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

[Bungle_Bear]

Negative.

OK, quick lesson.

Ka is Japanese equivalent of ? It turns a declarative statement into a question:

Ah so desu = Oh, that's right
Ah so desu ka = Oh, is that right?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, quick lesson.

Ka is Japanese equivalent of ? It turns a declarative statement into a question:

Ah so desu = Oh, that's right
Ah so desu ka = Oh, is that right?

Okay. Thanks for the info.

I was thinking it was Egyptian, not Japanese.

 

[Mountainmike]

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement of
fact and claimed it was logical.

Why do you state an opinion as fact?

He didn’t state a fact, He begged a question, if there was energy where did it come from? It’s a fair question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But that is not how science works. It assumes there's a material cause (causal closure of the physical) so that is all it will look for.

I didn't actually invoke science.

The oft used argument that starts:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an overstatement. It is not some sort of axiom (though you could use it as a presupposition if you like, but it limits what you can actually "prove"). Instead it is one of those "common sense" inductions. If you rephrase it to limit to exclude "ex nihlio" it is fully consistent with what we know about the material world:

"Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause."

It's a less powerful statement, but it is far more justifiable. It can be reached by inductive reasoning, which does happen to be the cornerstone of the scientific process.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't actually invoke science.

The oft used argument that starts:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an overstatement. It is not some sort of axiom (though you could use it as a presupposition if you like, but it limits what you can actually "prove"). Instead it is one of those "common sense" inductions. If you rephrase it to limit to exclude "ex nihlio" it is fully consistent with what we know about the material world:

"Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause."

It's a less powerful statement, but it is far more justifiable. It can be reached by inductive reasoning, which does happen to be the cornerstone of the scientific process.

Yes that is what I had in mind but didn't express it well. But I think the first statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" can be an open question which doesn't exclude causal possibilities. Whereas the second statement "Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause." is a closed one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes that is what I had in mind but didn't express it well. But I think the first statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" can be an open question which doesn't exclude causal possibilities. Whereas the second statement "Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause." is a closed one.

And that's precisely why the "philosophers" and "apologists" use the first version it leaves room to drive additional concepts through when you're not looking. (Looking at you "WLC".)

 

[stevevw]

And that's precisely why the "philosophers" and "apologists" use the first version it leaves room to drive additional concepts through when you're not looking. (Looking at you "WLC".)

Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.

Finally!!
This is why I call philosophy belief-based. It assumes 'truth exists .. (so let's go find it)'. Its truth-seeking .. and that ain't Science.
Science does not start with assumptions, philosophical ones or any others .. Science tests assumptions theories and models. If they are untestable they get booted.

The idea that science is based on 'methodological naturalism' is a philospher's view of what scientists appear to be doing, from the philosopher's belief-based paradigms.

Science is defined by the six or so steps outlined by the method: speculation, hypothesis, formulate a test, execute the test, record the results, infer a conclusion based on those results.

When it comes to the origins of the universe topic, science starts with 'We don't know' and then applies the method .. and not: 'Step #1: Assume methodological naturalism', (or assume 'causality exists', etc).
Its a 'bottoms up' methodology .. not a 'top down' one.

From what I've witnessed, philosophical thinkers just don't seem to be capable of accepting this fundamental(?)
So wrapped up in their endless impractical philosophical musings, they are ..(?)

 

[stevevw]

Finally!!
This is why I call philosophy belief-based. It assumes 'truth exists .. (so let's go find it)'. Its truth-seeking .. and that ain't Science.
Science does not start with assumptions, philosophical ones or any others .. Science tests assumptions theories and models. If they are untestable they get booted.

The idea that science is based on 'methodological naturalism' is a philospher's view of what scientists appear to be doing, from the philosopher's belief-based paradigms.

Science is defined by the six or so steps outlined by the method: speculation, hypothesis, formulate a test, execute the test, record the results, infer a conclusion based on those results.

When it comes to the origins of the universe topic, science starts with 'We don't know' and then applies the method .. and not: 'Step #1: Assume methodological naturalism', (or assume 'causality exists', etc).
Its a 'bottoms up' methodology .. not a 'top down' one.

