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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was addressing your vague comments. Remember? 'scientific explanations are always open to revision or falsification'

Yes, and you absurdly misrepresented and exaggerated what that means.

 

[Michael]

I'm not the one claiming to know how it started.

Pretty much *all* (even "scientific") beliefs about "how it started" begin with a "take your pick of the gaps" claim. Empirically speaking, there's no physical difference between eternal inflation of the gaps and any other argument about how it all started.

 

[Michael]

I've mentioned possible histories of our universe, consistent with known physics - .....

Um, there aren't any.

 

[Steve97]

Visit www.godandscience.org which may or may not answer some questions. This is not an endorsement, just a suggestion...

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for admitting that. Creation was nothing like that.

Oh of course. I know that creationists inherently reject the idea of an objective universe. That is why there are so many variations of creationism and so many contradict one another.

Creationists lack a methodology to objectively test their ideas.

No. You can use circular reasoning by first assuming that all things conform to fishbowl standards.

Making an assumption about the about the philosophical nature of the universe isn't circular reasoning. It's just setting a baseline.

Then you can interpret all you see accordingly. Be my guest, you are welcome to your beliefs.
I reject the idea of people pretending to know when they certainly do not. If time did not exist, for example, in the far universe, you would have no way to know.

If one assumes an objective universe we can. If one rejects the idea of an objective universe then there is effectively no way to know anything. But that seems silly.

You are suggesting people need one of those?

It seems insane not to.

 

[46AND2]

Pretty much *all* (even "scientific") beliefs about "how it started" begin with a "take your pick of the gaps" claim. Empirically speaking, there's no physical difference between eternal inflation of the gaps and any other argument about how it all started.

1. Eternal inflation is not a concept about "how it all started."
2. Naturalistic ideas about "how it all started" are not hailed as THE answer to that question like god is.
3. Naturalistic ideas about "how it all started" are at least potentially testable in the future. Whereas god is assumed to be the answer regardless of any test.

 

[Michael]

1. Eternal inflation is not a concept about "how it all started."

The "big bang" is typically associated with a "starting point" of some sort, and from there astronomers (and many atheists) tend to *leap* toward internal inflation and multiverse concepts.

2. Naturalistic ideas about "how it all started" are not hailed as THE answer to that question like god is.

There's nothing the least bit "natural" about inflation, dark energy or dark matter. They're simply "concepts of the gaps" used to make big bang models work right on paper. In terms of lab results however, such metaphysical ideas are as useless as every other metaphysical concept under the sun.

3. Naturalistic ideas about "how it all started" are at least potentially testable in the future. Whereas god is assumed to be the answer regardless of any test.

"Testable"? Dark matter has been "tested" dozens of times and it's failed every single "test". Various concepts about inflation has been falsified more times than I can count, and yet it's still hailed as some sort of "testable" concept in spite of the fact that it's changed and morphed at will every time it fails another test. Where do I get some quantity of "dark energy" to perform a "test" on it?

The "big bang" concept is treated as sacred dogma by mainstream astronomers. They don't allow the concept to be "falsified" by any data. In fact right now the SN1A data still does not match Planck data in terms of the "predictions" made with both sets of data, and nobody really cares much. The early universe is much more "mature" than BB theories ever actually "predicted" by any BB theory. The whole big bang concept is kept alive by pure denial of empirical physical alternatives.

 

[46AND2]

The "big bang" is typically associated with a "starting point" of some sort, and from there astronomers (and many atheists) tend to *leap* toward internal inflation and multiverse concepts.

BBT is also not a concept about how "it all began."

There's nothing the least bit "natural" about inflation, dark energy or dark matter. They're simply "concepts of the gaps" used to make big bang models work right on paper. In terms of lab results however, such metaphysical ideas are as useless as every other metaphysical concept under the sun.

Neither is dark energy, dark matter or inflation.

"Testable"? Dark matter has been "tested" dozens of times and it's failed every single "test". Various concepts about inflation has been falsified more times than I can count, and yet it's still hailed as some sort of "testable" concept in spite of the fact that it's changed and morphed at will every time it fails another test. Where do I get some quantity of "dark energy" to perform a "test" on it?

