• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

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

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by JacquelineDeane55, Dec 28, 2019.

  1. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,218
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    One thing He cannot do is lie. He already spoke and it was confirmed by Jesus. No mystery about creation, only belief or unbelief.
     
  2. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,269
    Agnostic
    Married
    Of course the post hoc ones are. It would be a very sorry state if they weren't! But what about the ones that are wrong?
    Indeed it is. Is yours?
     
  3. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,218
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    They prove God exists from an evidence standpoint.
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,668
    Atheist
    The subjective experiences, claims, and beliefs of individuals, and the actions of those individuals, is not evidence of the objective (physical) reality of the spiritual, but is evidence only of the belief.

    Once again, beliefs are not physical evidence for what is believed. That someone believes shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world is not evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens secretly run the world; that someone says their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero is not evidence that their cousin became pregnant to a shape-shifting reptilian alien and gave birth to a superhero - it is just a claim or an anecdote - however many people come to believe it.

    Clearly, women do fall pregnant and temples have been destroyed, but these are mundane events; they're not evidence of the spiritual or supernatural just because people tell and believe stories about them. Storytelling is as old as humanity itself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  5. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,269
    Agnostic
    Married
    No, they don't. Failed prophecies demonstrate that men make incorrect predictions. There's nothing supernatural about that.
     
  6. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,218
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    It is subjective to question spiritual experiences. It is not questioning based on facts! You simply want to declare realities and observations of others that are above all ability of science to deal with as not real. In other words, wave it all away for zero reasons and call that objectivity rather than what it is. Denial.
    Physical evidence alone is not evidence of there either being spiritual realities or not. Mary knew her physical evidence was evidence of God and the truth that the angel spoke that she had observed and heard. It was evidence. For you and science, you cannot go there, it is in the past. Even if you could all you would see is a pregnant woman and have no ability to know how it came to be. In all ways science comes from and speaks from a position of ignorance on the matter.
    That science believes there is or is not is of no real currency. The bible had evidence. Science cannot deny or verify.
    Temples that took 40 years to build do not fall on cue for no reason. The temple did not die a natural death! Whatever women generally do has nothing to do with what Mary experienced. Science simply has no power to deny with anything but ignorance and inability and denial for no reason.
     
  7. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,218
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Good thing there is not one of those in Scripture. We deal with perfect accuracy.
     
  8. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,668
    Atheist
    Not really. It's quite simple - the phenomena are physically (objectively) real, they will have some observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, which makes them amenable to science. If they have no observable effect on the world beyond the actions of believers alone, they are not physically (objectively) real.

    That's fine; if they are - as you say - not physical, then they are not physically (objectively) real. They can be the subjective reality of subjective experience, no problem.
     
  9. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    +1,218
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Not an effect that science could tell was any differently caused than a normal physical event. Mary was influenced by a real angel and a real God and had a real baby and had real relatives also see angels confirming it, etc. For you to deny this an opinion NOT supported by any facts. You have no objective position.
    You just want to say that unless you can verify things you cannot see, they could not be real.

    When lives are changed that affects lives, and the world around them. When a prophesy is fulfilled, it affected things. God affects the world and people. Just because science is blind to that does not mean it is not observable.
    Baby Jesus was real. The angels were real, the shepherds were real, the wise men were real, etc. Your opinion that is was not is subjective.
     
  10. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    See the interesting point here is that we see two differently thinking minds attempting to describe how they give the word 'reality' its meaning. Different minds are thinking differently and so they have produced different meanings. More noteworthy however is that what they leave behind is objective evidence of how the human mind creates dissimilar respective meanings of that word: 'reality'.

    Reality is not something which 'exists' independently from any human mind .. that's just another model created by a mind. What we have in the above sub-discussion, is just more evidence of minds at work.

    Attempting to use the arbitrary notions behind the words 'subjective' and 'objective' doesn't help to justify the notion of true mind independent reality, either. Those distinctions have always called for a census across a thinking population of what people mean when they use those terms.
     
  11. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    In other words: 'I hold that there exists an absolute truth, outside of the requirement to demonstrate that logically or objectively' .. (aka: a belief).

    More like, in that situation: 'What they said was false' because it would be unreasonable to claim that their (above) notion of 'truth', could be used to prove that they were 'wrong'.

    Their orginal notion of 'truth' was a belief .. and beliefs are never 'wrong' .. they're just beliefs.

    .. and he would never know that, unless science kicked in, and did its thing.
    Where his reasons for believing that he was right, were not based on logic or the scientific process, his belief would have been irrelevant to the outcome.
     
  12. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
    See the exemplar of them all.
     
  13. Bungle_Bear

    Bungle_Bear Whoot!

    +2,269
    Agnostic
    Married
    You may continue to believe that, but it doesn't make it true. There are a number of well-known failed prophecies in the bible. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them but choose to deny they exist.
     
  14. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    Please explain.
     
  15. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    If it is unverifiable, how can you call it evidence?

    With your plumber example, how do you know he had access to some source of information and wasn't just guessing?
     
  16. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Not the answer I was expecting, but that's okay.

    Still, a question. If God plans for me to believe, and thus I will believe sooner or later, doesn't that interfere with my free will?
     
  17. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I do. And I believe that your claims have been entirely unsupported.
     
  18. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Is that all you've got to say?
     
  19. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +3,417
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I have explained how prophecies can be wrong. Do you think that never happens?
     
  20. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +5,426
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    You address the miscommunication between two individuals as being a consequence of semantic differences (with a hint of elitism in the critique), while ignoring the dependence of your own argument upon idiosyncratic terminology. I just found it amusing.
     
Loading...