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

[Kylie]

Ya, I'd say that it's a form of mental illness in many (probably not all) cases.

Care to support this claim, or is it just opinion?

I'm not suggesting that religion is a valid substitute for science in all cases, but you yourself suggested that depression is a form of mental illness, and many people have found relief from depression by embracing God/religion. If you look at the "placebo effect", even mere "belief" can have physical effects however, so it's possible that some "diseases" could even be cured by embracing a religious perspective.

That doesn't prove that God is real just because the idea of God helps them with their depression. It could be the social aspect of belonging to a church, or any number of other reasons.

I intentionally did not restrict the process to a specific religion.

So you do count it as support for Islam when someone benefits from becoming a Muslim?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And they also believed in Ptolemy, and believed that leaches cured diseases, believed in "dark energy" and all kinds of goofy things that are associated with "science". That's not a good reason to throw out science as a whole however.

Ptolemy's methods for predicting planetary motion may have been complicated, but they were practical - they worked well enough to be used for around 1,500 years, and his astronomical tables and work on optics were also significant contributions; today leeches have efficacious use in medicine for skin grafts and digit re-attachment; 'Dark Energy' is a label for a range of hypothetical explanations for unexplained astronomical observations...

Of course, there are many notable scientific errors and dead-ends that someone with a little knowledge of science history (or even just the ability to Google) could come up with, but that really emphasises the point; science doesn't claim proof or certainty, acknowledges the potential for error, is always provisional and open to refinement or falsification, is evidence-based, built around a methodology intended to reduce experimental error and experimenter bias, and has made steady progress - with the side-effect of pushing back the boundaries of superstition, magical thinking, and the supernatural.

Superstition and supernatural beliefs, on the other hand, still hang grimly on to their certainties; in denial...

 

[Michael]

Ptolemy's methods for predicting planetary motion may have been complicated, but they were practical - they worked well enough to be used for around 1,500 years, and his astronomical tables and work on optics were also significant contributions; today leeches have efficacious use in medicine for skin grafts and digit re-attachment; 'Dark Energy' is a label for a range of hypothetical explanations for unexplained astronomical observations...

Of course, there are many notable scientific errors and dead-ends that someone with a little knowledge of science history (or even just the ability to Google) could come up with, but that really emphasises the point; science doesn't claim proof or certainty, acknowledges the potential for error, is always provisional and open to refinement or falsification, is evidence-based, built around a methodology intended to reduce experimental error and experimenter bias, and has made steady progress - with the side-effect of pushing back the boundaries of superstition, magical thinking, and the supernatural.

Superstition and supernatural beliefs, on the other hand, still hang grimly on to their certainties; in denial...

1500 years of promoting Ptolemy seems like scientists also "still hang grimly on to their certainties", in spite of the fact that Aristarchus of Samos explained how it really worked. I get the feeling that you're blaming religion for the sins of human beings in general and making excuses for the same behaviors in 'science'. What one person might see as "evidence", another might see as superstitious nonsense (dark energy).

 

[Michael]

Care to support this claim, or is it just opinion?

Shall we start with Charles Manson? Since when was murder a "sane" or mentally healthy behavior? I can understand killing someone on accident, or in self defense, but most murders don't fall into that category.

That doesn't prove that God is real just because the idea of God helps them with their depression. It could be the social aspect of belonging to a church, or any number of other reasons.

True, but you can't see that religion doesn't help people in some circumstances, which was my point.

So you do count it as support for Islam when someone benefits from becoming a Muslim?

It counts in terms of "religion" (in general) having the ability to have a positive effect on the behaviors and feelings of human beings.

 

[SelfSim]

1500 years of promoting Ptolemy seems like scientists also "still hang grimly on to their certainties", in spite of the fact that Aristarchus of Samos explained how it really worked.

Aristarchus' work was hampered by the measurement inaccuracies of his era.
Ptolemy's work demonstated, I think, the limitations of relying on pure logic, when not referenced against thorough, accurate objective measurements.
Meh .. science was still getting underway .. the odds were 50/50 that one or the other probably had the better hypothesis around those times.

I get the feeling that you're blaming religion for the sins of human beings in general and making excuses for the same behaviors in 'science'. What one person might see as "evidence", another might see as superstitious nonsense (dark energy).

It doesn't matter what one person 'sees' and the other doesn't, when both use a common method.
Religion and science don't share a common method.

That is the point you keep missing because you are unable make that distinction.

 

[pitabread]

Did you not realize that it is the lack of understanding of the spiritual, and it's denial that is the mental illness??

No, that is not considered a mental illness by, well, anyone. If you want to make up your own definitions of what is or isn't mental illnesses, have at it.

You chose what to believe. Not like science can declare the spirits real or not. Just because you could not possibly detect any influences in the physical world from spirits (but would attribute it all to things physical, since that is all you can deal with in science) does not mean there are not any. It just means you have cornered yourself, and will/cannot see to the end of the block.

