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

[Astrid]

Read more carefully.

I'd suggest applying more disciplined thought
before posting such as your "realize" bit.

 

[stevevw]

The problem here seems to be the idea that not being a particle (i.e. not being matter) means not being physical. This is not the case. 'Physical' encompasses particles, fields, forces - basically anything that has energy; that is, in principle, measurable, observable, i.e. that interacts with other particles, fields, forces.

The issue I think is about whether the cause of the energy and fields is natural or supernatural. Can the cause be contained within a naturalistic world view.

There are things that are not explicitly physical, such as abstractions - concepts, ideas, etc., but even these exist as physical representations (patterns of ink on a page, patterns of vibrations in air, patterns of activity and connectivity in brains, etc).

Wow when you put it that way this would make abstract ideas like information, language, art, consciousness and spirituality having some physical influence in the physical world.

What isn't clear about it?

Matter, in science, is generally taken to consist of one or more particles - can you explain what you mean by, "what is classed as particle matter and what is not"?

Basically its about materialism (energy, fields, particles). As opposed to non-materialism whatever that is. There are various ideas proposed like consciousness, Mind, Information, Plato's Form of the Good, spirituality, transcendence etc. These cannot be reduced to material processes and mechanisms yet are said to be a fundamental part of reality.

The 'Hard problem' of consciousness is a good example where we have the consciousness stemming from the physical brain as opposed to consciousness or a Mind existing independent of any reducible material cause. Considering the problems faced by the sciences in accounting for the observer, agency and subjective experiences it seems ideas like consciousness make a lot of sense.

Define 'direct observation' - is seeing light reflected from something a 'direct observation'? what about using thermal goggles? what about using other measuring instruments? We can tell that something is blocking the sun's light if it casts a shadow - do we need to 'directly observe' what casts the shadow?

Basically according to the science method everything has a naturalistic cause so what we observe is the result of something else and all causes can be ultimately traced back to a fundamental natural cause.

The problem for science I see is if there are abstract ideas like consciousness how can science measure this if it cannot be observed directly. Any effect will be assumed as natural. Like you mentioned at the fundamental level is energy. But energy could be some abstract phenomena that is outside space and time. So I guess its more about a persons worldview as to cause and effect.

The results of verified empirical observations or measurements are considered objective; inferences made from them are subjective.

I think everything we do including science is tainted by the subject. That's why I think methodological naturalism implies metaphysical naturalism. So the science is not neutral and cannot truly be objective.

But I think we can derive some patterns from subjective experiences which stand as laws or truths which give us a deeper understanding of reality and also affect the physical world. So I think reality is not just about physical stuff (Matter) but also how we engage with physical stuff (What Matters). How we engage and interact with the physical world through our experiences.

Define 'direct observation'. How do you know some phenomenon has occurred unless you can observe it in some way?

As mentioned above an observed phenomena can be seen directly but its really only an indirect result of something else. Science reduces the objective world down to its parts ultimately particles, fields and energy.

But it cannot tell whether there is a more fundamental cause beyond the physical that it cannot measure which may be the ultimate cause of everything. Because methodological naturalism assumes only physical stuff exists it will attribute any energy or influence from a non-material cause to the physical.

We know the phenomenon of gravity exists because we can observe its influence on the movement of matter and light. Can we 'directly observe' it?

Yes I think the science method is good at quantifying reality. But this is a closed view and only works within the parameters of the paradigm created that stipulates how we should know reality and measure it.

But as with the problem of integrating gravity into quantum physics we know that there is something more fundamental to explain gravity in the overall scheme of things, dark matter is just one example. I mean we can explain gravity just like neurology can explain consciousness. But none of this tells us anything about their fundamental nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The issue I think is about whether the cause of the energy and fields is natural or supernatural. Can the cause be contained within a naturalistic world view.

Why do you think fields have a cause? The sum of gravitational and non-gravitational energy is zero; it's a property of the relevant fields, positive (non-gravitational) and negative (gravitational).

Wow when you put it that way this would make abstract ideas like information, language, art, consciousness and spirituality having some physical influence in the physical world.

What makes you think they don't? They are the names we give to patterns that influence our behaviour, i.e. we act on them because they have meaning to us. Information is the common factor. But that doesn't necessarily make the referents of abstract concepts physically real. Many people work all their lives to accumulate wealth, but wealth itself isn't physical, it's a consensual agreement.

