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

[Opdrey]

Except that's not a circle, which is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center).

God pulled a fast one on you guys, didn't He?

Was that His plan?

 

[Opdrey]

I am always fascinated at how God is exactly as interested in topics like significant digits and accuracy as His most devout followers and no more.

 

[stevevw]

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.

If the Bible is correct then we all have knowledge of Gods in us. When we look at the physical world we see Gods invisible qualities so its something beyond what we can know by our senses. I don't think there is a test for that.

If there is something beyond what we see and can test then I believe that the scientific naturalism will always fall short of explaining reality because the physical world is not independent from these invisble qualities and any physical explaination won't be sufficent alone.

Its interesting that as science progresses it seems to hit a wall or come to a crossroad where explanations need ideas that step beyond its own methods in some way. The closer we get to the point of our own existence coming into being the more it seems to move away from naturalism.

I am looking forward to the images from the Webb telescope which can peer back to around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. I think there are interesting discoveries ahead that will bring up more questions then answers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the Bible is correct then we all have knowledge of Gods in us.

Don't you mean Paul, rather than the bible? That claim is in a writing of Paul, is it not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you mean Paul, rather than the bible?

Paul wrote 52% of the New Testament.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Paul wrote 52% of the New Testament.

Which is less than 1/3 of the bible, now isn't it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is that classroom cliché now?

Ham saw his father naked?

My bad; Canaan. I was going "Curse of Ham" from memory.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

Which is less than 1/3 of the bible, now isn't it.

If "Paul" had any part in concocting the snake bite story,
his credibility is zero

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... When we look at the physical world we see Gods invisible qualities so its something beyond what we can know by our senses.

I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...

If there is something beyond what we see and can test then I believe that the scientific naturalism will always fall short of explaining reality because the physical world is not independent from these invisble qualities and any physical explaination won't be sufficent alone.

If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).

I am looking forward to the images from the Webb telescope which can peer back to around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. I think there are interesting discoveries ahead that will bring up more questions then answers.

Agreed!

 

[stevil]

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?

Science just means evidence based.
Saying that god is beyond science, means that there is no evidence for gods and never will be.

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.

Perhaps they are using science to find explanations for things and perhaps some of those things were previously explained by some people to be miracles of god. This is a case of the god of the shrinking gaps. If your god definition is based on explaining natural phenomena that science can't explain today then this is what you risk.

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.

This is an example of god of the gaps.

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 know how you would go about trying to convince someone that gods or your god in particular exists. Do you really want to use science to prove it?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science.

Don't use science as your proof or convincing argument then.

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.

Step outside of evidence and physical reality?

How can they draw on faith to find god, wouldn't they need to first have found god to have faith?

 

[Opdrey]

I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...

If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).

Agreed!

In no small way this all reduces down to: "We have zero evidence for this non-physical reality and that's why we should believe it is true."

I mean I totally get it, this is, by definition, the nature of faith. And no one should be begrudged their faith. In a real sense we all bring that to the table in one form or another.

I think people who may be prone to naturalism take a sort of "discipline" to disallow ourselves to slip too much into this way of thinking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In no small way this all reduces down to: "We have zero evidence for this non-physical reality and that's why we should believe it is true."

I mean I totally get it, this is, by definition, the nature of faith. And no one should be begrudged their faith. In a real sense we all bring that to the table in one form or another.

I think people who may be prone to naturalism take a sort of "discipline" to disallow ourselves to slip too much into this way of thinking.

The problem is not so much in the faith beliefs, but in the attempt to 'have it both ways' by trying to logically argue for ontological equality with the physical, observable world - but without the same ontological requirements (physicality, observability).

 

[Opdrey]

The problem is not so much in the faith beliefs, but in the attempt to 'have it both ways' by trying to logically argue for ontological equality with the physical, observable world - but without the same ontological requirements (physicality, observability).

QFT^^^^

 

[AV1611VET]

My bad; Canaan. I was going "Curse of Ham" from memory.

That's not what I was getting at.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Ham committed his act against his mother, not his father.

Leviticus 20:11a And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:

 

[AV1611VET]

If "Paul" had any part in concocting the snake bite story, his credibility is zero.

Just so you know, Luke wrote that, not Paul.

And the story is true.

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

And I get the feeling his credibility is zero in the classroom anyway -- whether he wrote it or not.

 

[Opdrey]

Just so you know, Luke wrote that, not Paul.

Apart from the tradition in the Church how do you know Luke wrote the book with his name on it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Apart from the tradition in the Church how do you know Luke wrote the book with his name on it?

His name isn't on that book like it is on his treatise.

We know he wrote Acts because both his writings are addressed to Theophilus.

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's not what I was getting at.

That's not what I was caring about.

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Ah, I was right the first time -- serves me right for accepting correction from ya.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

Ham committed his act against his mother, not his father.

Leviticus 20:11a And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:

You're claiming that Ham committed incest?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what I was caring about.

You cared enough to bring it up.

Ah, I was right the first time -- serves me right for accepting correction from ya.

I wasn't correcting your reference to Ham.

I was correcting your thinking that Ham did that with his father.

He didn't.

It was with his mother.

You're claiming that Ham committed incest?

Rape, in my opinion.