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

[Opdrey]

We don't profess ourselves to be Homo sapiens (wise ones).

You can think you are whatever you want. It won't change reality one whit.

I liked your little anecdote because it shows your true colors.

Every nasty thing you think or say about atheists mocking the Bible, you do with science. Does that make you a "better person"? Or does it make it clear your copy of the KJV is missing Luke 6:31?

To be quite honest I don't think I've seen any atheists on this forum go as hard on the Bible as you go on science.

 

[Opdrey]

And what would that do for us exactly?

If you have to ask that then I fear the answer is obvious.

Would it then please others that we start saying "hypothesis," instead of "theory"?

Is using the correct term for something problematic for you?

Praytell, what is God's name?

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you know?

Being here 192 times longer than you have helps.

You want some examples?

1. "Child in the womb" arab-phoned to "fetus."
2. "Miracles" arab-phoned to "magic."
3. Flood denied.
4. Exodus denied.
5. Jonah denied.

We could even discuss the Johanine Comma as well! Was it in the original?

6. Johanine Comma denied.

How about the word "almah" in Isaiah? Was it really a "virgin" or just a young unmarried woman?

7. "Virgin" arab-phoned to "young woman."

(Thanks for the QEDs.)

Eventually, every jot & tittle will be denied.

In my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be quite honest I don't think I've seen any atheists on this forum go as hard on the Bible as you go on science.

Get another sixteen years under your belt, then we'll discuss it.

 

[stevevw]

That's inferring there is design (mind) - you can do that because you already know that such items are designed by a mind.

But its the same for methological naturalism. Its inferring and assuming that its only physical in a metaphysial way.

Intuition is a poor guide to things you are not experienced or familiar with. Feeling that something 'is more than its physical makeup' is not only vague but it's qualitatively different from the laws of physics or nature, which are codifications of observed patterns.

Yes an assumed codification of everything. It cannot measure non-physical stuff even if there were something non-physical at work that influences reality.

Intuition is actually a good first impression sense to go from. It is often correct most of the time. But if we only use one lens to see reality (methodlogical naturalism) then this will count out non-physical ways of experiencing and measuring reality where intuition may be a good indication of what is going on.

What does the intuition that something 'is more than its physical makeup' mean to you? 'more' in what way? how does it change anything?

Well if metaphysically we gave more value to alternative ways of knowing and understanding reality then intuition may be of greater relevance and value to understanding what is going on.

Our experience may be an important factor in understanding how reality works. But its discounted because it is assumed there is no non-physical influences that contribute to reality. I value intuition as I think its part of how we experience reality and can be a good indication of what is going on metaphysically.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is using the correct term for something problematic for you?

QV here, where Wikipedia, after giving several HYPOTHESES as to how we got our moon, says this:

Origin of the Moon - Wikipedia

It looks to me like even Wikipedia uses "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably.

And I don't feel I have to learn science to start talking like I've learned science.

If you're not willing to talk to us commoners at our level, don't expect us commoners to waste our time talking to you at yours.

Praytell, what is God's name?

JEHOVAH

(And do you know why I always capitalize that name?)

 

[SelfSim]

But its the same for methological naturalism. Its inferring and assuming that its only physical in a metaphysial way.

Yes an assumed codification of everything. It cannot measure non-physical stuff even if there were something non-physical at work that influences reality.

Intuition is actually a good first impression sense to go from. It is often correct most of the time. But if we only use one lens to see reality (methodlogical naturalism) then this will count out non-physical ways of experiencing and measuring reality where intuition may be a good indication of what is going on.

Well if metaphysically we gave more value to alternative ways of knowing and understanding reality then intuition may be of greater relevance and value to understanding what is going on.

Our experience may be an important factor in understanding how reality works. But its discounted because it is assumed there is no non-physical influences that contribute to reality. I value intuition as I think its part of how we experience reality and can be a good indication of what is going on metaphysically.

Intuition is just a way of describing an apparent functioning state of the human mind. It doesn't imply the existence of things outside of our perceptions .. (that would just be another belief you hold).

 

[Opdrey]

Being here 192 times longer than you have helps.

Thankfully I actually don't need Christian Forums to learn about the Bible. I've read extensively on the subject.

1. "Child in the womb" arab-phoned to "fetus."

How does this change the definition of "almah"?

3. Flood denied.

Not really. Floods are relatively easy to find in the geologic record.

What ISN'T is the Noachian Flood. It left absolutely NO EVIDENCE, not even in terms of sediment sorting. Presumably God felt that sorted sediment that might indicate the Flood of Noah would be unsafe?

4. Exodus denied.

Not so much denied as "no evidence for". There's a difference. I tend to "deny" the existence of a unicorn that lives in my fridge.

6. Johanine Comma denied.

Not really denied. But not necessarily there in the originals.

7. "Virgin" arab-phoned to "young woman."

What hubris! To tell the speakers of ancient Hebrew they didn't know their own language but YOU DO?

 

[AV1611VET]

What hubris! To tell the speakers of ancient Hebrew they didn't know their own language but YOU DO?

