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

[SelfSim]

Science does restrict spiritual things from how it is defined. It includes only the physical.

Whattdya mean by 'physical'?

The supernatural is testable and has been tested and accepted by a majority of people in all the world in all of history. The means whereby we test the supernatural involves more than just the natural world, so science cannot be involved. It cut itself off.

So, according to that, 'the supernatural' becomes testable and thence it becomes real, yes?
This is the process of mind dependent reality. Its how things become real (or exist) .. call it the belief (or faith) process leading to reality if you like.
The scientific process is clearly also mind dependent .. but it follows a different process. That's all I'm saying here. Science's reality ends up being different because of its process/methodology.
What's the big deal here?

 

[pitabread]

The supernatural is testable and has been tested

How has it been tested?

 

[dad]

Whattdya mean by 'physical'?

Well, a man would bang his nose trying to walk through a wall, while a spirit would not.

So, according to that, 'the supernatural' becomes testable and thence it becomes real, yes?

Of course, it is testable and the bible contains tests. For example, the test for spirits to see if they are of God or not.

This is the process of mind dependent reality. Its how things become real (or exist) .. call it the belief (or faith) process leading to reality if you like.

Reality, whether about spirits or bricks is not in the mind at all.

The scientific process is clearly also mind dependent .. but it follows a different process.

Now that's a different story. The broad spectrum of all that is called science is not in the mind either. The origins fables that are called science are in the mind though. They are also inspired by spirits.

That's all I'm saying here. Science's reality ends up being different because of its process/methodology.
What's the big deal here?

Reality is bigger than science. They try to cram what bits of reality that they can into their paradigm.

 

[dad]

How has it been tested?

Every answered prayer is a test. Every time someone calls on God to honor His word that is a test. The hundreds of fulfilled prophesies were tests that were successful.

 

[Michael]

Look, let me try and make this simpler:

All I'm saying here is that there might be a mind independent reality/universe, but when we look at and measure reality, all that data is always filtered, interpreted, named, given meaning too, etc by a mind. In short, it is always processed by a mind. And by what we perceive or communicate about it with the use of a mind, by definition is not mind independent.

To perceive reality, you need a mind, and a mind perceiving some aspect of reality, by definition, is not a mind independent aspect of reality. Mind Independent Reality in itself is a mental construct of a mind.

Mind independent reality may be a "construct of the mind" as you put it, but the very existence of a "mind" in virtually all popular scientific models is based upon the existence of laws of physics that predate life on Earth.

 

[Michael]

LCDM is a testable model which exists in science .. However I get that you take it as being a mind independent 'thing' (a claim which you cannot support with an objective test/evidence).
That you cannot, or will not, 'try it on' as a testable model, is your (unscientific) choice.

The problem is that it's a model that has been "tested" and it's failed so many of those so called "tests" that I've lost count. Distant galaxies are too large and "mature" for the LCDM model, quasars are way too large, dark matter has failed every "test" to date, etc. At some point one has to allow "tests" to falsify models too, but alas that's never the case with the LCDM model.

Re underlined:
No .. the only 'claim' I made as far as the notion that reality might be truly mind independent, is that 'I don't know'. (In other words, I never actually entirely ruled out 'the existence of some truly mind independent reality'). The notion itself is actually evidenced as mind model too, of course - ie: a belief.

I think you're missing my point. Essentially your entire belief system, including your belief in the LCDM model, evolutionary theory (I assume you support it), archeology as we understand it, etc, all *require* the existence of laws of physics which predate life on Earth, and "minds" as we think of them.

Admittedly, creationism assumes that a "mind" was the responsible "creator" of the universe itself, but with that one exemption, all other scientific models depend on the existence of laws of physics which predate 'mind'.

The rest of what I've highlighted in this thread is abundantly supported with objective evidence, whereas the notion of the mind independence of reality, is entirely unsupported with even an objective test.

I don't know how anyone can "hold belief" in something like 'dark energy' or inflation, and claim to 'test' such things without *assuming* the existence of a mind independent reality, and laws of physics which predate mind. How could one "test" anything that requires one to "assume" a multi billion year process unfolding over time without embracing a mind independent reality?

FYI, I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that you seem to hold belief in a universe that predates the existence of minds as we think of them, yet you fail to embrace the concept of a objective set of physical laws that would be required to "test" your favored cosmology model. It just "seems" self conflicted. Then gain, it's possible I simply don't comprehend your beliefs all that well. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult, I was simply trying to understand your position, and admittedly, I'm struggling.

 

[SelfSim]

1) Scientific (eg: Physics) theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law (eg: Physics') records what happens.

2) A physical universal constant, (eg: c), is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal and have constant value in time.

3) The universality of the physical constants (or more correctly, the unitless combinations of the constants), over huge distances and times, is a spectacular success of Occam's Razor (ie: 'the simplest theory, that agrees with data is the best path to understanding' .. so then that theory/assumption is clearly the best theory).

We have no idea why the Razor works so well. However, it can be argued that it had to work out that way, or we couldn't be here, (and perhaps there are vastly more universes where it didn't work that way .. and we are not there, as a result).

This explanation of course, does not lead, in any way, to a mind independent reality .. it is an outcome of mind dependence .. ie: that a given kind of mind will always find itself trying to make sense out of a universe that comes out simple enough for that mind to exist in the first place.
This also explains why our simplest models invariably fail .. the universe may need to be almost simple enough for us to understand, but if it was really simple enough to fit in our minds, then our minds would not fit in it.

4) The laws of Physics is a recording of what happens when the physical constants interact under specified conditions.

5) All of: Occam's, the laws of Physics and the notion of the universality of physical constants, were distilled by human minds .. There is no evidence that they 'exist' independently of those minds.

 

[SelfSim]

FYI, I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that you seem to hold belief in a universe that predates the existence of minds as we think of them, yet you fail to embrace the concept of a objective set of physical laws that would be required to "test" your favored cosmology model. It just "seems" self conflicted. Then gain, it's possible I simply don't comprehend your beliefs all that well. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult, I was simply trying to understand your position, and admittedly, I'm struggling.

The type of thinking deliberately shifts the emphasis away from the familiarity of an object being 'a physical thing which stands distinct from my mind' because there is no objective test which can demonstrate that. If it were a scientific concept, then it would be testable .. but it simply isn't .. so there's a need to shift the emphasis back to where it all came from .. ie: human minds.

I made a genuine attempt to simplfy what I've said in post #240 (I recommend you read it).

It is a very counterintuitive idea .. but it removes a fundamental inconsistency which turns out to be a major belief embedded in scientific discourse. The idea is not philosophical nor is it a belief .. it is an evidence based outcome of testing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Look, let me try and make this simpler:

All I'm saying here is that there might be a mind independent reality/universe, but when we look at and measure reality, all that data is always filtered, interpreted, named, given meaning too, etc by a mind. In short, it is always processed by a mind. And by what we perceive or communicate about it with the use of a mind, by definition is not mind independent.

To perceive reality, you need a mind, and a mind perceiving some aspect of reality, by definition, is not a mind independent aspect of reality. Mind Independent Reality in itself is a mental construct of a mind.

You're confusing perception of reality with reality itself. Perception may be mind dependent (although you haven't demonstrated that to be the case), but that doesn't mean perception can alter reality in any way.

Just saying, not interested in a discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Every answered prayer is a test. Every time someone calls on God to honor His word that is a test. The hundreds of fulfilled prophesies were tests that were successful.

Specifically how does one test these? Especially in a manner to rule out other explanations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're confusing perception of reality with reality itself. Perception may be mind dependent (although you haven't demonstrated that to be the case), but that doesn't mean perception can alter reality in any way.

Just saying, not interested in a discussion.

I think it's mostly a matter of pragmatics and semantics - of course, everything we experience is in our minds, but we call 'objective' those verifiable measurements and observations that are not dependent on individual propensities, and we call the source of those measurements and observations objective or external reality. Our models are said to correspond to objective or external reality to the extent that they accurately predict the results of other measurements and observations and/or explain existing measurements and observations.

As Philip K. Dick had it, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

 

[Strathos]

Deuteronomy 6:16

God is not to be treated like a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Deuteronomy 6:16

God is not to be treated like a scientific hypothesis.

Does not follow.

 

[pitabread]

Our models are said to correspond to objective or external reality to the extent that they accurately predict the results of other measurements and observations and/or explain existing measurements and observations

SelfSim appears to reject the necessity of an objective universe. I'm not quite sure how one reconciles the scientific method from that basis though.

 

[dad]

Specifically how does one test these? Especially in a manner to rule out other explanations.

Well, the majority of people of all ages ruled already. Why second guess them? You are in no position to rule anything spiritual out or in! You are only in a position to chose to believe or disbelieve.

 

[pitabread]

Well, the majority of people of all ages ruled already. Why second guess them? You are in no position to rule anything spiritual out or in! You are only in a position to chose to believe or disbelieve.

I'm not talking about who is in a position to do what. I'm asking specifically how the things you listed are tested.

Again, how are the things you listed specifically tested?

 

[SelfSim]

I think it's mostly a matter of pragmatics and semantics - of course, everything we experience is in our minds, but we call 'objective' those verifiable measurements and observations that are not dependent on individual propensities, and we call the source of those measurements and observations objective or external reality. Our models are said to correspond to objective or external reality to the extent that they accurately predict the results of other measurements and observations and/or explain existing measurements and observations.

As Philip K. Dick had it, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

I might agree with that, except for 'its mostly a matter of pragmatics and semantics' ..
Rather, its more like:
'its mostly a matter of what evidence gets generated which demonstrates the dissimilar ways meaning gets added, when people say something exists'.

I was unaware of Dick's quote there. Thanks for that .. (seems to hit one of the marks succinctly enough).

 

[dad]

I'm not talking about who is in a position to do what. I'm asking specifically how the things you listed are tested.

Again, how are the things you listed specifically tested?

Mary tested what the angel told her by looking to see if she got pregnant. If science was there checking her out, they would say it was not possible.

 

[SelfSim]

SelfSim appears to reject the necessity of an objective universe. I'm not quite sure how one reconciles the scientific method from that basis though.

Such 'reconcilation' comes down to historical evidence where science hasn't needed any (pre)assumptions - in fact it succeeds in being useful regardless of them. (I cited one strong example of the cholera outbreak of 1854 here).

Logic requires (pre)assumptions (posits) .. and logic stands distinct from science primarily because of them. Logic is therefore not science.

 

[SelfSim]

Mary tested what the angel told her by looking to see if she got pregnant. If science was there checking her out, they would say it was not possible.

Not necessarily .. it may have been the first recorded case of human pathenogenesis .. which is, at least, on science's radar ..