From what I've witnessed, philosophical thinkers just don't seem to be capable of accepting this fundamental(?)
So wrapped up in their endless impractical philosophical musings, they are ..(?)

But for methodological naturalism to be defendable it has to include the assumption that the physical world is causally closed ( Principle of the Causal Closure of the Physical).

The epistemic implications of methodological naturalism lead to 'Evidentialism' where the epistemic justification of a persons belief is determined by the quality of evidence that the believer has. So someone who accepts methodological naturalism has no choice but to deny supernatural things as a priori.

Because methodological naturalism implies evdientialism which obliges a person to base their justification of their beliefs only on empirical evidence and because supernatural entities are causally isolated from the natural world its impossible for them to be reflected in the empirical evidence.

So someone who accepts methodological naturalism has to deny the evidence for the supernatural and commit to metaphysical naturalism which is a position beyond scientific justification.

The causal closure principle is the link between methodological and metaphysical naturalism: because this principle assumes the causal isolation of the natural world, compels someone to adopt a naturalistic method for discovering the world, and discredits our beliefs about the supernatural.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-019-09464-8

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but when it actually comes to any theory on what caused our universe that's when it becomes an assumption because only a material cause can count. And science is held up as the Bastian of knowledge as to what is real or not. So methodological naturalism is really a ontological belief which cannot be justified. It cannot help but bring philosophy in.

Methodological naturalism is a *method* of science as science limits itself to the natural causation.

There may be naturalistic explanations for the origin of the Universe. (For example ones that are consistent with existing physical laws.) Some of those may even be testable. We are no where near that at this point.

But, since we can't even test the naturalistic ideas for the origin* of the Universe, we certainly can't eliminate them all or determine that the only possibility is a supernatural origin. This really puts the origin of the Universe as something that does *not* fit into the title of this thread -- something that can be used to scientifically demonstrate the existence of a god.

*The origin of the Universe is different than the Big Bang. The Big Bang is what happens *after* the Universe comes into existence.

 

[Mountainmike]

I didn't actually invoke science.

The oft used argument that starts:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an overstatement. It is not some sort of axiom (though you could use it as a presupposition if you like, but it limits what you can actually "prove"). Instead it is one of those "common sense" inductions. If you rephrase it to limit to exclude "ex nihlio" it is fully consistent with what we know about the material world:

"Every material thing that begins to exist from pre-existing material has a cause."

It's a less powerful statement, but it is far more justifiable. It can be reached by inductive reasoning, which does happen to be the cornerstone of the scientific process.

But A materialist explanation of the universe needs an explanation for other than material things.
It needs explanation of how the laws came to exist that the materialist presumes to exist to act on the the material things. Those laws are not of themselves material. So a materialist explanation is a self defeating proposition. It is not philosophical sleight of hand!

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

You have it right. Anyone who tells you that science disproves (or proves) God, doesn't understand science or doesn't understand anything about God, or both.

 

[The Barbarian]

Methodological naturalism is a *method* of science as science limits itself to the natural causation.

Right. Great explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone who tells you that science disproves (or proves) God, doesn't understand science ...

... or cause-and-effect relationships.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think cause-and-effect works both in the physical and spiritual realms. But I think I know what you mean here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think cause-and-effect works both in the physical and spiritual realms. But I think I know what you mean here.

There's a spiritual realm? Who knew

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And that's precisely why the "philosophers" and "apologists" use the first version it leaves room to drive additional concepts through when you're not looking. (Looking at you "WLC".)

... not all of them do, Hans. But carry on...

 

[Mountainmike]

There's a spiritual realm? Who knew

Its fascinating what you discover if you are willing to look..
Consciousness is spirit. Check definitions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

... not all of them do, Hans. But carry on...

That's why I put it "quotes".

(Yes, I know WLC has a terminal degree in philosophy, [It is the kind of thing that would make one terminal ] but he functions (especially in his public work) as an apologist. He's the one I first heard the "argument from the cause of the universe" from. It seemed impressive the first time I saw one of his presentations via a CF link, but that impression wore off.)

The "reason" for the Universe is just one of those things that can't argue for or against the existence of gods.

 

[dlamberth]

There's a spiritual realm? Who knew

I'd say that yes..with out a doubt.