Basically its about materialism (energy, fields, particles). As opposed to non-materialism whatever that is. There are various ideas proposed like consciousness, Mind, Information, Plato's Form of the Good, spirituality, transcendence etc. These cannot be reduced to material processes and mechanisms yet are said to be a fundamental part of reality.

Who says they are 'a fundamental part of reality'? In what sense are the results of human thinking fundamental parts of reality?

The 'Hard problem' of consciousness is a good example where we have the consciousness stemming from the physical brain as opposed to consciousness or a Mind existing independent of any reducible material cause. Considering the problems faced by the sciences in accounting for the observer, agency and subjective experiences it seems ideas like consciousness make a lot of sense.

The 'Hard problem' of consciousness is too often the basis for an argument from incredulity. All the evidence points to consciousness consisting of a type of brain activity. The idea of consciousness makes a lot of sense as characterising that type of brain activity and what makes it interesting.

Basically according to the science method everything has a naturalistic cause so what we observe is the result of something else and all causes can be ultimately traced back to a fundamental natural cause.

We've been over this more than once already - none of what you just said is 'according to the science method', or science per se. Scientific methodology concerns method & technique. Science observes the world and makes explanatory models for those observations. What can be observed or reasonably inferred from observation can (optionally) be called material, physical, natural, etc. Causality is a concept (David Hume outlined its philosophical problems in the 18th century) that depends on the arrow of time, emergent from the 2nd LoT, which is itself dependent on the low entropy of the early universe (the Past Hypothesis). IOW it's an emergent feature - it isn't fundamental.

The problem for science I see is if there are abstract ideas like consciousness how can science measure this if it cannot be observed directly. Any effect will be assumed as natural. Like you mentioned at the fundamental level is energy. But energy could be some abstract phenomena that is outside space and time. So I guess its more about a persons worldview as to cause and effect.

Consciousness is an idea abstracted from observation of the world. It's a label for certain types of observed activity and experience. IOW, it's a result of observation. The problem for science is how an objective methodology can deal with the subjective.

I didn't say energy is 'at the fundamental level', whatever that's supposed to mean, I suggested that everything physical has energy. As I've told you before, energy is an abstraction, a mathematical relation between certain states and contexts of physical things. IOW, it's a property of stuff, it doesn't exist in its own right; 'pure energy' is a misnomer. As such, it describes what is necessarily within, and a property of, spacetime.

I think everything we do including science is tainted by the subject. That's why I think methodological naturalism implies metaphysical naturalism.

Meh; that's opinion, not argument.

... science is not neutral and cannot truly be objective.

I would say that may be true of the practice of science - it's a human endeavour; humans have biases. But the methodology attempts to minimise the influence of biases.

But I think we can derive some patterns from subjective experiences which stand as laws or truths which give us a deeper understanding of reality and also affect the physical world. So I think reality is not just about physical stuff (Matter) but also how we engage with physical stuff (What Matters). How we engage and interact with the physical world through our experiences.

I agree. Although how we engage with physical stuff is about physical stuff!

As mentioned above an observed phenomena can be seen directly but its really only an indirect result of something else.

That's not a definition of 'direct observation'

Science ... cannot tell whether there is a more fundamental cause beyond the physical that it cannot measure which may be the ultimate cause of everything. Because methodological naturalism assumes only physical stuff exists it will attribute any energy or influence from a non-material cause to the physical.

Again, you have your philosophical cart before the horse. Science only deals with observables and inferences from what is observed. If something is observed, it has some physical effect on the world, so it is called 'physical', 'material', or 'natural' phenomenon - that's what we mean by those terms. 'Non-material cause' is meaningless.

But as with the problem of integrating gravity into quantum physics we know that there is something more fundamental to explain gravity in the overall scheme of things, dark matter is just one example. I mean we can explain gravity just like neurology can explain consciousness. But none of this tells us anything about their fundamental nature.

Dark matter is not an example of something more fundamental to explain gravity.

The fundamental nature of anything is, by definition, brute fact - what is fundamental can't be explained or described in terms of anything more fundamental.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... How would you explain the Fibonacci sequence as found in nature?

It's generally a consequence of the way things divide or reproduce - some examples & explanations here: How are the Fibonacci Numbers expressed in nature?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You clearly believe with no cause that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes.

