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

[Kylie]

I do not have to accept your beliefs and faith. Thank you very much. You do need more when offering a scientific position. I do not wave away all of Scripture and history because they record spirits. Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.

I do not have to accept your beliefs and faith. Thank you very much. You do need more when offering a different state past/different state distant universe position. I do not wave away all of science and history because they record reality. Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not have to accept your beliefs and faith. Thank you very much. You do need more when offering a different state past/different state distant universe position. I do not wave away all of science and history because they record reality. Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.

You seem to imply that the belief in God contradicts any, or some, truth of science.

 

[dad]

You do need more when offering a different state past/different state distant universe position.

No, I certainly need nothing else but belief in God and His word. Try to learn the difference between an honest belief, and a dishonest set of beliefs posing as scientific fact.

I do not wave away all of science and history because they record reality.

Well, then, do you --A) accept the spirits recorded there? Or B) do you actually totally reject The Scripture and ancient history records after all?

Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.

Me either. But I also do not use only this nature to model a past with an unknown nature. Nor do I pretend science knows what nature was.

 

[Kylie]

You seem to imply that the belief in God contradicts any, or some, truth of science.

I was replying to Dad using the same line of reasoning that he used to reply to me.

 

[Kylie]

No, I certainly need nothing else but belief in God and His word. Try to learn the difference between an honest belief, and a dishonest set of beliefs posing as scientific fact.

Of course, you only claim they are dishonest because they disagree with what you've chosen to believe. You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that your beliefs are correct or that science is wrong. All you do is say, "Nah, it's wrong coz my book says so!"

Well, then, do you --A) accept the spirits recorded there? Or B) do you actually totally reject The Scripture and ancient history records after all?

I accept that there are records of spiritual activity.

However, I also accept that just because there are records of a thing, that does not mean those records are accurate. I will accept them as accurate if those records can be verified by something other than the same records.

Me either. But I also do not use only this nature to model a past with an unknown nature. Nor do I pretend science knows what nature was.

You have never provided any explanation why the only set of rules we know of shouldn't be used as a basis for learning about the past or distant parts of the universe. Particularly when nothing we see in the past or distant parts of the universe contradicts those laws.

Seems to me that the only reason you want to discount them is because it's the only way you can think of to keep thinking the Bible is a literal account of what happened.

 

[dad]

Of course, you only claim they are dishonest because they disagree with what you've chosen to believe. You still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that your beliefs are correct or that science is wrong. All you do is say, "Nah, it's wrong coz my book says so!"

You were informed the world abounds with spiritual evidence and that science doesn't deal with it at all. Now you pretend there is no evidence.

I accept that there are records of spiritual activity.

But wave it away as absolute nonsense.

However, I also accept that just because there are records of a thing, that does not mean those records are accurate. I will accept them as accurate if those records can be verified by something other than the same records.

How do you propose going back and cross examing ancient kings and scribes? Or do you simply propose waving all that they said away for no reason?

You have never provided any explanation why the only set of rules we know of shouldn't be used as a basis for learning about the past or distant parts of the universe. Particularly when nothing we see in the past or distant parts of the universe contradicts those laws.

Time is not in the tool kit. Nor space either. So why would you pile claims after claim upon the belief that time is the same out there, despite the fact that the result of such belief based speculation is opposed to Scripture?

Seems to me that the only reason you want to discount them is because it's the only way you can think of to keep thinking the Bible is a literal account of what happened.

That is a given. Not like science or you have a single thing to say about it. You just do not like it.

 

[dad]

Of course, you only claim they are dishonest because they disagree with what you've chosen to believe.

False. I claim beliefs such as distances based on time existing the same in all the universe are beliefs. Unless you show them to be more, it obviously is dishonest to try and foist those beliefs on people as if they were fact and science.

 

[dad]

You seem to imply that the belief in God contradicts any, or some, truth of science.

