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

[Kylie]

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

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

Well, if it contradicts something I see in reality, then I conclude that whatever the text says is wrong.

Do you think this is a good idea, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if it contradicts something I see in reality, then I conclude that whatever the text says is wrong.

That may work in the empirical world to a point, but eventually you'll make a mistake.

Do you think this is a good idea, AV?

Absolutely.

 

[Kylie]

That may work in the empirical world to a point, but eventually you'll make a mistake.

Ah, but if so, then the mistake will be mine. It will NOT be because the "If something contradicts reality, then the thing must be wrong" idea is incorrect.

Absolutely.

So you think the "If something contradicts reality, then the thing must be wrong" idea is a GOOD idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think the "If something contradicts reality, then the thing must be wrong" idea is a GOOD idea?

If something happens that wouldn't have happened normally, chances are that something that happened happened because it was a miracle.

Such as when Laban's flock was miraculously increased by an act of God.

 

[Kylie]

If something happens that wouldn't have happened normally, chances are that something that happened happened because it was a miracle.

Such as when Laban's flock was miraculously increased by an act of God.

And how do you know that happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

And how do you know that happened?

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

 

[Kylie]

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

How do you know that is an accurate account of events?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that is an accurate account of events?

It was good enough for you to bring up in Post 2553.

If you can bring it up and interpret it; can't I bring it up and interpret it also?

 

[Kylie]

It was good enough for you to bring up in Post 2553.

If you can bring it up and interpret it; can't I bring it up and interpret it also?

I'm not asking for your interpretation, I'm asking how you know the event described actually happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not asking for your interpretation, I'm asking how you know the event described actually happened.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Put another way:

The Bible says it, that settles it.

 

[Kylie]

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Put another way:

The Bible says it, that settles it.

This doesn't answer my question.

All it says is that you have decided that you've decided the Bible is always right.

I want to know what your justification for the belief "The Bible is always right" is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want to know what your justification for the belief "The Bible is always right" is.

Faith.

 

[Kylie]

Faith.

And what verification process does that involve? How do you eliminate other explanations?

 

[stevevw]

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).

That is about semantics and semantics are not objective as there is more than one meaning to the word real. Rather its about epistemology, how we should go about gaining knowledge about reality. As there is more than one way to know about reality it is also a subjective determination.

You even acknowledged this subjectivity when you linked a mental meaning to the word 'real' and objective tests results. You are presupposing that the only meaning of 'real' is material matter and are justifying this with evidence that only allows the specific meaning of the word 'real' which your assuming.

'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.

Methodological naturalism is based on the assumption that reality is naturalistic and therefore closed to the physical world thus disregarding other possibilities. To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.

Therefore methodological naturalism is making an ontological claim about reality which falls under metaphysics rather than a scientific one. Its claiming there is only one reality which is a material naturalistic one.

Methodological naturalism is a social mental construct and cannot be a scientific fact. What your forgetting is the prior assumption before any measure is done that the science method should be how we know reality. That is beyond science and more about metaphysics.

 

[stevevw]

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

Saying Mind can change physical outcomes doesn't mean that our physical abilities are negated. It means it can transcend the physical.

A simple question shows how our mind can alter physical outcomes.
Do you believe in the power of positive thinking. Like if you think positively about a problem you can advert stress and physical problems resulting from stress.

Since you want to play this silly game...

lol. Who's zooming who.

This is hidden behind a paywall.

OK I have this on file but I think his paper is further down. But this article is an interview with the author Bernardo Kastrup so you will get the idea straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Bernardo Kastrup is fairly well known for his idea about reality being fundamentally Mental.
Bernardo Kastrup: Mind over Matter | Beshara Magazine
Here's a link to his papers though they are pay walled you will see that his ideas are cited by scientific journals. Unfortunately like most papers these days they are walled.
Academic papers ~ Metaphysical Speculations

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.

Yes a tribute to one of the great minds in physics. He is well known for his theories about quantum physics and the observer effect and having worked with Heisenberg one of the pioneers of QM.

OK here is a direct link but unfortunately they are pay walled.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ntum_Mechanics_and_the_Participating_Observer
Henry Stapp, Minds and values in the quantum universe - PhilPapers
here's a paper that cites Stapp in an academic journal you have full access to
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_14

That is why reading the articles is important as it gives you an understanding of his ideas and how the interpretation of QM is reasoned. The article I linked though being a tribute does talk about his ideas from his papers. ie
In his seminal paper “Quantum theory and the role of mind in nature”, Henry Stapp argues: “From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… 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, 2001).

Basically he is saying that our choices to know certain aspects of reality as opposed to others is what makes reality as we are the discerning factor in how we know reality by the questions and measures we present. In other worlds epistemology dictates ontology.

