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

[Hans Blaster]

That's the problem, though, Hans.......... when it comes, you might not like what you find.

Moreover, what I find interesting is that so many of you Ex-Christians who are waiting for scientific evidence are also the ones who formerly hail from evangelical/fundamentalist backgrounds. It's almost like many Ex-Christians have been essentially setup (by their respective denominations) to be disappointed ...

Well then you get me wrong Mr. Void. I've never been an "evangelical" or a "fundamentalist". Frankly, religion wasn't that important to me as a child or a student. Then I stopped going and I didn't miss it at all.

So many of then evan/fundy tropes and arguments make no sense to me because the have no relation to any of my prior thinking about religion.

"Look at the trees!" / "God's handiwork is everywhere." Sorry. Never thought that way. Watched actual plants grow and read about their structures. Then I grew my own from seeds.

"God is love." Sounded like hippie nonsense version of "god loves everyone", though even the latter sounded a bit dubious.

"relationship with God/Jesus": Boy did that ever sound weird to me. Probably heard it a few times before moving to Evang-a-land but dismissed it as more of the previous. Once I realized people were serious about it, it never made a lick of sense to me. Relationships that only go one way aren't relationships.

"Read the bible" Nope, never done it and certainly won't ever read the whole thing. Didn't even read a whole "book" of it until after I joined this site to hunt pseudoscience.

"Chapter and verse" (less of a fundy thing, but still...): I was at least in my 20s and perhaps older before I realized that this phrase refers to those quoting biblical fragments by grid coordinates to make a point. The secular uses of this phrase confused me.

"biblical literalism" how could one say every word was literally true if the first few chapters are demonstrably wrong? Didn't make any sense. There was never a global flood. (Though I will admit I accepted a historical core to the exodus for far too long. Sigh.)

"YEC" another thing that made no sense to me. The Earth and the Universe are billions and billions of years old. How could any modern human think this? Until I lived in fundy-land I had no idea this notion was anything more than a remnant of a pre-modern age found only in isolated parts of the South. (Inherit the Wind distorted my impressions.)

These were all things from my Christian days.

No I'm not expecting evidence for any god to show up soon in this thread or elsewhere. This thread has been bust since the first page (perhaps even the first post) and has long been occupied by other discussions including repeated challenges of my theology. (ugh.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well then you get me wrong Mr. Void. I've never been an "evangelical" or a "fundamentalist". Frankly, religion wasn't that important to me as a child or a student. Then I stopped going and I didn't miss it at all.

So many of then evan/fundy tropes and arguments make no sense to me because the have no relation to any of my prior thinking about religion.

"Look at the trees!" / "God's handiwork is everywhere." Sorry. Never thought that way. Watched actual plants grow and read about their structures. Then I grew my own from seeds.

"God is love." Sounded like hippie nonsense version of "god loves everyone", though even the latter sounded a bit dubious.

"relationship with God/Jesus": Boy did that ever sound weird to me. Probably heard it a few times before moving to Evang-a-land but dismissed it as more of the previous. Once I realized people were serious about it, it never made a lick of sense to me. Relationships that only go one way aren't relationships.

"Read the bible" Nope, never done it and certainly won't ever read the whole thing. Didn't even read a whole "book" of it until after I joined this site to hunt pseudoscience.

"Chapter and verse" (less of a fundy thing, but still...): I was at least in my 20s and perhaps older before I realized that this phrase refers to those quoting biblical fragments by grid coordinates to make a point. The secular uses of this phrase confused me.

"biblical literalism" how could one say every word was literally true if the first few chapters are demonstrably wrong? Didn't make any sense. There was never a global flood. (Though I will admit I accepted a historical core to the exodus for far too long. Sigh.)

"YEC" another thing that made no sense to me. The Earth and the Universe are billions and billions of years old. How could any modern human think this? Until I lived in fundy-land I had no idea this notion was anything more than a remnant of a pre-modern age found only in isolated parts of the South. (Inherit the Wind distorted my impressions.)

These were all things from my Christian days.

No I'm not expecting evidence for any god to show up soon in this thread or elsewhere. This thread has been bust since the first page (perhaps even the first post) and has long been occupied by other discussions including repeated challenges of my theology. (ugh.)

Well, that's great then! That's makes two of us, Hans, and I appreciate the delicate "clarification."

The only difference between us here is that you've chosen to only partly handle and engage the Bible and, out of that partiality, have felt Atheism as "your perceptual home."