I would say it does if you include origin sciences in the definition of science. Belief in a real creation as per Genesis contradicts the living daylights out of science!

 

[Kylie]

You were informed the world abounds with spiritual evidence and that science doesn't deal with it at all. Now you pretend there is no evidence.

No, you told me a story and insisted it was true while never providing any evidence to show that it is true.

But wave it away as absolute nonsense.

Because there is no evidence that the records are true.

How do you propose going back and cross examing ancient kings and scribes? Or do you simply propose waving all that they said away for no reason?

Do you think it's better to assume that all the records MUST be true and then invent a different state past to justify it, despite there being no evidence for either assumption?

Time is not in the tool kit. Nor space either. So why would you pile claims after claim upon the belief that time is the same out there, despite the fact that the result of such belief based speculation is opposed to Scripture?

Once again you show you don't understand how science works.

Now you will, no doubt, insist that you do know how science works, even though everything you say contradicts science.

That is a given. Not like science or you have a single thing to say about it. You just do not like it.

So you admit that you just make it up to justify what you want to be true rather than examining your beliefs critically?

 

[Kylie]

False. I claim beliefs such as distances based on time existing the same in all the universe are beliefs. Unless you show them to be more, it obviously is dishonest to try and foist those beliefs on people as if they were fact and science.

Like I said, you assume they are different because that's the only reason you can cling to your beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

Time is not in the tool kit. Nor space either. So why would you pile claims after claim upon the belief that time is the same out there, despite the fact that the result of such belief based speculation is opposed to Scripture?

Just exactly how is a model which works, 'opposed' to Scripture?

What is it in this 'Scripture' you refer to, which has an issue with the notion of a consistency of time throughout the universe?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

I have seen countless threads on the site attempting to do the very thing described in the OP, and they all fall apart logically at some point. All I will say is that if one could prove the existence of God using reason or evidence, God would cease to be a matter of faith and instead be fact. Everyone would believe in Him. The very fact that this is not the case shows what an impossible task it is.

 

[Ophiolite]

You were informed the world abounds with spiritual evidence and that science doesn't deal with it at all. Now you pretend there is no evidence.

Please direct me to the posts in which you present this evidence, not the posts where you simply declare it exists. (Unsupported declarations can be dismissed readily and properly be ignored. )

 

[Ken-1122]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

As a caring atheist I'm here to explain to you that there is an argument against atheism that is irrefutable.
Atheism is the rejection of the man made claim that God exist.
You can reduce atheism to dust, reduce it do absurdity by just supplying evidence that supports the claim that Theists make about the existence of God

 

[dad]

No, you told me a story and insisted it was true while never providing any evidence to show that it is true.



Because there is no evidence that the records are true.

Lots of evidence of spiritual things. Don't blame the rest of the world for the abysmal ineptitude and ability of science to weigh in on the matter either way.

Do you think it's better to assume that all the records MUST be true and then invent a different state past to justify it, despite there being no evidence for either assumption?

I look at the person speaking to see if I trust them. Jesus I trust.

Once again you show you don't understand how science works.

It does NOT work at all in ANYTHING spiritual. Fess up.

Now you will, no doubt, insist that you do know how science works, even though everything you say contradicts science.

Now you are all over the map, generalizing vaguely.

So you admit that you just make it up to justify what you want to be true rather than examining your beliefs critically?

The actual fact is that you have no ability to question God's word that is proven not to be made up.

 

[dad]

Like I said, you assume they are different because that's the only reason you can cling to your beliefs.

I am saying science does not know what time itself is like in the deep universe. Period. Prove otherwise?

