1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

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

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by JacquelineDeane55, Dec 28, 2019.

  1. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,615
    Humanist
    Private
    And yet you have no experience of 'a universe without conscious beings' therefore you don't know what that's like at all.
    No .. you can't.
    So you are only talking about how lonely you'd feel. That's not 'a universe without conscious beings' now, is it?
    Circular argument .. you're just re-inforcing how lonely you'd feel if you were the only conscious being in the universe .. (sorry).
     
  2. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,615
    Humanist
    Private
    No.
    The total information in the universe remains constant.
    Consciousness does not represent additional information, nor new dimensions for the universe.
     
  3. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Why did who do what?

    Why did people put a taxpayer funded stone carving of the ten commandments up on public property? Probably because they think their religion gives them the right to do whatever they want, or because they don't understand what "separation of church and state" means.
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,769
    Atheist
    Of course; only minds (or the products of mind) make hypotheses and test them.
     
  5. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,769
    Atheist
    But there would be no conscious experience in a universe without conscious beings.
     
  6. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,769
    Atheist
    Well, not really - we know what a universe with conscious beings is like. We can't know what a universe without conscious beings would be like in terms of conscious experience, because that wouldn't be a universe without conscious beings. IOW, we can only say what the experience would be like if there were conscious beings there to have experience, i.e. it is not a universe without conscious beings...

    You may think that, but it's not a justification; for that, you need an argument. For example, in what ways is it 'better'?

    Nobody's 'devaluing' a universe with conscious beings.

    Evolution doesn't have 'pinnacles' - whether some trait or creature is 'best', or a 'pinnacle' is contingent, contextual, and subjective.

    Reality is altering all the time as events occur, even in the absence of living things. Living things and humans are just part of that process, changing reality in ways that non-living and non-human things, respectively, do not. Evolution changes without human activity; but human activity can make otherwise highly improbable changes.
     
  7. Psalm 27

    Psalm 27 Well-Known Member

    909
    +430
    United Kingdom
    Christian Seeker
    Private
    There is a spiritual agenda to disprove the existence of God. Its been going on within the scientific community since Charles lyell. "...if they will not receive you, shake the dust off your feet..." matt. 10:14

    Charles Lyell free science from Moses - creation.com
     
  8. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,769
    Atheist
    I think it's a bit of both - we invented maths to represent the relationships we discovered in the world. Without the regularities, patterns, and symmetries we observe, the structured world we are part of wouldn't exist.
     
  9. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +7,769
    Atheist
    Well, she asked you... You're a conscious being, aren't you?
     
  10. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,615
    Humanist
    Private
    You are speaking about a pure thought experiment.

    There is no way for a thought experiment to ever escape being anything more than a pure fantasy, when the Independent variable, cannot possibly be removed from the experiment. That is a necessary empirical condition, namely because that's what Independent means. In this case, that variable is the mind of the person conducting the experiment.

    It is therefore an untestable experiment, or an untestable hypothesis, no matter how long you wait for it to be conducted.

    The notion that it is a valid experiment (or a scientific hypothesis) is itself, an untestable belief, or just another fantasy, merely held as being 'true'.
    Its a test in pure logic .. not a scientific (objective) test. Logic and science do not follow the same method.
     
  11. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,615
    Humanist
    Private
    Maths, science and religion all require a thinking human mind (selected from the total spectrum (or population) of all thinking human minds). Science helps in exploring certain persistent, (and consistent), perceptions across that population of human minds .. exposing perceptions that may have been concealed inside prior ones, and exploring new ones. Math just keeps our tracking 'honest' during that process of exploration.

    Math is logical .. and nature doesn't exhibit prior logical necessities. There are numerous examples of mistakes in thinking that nature does, eg: even Einstein was caught out there when QM came along. Another example - take a simple mathematical system: the integers have the property that all integers have another integer that directly precedes them, but one cannot argue, as a logical necessity, that this requires a 'first integer'.

    For this same reason, there is a fundamental problem with envisaging math as being a first logical necessity for nature, (in this view).
     
  12. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,763
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    But you educated atheists do ... right?
     
  13. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    Picking a nit.
    The jury is still out on the implications of QM

    In saying what it is not, putting Einsteins objective deterministic world into question.
    Science is still in dispute as to what it actually is!
    Seems the model works for calculation but cannot reconcile the question of "what exists" if anything, prior to observation. And it is not nature that "does it" its the model of nature that has the problem. Nature can only be observed indirectly, and disentangling observation strikes at the heart of what is is possible to know. So it is not nature at fault, but the model of it.
     
  14. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,615
    Humanist
    Private
    Spoken as frozen-in, paid in full, genuine, card carryin' Truthseeker .. (So it doesn't register as a scientific viewpoint ... )
    Just keep calculatin' @MM .. (whilst keepin' ya lips zipped!)
     
  15. Mountainmike

    Mountainmike Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,384
    Catholic
    Married
    Speaking as an electronic physicist. The model is fascinating.

    Einsteins conjecture on QM was called into question, but no other alternative satisfies either. The world of physics is still very divided on alternatives. Bohrs alternative not wholly accepted either. The math seems to work. The rationalisation , not so much.
     
  16. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,154
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    Figured out math
     
  17. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Do what? Think we have the right to do whatever we want? Understand the separation of church and state? Please try to be clear.
     
  18. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,763
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You're in Australia, aren't you?

    What do [or would] they do if someone puts up a display of the Ten Commandments on your courthouse lawn?
     
  19. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +2,729
    Christian
    Single
    I know you want to turn the US into the religious republic of Baptististan but here in Australia is a copy of our constitution.
    [​IMG]
    This reflects on our courts as well (in Victoria don't know about the other states and territories), one has the option of swearing on the Bible, Koran or other religious texts.
    In the case of atheists they don't have to swear on any religious text hence having a display of the ten commandments on a courthouse lawn seems inappropriate.
     
  20. Kylie

    Kylie Defeater of Illogic

    +4,793
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I'd point them to the Constitution of Australia, specifically Chapter 5, section 116: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
     
Loading...