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

Yes and the opinion is from Philip Goff the author of the papers below. The article states the same thing as the papers but in a easy to understand way. As I said its best to understand the idea first rather than go into technical papers.
https://philarchive.org/archive/GOFICE
Do you even know my position. Do you even know what the article is talking about to know that it doesn't support what I am saying.

This has no links to scientific papers.

Like I said these articles reflect what the papers say in easier to understand terms. OK this article has a link to the paper. The original one I linked had the same link but you had to go to the above article first. The point is if you read these articles there should be a link.

Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?
Just in case you are not bothered here is the direct link.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.07655.pdf
here's an academic paper on the same thing once again by Goff.
Could Electrons be 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.

the link was there about 1/2 way down here it is

An information integration theory of consciousness
An information integration theory of consciousness

There are no links to scientific papers in this article.

I linked the article to help you understand some of these ideas before going into technical papers. If you don't even understand the basic idea how will papers help.

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

The article is the scientific research. Its a Royal Society peer reviewed journal . Your too quick to dismiss.

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.

Actually its academic paper by Bernardo Kastrup. If you read the bottom of the page you will see the reference to the paper IE

Kastrup, B. (2017) Making Sense of the Mental Universe, Philosophy and Cosmology. Volume 19, 2017

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.

If you look in the top left you will see the scientific journal for the article IE
J. Non-locality: Special Issue on Psi and Non-local Mind, 2017

Here's the actual paper but as it is pay walled. I linked the one I did as it has access.
Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi & mind over matter in a hyper-dimensional physics
Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi & mind over matter in a hyper-dimensional physics | Semantic Scholar

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.

I thought I already did. Anyway hopefully you will have better luck this time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.

If, by definition, there can be no evidence of non-physical causes and any influence on the physical world is evidence, then one has to wonder what they are causing...

Any change to the physical world is a physical effect, which requires a physical influence, i.e. cause. Suppose we discover that what was once called 'supernatural' has some observable influence on the world. In that case, it will be acknowledged as a physical influence of a physical cause and treated as a novel natural phenomenon.

Your ontological division is really an epistemological issue, i.e. an argument from ignorance.

 

[ruthiesea]

And what verification process does that involve? How do you eliminate other explanations?

He eliminates other explanations by refusing to consider that there are alternate answers or interpretations of the Bible. To him the Bible is a history book and a book of morality with no deeper meanings. He refuses to see below the surface. It’s black and white. Either you accept the literal interpretation of it or you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. Any other possibility is beyond his ken.

 

[AV1611VET]

He eliminates other explanations by refusing to consider that there are alternate answers or interpretations of the Bible. To him the Bible is a history book and a book of morality with no deeper meanings. He refuses to see below the surface. It’s black and white. Either you accept the literal interpretation of it or you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. Any other possibility is beyond his ken.

Aren't you glad we don't take everything allegorically?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Saying Mind can change physical outcomes doesn't mean that our physical abilities are negated. It means it can transcend the physical.

A simple question shows how our mind can alter physical outcomes.
Do you believe in the power of positive thinking. Like if you think positively about a problem you can advert stress and physical problems resulting from stress.

It doesn't transcend the physical. The neurological evidence tells us that (simplifying somewhat):

Thinking positively is the neurons in your brain processing information about your situation and searching for or modelling potentially beneficial outcomes, which leads them to stimulate the release of more dopamine, the 'reward' neurotransmitter.

Thinking negatively is when the neurons in your brain are processing information about your situation and searching for or modelling potentially harmful outcomes, which leads to them stimulating the release of stress hormones.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sigh.

Methodological naturalism is based on the assumption that reality is naturalistic and therefore closed to the physical world thus disregarding other possibilities. To justify epistemic beliefs science uses evidence and that evidence only allows physical causes.

No. That would be ontological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is an operational principle, not a truth claim. It's really just the answer to the question:

Q: What if we try to figure things out using regular, natural laws?
A: OK, let's try that.

(And it works ridiculously well.)

Therefore methodological naturalism is making an ontological claim about reality which falls under metaphysics rather than a scientific one. Its claiming there is only one reality which is a material naturalistic one.

No. Methodological naturalism is not making an ontological claim. It's just a basis for a method class.

"only a material naturalistc reality" is the claim of the very different "ontological naturalism".

Methodological naturalism is a social mental construct and cannot be a scientific fact. What your forgetting is the prior assumption before any measure is done that the science method should be how we know reality. That is beyond science and more about metaphysics.

Of course it's not a "scientific fact". It is foundational to the method of science, but it is not discovered by science. There is a difference.


And all of this in response to an attempt to find a phrasing of a definition of matter that matches how physics uses the term and is not objectionable to you.