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

[Kylie]

Lots of evidence of spiritual things.

If there is, you haven't been able to produce any of it.

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

Science deals with reality. When it comes to things that aren't real, science isn't going to have anything to say, except, "There's no evidence for it, so why believe?"

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

Unfortunately, there is no Book of Jesus in the Bible. All you have are stories written down by people who most certainly are NOT Jesus, with no way to verify who they actually were and no way to verify that the events they described even happened.

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

That's because the spiritual doesn't exist.

Now you are all over the map, generalizing vaguely.

No, just remarking what your next move generally is when you are told that you don't understand how science works.

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

Once again, you make a claim and offer no support.

 

[Kylie]

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

When what we see in the deep universe is perfectly explained by the laws we have figured out for here on Earth, that indicates that the same laws are operating in the deep universe.

If you disagree, show me something that is observed in the deep universe that our here-and-now laws say is impossible.

 

[Kylie]

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

You've already been told why prophecies are unreliable. Why do you keep bringing them up?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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!

Notice I said "truth of science". I had started to say, "science", but then I realized I might have to go into the definition of the word, "science". It is not consensus, nor what is considered science, nor the scientific community, nor any final assessment or conclusions that the scientific community or its members has come up with, since the best of them agree, "this is as far as we have gone so far --we could be wrong." Anything true that science has shown is no more true than God is. Genesis doesn't contradict science --just what many scientists claim.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When what we see in the deep universe is perfectly explained by the laws we have figured out for here on Earth, that indicates that the same laws are operating in the deep universe.

If you disagree, show me something that is observed in the deep universe that our here-and-now laws say is impossible.

Not to quote scientists, but those who claim to understand where scientists are studying claim that there are particles that pop in and out from nothing for no reason --causeless --controlled only by chance. Einstein would disagree, as do I, since cause and effect rules, but there you go for your question: Here on earth, logic, Cause and Effect reigns supreme; But "out there" in particle physics land, quantum physics acts in opposition to logic and Cause and Effect --at least, as they describe it. Funny how they use principles to arrive at proof the principles they used don't apply. I'm no mathematician, but really?

 

[Kylie]

Not to quote scientists, but those who claim to understand where scientists are studying claim that there are particles that pop in and out from nothing for no reason --causeless --controlled only by chance. Einstein would disagree, as do I, since cause and effect rules, but there you go for your question: Here on earth, logic, Cause and Effect reigns supreme; But "out there" in particle physics land, quantum physics acts in opposition to logic and Cause and Effect --at least, as they describe it. Funny how they use principles to arrive at proof the principles they used don't apply. I'm no mathematician, but really?

Einstein disagreed because of his personal biases. The experimental data we've gotten since then has overwhelmingly supported quantum mechanics. In any case, like I said, there's nothing that we see out there that contradicts what happens here.

 

[sjastro]

Not to quote scientists, but those who claim to understand where scientists are studying claim that there are particles that pop in and out from nothing for no reason --causeless --controlled only by chance. Einstein would disagree, as do I, since cause and effect rules, but there you go for your question: Here on earth, logic, Cause and Effect reigns supreme; But "out there" in particle physics land, quantum physics acts in opposition to logic and Cause and Effect --at least, as they describe it. Funny how they use principles to arrive at proof the principles they used don't apply. I'm no mathematician, but really?

Quantum physics does not act in opposition to logic or cause and effect.
Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quantum physics does not act in opposition to logic or cause and effect.
Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

I agree. but to hear them tell it, it is an alternative to First Cause with Intent (God).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Einstein disagreed because of his personal biases. The experimental data we've gotten since then has overwhelmingly supported quantum mechanics. In any case, like I said, there's nothing that we see out there that contradicts what happens here.

Einstein disagreed with the notion that anything operates outside the law of Cause-and-Effect --i.e. "All effects are caused". I agree with Einstein on that. I am not opposed to quantum mechanics; to me it is very intriguing. But I have a real problem with those who want to describe a system where instead of saying, "we don't know how it works", they say, "chance causes it" or "it happens randomly". Logically, it is self-contradictory to say chance causes. I'm thinking it was Voltaire who said, "chance" [and I add "random" are] only "placeholders for 'I don't know.'"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Science deals with reality. When it comes to things that aren't real, science isn't going to have anything to say, except, "There's no evidence for it, so why believe?"

The scientific community deals with apparent reality. Not to say that what they deal with isn't real, but there is no reason to believe that if something is not apparent, (tangible, empirical, experiential, perhaps even logically accessible based on our current knowledge), that it isn't real.

Many honest scientists and philosophers admit that other orders of "reality" may exist, that we have no way to assess. We really don't know much.

Truth is truth, regardless of who knows it.

 

[Kylie]

Einstein disagreed with the notion that anything operates outside the law of Cause-and-Effect --i.e. "All effects are caused". I agree with Einstein on that. I am not opposed to quantum mechanics; to me it is very intriguing. But I have a real problem with those who want to describe a system where instead of saying, "we don't know how it works", they say, "chance causes it" or "it happens randomly". Logically, it is self-contradictory to say chance causes. I'm thinking it was Voltaire who said, "chance" [and I add "random" are] only "placeholders for 'I don't know.'"

