to make claims about what it does or doesn't include.

actually that is exactly what scientists do using the science method. They already assume what the answer must be (naturalistic) and then create a measuring method that can only find natural physical stuff which excludes all other possibilities.Its like s self-fulfilling method. It can only find certain answers which happen to be exactly the ones designed to be found.

I am not saying I know exactly what reality is but that its not just one thing. I am saying its a mixture of things such as from our sense data but also from our experiences and maybe other processes we are not and cannot be aware of.

Any explanation of reality needs to be all inclusive which means including the actual person who is at the center of everything 'ourselves', the scientists and observer of reality. The science method excludes the observer as a non-entity so any explanation will be incomplete.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I realize this. OK let me put it this way. Because we have experienced consciousness nothing else will do. We would not swap it for anything regardless of what the alternative would be like. In other words there's no substitute.

It's not just that there's no substitute, the alternative isn't like anything, 'liking' is a conscious experience. IOW, it's not a question of 'nothing else will do', experientially there is nothing else - the idea of 'swapping' consciousness for something else is meaningless. Without consciousness, there's no one to say 'this won't do', or 'I don't like this'... That's the point.

How can it beg the question when as you have acknowledged consciousness has some influence on reality. If that's the case then any measure according to methodological naturalism is undermined and any explanation for reality is incomplete because it has not included the influence of consciousness.

It begs the question because it assumes what it is trying to argue. The evidence points to consciousness being a process of neural activity, i.e. as physical and material as fire or erosion.

Whether or not that is the case, whatever it consists of, it's clearly part of reality - as Descartes said, it's the only thing we can be certain is real (cogito ergo sum). So as part of reality, and because it's dynamic, it clearly influences reality, if only the reality it consists of (for epiphenomenalists). For those of us that are not strictly epiphenomenalist, i.e. who think that conscious processes have some influence on other brain activities, it has causal effect on our behaviour & physical activity.

This is a top-down view just for conceptual simplicity - all the macro-scale activities of the brain, including consciousness, are, the evidence suggests, (weakly) emergent from neuronal activities, so you could, in principle, describe them in those bottom-up terms, but such a description would effectively be an emulation.

The problem I have is that this claim is not justified and even most scientists acknowledge that we don't know what the fundamental nature of consciousness is and that's it may even be beyond science (Hard problem of consciousness).

It's justified by the scientific evidence that indicates it. When we interfere with specific parts of brain processing, we can fundamentally change correspondingly specific aspects of consciousness, and we can turn it on or off. AFAIK, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. It's true that we don't yet know how consciousness arises, but most scientists also acknowledge that we don't know what is the fundamental nature of gravity, or quantum fields, or time, or the universe itself. We simply model them according to the evidence we do have, and test the models as best we can.

According to scientific materialism fermions are the building blocks to matter. I liken this to a 'billiard ball schema' or a 'mechano set reality'. Things are reducible to natural mechanical processes according to the ' Closure of the Physical) where everything is traced back to a physical cause.

The 'billiard ball schema' or a 'meccano set reality' of classical physics has been superseded (or subsumed by) quantum mechanics - which is also entirely physical. A cause that has some physical effect is, ipso facto, a physical thing. There are physical events for which we don't yet know the causes, but that doesn't make the causes non-physical.

This is opposed to the immaterial nature of conscious experiences which are about qualia and more abstract. Under this view ideas like Mind, Information, Math, Art, Imagination are immaterial phenomena and cannot be reduced to mechanical physical processes.

You're confused over the ontology of concepts and abstractions. Mind and imagination are names by which we reify brain activity or processing - mind refers to that activity in general, imagination to a particular kind of activity.

Information, maths, and art, are abstract concepts referring to ways of acting in, interpreting, or modelling the world. The concepts themselves exist as physical patterns, e.g. brain activity or connectivity, representations on materials, sound waves, electromagnetic waves, etc. We think of them as non-physical because they are abstractions, labels for indirect representations of aspects of the world.

I think consciousness is still a developing paradigm. Its not so much any specific idea but that all ideas have things in common in that they pose something immaterial as fundamental reality. Call it Mind, Information, Spirituality, Simulation theory, the observer effect they all claim that the material world is an illusion and there is some Mind behind everything.

No, they don't. Throwing together a bunch of concepts you don't appear to understand and claiming that they claim the material world is an illusion is not an argument, it's empty assertion. For example, how does the observer effect 'claim' the material world is an illusion, when it explicitly requires the material world for its effect?

It seems to fit well with the data because any theory needs to include the observer or participator because we cannot separate this out of the equation. You only have to do a quick search and you will find various scientific articles on this.

Mainstream science already includes the observer/participator - are you not aware of biology and the behavioural sciences? The scientific method itself is designed to mitigate the errors and biases of human experimenters.

But that is what I am disputing that we have to conform to your list of criteria for explaining fundamental reality. If consciousness is beyond the material brain and methodological naturalism can only measure naturalistic material stuff then this is biased towards one set of criteria based on a restricted measuring method.

You made that up - I haven't given any list of such criteria - I have never claimed to have criteria for explaining fundamental reality, in fact, I told you that, by definition, it can't be explained in terms of anything more fundamental.

If you can provide any evidence for, or any useful (e.g. predictive) model based on anything to do with 'consciousness beyond the material brain', or any measuring criteria not based on methodological naturalism, now's your chance to shine - let's hear it.

There needs to be a paradigm shift as to what is included in any measure and how this is measured. Maybe experience is a better measure and we have to take our experiences more seriously as evidence because the measure from our sense data is too unreliable.

Experience is all we have. Science and the scientific method arose because our interpretations of experience were unreliable. We developed interpretations that have been far more reliable. One such is that the idea of a non-physical immaterial realm is a useful psychological instrument, but nothing more.

We have an enormous amount of evidence from 1st hand experiences over thousands of years that have proven true and reliable in understanding reality.

So give us some of the best examples of 1st hand experiences that have proven true and reliable in understanding reality, that were not based on methodological naturalism.

You ask "What else is there?" like there is only one answer and science has already found it. That is the issue I disagree with in the first place that you already know the answer and are unwilling to be open to other possibilities. That's more about an ontological claim then science.

Straw man - I made no claim, I just asked what else there is; you made the rest up. I suggest that's because you don't know either, you just want there to be something more.

actually that is exactly what scientists do using the science method. They already assume what the answer must be (naturalistic) and then create a measuring method that can only find natural physical stuff which excludes all other possibilities.Its like s self-fulfilling method. It can only find certain answers which happen to be exactly the ones designed to be found.

I've already explained why that's silly - scientists observe in any reliable way they can, using any reliable observational tools they can devise.

If you know of a reliable measuring method that can measure more or can measure unnatural non-physical 'stuff' then by all means describe or explain it.

I am not saying I know exactly what reality is but that its not just one thing. I am saying its a mixture of things such as from our sense data but also from our experiences and maybe other processes we are not and cannot be aware of.

Any explanation of reality needs to be all inclusive which means including the actual person who is at the center of everything 'ourselves', the scientists and observer of reality.

Sure, that's the objective.

The science method excludes the observer as a non-entity so any explanation will be incomplete.

No, it doesn't.