If you still want to believe that invisible spirits cause illnesses, then go ahead.

I'm glad medical science has progressed beyond such superstitions.

Not true. Not sure why you make stuff up about what I say. History and Scripture tell us a lot about the past.

I pressed you repeatedly on how we can test those past events described in the Bible (such as Mary's immaculate conception) and you repeatedly claimed we cannot because they are in the past.

Perhaps you should review this thread, because you appear to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Kylie]

Shall we start with Charles Manson? Since when was murder a "sane" or mentally healthy behavior? I can understand killing someone on accident, or in self defense, but most murders don't fall into that category.

So your answer is to argue that murder is a mental illness in order to show that murder is a mental illness?

That's circular logic.

True, but you can't see that religion doesn't help people in some circumstances, which was my point.

That was your point? That religion doesn't always help people? I knew that, it's exactly what you'd expect from something that isn't real.

It counts in terms of "religion" (in general) having the ability to have a positive effect on the behaviors and feelings of human beings.

Which indicates that the benefit is not tied to the validity of the belief. Thus Dad's claim is incorrect.

 

[Michael]

So your answer is to argue that murder is a mental illness in order to show that murder is a mental illness?

There's nothing circular about it. I'm simply suggesting that choosing to murder someone consciously is a form of mental illness. Period. Are you suggesting that it's always a "sane" or "good" choice?

That was your point? That religion doesn't always help people? I knew that, it's exactly what you'd expect from something that isn't real.

No, I'm sorry. I included a typo that messed up the meaning of my sentence. The word "see" should be "say". It should have read: True, but you can't SAY that religion doesn't help people in some circumstances, which was my point."

Sorry for the confusion. That was my fault.

I'm suggesting that religion (and embracing the concept of God) *does* help people in some instances which I would expect from something that *is real*.

Which indicates that the benefit is not tied to the validity of the belief. Thus Dad's claim is incorrect.

Here is the statement that I originally responded to:

Medicine has a proven track record of actually producing results when it comes to treatments for mental illnesses. Religion does not.

Many people have found a benefit from embracing religion, including alleviation from depression (your example) and being cured of antisocial behaviors which can be classified as a form of mental illness (my murder example). I wasn't trying to imply anything else.

My point doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the belief, particularly since people are 'cured' of various ailments in medical studies by the placebo effect, even when the pill they are taking is made of nothing but sugar. Sometimes the "belief" itself is the "cure", regardless of it's validity.

 

[Kylie]

There's nothing circular about it. I'm simply suggesting that choosing to murder someone consciously is a form of mental illness. Period. Are you suggesting that it's always a "sane" or "good" choice?

I'm asking you to support your claim that someone who commits murder MUST be mentally unwell. You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy - non-murder and mentally healthy, or murderer and sick.

No, I'm sorry. I included a typo that messed up the meaning of my sentence. The word "see" should be "say". It should have read: True, but you can't SAY that religion doesn't help people in some circumstances, which was my point."

Sorry for the confusion. That was my fault.

I'm suggesting that religion (and embracing the concept of God) *does* help people in some instances which I would expect from something that *is real*.

However, that benefit is also possible if it is not real as well. As I said, people have found the same benefits from other religions, so does this mean those religions are real as well?

Many people have found a benefit from embracing religion, including alleviation from depression (your example) and being cured of antisocial behaviors which can be classified as a form of mental illness (my murder example). I wasn't trying to imply anything else.

My point doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the belief, particularly since people are 'cured' of various ailments in medical studies by the placebo effect, even when the pill they are taking is made of nothing but sugar. Sometimes the "belief" itself is the "cure", regardless of it's validity.

Then you agree that people receiving benefit from their religious beliefs can't be used as support for the claim that those beliefs are correct?

 

[Michael]

Aristarchus' work was hampered by the measurement inaccuracies of his era.

True, but he did come to the correct conclusion anyway and he was promptly ignored by "scientists" for the next 18 centuries.

Ptolemy's work demonstated, I think, the limitations of relying on pure logic, when not referenced against thorough, accurate objective measurements.

I would say that cosmology suffers from the very same problem to this day. It's reliance upon math only, and mathematical models alone has always been problematic, and it remains problematic.

Meh .. science was still getting underway .. the odds were 50/50 that one or the other probably had the better hypothesis around those times.

The odds? I don't think the odds even matter.

It doesn't matter what one person 'sees' and the other doesn't, when both use a common method.

Sure it matters what we observe, and even that can be subjective. You saw the early SN1A data and somehow "saw" evidence of something called "dark energy", whereas I just "saw" a falsification of the expansion interpretation of redshift. We're both following what we believe to be the same "scientific method".

Religion and science don't share a common method.

Actually I think often they do, particularly at the largest and smallest scales. Typically both scientific and religious proponents are "taught" a specific belief system (Ptolemy/etc) and they tend to hold on to that belief, sometimes in *spite* of it being wrong, and often without carefully considering other options. I think its a human nature problem that transcends both religion and science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I get the feeling that you're blaming religion for the sins of human beings in general and making excuses for the same behaviors in 'science'.

I guess that simply goes to show how unreliable your feelings are.

 

[Michael]

I'm asking you to support your claim that someone who commits murder MUST be mentally unwell. You seem to be presenting a false dichotomy - non-murder and mentally healthy, or murderer and sick.

Actually, if you look back you'll see I qualified my statement:

Ya, I'd say that it's a form of mental illness in many (probably not all) cases.

I added the part in the parentheses as a qualifier because I can imagine a few instance where the act of murder might not imply mental illness. In most cases however I'd say it's a mentally ill choice that one makes.

However, that benefit is also possible if it is not real as well. As I said, people have found the same benefits from other religions, so does this mean those religions are real as well?

Again, the 'realness' of the belief is irrelevant as evidenced by the placebo effect. The belief itself is sometimes the "cure", right or wrong.

Then you agree that people receiving benefit from their religious beliefs can't be used as support for the claim that those beliefs are correct?

No, that's not what I'm saying. That may be what dad is saying, but I'm not making that claim.

 

[Michael]

I guess that simply goes to show how unreliable your feelings are.

The belief in supernatural constructs certainly isn't limited to religion and atheists sometimes embrace them too. Science posits the supernatural all the time as well, including extra dimensions, supernatural forms of matter and energy, etc. Perhaps it's just a human "desire" to embrace the "unseen' in the lab that causes this.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm suggesting that religion (and embracing the concept of God) *does* help people in some instances which I would expect from something that *is real*.

However, that benefit is also possible if it is not real as well.

Note: this all depends on what one means by 'real'.
Beliefs can have measurable effects .. The meaning 'real' can acquire, can just as easily come from beliefs, as it can via the scientific (objective) method.
Its a choice as to which of these paths one takes, in order to arrive at a meaning of 'real'.
(Eg: I, personally, choose the scientific path (method) for arrving at that meaning but I accept that one may choose the other path, also).

As I said, people have found the same benefits from other religions, so does this mean those religions are real as well?

Religions make use of beliefs as assumptions, (I think that might go for all of them?).
I can test for the presence of religious beliefs, and that test produces objective, verifiable evidence.
I can do the same to see if a Religion 'exists', where that religion's tenets/posits test out (verifies) as being beliefs.
I can then conclude that 'Religion' as existing.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, if you look back you'll see I qualified my statement:



I added the part in the parentheses as a qualifier because I can imagine a few instance where the act of murder might not imply mental illness. In most cases however I'd say it's a mentally ill choice that one makes.

You still need to provide support for the claim that it's usually a mental issue.

Again, the 'realness' of the belief is irrelevant as evidenced by the placebo effect. The belief itself is sometimes the "cure", right or wrong.

No, that's not what I'm saying. That may be what dad is saying, but I'm not making that claim.

So you are saying that religion is doing a better job of treating mental illness than medicine? Care to support this claim? I've seen precious little of support from you.

 

[dad]

Care to explain this? What you posted is not evidence, and you need to do more than disagree with me to show that it is evidence.



I would never dream of posting such and infringing on your modus operandi.



Many.



So it's just opinion that you make unsupported arguments?

Every single response you made in this post was an unsupported argument. You did not back up ANY of your answers. You just made claims, because that's all you ever have. Loud claims, with no support.

Nothing to say eh?

 

[dad]

Can you show it true today?

My sister in law had a miscarriage and suffered greatly from depression. It ruined her relationship with her partner. She still suffers from it today. Depression is a mental illness, so prove to me she was being attacked by a demon and that it WASN'T the death of her unborn baby that caused it.

No one says every disease or condition is demon possession. Get serious.

 

[dad]

Such a shame that you can provide nothing more than stories to support your position that such ailments were ever healed instantly.

Scripture may be stories to you.

 

[SelfSim]

Scripture may be stories to you.

But the point is that Scripture is not what science is based upon, nor could science ever work that way.

 

[dad]

No, that is not considered a mental illness by, well, anyone. If you want to make up your own definitions of what is or isn't mental illnesses, have at it.

You do not get to define mental illness. The bible talks about soundness of mind. The bible also talks about spirits.

If you still want to believe that invisible spirits cause illnesses, then go ahead.

They can.

I'm glad medical science has progressed beyond such superstitions.

Dangerous drug pushers, many of them.

I pressed you repeatedly on how we can test those past events described in the Bible (such as Mary's immaculate conception) and you repeatedly claimed we cannot because they are in the past.

Mary tested it. You cannot. You test your own life.

Perhaps you should review this thread, because you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Comprehension deficit?