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

[Tinker Grey]

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

And I'd say "nothing but doubt".

 

[Mountainmike]

The thread is of course self defeating.
"how to prove from a scientific point of view that God exist"

That presumes a model of "God" hence a test for "God" ness.
Since nobody put God in the scientific model, then nobody can take him out.
Of course that has no bearing on whether or not He is in the real world.
If the model defines "apple" "pear" and "strawberry". All tests must be based on appleness and objects will be declared as one of them.

Even if apple, pear and strawberry are indeed objects God created. Or gravity and planets. A test that says "apple" is natural (ie in nature) does not rule out its creation by God either as a process or ex nihilo. So Natural can be God.

So whats the best you can do? It isnt proof its evidence.
- Evidence of Things that cannot fit the model nor ever will.
- Things that confirm a specific narrative unique to a claim about God.
Thats why I repeat eucharistic miracles.
Progressive transformation or Creation of heart tissue can never be explained by science. There is no way known to do it as a fraud. And there are multiple instances all different personnel.
- All science can do is confirm it is indeed recently life Cardiac tissue.
Which is a dogma of catholicism. Bread becomes flesh.

 

[Mountainmike]

And I'd say "nothing but doubt".

You doubt your consciousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's a spiritual realm? Who knew

One, apparently, where the known laws of physics do not apply.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thats why I repeat eucharistic miracles.
Progressive transformation or Creation of heart tissue can never be explained by science. There is no way known to do it as a fraud.

So says Mountainmike, but as we continually point out, if it looks like a duck...

 

[AV1611VET]

And I'd say "nothing but doubt".

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[SelfSim]

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).

.. and science can't test that assumption .. so it moves on regarding it with neutrality. (This is why I won't call myself an Atheist).

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.

So science then treats it with neutrality, (not denials of it), and moves on.

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.

Science has no operational definition of the term 'supernatural entities', therefore it labels that as just a belief and moves forward in classifying its 'Objective Reality'.

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.

That (the underlined part) is your believed-in model as far as science is concerned. A scientific thinker acknowledges the existence of all the other beliefs that go along with it .. but they are not part of its 'Objective Reality' (or what is real .. they are, demonstrably, beliefs).

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.

'Discredits our beliefs'? People do that .. not science.

Look, if science could find some way the concept of the supernatural could be made of practical use, it would do that. Science grabs all kinds of concepts in the drive towards usefulness (like predictions). Science even grabs hold of some philosophical notions like 'Causality' and makes them useful. It doesn't rule anything out.
People might, but science doesn't.

 

[dlamberth]

And I'd say "nothing but doubt".

It's interesting to note that the spiritual has been a key component of the Human experience for a very long time now. So lot of people know and have known.

 

[The Barbarian]

There's a spiritual realm? Who knew

Christians for thousands of years, among others.

 

[dlamberth]

Christians for thousands of years, among others.

Indigenous cultures for even longer.

 

[stevevw]

.. and science can't test that assumption .. so it moves on regarding it with neutrality. (This is why I won't call myself an Atheist).

The problem is that you can't be neutral about a prior assumption that is already biased towards naturalism.

So science then treats it with neutrality, (not denials of it), and moves on.
Science has no operational definition of the term 'supernatural entities', therefore it labels that as just a belief and moves forward in classifying its 'Objective Reality'.

BY isolating the natural from the supernatural the science method has already cut any supernatural cause off from what it measures so it can't be neutral. To be neutral it would have to not isolate super-naturalism and include everything as a possibility.

That (the underlined part) is your believed-in model as far as science is concerned. A scientific thinker acknowledges the existence of all the other beliefs that go along with it .. but they are not part of its 'Objective Reality' (or what is real .. they are, demonstrably, beliefs).

But the belief is actually inherited within methodological naturalism in that to it isolates the supernatural out of the equation thus making naturalism the only option. This is an ontological position that the only reality is a naturalistic one which is a metaphysical belief.

'Discredits our beliefs'

? People do that .. not science.

No the method does because it isolates the natural from the supernatural and using empirical evidence as the criteria. As the supernatural doesn't meet empirical evidence it has to be discredited. Sure the scientist is the one discrediting super-naturalism but they do so because the method demands they do.

Look, if science could find some way the concept of the supernatural could be made of practical use, it would do that. Science grabs all kinds of concepts in the drive towards usefulness (like predictions). Science even grabs hold of some philosophical notions like 'Causality' and makes them useful. It doesn't rule anything out.
People might, but science doesn't.

When methodological naturalism becomes a necessary condition of science it is incompatible with realism and the principles of discovery, evidence and self-correction. We do not know what we are going to discover in advance but methodological naturalism doesn't allow for the possibility of discovering the supernatural.

We do not know where the evidence we gather will lead us, but no matter what that evidence is methodological naturalism will not allow us to follow it to a supernatural cause. If the supernatural is part of reality methodological naturalism does not allow us to correct for this and so prevents us from knowing the truth.

The only way methodological naturalism would not be in conflict with these three principles is if the supernatural doesn't exist.
But we do not know if that's true and so the use of methodological naturalism as a necessary principle within a realist conception of science is unjustified.

Why should be say that the supernatural doesn't exist when where not sure. The rational position would be to take a neutral one which means we don't deny or confirm the supernatural. If there was a method that was in line with the principles of discovery, evidence and self-correction it would logically make a better method. This is methodological neutralism.

Methodological neutralism would mean scientists don't make prior assumptions on what ontological status causes have. By not doing this the principle of discovery is upheld. Not setting prior conditions about the ontological status the evidence can be followed wherever it might take us and we can make any corrections according to new evidence. Thus as methodological neutralism meets these three principles it should be the preferred method.

https://www.metanexus.net/replacing-methodological-naturalism/

 

[stevevw]

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

So already science eliminates possible causes as to the truth about reality.

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.

You mean supernatural explanations don't you.

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.

I think the idea would be to come up with a method that's neutral which can accommodate all possible causes. But to rule out the supernatural as a priori prevents us from including all possible causes.

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.

So therefore as God is supernatural and science isolates the supernatural from the natural as a priori and counts it out as related to this thread "how to prove god exists from a scientific point of view' its impossible unless we have a neutral method to do so.

 

[SelfSim]

The problem is that you can't be neutral about a prior assumption that is already biased towards naturalism.

BY isolating the natural from the supernatural the science method has already cut any supernatural cause off from what it measures so it can't be neutral. To be neutral it would have to not isolate super-naturalism and include everything as a possibility.

But the belief is actually inherited within methodological naturalism in that to it isolates the supernatural out of the equation thus making naturalism the only option. This is an ontological position that the only reality is a naturalistic one which is a metaphysical belief.

No the method does because it isolates the natural from the supernatural and using empirical evidence as the criteria. As the supernatural doesn't meet empirical evidence it has to be discredited. Sure the scientist is the one discrediting super-naturalism but they do so because the method demands they do.

When methodological naturalism becomes a necessary condition of science it is incompatible with realism and the principles of discovery, evidence and self-correction. We do not know what we are going to discover in advance but methodological naturalism doesn't allow for the possibility of discovering the supernatural.

We do not know where the evidence we gather will lead us, but no matter what that evidence is methodological naturalism will not allow us to follow it to a supernatural cause. If the supernatural is part of reality methodological naturalism does not allow us to correct for this and so prevents us from knowing the truth.

The only way methodological naturalism would not be in conflict with these three principles is if the supernatural doesn't exist.
But we do not know if that's true and so the use of methodological naturalism as a necessary principle within a realist conception of science is unjustified.

Why should be say that the supernatural doesn't exist when where not sure. The rational position would be to take a neutral one which means we don't deny or confirm the supernatural. If there was a method that was in line with the principles of discovery, evidence and self-correction it would logically make a better method. This is methodological neutralism.

Methodological neutralism would mean scientists don't make prior assumptions on what ontological status causes have. By not doing this the principle of discovery is upheld. Not setting prior conditions about the ontological status the evidence can be followed wherever it might take us and we can make any corrections according to new evidence. Thus as methodological neutralism meets these three principles it should be the preferred method.

https://www.metanexus.net/replacing-methodological-naturalism/

And so this is where an operational definition of a belief kicks in:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Your 'the Supernatural', is entirely consistent with that definition. So we have beliefs (eg: 'the Supernatural'), and we have objectively testables (eg: 'natural').

