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

[stevevw]

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.

I'm not disputing science is describing what is going on in the brain as a mechanism. I am disputing that this explains everything that happens in the brain. That mechanism cannot account for consciousness, and other states of mind like love and intuition.

'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.

It depends. Yes we can mechanically describe that a proper working mind gains knowledge like computer data banks. But that doesn't explain how we come to know things through our experience of something.

Like how someone knows that they are loved or our experience of the colour red. We can describe the process of photons hitting the retina and electrical/chemical signals in the brain, similar to a PC but as with the colour red there is nothing happening with the eyes or brain thats actually the colour red.

Yet we experience and know red as a real thing that affects reality. Its like something is happening beyond the physical mechanisms of the brain.

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

My point is that intuition is not delusional just because it doesn't conformed to being explained by a reductive mechanism. That its part of who we are and is a good starting point for understanding what is going on.

Going back to the "love" example. We intuit when our partner loves us or has fallen out of love. There is no reducible physical evidence for this yet we seem to know about these abstract things which affect our reality. So intuition is another tool humans are equipped with that can help us understand reality.

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.

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).
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!?

I am saying the opposite that if anything the observer creates reality. In doing that it makes them a fundelmental part of reality. Its actually a good arguement for consciousness.

I find it interesting that more people are thinking outside the box of material reductionsim to something more transcendent. Not because of belief but because consciousness seems to be a fundelmental part of reality and this is reflected in how for example some form of Panpsychism is becoming more popular even among mainstream sciences.

 

[Opdrey]

What is Satan's angelic name?

הֵילֵל ?

 

[AV1611VET]

הֵילֵל ?

I edited out Post 1614, since she edited out her Post 1613.

Perhaps though, she would care to tell us what Satan's angelic name is?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not disputing science is describing what is going on in the brain as a mechanism. I am disputing that this explains everything that happens in the brain. That mechanism cannot account for consciousness, and other states of mind like love and intuition.

For these "other" things to be non-physical, there must be some part of the function of the brain that is not described by chemistry and electrochemistry.

What function of the brain is non-chemical and how is that detected?

 

[Opdrey]

For these "other" things to be non-physical, there must be some part of the function of the brain that is not described by chemistry and electrochemistry.

What function of the brain is non-chemical and how is that detected?

The whole concept of "consciousness" is so utterly fascinating. For religious people who wish to point to consciousness as a proxy for or indication of a "soul" they must likewise assume that this applies in a spectrum down the ladder.

My dog is OBVIOUSLY conscious. It processes information, makes decisions, even "predicts" some actions based on inputs and it can feel FEAR and JOY and even SADNESS. Does this mean the dog also has a soul, just one that is not as highly developed as ours? What about the goldfish?

This may sound silly like I'm proposing "dog heaven" or something but really if the existence of a soul indicates an afterlife or some supernatural realm then the faithful need to explain why it exists in other animals to varying degrees.

The concept of consciousness as an "emergent property" of a bundle of neurons is a much easier thing to explain holistically but clearly not something that suits religious thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

For these "other" things to be non-physical, there must be some part of the function of the brain that is not described by chemistry and electrochemistry.

What function of the brain is non-chemical and how is that detected?

Engrams?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Engrams?

Since I mostly know that term from SciFi technobabble, it makes me think of this usage:

Engram (Dianetics) - Wikipedia

 

[TLK Valentine]

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

It might... or we might just be seeing things really blurry.

Lenses are used for good reason.

 

[Opdrey]

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

Indeed! Before mankind hampered itself by imposing a "naturalistic lens" we lived in a much more exciting world! A world filled to the brim with unicorns and dog-headed Egyptians. A world with invisible people who fought invisible battles on our behalf against invisible enemies and they all could fly.

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.

One of the problems with debating against naturalism and the concept that people are limited to their own experience of reality is that it applies even to people arguing for things that are experienced outside of reality.

If I can't experience these things outside of reality why should I believe YOU have any insight there?

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.

How do you know this? From whence did you get the information? Let me guess: it came from someone else who told you that. How did they get it?

Etc. Etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I find it interesting that more people are thinking outside the box of material reductionsim to something more transcendent. Not because of belief but because consciousness seems to be a fundelmental part of reality and this is reflected in how for example some form of Panpsychism is becoming more popular even among mainstream sciences.

Is "panpsychism" *really* becoming more popular among scientists? I've seen no evidence of that.

A cursory glance about the net seem to show some popularity among philosophers. (And if I may speculate, this is probably because they are looking for non-religious alternatives to things once filled by religious claims.)

From the Wikipedia article in the section on criticisms:

"One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested. A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power."

Ouch. Untestable and makes no predictions. In other words: Panpsychism isn't scientific -- at all.

 

[SelfSim]

My point is that intuition is not delusional just because it doesn't conformed to being explained by a reductive mechanism. That its part of who we are and is a good starting point for understanding what is going on.

Healthy active minds normally don't typically exhibit signs of delusions (although they still can). I don't know how delusions came into your field of focus there? I think I said intuition is just another way of describing a state of mind.
I can elaborate a little more (if it helps). Intuition, to me, (ie: my model) is a state of responsiveness to what the senses perceive, where there may, or may not be, any memories of deliberate considered thought having being applied after some event. That's a testable model, I think(?)

So intuition is another tool humans are equipped with that can help us understand reality.

I'm not at all sure how a mind 'tool', (or a state of mind), which 'helps us understand reality' comes to mean that its source is beyond that reality .. as well as the mind conceiving the meaning of reality?
That's almost a nonsensical notion.

I am saying the opposite that if anything the observer creates reality. In doing that it makes them a fundelmental part of reality. Its actually a good arguement for consciousness.