I think the cause of @Estrid's belief (if such it is) that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes is that the poster has no reasonable cause to believe what the poster believes.

 

[stevevw]

eWell, 'Naturalism' is a philosophical position.

If that's the case then the science method (methodological naturalism) is biased before it even measures observations.

Science is establishing what reality means.

And in establishing what reality means it also establishes what reality is and is not. But what does reality mean. It seems a strange way to understand reality for science. If anything meaning as far as interacting with the world is derived from experience.

The way you use 'real' in that latter underlined phrase, assumes you already know what it means. That's your assumption and yet the scientific method states no such up front assumptions.

Actually I am not claiming what reality means. I am saying the science method (methodological naturalism) makes the assumptions of what reality means by the way it restricts the measurement criteria for reality, its canon of reality to only naturalistic and physical terms.

So life is purposeless, conscious experience is a delusion, there is no meaning to the cosmos because its assumed that everything is reducible to matter and matter is meaningless. As opposed to our experience of reality that persistently points to the opposite. Which one is more real and has meaning

Science does not rely on syllogisms also .. it couldn't work that way because it would cease being science .. and become philosophy.

I agree but nevertheless logic and reason are used to derive truths which help establish reality which is another way to measure reality.

So all that is just what I'll call philosophical baggage that you're throwing at the issue.

Like I said its hard to separate philosophical naturalism from a methodological naturalism so the baggage is an inherent part of measurement. That's why claiming scientific objective facts is a contradiction because its only human created ideas and measurements within a closed and limited view of all possibilities.

Science is establishing what reality means to us humans.

That seems a strange description of reality. Any meaning we place on reality is not based on science but on experience. Objective reality is a quantitative measure as opposed to meaning which is a qualitative one.

You however, seem to be stuck in the belief that reality is a 'thing' external from what you mean (you're certainly not alone there, I might add). Do you see the problem there? Where do you think your assumed definition/meaning of reality there came from? Might it be a dictionary? If so, where do you think those dictionary definitions came from then? Were they just sorta yet another 'thing' floating around in the 'aether' waiting for us to grab hold of them and when they floated by our noses, someone just stuck 'em in a dictionary for good keeping, or something? If not, then there's nothing logical, objective or rational there, which justifies it being an 'external thing'. If so, then the best explanation for that is a belief, which still requires the beliefs as being produced by your mind and not 'a thing' external from it.

So what are you saying that nothing can be determined as real. Not even through science. Yet according to methodological naturalism there is such a 'thing' outside our own minds and that is matter.

The thing is, science's way of giving its objective reality meaning is internally consistent. The other way you describe, above, just isn't.

Scientific objectivity is only consistent within a closed view and sometimes that consistency is questionable as it depends on the way the observer sees things. Often there are disputes about what the evidence represents.

Plus I think there is internal consistency within the ideas of consciousness, spirituality, belief, transcendence etc. People just assume there isn't because they assume that its all subjective or unreal because anything supernatural is non-verifiable.

I think we can derive some truths from these phenomena which have stood the test of time and govern how we engage with the world. We know in psychology that transcendence, belief and spiritual are basic human traits which influence the way people live and interact with the world. Then there is the issue of the 'Hard problem' in neurology which pits human self awareness and agency against the materialist view that we are just meat robots.

Add to this the interpretations of quantum physics which places the observer as a fundamental part of reality as a free agent able to influence reality as opposed to the material mechanistic view that e are mere cogs in some mechanistic machine without any say in the matter.

Add to this other sciences which center around human agency and experience including biology (evolution which diminishes human agency and relegates us to passive players subject to natural selection and it seems there is a convergence from all sides that show conscious experience and human agency, spirituality may be a better fit to explain the hard questions for science.

It may have worked inside the long past, small communities of isolated Indigenous peoples .. but they had no idea, in those times,

There is a consistency between all indigenous peoples throughout the world. Beliefs and spirituality still linger on thousands of years later is basically the same form for the majority of the world. Its not some long ago myth that is fading away but an integral part of being human. We are natural born believers in transcendent ideas and not because of evolution. Its in us from birth and there is no genetic cause.

Myths, beliefs and the stories we have told throughout time have truths in them. The stories was a way to relay those truths and those truths have been developed over a very long time. They work and help us make sense of reality.

that there were a myriad of other meanings outside of their immediate communities. So which one was correct?

Like I said there is a consistency about belief in divine concepts which is natural to us. Humans are also tribal but that doesn't negate that they are also spiritual. Fighting over which deity is true won't stop belief and just because there are disputes over which deity doesn't mean there is not some deity that everyone is seeing differently or some supernatural aspect that people are projecting their view of things onto.

I guess their solution was warfare for imposing their own particular meaning of it? That's not likely succeed nowadays though and its been shown as being ultimately self-destructive to our species.

Yeah so now we just fight over all sorts of things because there is no belief is something greater than ourselves. Warfare is caused by all sorts of reasons especially when there is no belief in something greater than ourselves because the belief void has to be filled with something and we tend to make ourselves gods to fill that void. Atheism is a belief and some say an impossible position to take because we all believe in some world view..

Science provides the opportunity for everyone to give 'reality' an objective meaning .. but one has to leave all the philosophical baggage at the door before entering when one is serious about giving it a commonly shareable meaning.

Like I said its impossible to separate the baggage from science methods. Science only gives a limited closed view of a quantified world. That limited view of reality is materialism and reality is much more than that. By using science to claim reality only supports the idea that its more than a measure but also an ontological position about what reality is which is beyond what science can claim.

Which is why I'm submitting for your consideration the perspective that Science is establishing what objective reality means. Do you understand the fundamental difference there? Its the keys to the kitchen I'm giving you right there!

I understand what objective reality means but I am saying that its not objective because we cannot separate ourselves from any measure. The way we perceive the world has many influences and ways of seeing. There are unconscious influences which may affect how we measure things.

We can see the same object many different ways and there are multiple interpretations. So I can't see how we can really clearly claim there is one objective reality. I mean Indigenous peoples and the many people who live by spirituality may claim that they take is objective reality in that there are measures outside themselves which are commonly practiced and revealed.

From the other current sub-conversation going on in the thread, its clear to me that 'A belief in material matter being reality', doesn't begin to cover science's patch of what a scientist means when they speak of what's real (eg: EM fields, gravitational fields, 'virtual' particles, electrons, photons, wave/particle duality, etc, etc) .. which is why it doesn't appear in science textbooks alongside the rest of science's models.

Yes but that's where the science gets murky when at the fundamental level of energy, fields and particles as seen in quantum physics and the many different interpretations plus the Hard problem of consciousness and uniting physics. In that sense science doesn't have a hold on fundamental reality. Energy and fields could mean anything. Its only that science has assumed a quantified material reality which is not verified science.

But is it of practical usefulness in making predictions of where the coffee's gonna land when I bump my cup of it off the table? I care about that .. Its hot! So I have that mean: Ouch! It hurts if it lands on me!

I think we need to take a step back. Science is of practical use because it deals with the quantified world. But that tells us nothing about the fundamental nature of reality. Another aspect to reality is that when we see that coffee cup we don't see the object first. We attribute meaning first and then see the object. So our primary way of navigating through reality is through meaning attached to things. We don't stop and calculate the broken cup but we do attach a meaning to it.

So reality is not just about 'Matter' but 'What Matters' because the objective world only make sense because we interact with it in different ways which gives us a deeper understanding of reality beyond the objective world. And how we engage with reality does matter and can make predictions in its own way because there are truths we can derive from our conscious experience, beliefs, myths and stories about the world and its ultimate reality.

 

[Larniavc]

So reality is not just about 'Matter' but 'What Matters' because the objective world only make sense because we interact with it in different ways which gives us a deeper understanding of reality beyond the objective world

Disagree. The universe existed long before there was a mind there to experience it.

 

[Astrid]

I think the cause of @Estrid's belief (if such it is) that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes is that the poster has no reasonable cause to believe what the poster believes.

And never imagine it to be otherwise than it was, or
might have been.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Disagree. The universe existed long before there was a mind there to experience it.

Spoken like a true atheist.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think the cause of @Estrid's belief (if such it is) that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes is that the poster has no reasonable cause to believe what the poster believes.

That is simply a belief you hold which you seem to have no cause for. Perhaps you have more intimate knowledge of the poster's lifetime experiences than I would be inclined to give you credit for. If so, you could prove me wrong by explaining how you could possibly be privy to information that would allow you to reasonably conclude that you know that the poster has no cause for the poster's beliefs. Not sharing another's beliefs, not seeing any reason to share those beliefs and not understanding what causes another to believe what they believe is not evidence that the other person has no cause to believe what they believe.

 

[Astrid]

That is simply a belief you hold which you seem to have no cause for. Perhaps you have more intimate knowledge of the poster's lifetime experiences than I would be inclined to give you credit for. If so, you could prove me wrong by explaining how you could possibly be privy to information that would allow you to reasonably conclude that you know that the poster has no cause for the poster's beliefs. Not sharing another's beliefs, not seeing any reason to share those beliefs and not understanding what causes another to believe what they believe is not evidence that the other person has no cause to believe what they believe.

Is this intended as humour? The joke has pretty much
worn out already.

 

[Mountainmike]

That's not what I said. If you're going to paraphrase me, please get it right. See below:


and...

Sophistry.

 

[Mountainmike]

You clearly believe with no cause that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes.

For those who live in the U.K.,
That post deserves the “Sir Humphrey” ( of yes minister )
Prize for literary opaqueness! Indeed are you sure you are not quoting from him?

 

[Larniavc]

For those who live in the U.K.,
That post deserves the “Sir Humphrey” ( of yes minister )
Prize for literary opaqueness! Indeed are you sure you are not quoting from him?

Yes, minister.

 

[Astrid]

Sophistry.

"Sophistry"does not mean " it's not deliberate
or negligent misrepresentation if I do it"

"

 

[SelfSim]

@stevevw:
What you are saying, and the objectively testable scientific hypothesis, ie: the 'Mind Dependent Reality, (MDR), Hypothesis' (see footnote), the latter of which I'm basing my comments upon, are not too far apart in many aspects. (This is what I meant by my 'giving you the keys to the kitchen' comment).

The commonality is that the MDR hypothesis (see footnote) acknowledges that your version of reality, which you described, depends just as much on the human mind, as science's does. The thing is though, is that we are following two very distinct ways which naturally result in two very distinct meanings of reality. The meanings are so distinct by virtue of the two different respective mind processes being applied, I use two different terms for the outcomes: 'Objective Reality' (for science's way of assigning reality a meaning) and 'Believed Reality', (for the way you perceive it). Both co-exist with us humans and are only separated by the distinct methods for arriving at those two respective and clearly distinct meanings.

The purpose of the MDR hypothesis is to tease out and isloate the notion that what we mean whenever we use the term 'reality', depends on the different styles of thinking there (or methods) and that the notion that reality is something completely independent of the meaning we give that term, is itself, an unjustifiable belief inside scientific thinking. I encounter much pushback from many folk in this forum who also consider themselves as scientific thinkers who seem to not recognise that a so called 'Mind Independent Reality' is not part of scientific thinking and a (reputable, mainstream) scientist never relies on that concept, in any way, when they formally articulate their conclusions.
Believers however, find the concept of the existence of a truly 'Mind Independent Reality', quite natural (because of their fundamental belief) and yet endless arguments break out because believers recognise it as being embedded inside the rationale being used by most of those 'scientific thinkers' (except me), which is inconsistent with what the scientific method is able to demonstrate via its own MDR Hypothesis.

Footnote:
I can't remember if I have introduced you to this hypothesis or not(?) Apologies if you are unclear about what it is .. I have posted it before .. It takes some effort to discuss it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is simply a belief you hold which you seem to have no cause for.

Not a belief, just a suggestion, an inference.

Perhaps you have more intimate knowledge of the poster's lifetime experiences than I would be inclined to give you credit for. If so, you could prove me wrong by explaining how you could possibly be privy to information that would allow you to reasonably conclude that you know that the poster has no cause for the poster's beliefs.

I didn't say, 'no cause', I said, 'no reasonable cause'.

Not sharing another's beliefs, not seeing any reason to share those beliefs and not understanding what causes another to believe what they believe is not evidence that the other person has no cause to believe what they believe.

Not necessarily, I agree.

 

[stevevw]

Disagree. The universe existed long before there was a mind there to experience it.

A universe with conscious beings is a better place than one without. One without conscious beings would be meaningless.

 

[Kylie]

A universe with conscious beings is a better place than one without. One without conscious beings would be meaningless.

How do you define "better" here?