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

[dad]

No I don't.

So you need to demonstrate they exist before I am going to take your claims about them seriously.

You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then. OK. Not really so impressive.

 

[dad]

So lemme get this straight.

You can make up any wild claims you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence at all.

No one made up spirits, good or bad. They are found in Scripture. You can deny for no reason at all, or you can respect the overwhelming majority of people's experiences and beliefs.

But I have to provide evidence for my claims, as well as provide evidence against your claims.

Not really. When offering an unsupported opinion on demons, not sure anyone much cares.

Sorry, bucko, the burden of proof is on you. If you are going to make your claims without evidence, then I'm going to dismiss them without evidence.

No such thing as a burden of proof in the realm of physical evidence when talking about the spiritual. There is the burden of denial or belief.

So what's the point of bringing religion into this then? If it can't do the job as well as medicine, if it is inferior in every way in the treatment of mental illness, what's the point of it?

What is the point of bring science into it, if it cannot discern spiritual things but only see the effects in the physical?

"...through active participation in congregations..."

So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results.

No. You cannot kill God or angels, or even demons.

We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.

Or they could send you somewhere...whatever.

 

[pitabread]

Or echoing inner confusion.

There is definitely some confusion. I'm just not so sure it's on my side of the fence.

 

[pitabread]

You believe that they do not exist, and have no evidence for your belief then.

Once again, not how the burden of proof works.

Why is it creationists on this forum seem to struggle with this..?

 

[Michael]

Don't forget that the idea that 'empty' spacetime contained 'vacuum energy' had been around long before the accelerating expansion was discovered (since the mid-'60s if memory serves), based on the energy of quantum field excitations as 'virtual particles' - remember the Cosmological Constant Problem described by Zel'dovich around 1967, which is still unsolved today? Whether you get there via GR or QM, scalar vacuum energy is not new or unnatural. You can think of it as work done on spacetime as it expands.

Of course when we try to use QM to predict the energy state of the vacuum, it's off by something like 120 orders of magnitude.

The Worst Theoretical Prediction in the History of Physics | RealClearScience

How the heck is it then possible test/falsify a concept if it's "predictions' are off by such wide margins and such a massively failed "test" isn't considered a falsification of the idea?

Likewise new SN1A studies undermine the original evidence of acceleration entirely.

 

[dad]

There is definitely some confusion. I'm just not so sure it's on my side of the fence.

Naturally, the confused would not think so.

 

[dad]

Once again, not how the burden of proof works.

Why is it creationists on this forum seem to struggle with this..?

Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support. If people claim there are, they need support. They have support obviously. It is just not the sort you prefer to include in your little world.

 

[Michael]

Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support. If people claim there are, they need support. They have support obviously. It is just not the sort you prefer to include in your little world.

Typically a "lack of belief" in something doesn't require support. For instance I'm not obligated to provide evidence that faeries do not exist simply because I lack belief in them.

Only a positive assertion, like "Faeries definitely do not exist" would require support.

 

[SelfSim]

Only a positive assertion, like "Faeries definitely do not exist" would require support.

And that support comes from objective evidence of how one arrives at the meaning of the word 'exist'.

 

[pitabread]

Naturally, the confused would not think so.

Here is how it works. If you claim there are no spirits, you need support.

That's not what she said though. She simply said she didn't believe in them. If you want to demonstrate they exist, you need to support that claim. You're the one making the positive claim, you need to support it.

Instead, what you're doing is engaging in the fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

And we all know why you're doing that; like everything else you've posted in this this thread, you're unable to support your claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course when we try to use QM to predict the energy state of the vacuum, it's off by something like 120 orders of magnitude.

The Worst Theoretical Prediction in the History of Physics | RealClearScience

How the heck is it then possible test/falsify a concept if it's "predictions' are off by such wide margins and such a massively failed "test" isn't considered a falsification of the idea?

Likewise new SN1A studies undermine the original evidence of acceleration entirely.

As I said, it remains an unsolved problem - renormalization-type approaches appear not to be possible. The point was that it's been an established issue for 50 years, and the cosmological constant has been around for over 100 years. Neither are new or in any way 'supernatural'.

Whether the acceleration is verified or falsified is currently moot and irrelevant to spurious claims of unnaturalness or the supernatural.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'll go with God's definition, thanks.

The one in the bible? But that's from the past, and (according to you) there is no way of testing the past. So why would anyone accept it as being correct?

 

[Michael]

As I said, it remains an unsolved problem - renormalization-type approaches appear not to be possible. The point was that it's been an established issue for 50 years, and the cosmological constant has been around for over 100 years. Neither are new or in any way 'supernatural'.

Whether the acceleration is verified or falsified is currently moot and irrelevant to spurious claims of unnaturalness or the supernatural.

There's a *huge* difference between claiming that ordinary repulsion (a naturally occurring process) might act as a cosmological constant between stars with a charge and keep the universe stable, and claiming that invisible gnomes perform magic tricks in space, and violate the laws of physics with "magic" to generate an acceleration process and that's the source of the cosmological constant.

The concept of a non zero constant has been around for 100 years perhaps, but dark energy has not.

It's not even clear anymore that SN1A data supports the concept of acceleration in the first place.

The 120 order of magnitude problem has been around for a very long time too so how then is it possible to falsify a claim if being the worst mathematical prediction in the history of physics won't do it?

 

[dad]

Typically a "lack of belief" in something doesn't require support. For instance I'm not obligated to provide evidence that faeries do not exist simply because I lack belief in them.

Only a positive assertion, like "Faeries definitely do not exist" would require support.

If you claim spirits do not exist, you would be asked to provide reasons and evidence.

If I claimed spirits do exist I would not do so for reasons science is equipped to confirm or deny. Mary claimed an angel appeared to her. She saw it. No one else needs to have seen it to make it true. She then got pregnant. No one is able to go back there and touch her belly now. No one can claim Elizabeth and Joseph and others who did see here were lying. Positive claims thousands of years ago about sirits do NOT need to have evidence today, and the sort of evidence that is physical. That is ridiculous to ask for.

The evidence I look for in Scripture is fulfilled prophesy. Is the temple still there that Jesus said would be destroyed? No. Did Greece follow the Medo Persian Empire? Yes. Etc. God backed up His claims. I also look to whether Jesus is alive and well and working as a Person in actual lives. He is. That is real evidence.

So, for claims about spirits today, let's look at whether they require support from science. No way. Nothing about science begins to cover spiritual things in any way. They cannot be asked to validate anything spiritual. Or to dispute it.

So, if someone makes a positive claim that spirits or God or angels do not exist, they have no basis or evidence backing them up. The claim is empty. Void. Unsupported. They may claim they do not believe in something, they may not claim something does not exist or is false because of their baseless unbelief.

 

[dad]

That's not what she said though. She simply said she didn't believe in them. If you want to demonstrate they exist, you need to support that claim. You're the one making the positive claim, you need to support it.

Instead, what you're doing is engaging in the fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

And we all know why you're doing that; like everything else you've posted in this this thread, you're unable to support your claims.

You/she cannot support any unbelief therefore it has no merit.

 

[dad]

The one in the bible? But that's from the past, and (according to you) there is no way of testing the past. So why would anyone accept it as being correct?

How do you propose to 'test' the past and future exactly? The bible is tested and true. What it says about the past is now history.

 

[pitabread]

You/she cannot support any unbelief therefore it has no merit.

Your attempts to shift the burden of proof have been duly noted and rejected.

Any time you want to offer more than a bunch of unsupported assertions, feel free.

 

[dad]

Your attempts to shift the burden of proof have been duly noted and rejected.

Any time you want to offer more than a bunch of unsupported assertions, feel free.

I do not care one whit what you reject. You will not claim here that spirits are not real. You can claim that you reject for no reason...whatever you like. Or that you do not believe in history or whatever for no reason at all. Great. Not sure who would care.

 

[pitabread]

Not sure who would care.

Apparently you do. Otherwise why are we even having this conversation?

 

[dad]

Apparently you do. Otherwise why are we even having this conversation?

I think the idea would be to have some position on why evidence of spirits is connected to science, looking at the OP. My position is that science is too small to be able to deal with it. All evidence would fall outside its domain.