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

[SelfSim]

A universe with conscious beings is a better place than one without.

Not quite .. More like:

'A universe without conscious beings, is an untestable belief',
and therefore we can conclude that:
'One without conscious beings, would be anything that believer so chooses'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not quite .. More like:

'A universe without conscious beings, is an untestable belief',
and therefore we can conclude that:
'One without conscious beings, would be anything that believer so chooses'.

It needn't be a complete 'anything goes' free-for-all. Given what we can observe of our universe, we can make reasonable inferences about what it was like before conscious beings, and make reasonable inferences about what other universes with the same or similar physical laws might be like. Experience suggests that scientifically informed guesswork (hypothesis) is more productive (predictive) than uninformed guesswork.

 

[SelfSim]

It needn't be a complete 'anything goes' free-for-all. Given what we can observe of our universe, we can make reasonable inferences about what it was like before conscious beings, and make reasonable inferences about what other universes with the same or similar physical laws might be like. Experience suggests that scientifically informed guesswork (hypothesis) is more productive (predictive) than uninformed guesswork.

Even a reasoned inference, or a testable prediction, based on an already well tested theory, can easily still be held as being true. (I see this happening all the time around these parts).

Where an inference, or a testable prediction, is untested, its held as a kind of untested, but testable, belief.
Science's predictions are our best bets. They should never be held as being true though .. otherwise its not science .. its philosophy (or something else).
That they might be clearly constrained, (in order for them to be testable), doesn't change their uncertain nature .. they are neither true or false. Even a likely outcome is not a sure bet.

PS: All this is beside the point that 'A universe without conscious beings, is an untestable belief', because .. well .. its untestable in the first place .. no matter the reasoning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

PS: All this is beside the point that 'A universe without conscious beings, is an untestable belief', because .. well .. its untestable in the first place .. no matter the reasoning.

You can believe, but it doesn't have to be a belief - in science, it's a hypothesis - a prediction from current knowledge/understanding.

 

[SelfSim]

You can believe, but it doesn't have to be a belief - in science, it's a hypothesis - a prediction from current knowledge/understanding.

Who's gonna be there to test it, then?

 

[Larniavc]

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

I agree that it's different. But better is subjective.

 

[Estrid]

How do you define "better" here?

And "meaning"

 

[stevevw]

How do you define "better" here?

I think 'better' would be that there was meaning and the universe what not just a cold, meaningless place. I think its better in a number of ways. That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise.

Its a long way down the evolutionary path and for better or worse we have developed tech and knowledge which can actually change the world. Unfortunately that is not always for the better.

But I don't think that negates the amazing feat of human life happening in the first place and its worth as opposed to never existing. The point is when it comes to conscious beings existing or not 'better' is always going to equate to a quality experience as opposed to no experience at all.

 

[stevevw]

I agree that it's different. But better is subjective.

Yeah maybe but I tend to disagree that 'subjective' equals unreliable and arbitrary as far as what reality means. I think its about quantity and quality and seeing things through one prism will distort reality.

The fact that we can say and know "it would be better" for us to be around is testament to that. I don't think we could ever deny existence would be better without our experiences of love, wonder and awe at the cosmos because we have already experienced this and it would be hard to give up.

Whether you call it better or not its certainly has a quality about it as this is the very nature of conscious experience.

 

[Kylie]

I think 'better' would be that there was meaning and the universe what not just a cold, meaningless place. I think its better in a number of ways. That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise.

Its a long way down the evolutionary path and for better or worse we have developed tech and knowledge which can actually change the world. Unfortunately that is not always for the better.

But I don't think that negates the amazing feat of human life happening in the first place and its worth as opposed to never existing. The point is when it comes to conscious beings existing or not 'better' is always going to equate to a quality experience as opposed to no experience at all.

Why is a universe with humans and meaning "better" than a universe without them?

And you said, "That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise." In that sentence, what do you mean by "information"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is a universe with humans and meaning "better" than a universe without them?

Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?

 

[SelfSim]

Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?

Hmm .. dunno .. maybe the swimming pool with humans doesn't necessarily see themselves as distinct from the other humans in it, and so the 'us' and 'them' mentality may not be inevitable(?)

 

[SelfSim]

And you said, "That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise." In that sentence, what do you mean by "information"?

.. also, what is implied by 'level' and where did that implication come from?

 

[Estrid]

Why is a universe with humans and meaning "better" than a universe without them?

And you said, "That the universe can produce intelligent conscious life is on another level information wise." In that sentence, what do you mean by "information"?

Information:
Gotcha word meaning " therefore god"

 

[AV1611VET]

Information:
Gotcha word meaning " therefore god"

Before the universe existed, God is.

 

[SelfSim]

Before the universe existed, God is.

"is" means exists, so where did the meaning of 'exists' come from?
(Insert a friendly tongue poke emoticon here).

 

[Kylie]

Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?

I'm sorry, where did you show that a swimming pool with humans in it was better?

Establish that it IS better first, then we can work on the WHY.

 

[sjastro]

I'm sorry, where did you show that a swimming pool with humans in it was better?

Establish that it IS better first, then we can work on the WHY.

"Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?"
What does this actually mean unless it's a typo and should read "Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool without them?"

If this is what is meant I'd much prefer an empty swimming pool given the human propensity of leaving nasty waste products in bodies of water.

 

[Estrid]

"Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?"
What does this actually mean unless it's a typo and should read "Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool without them?"

If this is what is meant I'd much prefer an empty swimming pool given the human propensity of leaving nasty waste products in bodies of water.

What if it's the cheerleaders for the Dallas cowboys

 

[SelfSim]

Why is a universe with humans and meaning "better" than a universe without them?

Why is a swimming pool with humans better than a swimming pool with them?

At the extreme risk of even trying to explain @AV1611VET style 'reasoning', I'll have a wild guess and propose that he might be attempting to point out that from his viewpoint, there is no universe without humans in it, and therefore, he's recast the last phrase of Kylie's question to correct for that(?)

Ie: from:
- 'better than a universe (or swimming pool) without them' to;
- 'better than a universe (or swimming pool) with them'
which is a nonsensical question .. hence a possible setup for one of his 'QEDs' .. maybe(?)
.. I'm prepared to be completely wrong ... Over to him to explain.