Whereas, I have fully handled and engaged the Bible and rather than deeming it to be only fit to be tossed into File 13, I have found that it is meaningful Existentially, and sometimes it emerges with additional meaning suggestively on a Hermeneutical, Historical scale. Again, I say it does so for me "suggestively," not empirically. Of course, then again, I don't expect the Bible to be verifiable within strict (and often overly construed) lines of "empiricism."

Summarily, though, neither of us has ever been a card carrying Evangelical or Fundamentalist and beholden to the several theological typicalities you've described that are found among various strata of Christian people, and we have this default view for similar, even if not identical, reasons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, that's great then! That's makes two of us, Hans, and I appreciate the delicate "clarification."

Glad I could help.

The only difference between us here is that you've chosen to only partly handle and engage the Bible and, out of that partiality, have felt Atheism as "your perceptual home."

The only handling I did of the bible during the approximately 5 years between when I started to be bothered by some doctrine to admitting to myself that I was an atheist was to take it off the shelf and pack and then unpack it for two moves. (I may have as I had prior used it a few times as a reference whenever I heard a odd claim and remembered the coordinates.)

Whereas, I have fully handled and engaged the Bible and rather than deeming it to be only fit to be tossed into File 13, I have found that it is meaningful Existentially, and sometimes it emerges with additional meaning suggestively on a Hermeneutical, Historical scale. Again, I say it does so for me "suggestively," not empirically. Of course, then again, I don't expect the Bible to be verifiable within strict (and often overly construed) lines of "empiricism."

Frankly, I'd want more accessible works and ones without the baggage of the ancient writings of the bible for such purposes.

Summarily, though, neither of us has ever been a card carrying Evangelical or Fundamentalist and beholden to the several theological typicalities you've described that are found among various strata of Christian people, and we have this default view for similar, even if not identical, reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you elaborate. So if consciousness creates subjective reality what creates objective reality. And how do we know that objective reality is not really minds way of understanding the interface of something deeper.

Fundamentally, objective reality is a product of some brute fact; it is what we test with our observations, and the results give us correlations with the predictions of our hypotheses that enable us to model it, both in our subjective model of reality and in our scientific models of reality.

Maybe knowledge is fundamental to reality full stop. It comes before ontology. We know reality directly through our conscious experience before we create any models. That's when the subjective creeps in to ad their ideas. The level of knowledge one has and the type of knowledge one chooses to have determines reality.

No; knowledge depends on the information we get from our senses (our observations); it is indirect. We construe that information as reflecting aspects of external reality and test our predictions against it. Our models are limited because our ability to develop and test them is limited, and when our predictions are not tested, or not tested well, or the results of those tests are misinterpreted in various ways, our subjective (or scientific) models of reality will go their own sweet ways.

But it seems the defining feature of consciousness is assumed into the Boltzmann brain on a material view. If Boltzmann brains don't create consciousness then where did that consciousness come from. It seems the universe would have been programmed to create a Boltzmann brain but not consciousness as that is beyond any natural process.

You're making the mistake of reifying consciousness again. Consciousness is a certain kind of activity that brains indulge in. Boltzmann brains are not programmed but are the product of random fluctuations. Those are the assumptions behind the Boltzmann brain thought experiment. If you insist on the assumption that consciousness is beyond any natural process, you won't understand it.

‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’ - Aristotle

 

[SelfSim]

Fundamentally, objective reality is a product of some brute fact; it is what we test with our observations, and the results ..

Objective reality is defined by the results of observations.
In science, there is no need for the 'brute fact' being invoked there.
'The thing itself' never gets tested in science. Science deals in models.

give us correlations with the predictions of our hypotheses that enable us to model it,

Objective reality is the model which tests out.
Science has no use for 'correlations' or the 'it' being invoked there.

both in our subjective model of reality and in our scientific models of reality.

Both of our 'subjective model of reality' and our scientific model called 'objective reality', are demonstrably mind models, of different types distinguished by the two different known ways they are realised, (ie: the objective method .. and by way of beliefs).

No; knowledge depends on the information we get from our senses (our observations); it is indirect. We construe that information as reflecting aspects of external reality and test our predictions against it. Our models are limited because our ability to develop and test them is limited, and when our predictions are not tested, or not tested well, or the results of those tests are misinterpreted in various ways, our subjective (or scientific) models of reality will go their own sweet ways.

Our minds demonstrably update our knowledge with new meanings for the word 'reality' used there.
We have no idea of how to model the limits of our knowledge.
QM, say, gives us a model of the limits of 'complete information', but we never had any reason to think there was any such thing as complete information, when we had no idea of how to define or establish such a notion.
Untested predictions are models. As far as science is concerned, there is no reality based distinction between untestable, or untested, models .. so I don't see how they could 'go their own sweet ways' without that objective distinction in the first place(?)

You're making the mistake of reifying consciousness again. Consciousness is a certain kind of activity that brains indulge in. Boltzmann brains are not programmed but are the product of random fluctuations. Those are the assumptions behind the Boltzmann brain thought experiment. If you insist on the assumption that consciousness is beyond any natural process, you won't understand it.

‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’ - Aristotle

Boltzmann Brains are a thought experiment which posit untestable assumptions from the get-go, therefore any ensuing untestable assumptions are just as admissable, (for consistency's sake), IMO.

 

[Kylie]

I find it fascinating that there are non-believers on a Christian website trying to discredit the Bible...

Tell me, do you also troll sites dedicated to other religions? No, I doubt you would because they don't challenge the internal dialogue in the same way do they. Isn't that interesting.

Ah yes. Me pointing out that I don't accept the Bible as a factual historical account is now somehow "trolling."

 

[YahuahSaves]

Ah yes. Me pointing out that I don't accept the Bible as a factual historical account is now somehow "trolling."

If you aren't Christian and don't believe the bible was inspired by God, then why do you hang out on a Christian forum?

I can tell you when I had no interest in Christianity I had better things to do with my time than to debate someone else's belief system...if there's not even an inkling of converting it seems pretty strange to me. But, this is why I said, there must be an internal dialogue happening or getting on a Christian website as an athiest wouldn't even be a thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you aren't Christian and don't believe the bible was inspired by God, then why do you hang out on a Christian forum?

I believe it is to fulfill Satan's great commission.

They say that, for everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation.

Jesus gave us the Great Commission to spread the gospel.

Satan gave them his great commission to plant tares among the wheat.

Just my opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you aren't Christian and don't believe the bible was inspired by God, then why do you hang out on a Christian forum?

I can tell you when I had no interest in Christianity I had better things to do with my time than to debate someone else's belief system...if there's not even an inkling of converting it seems pretty strange to me. But, this is why I said, there must be an internal dialogue happening or getting on a Christian website as an athiest wouldn't even be a thing.

Can't you tell from her uniform that she is a science officer?

 

[Estrid]

I find it fascinating that there are non-believers on a Christian website trying to discredit the Bible...

Tell me, do you also troll sites dedicated to other religions? No, I doubt you would because they don't challenge the internal dialogue in the same way do they. Isn't that interesting.

Nobody tries to nor has any capacity to
"discredit" the Bible.

See if you can figure out your so- basic
error and misunderstanding.

Bonus points if you can explain how your
snippy / insulting post ties in with christian values.

 

[Kylie]

If you aren't Christian and don't believe the bible was inspired by God, then why do you hang out on a Christian forum?

If Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, and Kirk Cameron don't believe in evolution, why do they spend so much time talking about it?

I can tell you when I had no interest in Christianity I had better things to do with my time than to debate someone else's belief system...if there's not even an inkling of converting it seems pretty strange to me. But, this is why I said, there must be an internal dialogue happening or getting on a Christian website as an athiest wouldn't even be a thing.

Oh, and everyone must have the same position as you. No one who doesn't believe in Christianity should ever be interested in talking about Christianity, because Pipp@ had no interest in doing so when she wasn't a Christian!

 

[Estrid]

If Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, and Kirk Cameron don't believe in evolution, why do they spend so much time talking about it?

Oh, and everyone must have the same position as you. No one who doesn't believe in Christianity should ever be interested in talking about Christianity, because Pipp@ had no interest in doing so when she wasn't a Christian!

Snark wars!

 

[YahuahSaves]

Can't you tell from her uniform that she is a science officer?

Just by this joke alone, I can hear the bitterness underneath the mocking. You seem to have a desire to tear down a belief system that you claim didn't "suit you", and was not in you to understand - yet there is something about it you just cannot leave alone.. why is that?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Nobody tries to nor has any capacity to
"discredit" the Bible.

See if you can figure out your so- basic
error and misunderstanding.

Bonus points if you can explain how your
snippy / insulting post ties in with christian values.

Not my intention to appear snipping or insulting - FYI this is exactly how your posts appear to be all throughout this site.

I'm genuinely trying to understand the intentions of self-proclaimed atheists engaging on a Christian forum and expecting their "sub-forum" of the sciences to be "off limits" to the Christians and their bibles, like it is your own little playground. It seems counter-intuitive. Why not find an atheistic forum where you won’t be bothered by a Christians input?