Nonetheless, that's what the experiments show. You can't argue with reality.

 

[Kylie]

The scientific community deals with apparent reality. Not to say that what they deal with isn't real, but there is no reason to believe that if something is not apparent, (tangible, empirical, experiential, perhaps even logically accessible based on our current knowledge), that it isn't real.

Many honest scientists and philosophers admit that other orders of "reality" may exist, that we have no way to assess. We really don't know much.

Truth is truth, regardless of who knows it.

You are correct.

But, if there is something that is not tangible, empirical, experiential or logically accessible to us, we should not believe it exists just so we can get an answer to some mystery we are faced with. That's just making up something so we can have an answer other than "I don't know", and it's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are correct.

But, if there is something that is not tangible, empirical, experiential or logically accessible to us, we should not believe it exists just so we can get an answer to some mystery we are faced with. That's just making up something so we can have an answer other than "I don't know", and it's intellectually dishonest.

Agreed. I have a problem with those that do that --both believers and non-believers.

Now, then, supposing something real happens to someone, that is not accessible to current scientific methods, yet experiential to that someone nonetheless. Would you say that because they are unable to even describe it well, nevermind to prove it, that it is therefore made up, imagination or delusion, or perhaps actual --real? No, I am not suggesting that such a thing should be pursued by science, but to say that such a thing is not rational seems to me a bit much. Most people I know who claim God is real to them are as rational as anyone else. They may not be entirely logical or debate ready, but rational, yes.

 

[SelfSim]

Now, then, supposing something real happens to someone, that is not accessible to current scientific methods, yet experiential to that someone nonetheless. Would you say that because they are unable to even describe it well,..

If the description they give is not able to be articulated in a way which science can objectively test, then it is (at best) a belief.

(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).

.. nevermind to prove it, that it is therefore made up, imagination or delusion, or perhaps actual --real? No, I am not suggesting that such a thing should be pursued by science, but to say that such a thing is not rational seems to me a bit much. Most people I know who claim God is real to them are as rational as anyone else. They may not be entirely logical or debate ready, but rational, yes.

Where any set of statements believed in as being true, leads to contradictions, there is no requirement to drop those beliefs .. but it is reasonable to accept that those beliefs are not a means of proving things.

Beliefs can be rationalised .. I'm not sure 'delusions' can be though ..

Beliefs also form a particular kind of reality (faith based), but science's process of objective testability produces objective reality.

 

[dad]

If there is, you haven't been able to produce any of it.



Science deals with reality. When it comes to things that aren't real, science isn't going to have anything to say, except, "There's no evidence for it, so why believe?"



Unfortunately, there is no Book of Jesus in the Bible. All you have are stories written down by people who most certainly are NOT Jesus, with no way to verify who they actually were and no way to verify that the events they described even happened.



That's because the spiritual doesn't exist.



No, just remarking what your next move generally is when you are told that you don't understand how science works.



Once again, you make a claim and offer no support.

This has digressed into you stating opinions on sacred things. Great, we get it.

 

[dad]

When what we see in the deep universe is perfectly explained by the laws we have figured out for here on Earth, that indicates that the same laws are operating in the deep universe.

If you disagree, show me something that is observed in the deep universe that our here-and-now laws say is impossible.

Things are perfectly explained by a flat earth for some also, so what? The trick is having more than beliefs to base a scientific claim upon. Work on that.

 

[dad]

You've already been told why prophecies are unreliable. Why do you keep bringing them up?

You were told bible prophesies are 100% accurate. Is that it? You thought you could just tell us stuff? Maybe I should include a prayer for your husband as well as you! Ha.

 

[dad]

Notice I said "truth of science". I had started to say, "science", but then I realized I might have to go into the definition of the word, "science". It is not consensus, nor what is considered science, nor the scientific community, nor any final assessment or conclusions that the scientific community or its members has come up with, since the best of them agree, "this is as far as we have gone so far --we could be wrong." Anything true that science has shown is no more true than God is. Genesis doesn't contradict science --just what many scientists claim.

OK. I hope you are saying God created all things in six days.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

If spiritual evidence is as you describe, i.e. inaccessible to science, then it has no direct objective influence on the world - if it did, that influence would be detectable and so, amenable to scientific inquiry. So, it would seem that the spiritual has no objective physical reality, but is a subjective experience, which can only influence the world indirectly, through the individuals who have such experiences.

In that case, the subjective experience of the spiritual is as open to scientific study as any other experience, but having no physical reality itself, the spiritual is not; it is an abstract, a concept, an idea, a belief.

 

[SelfSim]

Things are perfectly explained by a flat earth for some also, so what? The trick is having more than beliefs to base a scientific claim upon. Work on that.

Fascinating ... You just defeated your own argument by distinguishing what makes science's objective statements different from beliefs! We are making progress!

Observations of deep space phenomena form the basis of our models of physical constants and physical laws. If they didn't, the laws would be updated to recognise the different contexts (eg: Newtonian vs Einstein physics).