Is there anything I can help you with, Opdrey? or am I wasting my time?

 

[Opdrey]

It looks to me like even Wikipedia uses "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably.

You do know that Wikipedia is not a technical resource, right? It's literally "crowd sourced".

And I don't feel I have to learn science to start talking like I've learned science.

And that means your points have no value. That's sad. You should actually learn something about what you are speaking before you speak.

JEHOVAH

(And do you know why I always capitalize that name?)

And where does the name Jehovah come from? I'm sure you honor the Jews by understanding the TETRAGRAMMATON, right?

Do you know what some think the Tetragrammaton was? YAHWEH.

Given that a very large number of people say "Yahweh" is a reasonable name for God (given that many semitic languages like Hebrew didn't write out vowels).

Can we call agree to call Him Yahweh?

 

[Opdrey]

Is there anything I can help you with, Opdrey? or am I wasting my time?

You could deign to think about my points. But I know that's asking a lot from the most perfected mind in the world.

 

[Astrid]

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."

In general that is also aka, " too smart by one half"

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What is Satan's angelic name?

Walter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is Satan's angelic name?

David?

 

[stevevw]

Intuition is just a way of describing an apparent functioning state of the human mind. It doesn't imply the existence of things outside of our perceptions .. (that would just be another belief you hold).

That's what physicalism says about consciousness. I disagree. What is "functioning state of mind".
If thats determined by methological naturalism then intuition and any other non physical influence about reality is already discounted before we even understand what possible influence. Thats the point before we even consider possibility the measuring for reality is already biased towards reductive explanations.

But if we remove the naturalistic lens for a moment we may be open to other ways of knowing which may prove valuable. Intuition is not just describing a functioning state of mind like scientific thinking. It involves other aspects that science cannot measure like our experience of reality. Things we cannot fully understand through reductionism. It is at the subconscious level.

So it takes in our experiences of reality and filters it into our being and then processes everything to give a sense about something. Its not just a belief but a justified belief based on our experience of reality which has been processed and tested. But not just by reductionism alone.

So when it comes to measuring reality its not just about a functioning state, or a deductive process but also about the experiences of reality which we may relate to on other levels and therefore know and understand besides the lens of reductionism and methological naturalism.

We are a big part of how we experience reality our experiences and intuition are important. Methological naturalism doesn't capture everything thats going on.

 

[SelfSim]

That's what physicalism says about consciousness. I disagree. What is "functioning state of mind".
If thats determined by methological naturalism then intuition and any other non physical influence about reality is already discounted before we even understand what possible influence. Thats the point before we even consider possibility the measuring for reality is already biased towards reductive explanations.

A 'functioning state of mind', once described using language, becomes either a testable, or an untestable model. Its just what our minds observably do.
All I have to do to show that, is to ask you a question, (as you just did, of me).
There's no particular philosophical imperative or pretense in that. Just a raw query, (using language), followed by a response.

But if we remove the naturalistic lens for a moment we may be open to other ways of knowing which may prove valuable.

'Knowing' is just what happens when your mind updates your knowledge with a meaning. That's also what minds are always demonstrably doing. All that is needed is a healthy active mind.
Philosophical imperatives, (eg: Naturalism's or Realism's, etc), on top of that, just cloud the issue with unnecessary added baggage.

Intuition is not just describing a functioning state of mind like scientific thinking. It involves other aspects that science cannot measure like our experience of reality. Things we cannot fully understand through reductionism. It is at the subconscious level.

.. and everything you just said there is just your mind's model of 'Intuition'.

So it takes in our experiences of reality and filters it into our being and then processes everything to give a sense about something. Its not just a belief but a justified belief based on our experience of reality which has been processed and tested. But not just by reductionism alone.

The 'justified belief' you hold there, is that reality exists, without any mind whatsoever, to give the words: 'reality exists', a meaning .. which is completely nonsensical. If you don't agree, then exactly how do you think I could possibly understand what you just meant there without using my mind?
The idea that reality exists independently of any human mind whatsoever is a pure belief. You cannot escape your own mind ... (no matter how much you might try to do that). Our minds create what reality means based on our perceptions, followed by expressed models and their test results.
Reality cannot be shown as being 'a thing', which somehow exists independently from a human mind.

So when it comes to measuring reality its not just about a functioning state, or a deductive process but also about the experiences of reality which we may relate to on other levels and therefore know and understand besides the lens of reductionism and methological naturalism.

And because I don't have a clue as to what you're on about there, I'll ask what do you mean by all of that?
(And when you answer, what you say will either be testable or untestable. If its untestable, then its just another belief to pile up over there in the corner .. on top of all the rest of 'em).

We are a big part of how we experience reality

Yep .. reality requires a mind to even give that word a meaning. Try giving it a meaning without a mind .. hows that as a good demonstration of experiencing!?

 

[SelfSim]

What is Satan's angelic name?

Vladimir?

 

[sjastro]

What is Satan's angelic name?

Carlos Santana or maybe Santa Claus.