 

[YahuahSaves]

If Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, and Kirk Cameron don't believe in evolution, why do they spend so much time talking about it?

Do you see any of those people on this forum?
You avoided my question. Perhaps because you can't answer it honestly without conviction?

Oh, and everyone must have the same position as you. No one who doesn't believe in Christianity should ever be interested in talking about Christianity, because Pipp@ had no interest in doing so when she wasn't a Christian!

I never said that.
Do you not have better things to do with your time? Unless you are learning something new by being here, I don't see the point.

 

[Kylie]

Do you see any of those people on this forum?
You avoided my question. Perhaps because you can't answer it honestly without conviction?

I come to discuss Christianity because I have an interest in why religious people believe what they believe, and also because religious people seem to have an interest in dictating the laws that affect me.

I never said that.
Do you not have better things to do with your time? Unless you are learning something new by being here, I don't see the point.

Yes you did. You said, "I can tell you when I had no interest in Christianity I had better things to do with my time than to debate someone else's belief system...if there's not even an inkling of converting it seems pretty strange to me." In other words, you were saying that since you didn't have any interest in talking about Christianity before you were a Christian, you can't understand why anyone else would have an interest either.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I come to discuss Christianity because I have an interest in why religious people believe what they believe, and also because religious people seem to have an interest in dictating the laws that affect me.

Well thanks for answering my question, it's a good thing that you came to try to understand the Christian belief system.
TBH so did I - more so to try to understand the bible though.

Yes you did. You said, "I can tell you when I had no interest in Christianity I had better things to do with my time than to debate someone else's belief system...if there's not even an inkling of converting it seems pretty strange to me." In other words, you were saying that since you didn't have any interest in talking about Christianity before you were a Christian, you can't understand why anyone else would have an interest either.

I meant that only to say I was so vehemently against Christianity and the bible, I would have cringed at the idea of even entering a site such as this before coming to Christ. (even though I was always a believer in God the creator).
But we all have different reasons for being where we are at...I think most are just searching for truth, picking up the clues along the way and following where those clues lead.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just by this joke alone, I can hear the bitterness underneath the mocking.

sure, sure you can. (No really you can't. You have no idea what motivates me as you are about to demonstrate...)

You seem to have a desire to tear down a belief system

Just because I have no use for it, doesn't mean that I care whether you believe it or not.

that you claim didn't "suit you",

Didn't seem to be consistent with the facts of the universe. Since I didn't believe the rest of the supernatural claims, I became an naturalist and atheist. It was the only thing left.

and was not in you to understand

Christianity isn't really that hard to understand. If it was there wouldn't be a billion believers.

- yet there is something about it you just cannot leave alone.. why is that?

Someone claimed science could prove their god. It is quite the opposite. Nothing about science supports a god. Gods are at best not incompatible with science. (I came here to deal with pseudoscience and other abuses of science. This thread is one of them.)

 

[Kylie]

Well thanks for answering my question, it's a good thing that you came to try to understand the Christian belief system.
TBH so did I - more so to try to understand the bible though.

I understand it plenty. I'm not here to try to convert. I'm here to engage in discussion and civilized debate.

I meant that only to say I was so vehemently against Christianity and the bible, I would have cringed at the idea of even entering a site such as this before coming to Christ. (even though I was always a believer in God the creator).
But we all have different reasons for being where we are at...I think most are just searching for truth, picking up the clues along the way and following where those clues lead.

I'm not allergic to Christianity or anything.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Just because I have no use for it, doesn't mean that I care whether you believe it or not.

Then why did you respond to my post to the OP? and why did you tell me my beliefs have no place in this forum if you don't care?

Christianity isn't really that hard to understand. If it was there wouldn't be a billion believers.

If true "Christianity" was so easy to understand then there wouldn't be a billion unbelievers.

Someone claimed science could prove their god. It is quite the opposite. Nothing about science supports a god. Gods are at best not incompatible with science. (I came here to deal with pseudoscience and other abuses of science. This thread is one of them.)

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinions.

Like Jesus said in Matthew 13 when using the parable of the farmer scattering seed:

For they look, but they don’t really see.
They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.

14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that says,

‘When you hear what I say,
you will not understand.
When you see what I do,
you will not comprehend.
15 For the hearts of these people are hardened,
and their ears cannot hear,
and they have closed their eyes—
so their eyes cannot see,
and their ears cannot hear,
and their hearts cannot understand,
and they cannot turn to me
and let me heal them.’