The "big bang" concept is treated as sacred dogma by mainstream astronomers. They don't allow the concept to be "falsified" by any data. In fact right now the SN1A data still does not match Planck data in terms of the "predictions" made with both sets of data, and nobody really cares much. The early universe is much more "mature" than BB theories ever actually "predicted" by any BB theory. The whole big bang concept is kept alive by pure denial of empirical physical alternatives.

Quit inserting your gripes about mainstream cosmology in dang near every thread you join. All that junk you just posted did not even address any of my three points.

The "I know you are, but what am I" PeeWee Herman tactic is not very effective.

 

[Ophiolite]

Quit inserting your gripes about mainstream cosmology in dang near every thread you join. All that junk you just posted did not even address any of my three points

On a properly regulated forum this behaviour of his would have resulted in a permanent ban a long time ago. Thus, we learn something of his character and that of the forum. Information is always of some value.

 

[Michael]

BBT is also not a concept about how "it all began."

Actually it depends on whom you ask, and what exactly you mean by "it". I've lost count how many times I've heard someone (astronomer or atheist) try to claim that "time" as we understand it didn't exist prior to the bang. Atoms and molecules as we understand them certainly 'began' in the bang according to the the BB model. What exactly do you mean by 'it' (all began)?

Quit inserting your gripes about mainstream cosmology in dang near every thread you join. All that junk you just posted did not even address any of my three points.

I think you missed my point. Your assertion that the concept of an intelligent creator isn't easily "testable" or falsifiable is actually par for the course when it comes to explaining how we got here. It's not a valid argument against the concept of God.

 

[46AND2]

Actually it depends on whom you ask, and what exactly you mean by "it". I've lost count how many times I've heard someone (astronomer or atheist) try to claim that "time" as we understand it didn't exist prior to the bang. Atoms and molecules as we understand them certainly 'began' in the bang according to the the BB model. What exactly do you mean by 'it' (all began)?

The Big Bang only describes what occurred to an already existing phenomenon, the singularity, from a certain point in time. Beyond that, we don't know. It doesn't describe anything about the origin of the singularity.

I think you missed my point. Your assertion that the concept of an intelligent creator isn't easily "testable" or falsifiable is actually par for the course when it comes to explaining how we got here. It's not a valid argument against the concept of God.

No, my assertion is that the concept of god isn't testable at all. All conceivable tests on a god that can do anything are utterly pointless.

 

[Michael]

The Big Bang only describes what occurred to an already existing phenomenon, the singularity, from a certain point in time. Beyond that, we don't know. It doesn't describe anything about the origin of the singularity.

The LCMD "model" doesn't actually begin with a "singularity". I supposed one could argue that there's "preexisting energy" in some form which isn't explained by the BB model. What would "cause" a singularity to explode? By definition, nothing could hope to escape the event horizon.

No, my assertion is that the concept of god isn't testable at all. All conceivable tests on a god that can do anything are utterly pointless.

That's a false assertion. It depends upon the definition of God we're talking about actually. Some aspects of Pantheism and/or Panentheism are *at least* as "testable" as any other cosmology model.

 

[SelfSim]

... Making an assumption about the about the philosophical nature of the universe isn't circular reasoning. It's just setting a baseline.

No .. in this instance the way you've invoked it, produces circular reasoning.

If one assumes an objective universe we can. If one rejects the idea of an objective universe then there is effectively no way to know anything. But that seems silly.

Science, per se, does not need a reason to work, it only needs evidence that it works. Or, in this case, evidence of the existence of an objective universe, which really means evidence that the concepts of 'objective', 'existence', and 'universe' have some working overlap.

It's certainly true that if those three concepts could not be framed in any way to show a working overlap, say as might be exactly the perception of a completely insane person, then science would not work for that person. But whether it works or not, there's still no assumption that it should work, or that it will work, (and for an insane person it won't). Nor is there any assumption there for a sane mind .. there is only evidence that, for the sane mind, it does work (for its goals of achieving understanding of, and power over, objective outcomes).

Science is not assumed to work, it is demonstrated to work, and it is used for the latter reason .. not the former.

 

[pitabread]

No .. it is circular reasoning.

No, it really isn't. It's just a baseline assumption. That's it.

Now if one was to assume the universe was objective to then argue the universe was objective, *that* would be circular reasoning. But that's not at all what I am saying.

 

[Michael]

No .. in this instance the way you've invoked it, produces circular reasoning.


Science, per se, does not need a reason to work, it only needs evidence that it works. Or, in this case, evidence of the existence of an objective universe, which really means evidence that the concepts of 'objective', 'existence', and 'universe' have some working overlap.

It's certainly true that if those three concepts could not be framed in any way to show a working overlap, say as might be exactly the perception of a completely insane person, then science would not work for that person. But whether it works or not, there's still no assumption that it should work, or that it will work, (and for an insane person it won't). Nor is there any assumption there for a sane mind .. there is only evidence that, for the sane mind, it does work (for its goals of achieving understanding of, and power over, objective outcomes).

Science is not assumed to work, it is demonstrated to work, and it is used for the latter reason .. not the former.

I think that you and I could both agree that the universe objectively and physically exists even if we both have *wildly* different beliefs about it's composition and function.

Whatever gravity might be, it prevents me from jumping off the planet and out into space at will, and it physically holds me/connects me/us to the planet.

 

[46AND2]

That's a false assertion. It depends upon the definition of God we're talking about actually. Some aspects of Pantheism and/or Panentheism are *at least* as "testable" as any other cosmology model.

That's the whole point. There is no definitive definition of god. You can define him any way you like.

 

[Michael]

That's the whole point. There is no definitive definition of god. You can define him any way you like.

So? That's also true of "dark matter", "dark energy", inflation, etc. There's certainly no "single" definition of dark matter. It might be defined/described as WIMPS, SIMPS, axions, sterile neutrinos, MACHOS, etc. There's no definitive definition of it.

 

[SelfSim]

No, it really isn't. It's just a baseline assumption.

.. for the sole, silly purpose of 'winning' an argument at the expense of propagating misconceptions about science, eh? That doesn't work for me in a science forum, I'm afraid.

Now if one was to assume the universe was objective to then argue the universe was objective, *that* would be circular reasoning. But that's not at all what I am saying.

Then you need to improve the clarity of your opening assertions. You asserted that:

The fundamental assumption that underpins science is the idea of an objective universe.

Then you later claimed that:

If the universe weren't assumed to be an objective baseline, then anything derived via scientific inquiry wouldn't mean anything.

.. which is scientific nonsense (unless you redefine what you mean by 'objective').
You then push it even further, in that same post:

Without the assumption of objectivity inherent to the measurement process, one cannot reasonably conclude the apple weighs 100g. That's the point.

Which is not a scientifically founded point at all unless you revise what you mean by 'objective' .. which you never did .. (I had to do that).
Science cannot test posited truths .. the context of its conclusions are evidenced based, so you need to revise what 'objective' means so that it becomes an operational definition in order to form scientific conclusions/inferences.

If you are going to make claims on behalf of science, you need to contextualise them in scientific thinking .. and not on posited 'logically assumed' truths.

Logic is not science .. and its not much wonder 'dad' came out fighting in the way he did!
Own the responsibility for what creates these types arguments (and "dads" of this world), I say! (Kindest respects to 'dad' on this occasion).

 

[dad]

Yes, and you absurdly misrepresented and exaggerated what that means.

False. I told the truth.

 

[dad]

Oh of course. I know that creationists inherently reject the idea of an objective universe. That is why there are so many variations of creationism and so many contradict one another.

Wherever man lives there will be differences, and that includes science of course.

Creationists lack a methodology to objectively test their ideas.

Making an assumption about the about the philosophical nature of the universe isn't circular reasoning. It's just setting a baseline.

It is setting a base based on belief from which you construct what the universe is like and how it came to exist actually.

If one assumes an objective universe we can.

The Bible does not say the Universe conforms to man's mind or limits or only the physical. Not in any way.

If one rejects the idea of an objective universe then there is effectively no way to know anything. But that seems silly.

Silly or not, that is where science is.


It seems insane not to.[/QUOTE]