'Exists', (or what is real), is defined by either of two known methods: the scientific method, or the belief way. From this test, its perfectly clear that your model of 'what exists', includes your beliefs .. which isn't of practical use because I can't do anything with them .. because they're your beliefs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So already science eliminates possible causes as to the truth about reality.

No, science only *examines* natural causes (or as it has in physics before, identifies previously unknown natural causes that work in regular and predictable manners.)

Science isn't the right tool for every thing. It won't solve philosophical problems, or moral problems, or evaluate great works of art.

You mean supernatural explanations don't you.

No. I mean natural explanations. So let me be more explicit.

There are natural mechanisms proposed for getting a Universe like ours (for example from the multiverse generated by eternal inflation) but none of those naturalistic proposals for generating Universes can be tested, so we *may* in the future be able to properly focus the scientific method on the testing of specific Universe creation models. None of the ones we have now can be checked by existing data.

I think the idea would be to come up with a method that's neutral which can accommodate all possible causes. But to rule out the supernatural as a priori prevents us from including all possible causes.

Good luck with that. The biggest problem I see is that most things attributed to the "supernatural" (that is beyond the natural laws of physics) have arbitrary behaviors in them which makes it very hard to test. How do you test the existence of a god that does not want to respond to your test criteria?

So therefore as God is supernatural and science isolates the supernatural from the natural as a priori and counts it out as related to this thread "how to prove god exists from a scientific point of view' its impossible unless we have a neutral method to do so.

Basically. It's not a trick, it's just what is. The title of this tread might be described as "a fool's errand".

 

[Kylie]

The link you provided has a pay wall.

There isn't one for me, and I'm certainly not subscribed to Forbes.

The laws that govern our universe are not a material thing so there is nothing to create. So how did they come about. If the ingredients of our entire universe were present at the beginning of our universe then something must have put those ingredients into the makeup of our universe including intelligent conscious life.

Those laws could be an emergent property. They don't need to be a material thing, but they could still depend on spacetime being there.

 

[SelfSim]

There isn't one for me, and I'm certainly not subscribed to Forbes.

(Not behind a paywall for me either, FWIW).

 

[stevevw]

No, science only *examines* natural causes (or as it has in physics before, identifies previously unknown natural causes that work in regular and predictable manners.)

Yes in other words matter particles, waves that can be measured. And there lies the limitation 'that it only measures the natural' thus excluding all other possibilities. But even then the idea of matter outside the Mind is kinda weird as well.

Science isn't the right tool for every thing. It won't solve philosophical problems, or moral problems, or evaluate great works of art.

Exactly. That's what Galileo said or why he helped develop the science method so it could only work with quantities and not qualities. He put the quality aspects of life as a separate phenomena to consider and which also contributed to helping understand reality.

No. I mean natural explanations. So let me be more explicit.

There are natural mechanisms proposed for getting a Universe like ours (for example from the multiverse generated by eternal inflation) but none of those naturalistic proposals for generating Universes can be tested, so we *may* in the future be able to properly focus the scientific method on the testing of specific Universe creation models. None of the ones we have now can be checked by existing data.

Yes we seem to be at a point so close yet so far away. At the same time quantum physics has thrown up some strange findings that seem to suggest or at least a couple of interpretations seem to suggest that the observer/subject needs to be included in our understanding of reality.

I think the frontier is Mind and consciousness. This is where we will more fruitful explanations I think. After-all our subjective consciousness is all we have to understand the world.

Good luck with that. The biggest problem I see is that most things attributed to the "supernatural" (that is beyond the natural laws of physics) have arbitrary behaviors in them which makes it very hard to test. How do you test the existence of a god that does not want to respond to your test criteria?

I think the first thing we need to clarify is where the line is between natural and supernatural. God is obviously supernatural but there's a lot of stuff that transcends the natural which we regard as real things in that they can influence time and space.

I mean you can do scientific tests for say prayer or telepathy to measure any results above chance which are being done and with some showing above chance results. But in the end a naturalistic explanation will be given.

I see it like this. Say reality is represented by a building like a square shape similar to a house. So science can measure the shell, its dimension, weight, right down to the sub atomic level.

But we have to also include whats inside the house if we want a complete understanding of reality. Why blot out what happens inside the house because it does influence what happens to the house. So our subjective experience is what makes the house a home. Gives it meaning and that is how we map the world. We don't at first perceive the world as eyes, object and meaning. We first attribute meaning to the objective world. That's our default state.

Quantifying reality is only a recent thing. We lived for 10,000s of years though our conscious experience of the world. So maybe its the other way around that our subjective experience comes first and is fundamental and the objective world is an after thought to help understand the world in a practical sense.

Basically. It's not a trick, it's just what is. The title of this tread might be described as "a fool's errand".

Not really I think by understanding the limits of the science method we can appreciate that there are other phenomena that are still important that need to be understood in a different way.

Like the value of our experience throughout history. We can derive some truths and we already have that have stood the test of time. That make us and the world what it is.

Some of these truths seem a remarkable feat to come up with but yet we have as we are still here and still contemplating the same thing 'whats beyond the night sky when we gaze up at the stars'. Is it really all a dream or illusion or is there something to our intuition that there is more to life than what we can see.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes in other words matter particles, waves that can be measured. And there lies the limitation 'that it only measures the natural' thus excluding all other possibilities. But even then the idea of matter outside the Mind is kinda weird as well.

"matter outside the mind"????

As best we can tell very little of matter has a "mind". Most is mindless.

Exactly. That's what Galileo said or why he helped develop the science method so it could only work with quantities and not qualities. He put the quality aspects of life as a separate phenomena to consider and which also contributed to helping understand reality.

I'm sure that's nice, but Galileo is a bit out of date. There has been a lot of improvements to our understanding of nature and the scientific process. We don't stand on historical precedents just becaue they exist.

Yes we seem to be at a point so close yet so far away. At the same time quantum physics has thrown up some strange findings that seem to suggest or at least a couple of interpretations seem to suggest that the observer/subject needs to be included in our understanding of reality.

The typical reduction of these aspects of QM is to say (a bit glibly) that the fundamental reality *is* QM.

(Note that the observer/subject aspect of some interpretations of QM do not require a conscious observer, just an interaction of a quantum state with some external thing.)

I think the frontier is Mind and consciousness. This is where we will more fruitful explanations I think. After-all our subjective consciousness is all we have to understand the world.

It is an interesting frontier, but not the one I (a physicist) am focused on.

I have to go so I haven't even tried to figure out what you are saying in the rest of your post. Perhaps later.

 

[stevevw]

There isn't one for me, and I'm certainly not subscribed to Forbes.

Those laws could be an emergent property. They don't need to be a material thing, but they could still depend on spacetime being there.

Well yeah but what is spacetime fundamentally. It seems thanks to quantum physics its pretty strange and classical science breaks down. Science only describes the behavior. It doesn't tell us what the fundamental of stuff is.

What does emergent mean like consciousness is emergent. Its almost like some magical essence was created than cannot be measured in a quantified way or reduced to particles. That seems like a description of something supernatural not natural.

 

[stevevw]

And so this is where an operational definition of a belief kicks in:

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
Your 'the Supernatural', is entirely consistent with that definition. So we have beliefs (eg: 'the Supernatural'), and we have objectively testables (eg: 'natural').

Yes and the idea of matter outside the Mind is something to test is a belief. Its circular logic that a measuring system that only includes matter as a ontological belief is going to prove matter. Lets say that the supernatural is real. Then any test is only revealing part of reality because it left out something that is real when it comes to understanding reality.

'Exists',or what is real, is defined by either of two known methods: the scientific method, or the belief way. From this test, its perfectly clear that your model of 'what exists', includes your beliefs .. which isn't of practical use because I can't do anything with them .. because they're your beliefs.

You missing the point that making matter the only reality is a belief. Our beliefs and experience can also tell us something about reality.

Besides the idea that reality is fundamentally matter has been undermined by QM.So any ontological belief that matter is fundamental is on shaky ground.