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

[Tolworth John]

Order isn't random

If it isn't random, there has to be a cause for that order.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.
Yes one does not have to believe them.
But to hold to an unreasonable explanation while also calling the alternative unreasonable is simple foolishness.

For example? I'd like an example of a "reasonable Christian explanation" where "there are no reasonable scientific explanations"."

 

[AV1611VET]

For example? I'd like an example of a "reasonable Christian explanation" where "there are no reasonable scientific explanations"."

Speaking in tongues.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Speaking in tongues.

Please explain. I have been party to a scientifically easily explainable example of "speaking in tongues", so would be interested to know how you think science cannot explain it.

 

[Tolworth John]

For example? I'd like an example of a "reasonable Christian explanation" where "there are no reasonable scientific explanations"."

A reasonable Christian explanation is that God, who exsists outside of time and space, created the universe, the energy, matter, laws etc and organised it into the universe.
An unreasonable science explanation is that it just happen.
That the universe just beghain, that the fine tuning of the universe just happened, that the universe is reasonable and explainable just happened. Do I need to go on with the long list of things that science cannot explain, but asserts that it does explain?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A reasonable Christian explanation is that God, who exsists outside of time and space, created the universe, the energy, matter, laws etc and organised it into the universe.
An unreasonable science explanation is that it just happen.
That the universe just beghain, that the fine tuning of the universe just happened, that the universe is reasonable and explainable just happened. Do I need to go on with the long list of things that science cannot explain, but asserts that it does explain?

There's no specific example with explanation of how christian belief is reasonable but scientific acceptance is not in your supposed explanation. Please try again and make it relevant.

 

[Tolworth John]

There's no specific example with explanation of how christian belief is reasonable but scientific acceptance is not in your supposed explanation. Please try again and make it relevant.

It does get more basic than what caused the universe to begin?
and how did life begin?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It does get more basic than what caused the universe to begin?
and how did life begin?

You haven't demonstrated that your christian beliefs are reasonable or that scientific explanations are unreasonable. Simple assertions don't pass muster.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If it isn't random, there has to be a cause for that order.

Is God random?

 

[Kylie]

Is God random?

Special pleading incoming...

 

[Torah Keeper]

 

[Hans Blaster]

O great! A screen shot of numerology as "evidence" (of something) instead of an actual argument.

 

[Astrid]

Please explain. I have been party to a scientifically easily explainable example of "speaking in tongues", so would be interested to know how you think science cannot explain it.

IF tongue-speakers were actually speaking
unknown languages, that would be hard to
explain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree. For example Stapp points out

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…

So its in the Mind that we can know what's happening at the fundamental level and not some device outside the mind. We cannot know that the device collapses the wave because we have to introduce ourselves into the equation and we cannot get outside ourselves to see if the measuring device clasped the waves.

Therefore Mind is fundamental and it creates reality as Stapp and others also propose.

There are interpretations pf the quantum findings that make the conscious observer creating reality. For example Wheelers Anthropic Participatory Principle which Stapp bases his view on and QBism. The Boltzmann brain is another idea along these lines.


“von Neumann–Wigner interpretation”, also described as “consciousness causes collapse” of Ψ, postulates that consciousness is an essential factor in quantum measurements.


If fundamental reality is Mind like and not as classical physics explains then its what is happening in the observers Minds which reveals its nature. Everything is waves and energy until a conscious mind is introduced into the equation.

Hasn't there been experiments such as Wigner's extended ones that show the level of observation effects the level of decoherence. Also the Delayed Choice experiments where measurements show observations can even effect past events.

Quantum experiment in space confirms that reality is what you make it
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-experiment-space-confirms-reality-what-you-make-it-0

Is human consciousness creating reality?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself, but I'm curious about what makes you think that Boltzmann brains have anything to do with 'conscious observers creating reality'. Can you explain?

 

[stevevw]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself,

fair enough that is to be expected when people have different views.

but I'm curious about what makes you think that Boltzmann brains have anything to do with 'conscious observers creating reality'. Can you explain?

As far as I understand this idea a Boltzmann brain would contain consciousness. We may be Boltzmann brains but it is only because of consciousness that we are aware of any world or reality that the Boltzmann brains exist. Its another way of saying all is Mind and Mind creates everything.

Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real​

Boltzmann Brains are hypothetical disembodied entities with self-awareness.
This mind-churning idea proposes that the world is quite possibly just an effect of your disembodied consciousness and doesn’t really exist.

Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real

A mind-bending paradox questions the nature of reality.

bigthink.com

 

[ruthiesea]

A reasonable Christian explanation is that God, who exsists outside of time and space, created the universe, the energy, matter, laws etc and organised it into the universe.
An unreasonable science explanation is that it just happen.
That the universe just beghain, that the fine tuning of the universe just happened, that the universe is reasonable and explainable just happened. Do I need to go on with the long list of things that science cannot explain, but asserts that it does explain?

Science does not say it just happened. It searches for answers to such questions. Fine tuning, etc, assumes that the present universe was the goal. Yes, there is a long list of things that science cannot explain but the search for information continues.

 

[port41919]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

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.

Scientists, even Quantum Theorists, have tried so hard to find proof of something you can only know by faith. The can neither prove or disprove His existence.

 

[Astrid]

Scientists, even Quantum Theorists, have tried so hard to find proof of something you can only know by faith.

Nonsense.
You just made that up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As far as I understand this idea a Boltzmann brain would contain consciousness. We may be Boltzmann brains but it is only because of consciousness that we are aware of any world or reality that the Boltzmann brains exist. Its another way of saying all is Mind and Mind creates everything.

Being consciously aware of something is not the same as creating it. We construct a predictive model of the causes of our observations (sensations). But the map (model) is not the terrain.

But the Boltzmann brain concept is cognitively unstable - if everything you know is the result of random fluctuations that constructed your brain, you have no reason to trust that any of it corresponds to any objective reality - including the idea of Boltzmann brains itself, so you have no justification for accepting your reasoning (and statistically, you're far more likely to be a Boltzmann brain that doesn't model objective reality than one that does).

See: Why Boltzmann Brains are Bad.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Being consciously aware of something is not the same as creating it. We construct a predictive model of the causes of our observations (sensations). But the map (model) is not the terrain.

But the Boltzmann brain concept is cognitively unstable - if everything you know is the result of random fluctuations that constructed your brain, you have no reason to trust that any of it corresponds to any objective reality - including the idea of Boltzmann brains itself, so you have no justification for accepting your reasoning (and statistically, you're far more likely to be a Boltzmann brain that doesn't model objective reality than one that does).

See: Why Boltzmann Brains are Bad.

Your link is broken. At least for me.