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

[pitabread]

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.

And how is this event tested and confirmed to be an example of the supernatural?

You still haven't explained how supernatural events are tested. It's the how I'm interested in.

 

[SelfSim]

And how is this event tested and confirmed to be an example of the supernatural?

You still haven't explained how supernatural events are tested. It's the how I'm interested in.

As an aside:
It may be helpful to offer a useful definition of 'belief' as this conversation progresses:

"A belief is that which is held to be true out of preference that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I'm not sure he explicitly rejects it but he seems to suggest that we can't know; you'd have to ask him.

This is where semantics and pragmatics come in, for me; regardless of what's out there, if anything, our measurements and observations have certain reliable consistencies which we pragmatically describe as indicators of something 'objectively real' - and that's what we mean by the term, and we apply it to what our models based on those observations and measurements are modelling.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Or she may have become pregnant the usual way...

 

[Strathos]

If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.

You're not supposed to test God.

 

[SelfSim]

I’m not sure he explicitly rejects it but he seems to suggest that we can't know; you'd have to ask him.

Its sufficient for science to approach the question skeptically .. (or agnostically).

This is where semantics and pragmatics come in, for me; regardless of what's out there, if anything, our measurements and observations have certain reliable consistencies which we pragmatically describe as indicators of something 'objectively real'

.. and the description, itself, is yet more evidence of how we go about giving ’pragmatic’ its meaning there, too.

- and that's what we mean by the term, and we apply it to what our models based on those observations and measurements are modelling.

There may or may not be ‘a something’ we are modelling. Ie: both ‘maps’ and ‘the territory’ can be conceived (evidenced) as models - just of different types.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Its sufficient for science to approach the question skeptically .. (or agnostically).
.. and the description, itself, is yet more evidence of how we go about giving ’pragmatic’ its meaning there, too.
There may or may not be ‘a something’ we are modelling. Ie: both ‘maps’ and ‘the territory’ can be conceived (evidenced) as models - just of different types.

If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?

 

[dad]

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

I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there. You are speaking from ignorance.

 

[dad]

And how is this event tested and confirmed to be an example of the supernatural?

It was prophesied. Women do not get pregnant with no men. That passes the test. How did you think science would test Gabriel speaking to her thousands of years ago exactly?

You still haven't explained how supernatural events are tested. It's the how I'm interested in.

Whatever way God sees that men need! Science can't be involved since it has limited itself to the physical.

 

[dad]

If that is the case, then it would appear that there is no way to test them (a good test rules out or supports/doesn't rule out the phenomenon) - you have to take them on faith.

We can test God. People do it all the time. He asks us too! People found that He works, and many hundreds of millions of people also found other spirits work also! (Christians would call those bad spirits). Mary found out that the angel that spoke to her was correct. She had physical evidence. Science would not have recognized the physical evidence. Why? Because science is selective. Nothing physical matters if it involved the spiritual, or was outside of a place modern science could test.
That leaves science a very small player with no possible clue.

 

[dad]

If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?

If you reject what we can know, claiming it cannot be known, should you not be ashamed?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you reject what we can know,

Isn't that your schtick? I certainly don't reject what we can know.

claiming it cannot be known, should you not be ashamed?

If it cannot be known then the honest person says as much. And honesty is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Strathos]

We can test God. People do it all the time.

You really shouldn't though.

Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there. You are speaking from ignorance.

Name one prophet or apostle who was there. Just one. That shouldn't be difficult if so many of them were there.

 

[pitabread]

It was prophesied. Women do not get pregnant with no men. That passes the test.

How do you know she wasn't impregnated by a man though?

What I'm trying to get at is you need a way to verify these ideas. I'm still not seeing how you can do that.

You've made some assertions (essentially your hypothesis), but still haven't explained how you can test it.

Whatever way God sees that men need! Science can't be involved since it has limited itself to the physical.

Sure, fine. But that's why I'm trying to understand how one can test ideas related to the supernatural. So far, you haven't even begun to explain how that works.

I'm not asking about how science does things, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

Just focus on the example you presented: Mary was allegedly impregnated supernaturally. Explain how one can test that idea to verify that that event did occur as a result of supernatural intervention.

 

[SelfSim]

If you accept that we cannot know, shouldn't you be less assertive in your insistence that your view is the right one?

Did I say it was 'the right one'?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Did I say it was 'the right one'?

Those specific words? No, you didn't. However, you have said things like "what I'm trying to say is" and been quite assertive in your language. The impression is certainly that you consider your position to be the right one.

 

[Michael]

Those specific words? No, you didn't. However, you have said things like "what I'm trying to say is" and been quite assertive in your language. The impression is certainly that you consider your position to be the right one.

FYI, I think you hit the nail on the head in this post.

 

[dad]

Isn't that your schtick? I certainly don't reject what we can know.

No problem, let's verify that. All men can know if Jesus is God and whether He will come into our lives if asked. So you can know.

If it cannot be known then the honest person says as much. And honesty is nothing to be ashamed of.

Jesus was honest and He said this

Joh 7:17 - If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.