 

[dad]

Please direct me to the posts in which you present this evidence, not the posts where you simply declare it exists. (Unsupported declarations can be dismissed readily and properly be ignored. )

Evidence for invisible things that are spiritual is not refutable. They are not held by the standards of physical-only science and that should be obvious. Prophecies that are fulfilled, experiences in lives, observed miracles and etc

The problem seems to lie in the fact that another spiritual factor in play is unbelief. People deluded or hindered from knowing or accepting the truth would not realize what is going on.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evidence for invisible things that are spiritual is not refutable. They are not held by the standards of physical-only science and that should be obvious. Prophecies that are fulfilled, experiences in lives, observed miracles and etc

The problem seems to lie in the fact that another spiritual factor in play is unbelief. People deluded or hindered from knowing or accepting the truth would not realize what is going on.

In summary, you have not presented any evidence, you have simply stated that it exists. It would save us all a great deal of time and trouble if you would just acknowledge that, rather than engage in ambiguous, seemingly endless, waffle.

Waffle may appear as unduly harsh and critical, however every request for evidence is met with the same unsupported assertions offered as a substitute for that evidence. These are accompanied by the implication and, in some instances I think, the bland assertion that the evidence has actually been delivered. In such circumstances waffle is an appropriate, objective descriptor.

I repeat, you are free to believe what you wish upon the basis of faith. I fully support your right to do so.
I do not support your imagined right to declare there is evidence when you then fail to produce it.

 

[dad]

In summary, you have not presented any evidence, you have simply stated that it exists.

Spiritual evidence is invisible and is not something we send in the post or 'present' on a table in a lab. Millions know all about it. Science knows nothing about it.

Waffle may appear as unduly harsh and critical, however every request for evidence is met with the same unsupported assertions offered as a substitute for that evidence.

Prophesies and experiences are evidence. Should we pretend the world abounds with neither here?


Go look in Jerusalem and see if the temple is still there that Jesus said was comin down. Ask a believer if they have ever seen any miracle or evidence. You ooze denial and scream for proof you will not and cannot see.

 

[jamesbond007]

I have seen countless threads on the site attempting to do the very thing described in the OP, and they all fall apart logically at some point. All I will say is that if one could prove the existence of God using reason or evidence, God would cease to be a matter of faith and instead be fact. Everyone would believe in Him. The very fact that this is not the case shows what an impossible task it is.

If the OP wants proof, then it's not science. Proof is relegated to mathematics. We want to find the best theories.

What has happened today to scientists who believe in creation is they have been systematically eliminated from science on the argument that creation and the supernatural are religious concepts and philosophy, i.e. one cannot use the scientific method on the supernatural. This is due to arguments from atheists such as Scottish farmer and geologist James Hutton and his pupil Charles Lyell forming uniformitarianism during the 1850s. The idea behind it is "the present is the key to the past." Prior to this time, secular scientists accepted creation from God. We had many famous creation scientists and one, Sir Francis Bacon, invented the scientific method. Most were creation scientists and the creationists ruled science.

Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com

List of creation scientists from the past to modern times
Creation scientists - creation.com

Charles Darwin, in turn, became a student of Charles Lyell and turned to be atheist. The only truth in evolution is in natural selection or microevolution which was also written by Alfred Russel Wallace. I believe he came up with natural selection first. This is the only part of evolution that can be studied via the scientific method.

After the school trials, creation scientists and their Bible theory were removed from public school curriculum and their scientists could not get papers published in scientific journals and publications. They also could not participate in peer reviews on the pretext that God and the supernatural could not be demonstrated. The supernatural in the Bible is limited to the Book of Genesis -- English Standard Version.

Today, secular science has taken a wrong turn because of uniformitarianism, Theory of Evolution, and evolutionary thinking and history. There has always been criticism of the science in Genesis from ancient times. Evolutionary thinking isn't something that cropped up from Darwinism, but has always been there from the times of the Jesus and the Apostles and Stoics and Epicureans. The latter took Apostle Paul to the Areopagus for debate because he sounded educated -- Apologetics, Paul, and the Areopagus - The Daily Apologist | Christian Evidence | Apologetic Blog.

Here is a good, complete article of evolutionary thinking and its history to learn about before Darwin times and back to ancient times -- Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions