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

SelfSim · Aug 3, 2022

Estrid said:
Only you, if that many, know what you are talking about.

Rest assured, there are others from which I acquired my knowledge on this topic.

But we digress, and I'm genuinely curious about @FrumiousBandersnatch's original statement, and now your own claim of 'You can't actually touch anything either'. Could you (kindly) elaborate a little on what you mean there(?) .. I'm open-minded about it and prepared to listen.
(I may have just misunderstood the context of what he was meaning there .. twas a little ambiguous .. he may have just been being ironic/sarcastic about @stevevw's comment .. I'm not sure).

Halbhh · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
Your posts convey to me persistently consistent meanings, which I somehow understand. Those meanings can be tested for, across the (english speaking) population of humans, using the scientfic method. Where they test out with consistency, (and they do), then I'd also associate them with a model I hold for what a human mind does, (communicate meanings), which is similar to my own (because I test out for similarly understood meanings). Human minds also test out following the same method, so I update my knowledge of 'objectively real' with the meaning of 'you' and 'others'.

Without holding consciousness and self-awareness, as properties of a human mind model, all bets about everything are off.

It seems like you are simply saying in another wording a view like my own (the same idea, but put into a very different style of wording) -- I think that we never can know another person or ourselves perfectly, and mostly we only 'see through a glass darkly' -- that is, incorrectly and missing things, but also getting the vague outline. Additionally, the mind automatically fills in what isn't seen, at the perception level, before conscious awareness, and often not very accurately. Then, next, the conscious mind also fills in and adds and alters additionally, creating a kind of new idea of the person unlike the reality also, unlike to the person being perceived even more, to some degree, more or less, depending on the individual. (a college professor I recall recounted on the radio by looking back over years of teaching that some semesters she would have 1 or 2 students that would recall details from past events in the class aloud in class with precision that perfect matched her written notes from those many months ago, so this tendency to alter varies person to person -- every student except those rare ones would have mistaken details, but these particular less common students would recall perfectly; this suggests there are varying levels/styles of memory encoding, different techniques that are strong in different ways; since perception is partly dependent on memory, there would probably be effects on perception also)

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
I agree with everything else you say there in your post, except the above quoted bit.
Surely, even in your paradigm, (with which I think I differ slightly), both of: what is meant by reality and belief, are related via evident mind processes(?)

To put it another way, it seems to me that it's clearly the case that beliefs can and do contradict both objectively verified data and well-tested theories based on those data. Objectively verified data is about as close to reality as we can get, and well-tested theories based on such data are the best models of reality we have.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
Hmm .. very interesting!

It's not even clear what 'direct observation' could mean...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Not true!
That statement is true only of the axiomatic model , and it is a demonstration of the difference between the universe and the model. It is not true of the universe.

A field does not exist. It is an abstract mindgame.
It is an expression of the forces on matter which WOULD exist , only if matter were introduced into the space. The forces are consequence of influence of matter outside the space, not present in it , interacting with matter inside it. But if matter enters the space so the force is realised , the space is no longer empty.

When travelling fields travel through the space, a photon, energy enters and leaves the space, so it is equally no longer empty at the point fields are contained in it.

Its an interesting philosophical distinction, it’s another “ observer” problem similar to QM. Does it exist before it interacts, when existence is an expression of interaction.

No. A field is something that has a physical value/quantity at every point in space. Fields are observable. Gravity and electromagnetism are real, not abstractions.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2022

Estrid said:
It's not that deep. You can't actually touch anything either

I guess both 'direct observation' and 'touch' need careful definition...

SelfSim · Aug 3, 2022

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It's not even clear what 'direct observation' could mean...

Then I guess we should ask what @stevevw means there then, no(?)
Rest assured though, it means something to him(?)

SelfSim · Aug 3, 2022

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I guess both 'direct observation' and 'touch' need careful definition...

The 'actually' part of 'actually touch' is the dicey part there, I think(?)

'Observation' and 'touch' are pretty well defined on their own, objectively speaking, I think(?)

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I guess both 'direct observation' and 'touch' need careful definition...

You know why I said it.

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

Halbhh said:
Of course, some bridges collapse too soon, before they should, due to design or building flaws which we can figure out with effort. You could say that Engineering is really trial and error, gradually getting more reliable knowledge over time.

This though is just an atheist idea: "science h.as so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives". It's about like saying 'because oranges are tasty, we should jettison God out of our lives.'

Where in earth did you get that silly idea?
The quote is fake as is the concept.
You don't have a clue how an atheist thinks,
you'd have to try, to get it more wrong.

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
Rest assured, there are others from which I acquired my knowledge on this topic.

But we digress, and I'm genuinely curious about @FrumiousBandersnatch's original statement, and now your own claim of 'You can't actually touch anything either'. Could you (kindly) elaborate a little on what you mean there(?) .. I'm open-minded about it and prepared to listen.
(I may have just misunderstood the context of what he was meaning there .. twas a little ambiguous .. he may have just been being ironic/sarcastic about @stevevw's comment .. I'm not sure).

" Acquired my knowledge...". Droll.

If you knew intro to physics 101 you would understand
why I said it.
You been trying to punch above your weight and it shows.

SelfSim · Aug 3, 2022

Estrid said:
" Acquired my knowledge...". Droll.

If you knew intro to physics 101 you would understand
why I said it.
You been trying to punch above your weight and it shows.

Please elaborate.

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
Please elaborate.

The "droll", "101", or, "above weight"?
Here's a hint.
Think "Pauli exclusion principle"

partinobodycular · Aug 3, 2022

Estrid said:
Only you, if that many, know what you are talking about.

At this point I've pretty much come to the conclusion that not even @SelfSim knows what he's talking about. If he does then he certainly can't explain it very well.

It seems to be solipsism coupled with a multiple personality disorder.

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

partinobodycular said:
At this point I've pretty much come to the conclusion that not even @SelfSim knows what he's talking about. If he does then he certainly can't explain it very well.

It seems to be solipsism coupled with a multiple personality disorder.

Well let's not get into personal remarcks

partinobodycular · Aug 3, 2022

Estrid said:
Well let's not get into personal remarcks

It wasn't meant to be derogatory, that's really what his position looks like, solipsism coupled with multiple personality disorder. He seems to posit that reality is the product of a collaboration between conscious minds which work collectively to create the illusion of a physical reality where none actually exists.

But he offers no means by which these minds can possibly interact with each other. Which leads to the question, if physical reality is an illusion, then are the other minds also an illusion? That would explain how they can interact with each other...because there are no other minds, there's only one mind imagining itself as many.

SelfSim · Aug 3, 2022

partinobodycular said:
It wasn't meant to be derogatory, that's really what his position looks like, solipsism coupled with multiple personality disorder. He seems to posit that reality is the product of a collaboration between conscious minds which work collectively to create the illusion of a physical reality where none actually exists.

Nope .. not at all.

partinobodycular said:
But he offers no means by which these minds can possibly interact with each other. Which leads to the question, if physical reality is an illusion, then are the other minds also an illusion? That would explain how they can interact with each other...because there are no other minds, there's only one mind imagining itself as many.

Nope. We can test for: 'That other minds might objectively exist', and the returned data is consistent with a testable model of 'other minds' and then infer that other minds exist. Its the scientific method in action there .. not philosophical Solipsism.
Human minds communicate via language, if you hadn't noticed(?)

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

partinobodycular said:
It wasn't meant to be derogatory, that's really what his position looks like, solipsism coupled with multiple personality disorder. He seems to posit that reality is the product of a collaboration between conscious minds which work collectively to create the illusion of a physical reality where none actually exists.

But he offers no means by which these minds can possibly interact with each other. Which leads to the question, if physical reality is an illusion, then are the other minds also an illusion? That would explain how they can interact with each other...because there are no other minds, there's only one mind imagining itself as many.

Oh, I didn't think it derogatory.

I will say this, there are some unusual characters here.

The people I actually deal with at work can't get away with
disorderly thinking.

Astrid · Aug 3, 2022

partinobodycular · Aug 3, 2022

SelfSim said:
We can test for: 'That other minds might objectively exist', and the returned data is consistent with a testable model of 'other minds' and then infer that other minds exist.

And how do we do that?

SelfSim said:
Human minds communicate via language, if you hadn't noticed(?)

Yes, but HOW? Every form of communication that we know of requires a physical medium by which to be manifested. But you allow for no such medium, so how do these minds communicate with each other?

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

A non "-ist"

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency