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

[pitabread]

nevermind, I don't care.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Desperate post. Gabriel was with Mary. God was with Mary. Joseph was betrothed to her. Not sure if you wanted a spy camera in the bedroom, or you won't believe it? Oh, and an angel also told Elizabeth who was the mom of John the Baptist that Mary was carrying a baby from God!

dad's claim regarding Mary becoming pregnant: I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there.

When asked to support this claim we got the usual avoidance, goalposts moving and deflection. What I was looking for was honesty, but that's very seldom seen in these circumstances.

 

[pitabread]

By saying that Scripture was correct in the extreme. By fulfilling it and rising from being dead as a doornail. By being alive and well today and working in our lives when invited.

More claims, yet you're still not explaining how any of these claims can be tested.

I'm going to cut things off here because it's obvious this is going absolutely nowhere. We've reached a point where I'm confident to state that you don't know how to test the supernatural. You continue to make assertions, but you've completely failed to link this back to supernatural intervention and show how the supernatural is required in those instances.

And when I've pressed you on certain examples (e.g. Mary's immaculate conception) you simply turn around and claim we can't test those things after all. Even though these are your own examples.

Thus, this appears to be going nowhere. Unless you can turn this around and start providing some real explanations of how the supernatural is tested instead of just random, unsupported assertions, I'd say we're done here. Again.

 

[pitabread]

When asked to support this claim we got the usual avoidance, goalposts moving and deflection. What I was looking for was honesty, but that's very seldom seen in these circumstances.

He'd have been better off just admitting this all faith-based from the get-go. Invariably, we all knew that is where this would end up.

 

[dad]

Yet this claim can't be tested.

It was tested and proven by another angel appearance to Mary's cousin regarding another miracle birth. It was tested in that Jesus went on to fulfill over 300 prophesies, and rise from the dead.

These are all just assertions.

No, it is written! You have only assertions that try to cast doubt for NO reason.

You haven't explained how any of these can be tested in a manner that supports your assertion that the supernatural was involved.

They were tested and proven. In anyone's life today also, that has invited Jesus in, there are innumerable proofs.
Ac 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God

It's like a math test, where you have a question worth 10 marks where you have to provide an answer and show your work. The answer is worth one point. The remaining 9 points are showing you derived the answer.

How about you give your math test to one of the spirit kings of Egypt? Or maybe to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon? Can you prove he lived, and went to the bathroom and walked? What would you like, the dead king to walk in a lab for you?

 

[dad]

dad's claim regarding Mary becoming pregnant: I could believe you, or Jesus, all the prophets and apostles, etc. Many of them were there.

When asked to support this claim we got the usual avoidance, goalposts moving and deflection. What I was looking for was honesty, but that's very seldom seen in these circumstances.

Actually, to be honest, when thinking of how apostles and family and disciples witnessed the vents of Jesus' life, I did not have the impregnation of Mary in mind.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Actually, to be honest, when thinking of how apostles and family and disciples witnessed the vents of Jesus' life, I did not have the impregnation of Mary in mind.

And yet that was the topic being discussed.

So, will you accept you were wrong or just double down on the avoidance?

 

[dad]

More claims, yet you're still not explaining how any of these claims can be tested.

Your tense is wrong. The past is over now. The claims were tested. Not 'can be' tested now or in the future. The proof of the tests is that He is alive. He works. Prophesy was fulfilled. You are in no position to go back and start 'testing' apostles or Jesus etc!! This is news?

I'm going to cut things off here because it's obvious this is going absolutely nowhere. We've reached a point where I'm confident to state that you don't know how to test the supernatural.

You test God by trying Him. You test Him by looking at what He said. The temple really was destroyed. He really did rise from the dead.

And when I've pressed you on certain examples (e.g. Mary's immaculate conception) you simply turn around and claim we can't test those things after all. Even though these are your own examples.

Of course YOU can't! What you can do now is test God now in your life. You could also look at bible prophesies and see if they came to pass. You have no ability to conduct forensic tests of Jesus!

 

[dad]

And yet that was the topic being discussed.

So, will you accept you were wrong or just double down on the avoidance?

The way I would test if what was said about Mary was true would be to see if the bible was true, and Jesus was true. That can be checked. As for checking how Mary was impregnated by God...you must be joking!?
Oh, and by the way Elizabeth did witness May being with child, as did Joseph. Thay also witnessed how He was the Son of God later!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The way I would test if what was said about Mary was true would be to see if the bible was true, and Jesus was true. That can be checked. As for checking how Mary was impregnated by God...you must be joking!?

So no honesty or humility, just more avoidance. The lurkers will be very impressed.

 

[Ophiolite]

It was tested and proven by another angel appearance to Mary's cousin regarding another miracle birth. It was tested in that Jesus went on to fulfill over 300 prophesies, and rise from the dead.

I would like to say that I am happy for you, in that you are comfortable to base your life upon material written by people who were not there, many decades after the events purported to have occurred, and which would be laughed out of any court of any jurisdiction on the planet. However, all I can really feel is sad that you cannot be honest with yourself and with others. State that you believe these events as an act of faith and I have no argument to return. State that you think these events are established facts and I say ludicrous. You've gone for the second option. I've gone for the Ignore button for the sake of my mental health.

 

[Strathos]

Jesus asked us to accept Him in our hearts. Then we would know if it was all true and He was of God. That is a test. We are told to test the spirits and what is said to see if they are of God or not. That is a test. Elijah tested what god or God was real by having fire come down from heaven. Israel tested God in times when they were weak and had more powerful enemies by obeying and having God wipe out their enemies! Noah tested God by spending years building the ark, and sure enough. all the animals came to the ark, called by God, and the world was flooded! Abraham tested God by offering his son, expecting that God would raise him from the dead. Putting God to the test is what believers do. Even in asking for eternal life, we test Him in many cases to see if He will do what He said.

My point is that you shouldn't treat God like a scientific hypothesis to be tested, measured, and experimented with. It's sacreligious to do so, and it reduces Him to the same level as a natural phenomenon.

 

[pitabread]

Your tense is wrong. The past is over now. The claims were tested.

Doesn't seem to do us any good then.

You test God by trying Him.

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean and I don't think you do either. Especially not based on your contradictory and rambling posts.

You test Him by looking at what He said.

That stuff was written in the past and you're claiming we can't test that.

Your posts are becoming a mess of contradictions. You can stop digging yourself deeper any time you want.

You could also look at bible prophesies and see if they came to pass.

Those were in the past. According to you we can't test the past.

Like I said, we're done here. You failed to explain how we can test the supernatural and now you're tripping over yourself in the process.

 

[dad]

So no honesty or humility, just more avoidance. The lurkers will be very impressed.

No problem. Sorry, you thought that I was suggesting Mary's bedroom was bugged. No.

 

[dad]

I would like to say that I am happy for you, in that you are comfortable to base your life upon material written by people who were not there, many decades after the events purported to have occurred, and which would be laughed out of any court of any jurisdiction on the planet.

Thanks.

However, all I can really feel is sad that you cannot be honest with yourself and with others. State that you believe these events as an act of faith and I have no argument to return. State that you think these events are established facts and I say ludicrous

State that we need you to perform some sort of test on the events of the past, and we all have a problem with you.
Jesus stated that He was the son of God. The angel stated it. The apostles stated it. The prophecies stated it. But of course, none of that really happened unless we run it by one of your tests. Got it.

. You've gone for the second option. I've gone for the Ignore button for the sake of my mental health.

From the sound of things--don't blame you!

 

[dad]

My point is that you shouldn't treat God like a scientific hypothesis to be tested, measured, and experimented with. It's sacreligious to do so, and it reduces Him to the same level as a natural phenomenon.

Nonsense. He asked to be tried and put to the test. By the way, I could not give a rat's petard about religion or some religious person's idea of what may be 'sacrilegious'. Neither can God.

 

[dad]

Doesn't seem to do us any good then.

All the good in the world actually. By it we are saved, and have the Almighty dwelling with us and guiding us, providing for us, etc.

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean and I don't think you do either. Especially not based on your contradictory and rambling posts.

I guess it was not as simple and self-evident as I thought for some people. By asking God in we are trying Him, testing Him, to see if He is real.

That stuff was written in the past and you're claiming we can't test that.

The bible is proven and tested. It can be tested also by us to see if it works. What man cannot do is grab Mary, and test to see if the angel spoke to her and God made her be pregnant.

Your posts are becoming a mess of contradictions. You can stop digging yourself deeper any time you want.

Not at all, you have just been slow in understanding them.

Those were in the past. According to you we can't test the past.

His word is ETERNAL! We can test it now. Mary was mortal while she was in her body here, so you can't test her!
Anyone CAN test God and the bible by seeing if it is true and works. You can't go back and check what Gabriel said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The baby was born with no man involved. That is supernatural. The baby was announced by an angel from the throne of God. Rose from the dead. The baby healed multitudes in Israel. The baby rose the dead to life. The baby walked through walls and on water and flew up to heaven. The baby had another supernatural birth happen for His prophet to prepare His way. The baby fulfilled over 300 Scripture prophesies. Can you not start to detect some supernatural was involved here?

Those stories are all hearsay, mostly involving the adult. I was talking about the baby, and unverifiable claims that no man was involved in the impregnation and anecdotes about angels are not physical evidence.

However, it seems clear from this and other non-answers to other posters that you're unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims, so I shan't continue this line.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My point is that you shouldn't treat God like a scientific hypothesis to be tested, measured, and experimented with. It's sacreligious to do so, and it reduces Him to the same level as a natural phenomenon.

As it turns out, there's nothing remotely scientific in what he's doing, it's just more unsubstantiated claims. He's claiming God and the supernatural can be tested, but his idea of testing seems to be invoking the same tired old biblical stories that make the supernatural and God claims he says are testable. A completely circular and unscientific waste of time.

 

[pitabread]

I guess it was not as simple and self-evident as I thought for some people. By asking God in we are trying Him, testing Him, to see if He is real.

You can repeat yourself all you want at this point, but unless you can elaborate on what you are trying to claim, it's moot.

As I have said repeatedly, I'm not looking for the what. I'm looking for the how. You've failed to explain the latter.

Not at all, you have just been slow in understanding them.

No, you really have been contradicting yourself. I mean, you bring Mary as an example of the supernatural being tested, but then you claim it's the past and we can't test that claim now (to verify that the supernatural was involved).

Why did you even bring it up?

Anyone CAN test God and the bible by seeing if it is true and works.

Yet you can't seem to explain how to do so.