I agree. The issue is how to model the testable role, (or function of the mind), as a consistent part of the reality it perceives.
We always seem to completely ignore the role the mind plays in observations .. yet its always present when we speak of 'what reality is'. Its a massive blind-spot, (IMO).

I find it interesting that more people are thinking outside the box of material reductionsim to something more transcendent. Not because of belief but because consciousness seems to be a fundelmental part of reality and this is reflected in how for example some form of Panpsychism is becoming more popular even among mainstream sciences.

The thing is that unless the thinking produces testable hypotheses capable of producing consistent independently repeatable results, the '-ism' part of Panpsychism implies that its just another bunch of useless beliefs, (in the practical context).
Scientific thinking can, (and often does), grab any useful idea and turns it into a practical, useful testable one. As part of that process, one has to isolate, and find ways of excluding beliefs and hidden true posits.

 

[SelfSim]

Ouch. Untestable and makes no predictions. In other words: Panpsychism isn't scientific -- at all.

Agreed.
Neither is Realism - (for similar reasons).

 

[SelfSim]

If I can't experience these things outside of reality why should I believe YOU have any insight there?

Being human, you should be capable of experiencing anything other humans experience.
The freedom to choose not believing-in 'things outside of reality', for the sake of being able to simply observe unhindered by beliefs, is also available to other humans.
Insights derived from beliefs, tend to lead to yet more beliefs, so your own experiences and insights from choosing not to believe, will clearly be different, eh?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Methodological naturalism can't do otherwise. As I've said more than once, if you can suggest a methodology for the systematic acquisition of knowledge about what is non-physical, science can incorporate it; but you can't.

You seem to be asserting that your intuitions reflect something externally real. Perhaps you could define what you mean by 'real'?

Yes an assumed codification of everything.

No, codifications of observed patterns. We can be confident that there are patterns we have not yet observed, because there are known unknowns™ (Rumsfeld).

It cannot measure non-physical stuff even if there were something non-physical at work that influences reality.

If something influences physical reality, it must, by definition, be a physical influence; we've been here before - you can't have it both ways. Perhaps you could define what you mean by 'reality'?

Intuition is actually a good first impression sense to go from. It is often correct most of the time.

Studies show that, as I said, it is only reasonably reliable in areas you have expertise in or are familiar with - because it is an expression of the unconscious heuristics you have constructed from experience of that area. IOW, it's like an AI trained on a large dataset, but biased by interoceptive feelings.

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 non-physical ways? btw, using your brain is physical. But, in any case, what evidence do you have for any of this 'non-physical reality'?

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.

How? what kind of relevance and value do you have in mind?

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.

Don't be silly - it's obviously not discounted - the whole of scientific knowledge is based on experience. Experience of the world and experience of learning about the world that prompted scientific methodologies.

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.

Really? - you do realise that asserting that you intuitively feel such and such, in itself tells you nothing about metaphysics unless empirically tested, right?

 

[SelfSim]

If something influences physical reality, it must, by definition, be a physical influence; we've been here before - you can't have it both ways. Perhaps you could define what you mean by 'reality'?
...
Don't be silly - it's obviously not discounted

Yeah .. Objective definitions in science, including the content of science's catalogue of 'Objective Reality', is/are always contextual and open to revision with new evidence, eh? For example: nothing testable, (hypothetically or theoretically), is ever discounted because of 'known unknowns' in terms of context(s), or even because of any impracticalities involved in executing its tests.

- the whole of scientific knowledge is based on experience. Experience of the world and experience of learning about the world that prompted scientific methodologies.

All scientific knowledge is justified, with no need for specific references to 'truths', and (distinguished) beliefs are optional.

 

[AV1611VET]

The words of God are the word of God.

Amen and Amen!

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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.

Logic and reason apply to anything that is natural, i.e., anything that has a nature. A thing's nature is its identity. It's all the attributes of that thing. It is something in particular as opposed to nothing in particular.

God is supposed to transcend nature which means it transcends identity, therefore no, you can't prove it scientifically. You can't prove it by means of reason and logic. Reason is the faculty of consciousness that identifies the material of the senses. It works on the basis of identity. Logic is the method of reason or the art of non-contradictory identification. Logic and reason can not work with anything that is said to be outside of nature. That's why belief in it requires faith and always will.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Never lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind, and a step that travels unlimited roads." -Ayn Rand

 

[Astrid]

Being human, you should be capable of experiencing anything other humans experience.
The freedom to choose not believing-in 'things outside of reality', for the sake of being able to simply observe unhindered by beliefs, is also available to other humans.
Insights derived from beliefs, tend to lead to yet more beliefs, so your own experiences and insights from choosing not to believe, will clearly be different, eh?

"Choosing" to believe is a rather weird concept.

Perhaps you refer to willing suspension of disbelief,
or self deception?

Not believing something for which the evidence is dubious
or specious is quite different from self deception.

I doubt you choose not to believe when you get an IRS
scam call.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Choosing" to believe is a rather weird concept.

Ya ... it's called hope.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Logic and reason apply to anything that is natural, i.e., anything that has a nature.

It is remarkable how we assume our words, our descriptions and our concepts to necessarily encompass meaning and truth.

See what you do here? You assume that what we humans think, necessarily applies TO anything that has a nature. God has a nature, yet he is not SUBJECT to the external cause, 'logic and reason', or he is not FIRST cause.

Then you assume the term, 'natural', necessarily means anything that has a nature. The human notion, 'natural', only means that which usually happens, and apparently so without 'God's intervention'.

Not so. God himself is not natural. He does not fall within the chain of causation, but begins it. 'Natural' proceeds from him, and without his 'upholding' it, all that is natural would cease to exist.