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

[stevevw]

Can you grow wings by thinking about it real hard?

lol I wish. Its more about mind over matter. How the mind can alter physical outcomes like how positive and negative thinking can change the body for better or worse. How we can put our mind in a state that overcomes pain ect.

If the mind is just a byproduct of matter then like robots and computers which are made up of mindless matter and cannot change their software or hardware humans as mindless matter should not be able to use their minds to change their physical outcomes such as positive thinking changes health outcomes.

 

[stevevw]

Hold on there.

I don't want opinion pieces about this.

Show me the actual scientific data that supports the claim that consciousness creates matter. Show me the experiments that were done in the real world.

The first 2 articles are about the scientific experiments. As I said the articles do link to the scientific support. In fact a few of those articles are the scientific papers. You obviously didn't even read them.

 

[Kylie]

lol wish. Its more about mind over matter. How the mind can alter physical outcomes like how positive and negative thinking can change the body for better or worse. How we can put our mind in a state that overcomes pain ect.

If the mind is just a byproduct of matter then like robots and computers which are made up of mindless matter and cannot change their software or hardware humans as mindless matter should not be able to use their minds to change their physical outcomes such as positive thinking changes health outcomes.

If your mind can alter physical outcomes, prove it by using your mind to produce the physical outcome of you having wings.

As I said the articles do link to the scientific support. In fact a few of those articles are the scientific papers. You obviously didn't even read them.

Since you want to play this silly game...

Rather than link straight to technical papers here are some articles arguing for these ideas in a easy to understand way but with links to the papers.

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind

This is hidden behind a paywall.

Putting Mind Back into Nature: A Tribute to Henry P. Stapp
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf

This is a tribute to a person, not a scientific study. The studies referenced are not available to me, since there are no links in this.

The Case For Panpsychism
a number of leading philosophers and neuroscientists are now finding that working within a panpsychist framework bears fruit.
The Case For Panpsychism | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now

This is an opinion piece, and has no links to scientific papers that support your position.

At Nautilus: Electrons DO have a “rudimentary mind”
Panpsychists in science believe that nature is all there is but, they say, it includes consciousness as a fundamental fact of nature
At Nautilus: Electrons DO have a “rudimentary mind”

This has no links to scientific papers.

Integrated Information Theory
Tononi's theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory.
Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?

The only paper that is linked here is a review of "orch or" theory and does not actually have any research to support said theory.

Minding matter
Many prominent architects of 20th-century science have affirmed a unified, collective aspect of consciousness, in which all individual minds are connected as a single whole.
Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness | Aeon Essays

There are no links to scientific papers in this article.

Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?
Integrated Information Theory can explain a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes a number of testable predictions and extrapolates to a number of problematic conditions
Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

This article just links to a whole bunch of other articles. No actual scientific research.

Quantum Bayesianism
Experiments have confirmed that — as predicted by quantum mechanics — reality is contextual, which contradicts at least intuitive formulations of realism and corroborates the hypothesis of a mental universe.
http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf

This is an opinion piece which presents an idea as a possible explanation for various phenomena. It doesn't contain any scientific studies designed to show that this idea is any more valid than other ideas to explain the same phenomena.

Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi& mind over matter in a hyper dimensional physics

the paradigm of non-local consciousness in a participatory universe
View of Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi & mind over matter in a hyper-dimensional physics

This has no actual scientific studies done and again is just an attempt to present an idea to explain various phenomena. There is nothing to show that it is any more valid than any of the other proposed explanations.

Now, stop playing your silly games and present the actual scientific papers that indicate that matter is created by consciousness. If you can't do that, then don't waste my time. I've been more than patient with you.

 

[SelfSim]

That's right. How can a concept of the mind that claims matter is real be verified by a concept of the mind. Its circular reasoning.

Simple .. its not circular.
The mind assigns meaning to the word 'real' .. that's how. This is objectively demonstrable from an abundance of objective test results. It is not some kind of logical imperative (as you're thinking).

'Matter' can be assigned an operational definition, too: 'matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume'. Therefore, anything registering/measuring as having mass, and registering/measuring as occupying volume, adds the term of 'matter' as a property of objective reality on the basis of those repeatedly, independently measured quantitites.

This is not circular reasoning because there are no going-in assumptions made at the commencement of this process, about what reality is going to be. We don't know 'what's real' until after those measurements return those values.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Understood .. (from the scientific model practical utility purpose/viewpoint), but unfortunately such a definition would still depend on human observations, language, meanings and thus, consciousness. In the context of this philosophical discussion, that dependence is thus far unavailable and may well be unachievable in the long run, given we can't even agree on an objective definition even amongst ourselves.

Agreed.

The scientific 'materialistic'/matter/mechanistic 'emergent behaviour based definitions, I think, are likely our only bet on coming up with a consistent one for the purpose of making progress in understanding of ourselves.

Quite - so far, it's the only way we can generate testable hypotheses...

 

[AV1611VET]

Quite - so far, it's the only way we can generate testable hypotheses...

For the record, will even atheists agree that the Bible says that God is invisible?

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the mind is just a byproduct of matter (mindless matter) then it should not be able to change the form and function of our bodies. That would be like the knobs on a machine or the images on a computer screen can change it's software or hardware.

You'll find it easier to grasp if you make an effort to drop your dualistic bias, stop thinking of the mind as a 'thing' and see it as a label for what the brain does. Then you can think about consciousness as part of that process.

IOW, saying that you consciously decide to do something is a way of describing how part of your brain is experiencing the processing of the information involved in making a choice.

As previously discussed, we don't know quite how the experiencing comes about, but evidence suggests that part of the brain (or that set of processes) is involved in high-level monitoring, planning, and coordinating of behaviours implemented by unconscious processes. Neurologists suggest it accounts for only around 5% of brain activity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's right. How can a concept of the mind that claims matter is real be verified by a concept of the mind. Its circular reasoning.

Not really - that mind just has to decide what it means by 'real' in the given context. We have a general everyday consensus about what we consider to be 'real', but like most human concepts it's pretty fuzzy at the edges and is context-dependent. As Wittgenstein observed, the meaning of words is in their usage.

These semantic confusions remind me of the remark by Justice Potter Stewart in a trial regarding pornography (paraphrased) "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The only paper that is linked here is a review of "orch or" theory and does not actually have any research to support said theory.

IIT really has nothing to do with Orch-OR (Penrose & Hameroff's idea of quantum consciousness). IIT suggests a direct correlation between the degree to which information is integrated in a system (they have a mathematical definition) and the degree of consciousness of that system.

It seems that rough calculations of phi (the measure of integration) correspond to presumed levels of consciousness in various animals. They make the leap of proposing that phi is therefore a direct measure of the degree of consciousness, and can be calculated for all systems, so even the simplest system must be, to some degree, conscious...

Of course, this doesn't allow for the possibility that consciousness may require some minimum phi, and has the problem that arrays of simple logic circuits have been designed that do nothing interesting, yet have measures of phi orders of magnitude greater than human phi.

Informed opinion has it that integrated information is necessary, but not sufficient for consciousness; i.e. the way the information is integrated and processed is crucial.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the record, will even atheists agree that the Bible says that God is invisible?

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

How is that relevant? - if you're saying that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I'm happy to agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that relevant?

So you don't want to admit that the Bible says He is invisible?

- if you're saying that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I'm happy to agree.

Easier to agree when it's technobabble, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

- if you're saying ...

No, I'm not saying.

I asked if atheists will agree that THE BIBLE SAYS that God is invisible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you don't want to admit that the Bible says He is invisible?

So you don't want to explain how it's relevant?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I'm not saying.

I asked if atheists will agree that THE BIBLE SAYS that God is invisible.

OK.

 

[Kylie]

No, I'm not saying.

I asked if atheists will agree that THE BIBLE SAYS that God is invisible.

I'll agree to that.

The Bible does say that God is invisible.

But the Bible also says that God can be seen, like when Moses saw his back parts.

In fact, I bet the Bible says lots of things that you don't take literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll agree to that.

The Bible does say that God is invisible.

But the Bible also says that God can be seen, like when Moses saw his back parts.

In fact, I bet the Bible says lots of things that you don't take literally.

Thank you, Kylie.

And I'm being serious.

Thank you.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you, Kylie.

And I'm being serious.

Thank you.

I think you missed my point, however.

The Bible also says that goats having sex while looking at streaked rods causes them to conceive offspring that are spotted and speckled.

The Bible can SAY something, but that doesn't mean it is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible also says that goats having sex while looking at streaked rods causes them to conceive offspring that are spotted and speckled.

A couple of things, so you won't understand:

1. That was a DREAM, containing a set of instructions for Jacob to follow.
2. And Jacob having followed those instructions, God did the rest of the work.

In short ... God did it.

Your word "causes," being in the present tense to describe a one-time miracle of God, shows you have not a single clue as to what happened.

Nor will you understand it, either; since it contains no technobabble.

 

[Kylie]

A couple of things, so you won't understand:

1. That was a DREAM, containing a set of instructions for Jacob to follow.
2. And Jacob having followed those instructions, God did the rest of the work.

In short ... God did it.

Your word "causes," being in the present tense to describe a one-time miracle of God, shows you have not a single clue as to what happened.

Nor will you understand it, either; since it contains no technobabble.

As usual, you miss the actual important bit of my post.

A text can say something, that doesn't make it true.

The Bible can say God is invisible, that doesn't mean God exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

A text can say something, that doesn't make it true.

How would you know it though, if it was true?

Especially since you misinterpreted what it said beyond understanding what really happened.