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

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that the scientist can pout the truth to the test and verify it.

They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:

 

[SelfSim]

They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:

.. and you think they don't already know that and take it into consideration?
Why do ya think it takes so long for new medications to be released to the market thesedays?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The difference is that the scientist can pout the truth to the test and verify it.

Some of it, anyhow.

 

[SelfSim]

Some of it, anyhow.

No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions must be met .. not just compliance with the rules of logic).

For example; your belief in the existence of 'first cause'.

Let the evidence for that claim, now pour forth from your fingertips ..

 

[Kylie]

They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:

Maybe one day you'll surprise us and not go running back to the same old things you think make a point that they don't actually make.

 

[Kylie]

Some of it, anyhow.

Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions must be met .. not just compliance with the rules of logic).

For example; your belief in the existence of 'first cause'.

Let the evidence for that claim, now pour forth from your fingertips ..

You seem to me to be contradicting yourself. In another post you said belief becomes real. Now you are saying belief does not follow objective tests.

Meanwhile, even your definition, which I believe falls short of comprehensive use, does not say a belief is illogical, but that it need not be logical; it does not say that an objective fact cannot be believed. It seems to me you are thinking of faith, not belief. But even then, the definition falls short.

The fact that someone believes something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true/real.

Fingertips, keyboard, etc etc; all that we see is evidence of first cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No .. anything which doesn't 'test out' is a belief, where by 'belief' there, we mean:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Both conditions must be met .. not just compliance with the rules of logic).

For example; your belief in the existence of 'first cause'.

Let the evidence for that claim, now pour forth from your fingertips ..

You seem to me to be contradicting yourself. In another post you said belief becomes real. Now you are saying belief does not follow objective tests.

Meanwhile, even your definition, which I believe falls short of comprehensive use, does not say a belief is illogical, but that it need not be logical; it does not say that an objective fact cannot be believed. It seems to me you are thinking of faith, not belief. But even then, the definition falls short.

The fact that someone believes something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true/real.

Fingertips, keyboard, etc etc; all that we see is evidence of first cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?

Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?

Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe one day you'll surprise us and not go running back to the same old things you think make a point that they don't actually make.

Now, I never have myself ever heard/
seen a stuck record but the idea is clear
enough. And I guess it just works deeper
into the annoying groove?

A detail too deep for our facile would- be
science critics is that where science has gone
furthest wrong and hardest to right is always when
it is subverted by agenda, that of government or industry.
Or creation "science" as handmaiden to religious ideology.

Dishonest people can always be found;accountants, preachers ,
cops and teachers. Doctors and scientists too. There's seemingly nothing so
low that sex or money wont motivate someone. If there's some
won't do sex or money, religious fervour can do it. See 911.

So we got doctors and researchers working for tobacco
companies, and others were saying there's no evidence the Atlantic
cod fishery would collapse, that tetraethyl lead in gasoline is harmless.

Criticism of the perps, and such shoddy " science" is altogether right and fitting.

But when it comes from someone who is also working to
promote some unsupportable agenda, they are similarly
unconsieblnable and reprehensible.

In this I make direct reference to those of Answers in Genesis,
ICR, and any other such sites or institutions, and supporters thereof.

The work of tobacco industry researchers seeking to
protect the industry are engaged in pseudo science at best.
Total scientific / intellectual dishonesty.

Anyone trying to prove their predetermined conclusion, whatever
it may be, is no better, bringing only harm, shame and discredit to
themselves and all they touch

 

[SelfSim]

You seem to me to be contradicting yourself. In another post you said belief becomes real. Now you are saying belief does not follow objective tests.

Meanwhile, even your definition, which I believe falls short of comprehensive use, does not say a belief is illogical, but that it need not be logical; it does not say that an objective fact cannot be believed. It seems to me you are thinking of faith, not belief. But even then, the definition falls short.

The fact that someone believes something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true/real.

Fingertips, keyboard, etc etc; all that we see is evidence of first cause.

The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.

That's what my 'Empire State building' dialogue demonstrates.

 

[sjastro]

They might verify something in the lab, but out in the real world, they get a reality check:

I will call your

and raise you

(Hint look at the thread on mosquitoes).

 

[Mountainmike]

Would you care to give an example of something that is NOT testable at all and yet is still presented as a scientific fact?

The first living cell from chemical soup.
Since nobody knows the structure of it, no test is possible.
But Still it’s presented as a “ fact” it happened.
So Actually it’s just a faith statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will call your

and raise you

(Hint look at the thread on mosquitoes).

Did you read Post 32 in that thread?

 

[sjastro]

Did you read Post 32 in that thread?

An irrelevant response to my post.
It's a riddle try harder.

 

[Kylie]

Testable "at all"? no. Tested exhaustively never happens. So I remain skeptical, when something as sketchy as large-scale genetic mutation to higher forms is presented as fact.

Genetic mutation has been observed and scientifically described.

Are you seriously suggesting that we can't claim evolution is true because we've never seen billions of years of evolution?

 

[Kylie]

The first living cell from chemical soup.
Since nobody knows the structure of it, no test is possible.
But Still it’s presented as a “ fact” it happened.
So Actually it’s just a faith statement.

We may not have any records of it, but the processes which lead to the formation of the sorts of chemicals it would have required are well understood.

 

[SelfSim]

We may not have any records of it, but the processes which lead to the formation of the sorts of chemicals it would have required are well understood.

I've also never seen any model of: 'the first living cell from chemical soup', 'presented as a “ fact” {that} it happened' ..
(.. Just sayin' my 2 cents worth ..)

 

[partinobodycular]

The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.

As I have pointed out in other threads, your concept of a mind dependent reality seems to be fundamentally flawed, because it lacks the ability to explain how conscious minds can create anything new. For example, here's a link to a random article.

http://majdalani.eng.auburn.edu/courses/02_fluids/handout_f01_history.pdf

Absent an independent source your mind now needs to create from whole cloth an article which is in every way identical to the article which my mind has created.

How is your mind going to do that?