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

[TLK Valentine]

You cared enough to bring it up.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.Rape, in my opinion.

Shem and Japeth had a pretty nonchalant reaction, then... don't you think?

 

[AV1611VET]

Shem and Japeth had a pretty nonchalant reaction, then... don't you think?

They had no choice.

Neither did Noah.

Do you know why?

Spoiler: HINT

Genesis 9:1a And God blessed Noah and his sons,

 

[stevevw]

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

Yes Paul mentions this.

 

[stevevw]

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...

I should have used sense or come to know or something like that.

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!

But if we then explain things in scientific terms then its not something beyond science. There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything. Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.

SCience only explains what is happening it has no creative ability. But what often happens is many attach a creative ability so that when science explains something it has also accounted for it metaphysically.

 

[Gene2memE]

There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything.

Because there are things that science cannot explain now, does that mean that these things will remain unexplained, or that there is no chance of naturalistic explanations for them? Or merely that our present understanding does not produce an explanation.

It may be that there are phenomena that science will never be able to explain. But that does not justify unevidenced, non-naturalistic explanations of them - it just means they will remain unexplained.

Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.

If the natural world is all that exists - or all we can ever have access to - then this may not be true.

If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true (as science is necessarily bound to analysis/explanations of the natural world).

 

[Astrid]

Because there are things that science cannot explain now, does that mean that these things will remain unexplained, or that there is no chance of naturalistic explanations for them? Or merely that our present understanding does not produce an explanation.

It may be that there are phenomena that science will never be able to explain. But that does not justify unevidenced, non-naturalistic explanations of them - it just means they will remain unexplained.



If the natural world is all that exists - or all we can ever have access to - then this may not be true.

If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true (as science is necessarily bound to analysis/explanations of the natural world).

Science was virtually nonexistent a hundred fifty years ago.

Predictions about what cannot be known are seriously
premature

 

[AV1611VET]

Science was virtually nonexistent a hundred fifty years ago.

Then why did Paul say this almost two thousand years ago?

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

And Daniel, hundreds of years before that?

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Predictions about what cannot be known are seriously premature.

What do you call predictions that will eventually be known?

 

[stevevw]

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...

Yeah I should have used another word like experience perhaps. But you can see something physical and see with your minds eye that there is something behind it. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.

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!

Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup. Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.

We all also somehow know that cars don't grow on trees out in the jungle too. Go figure!

Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup.

Only if you completely ignore the knowledge I mention above.

Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.

Try on: the reality we perceive was also observed to produce regularities which when expressed with rigour, became the laws of physics/nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah I should have used another word like experience perhaps. But you can see something physical and see with your minds eye that there is something behind it. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.

Yes but its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup. Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.

Good post, Steve.

Jesus said ...

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

We all experience this drawing ... this sixth sense ... this still small voice, that says ...

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[stevevw]

We all also somehow know that cars don't grow on trees out in the jungle too. Go figure!

But we can look at a tree or something in nature and get a similar sense, intuition that there is someting behind it, like a mind or some laws of nature driving things which are the invisible qualities.

Only if you completely ignore the knowledge I mention above.
Try on: the reality we perceive was also observed to produce regularities which when expressed with rigour, became the laws of physics/nature.

But isn't that seeing reality through one lens (methological naturalism) and assuming that the physical world is all there is. So we don't have to ignore science but understand its only a particular description of things and there can be other aspects of what we see and experience that are not physical in nature.

Because methological naturalism is only about the physical it assumes everything has a physical nature and there is no non-physical stuff. But how do we ultimately know. Science is only a description not a cause. For all we know science may just be describing Gods handywork or even some simulation experiement for that matter.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They had no choice.

Neither did Noah.

Do you know why?

Spoiler: HINT

Genesis 9:1a And God blessed Noah and his sons,

Blessings obliterate free will -- got it.

And when your brother rapes your mother while dad's passed out drunk, the "blessed" response is to throw a blanket over dad while moonwalking -- got that too.

 

[Opdrey]

Then why did Paul say this almost two thousand years ago?

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

And Daniel, hundreds of years before that?

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Because they weren't talking about science in the way we know it today. Science, like the word "planet" used to be a lot broader meaning. It was, about the time of the KJV translators a term for "knowledge" or similar words.

That is not the more narrow, technical definition we use today.

I understand that for you words don't have histories, they just "are" and anytime the meaning or definition of a term changes it causes a minor earthquake in your world and you see signs of evil afoot.

Perhaps among all the dictionaries you no doubt own you could buy an Oxford English Dictionary and look up the ETYMOLOGY and HISTORY of the words.

Or just assume that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they weren't talking about science in the way we know it today.

So?

It's still called science.

Whether it was obsoleted later or not.

I'm fond of pointing this out ...

Yesterday's science:

It's still science though.

 

[Opdrey]

So?

It's still called science.

I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.

I understand what you're saying.

It's like prescience science.

Academia, if it had its way (and enough time), would eventually change every single jot and tittle of the Bible.

But that's not gonna happen this side of the Tribulation period.

Their mantra: Yea, hath God said?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I should have used sense or come to know or something like that.

So, would you like to rephrase it coherently, using sense or come to know or something like that?

... if we then explain things in scientific terms then its not something beyond science.

Exactly, that's the point. If these forces have some influence on the physical world, they are amenable to science. If there is no influence on the physical world, the whole idea is purely speculative, without evidence.

There are things science cannot explain yet people try to explain this with some idea beyond science like the Multiverse or Dark Matter and energy. So just because science can come up with an explanation doesn't mean they are right about everything. Science only takes one view of reality and cannot explain everything.

The multiverse, dark matter, and dark energy are not 'beyond science'; the first is a prediction of our best physical theories, the other two are hypotheses to explain very definite observations. IOW, they are the products of science.

SCience only explains what is happening it has no creative ability. But what often happens is many attach a creative ability so that when science explains something it has also accounted for it metaphysically.

For example?

When something is explained, in what sense do you feel it is not 'accounted for'? i.e. what do you mean by 'accounted for' here?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true...

But what would that even mean? What does 'exist' mean in that context? And unless it affects the natural world, we can't know whether it 'exists' or not...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.

Oh, we have. Over and over. Like rain from the sky. But some are just too well waterproofed.