• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
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.

How about this: what do you think are the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry/methodology?

Logic is not science .. and its not much wonder 'dad' came out fighting in the way he did!

"dad" doesn't come out fighting at all. All he does is repeat the same, tried shtick: that the past can't be knowable.

Do you agree with that position?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
How about this: what do you think are the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry/methodology?

I would say that observation is followed by "personal interpretation", which leads to a "postulation" that can be tested, lather, rinse repeat.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the testing is often not used as a method of "falsification", rather it just leads to minor "modification" which tends to lead to "stagnation". That's why 95 percent of our understanding of the universe is based on metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance rather than empirical physics.

Somewhere around the middle of the last century astronomy abandoned empirical physics entirely. Astronomy is stuck in another Ptolemy loop.

Then again, that kind of a problem is not strictly related to astronomy:

Scientific Findings Often Fail To Be Replicated, Researchers Say
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
How about this: what do you think are the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry/methodology?
Agnosticism seems to work ok. That is, when one distinguishes this as an extreme appreciation for the necessity of employing simplifications and idealizations, in order to make progress. In that light, agnosticism is an appreciation of the importance of working concepts, a recognition which then encourages us not to take these working concepts too literally.
It's an extreme skepticism, which opposes the tendency towards over-extrapolation.

pitabread said:
"dad" doesn't come out fighting at all. All he does is repeat the same, tried shtick: that the past can't be knowable.
Do you agree with that position?
My mind evidently gives my knowledge meaning, as it also gives meaning to the concepts of 'reality', 'existence', 'the past' and every other notion I come up with.

I doubt dad would agree with that .. but that happens to be where the objective evidence leads me.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
How do you know the Bible is telling you the truth?
The meaning one gives to the notion of 'truth', is assignable via several distinct methods (or processes):

1) a simple pure preference, or choice - made for no particular reasons (a 'belief');
2) logical process (rules driven) - eg: math, formal logic;
3) scientific process (or objective testing) - eg: the 'truth' is no better than the last best tested theory.

There may be another which is closely associated with logical reasoning:
4) the notorious 'self evident' truth (known to be 'true' by way common understanding - eg: axioms).
There may be others .. (?)
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I would say that observation is followed by "personal interpretation", which leads to a "postulation" that can be tested, lather, rinse repeat.
Observations, once described using language with defined meanings, becomes a model. Some models are testable in science - even if only as constraining factors, (theoretically/empirically), others aren't (beliefs). (This is a conclusion from scientific testing .. and is not being presented as yet another assumed 'truth').

Not all minds 'interpret' perceptions (or observations) in the same way (there are many, many examples of scientific evidence for this). 'Personal interpretation' (belief) is not compulsory. The scientific method, and the process established by the rules of logic, are two alternatives.

Michael said:
Unfortunately, the outcome of the testing is often not used as a method of "falsification", rather it just leads to minor "modification" which tends to lead to "stagnation". That's why 95 percent of our understanding of the universe is based on metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance rather than empirical physics.
You continually conflate the question science is actually asking with your own interpretations (or beliefs).

For example, take one of your favorite beefs, denoted by the concept: 'dark energy':

In the case of dark energy, all the scientific thinker could honestly say is that it seems to be our best current model. Does that mean that scientist 'believes in it' (irregardless of the flaws in their response)? Absolutely not! Nor does it mean he/she believes there isn't dark energy .. it means it is simply not a matter of belief at all!
And if he/she does choose to form a belief on that topic, no other scientific thinker should even care in the slightest. This is the same reason why the notion of a so-called 'informed belief' in science is generally rejected as a tangible basis for extending scientific knowledge .. no matter where it comes from. (This was also a misconception presented earlier on in this thread, by another poster).

That's exactly where the perpetually implied question of the scientist: 'Do you have an informed belief that dark energy is real?', is simply the wrong question to ask a scientist. The right question would be: 'Does your experience and expertise lead you to regard dark energy as our best current model', and then their simple answer would be: 'Yes', which they can say without having to stop and ponder just what you were actually asking them and why they would care!

Michael said:
Somewhere around the middle of the last century astronomy abandoned empirical physics entirely. Astronomy is stuck in another Ptolemy loop.

Then again, that kind of a problem is not strictly related to astronomy:
The only problem is in denying the misconceived question you keep 'asking' (implied).
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think the better question is how do one know they're *interpreting* the Bible correctly? :)
Easy...are they believing it? The rest follows. As for the issues relating to why science was wrong, that doesn't matter much. Long as we know He was right all along.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Easy...are they believing it?
That's no answer at all. There are various interpretations of scripture and those who hold to those interpretations believe them. Doesn't everyone believe in his own interpretation of the Bible? You're not going to determine which interpretation is correct that way.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Agnosticism seems to work ok. That is, when one distinguishes this as an extreme appreciation for the necessity of employing simplifications and idealizations, in order to make progress. In that light, agnosticism is an appreciation of the importance of working concepts, a recognition which then encourages us not to take these working concepts too literally.
It's an extreme skepticism, which opposes the tendency towards over-extrapolation.

Perhaps you should define "agnosticism" in this context; I get the feeling I know where you are going, but I'm not quite seeing the connection to scientific methodology in the above paragraph.

And is there anything else?

My mind evidently gives my knowledge meaning, as it also gives meaning to the concepts of 'reality', 'existence', 'the past' and every other notion I come up with.

Do you think the past is real though? Do you think that if you stare up at a galaxy that is a million light years away that you are actually looking at something a million years in the past?

'dad''s entire argument is that the past might as well be illusionary because we can't say make any claims about how anything works in said past.

Do you agree with this or no?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
... And if he/she does choose to form a belief on that topic, no other scientific thinker should even care in the slightest. This is the same reason why the notion of a so-called 'informed belief' in science is generally rejected as a tangible basis for extending scientific knowledge .. no matter where it comes from. (This was also a misconception presented earlier on in this thread, by another poster).
I don't see a mention of 'informed belief' earlier in the thread - do you have a link?

It may be vaguely related to my description of 'informed opinion' in another thread, except that I made an explicit distinction between 'belief' and 'opinion', and didn't relate it to science...
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Observations, once described using language with defined meanings, becomes a model.

Observations themselves are not models. Redshift is an "observation". It's assumed "cause" is not an observation. There's a subjective 'interpretation" process involved in postulating a "cause" of that observation. A model is typically full of subjective interpretations as to cause.

Some models are testable in science - even if only as constraining factors, (theoretically/empirically), others aren't (beliefs). (This is a conclusion from scientific testing .. and is not being presented as yet another assumed 'truth').

Meh. It's typically a question of degrees in terms of one's "certainty" in a particular scientific model. For instance, Neil Degrasse Tyson's "faith" in the BB model is virtually absolute when you listen to him describe it on Youtube or TV. Admittedly his belief that it represents "objective truth" as he calls it may not be as absolute as dad's position, but the difference in terms of the desire to openly "question" their beliefs isn't that much different.

Not all minds 'interpret' perceptions (or observations) in the same way (there are many, many examples of scientific evidence for this). 'Personal interpretation' (belief) is not compulsory. The scientific method, and the process established by the rules of logic, are two alternatives.

True, but even in the context of the scientific method, there's no guarantee that two individuals will interpret any specific observation in the same way. You interpret redshift as 'caused' by something complete differently than I do, but we both have "faith" in the scientific method and it's validity in terms of determining cause. We just have different beliefs about how we should go about that process.

You continually conflate the question science is actually asking with your own interpretations (or beliefs).

No, I'm quite aware that there's a "subjective interpretation" process between "observation" and putting together a "model" to test. I would say that I'm quite aware of that difference whereas many "scientists" are not.

For example, take one of your favorite beefs, denoted by the concept: 'dark energy':

In the case of dark energy, all the scientific thinker could honestly say is that it seems to be our best current model.

Even your belief about it being a "best" interpretation of redhshift is dubious IMO. Your beliefs are no longer even limited to known and documented physical causes of redshift, nor has there been an exhaustive study of other potential causes to rule them all out. About all one can actually say about that "interpretation", is that it's a "popular" interpretation of redshift at the moment, just as Ptolemy was once a 'popular" explanation for the observation of planetary movement patterns at one point in time.

Does that mean that scientist 'believes in it' (irregardless of the flaws in their response)? Absolutely not! Nor does it mean he/she believes there isn't dark energy .. it means it is simply not a matter of belief at all!

That's simply not the case. I've heard many astronomers claim to 'know' that both DM and DE "exist". That is a form of "belief". The belief it's even a "cause" of redshift is a "belief". They may not treat it as a "sacred" belief, but even claiming it's a "best" explanation is a form of "belief".

And if he/she does choose to form a belief on that topic, no other scientific thinker should even care in the slightest.

I care once my tax dollars start being spent on testing such "beliefs".

This is the same reason why the notion of a so-called 'informed belief' in science is generally rejected as a tangible basis for extending scientific knowledge .. no matter where it comes from. (This was also a misconception presented earlier on in this thread, by another poster).


I think the whole concept of "informed belief" is simply a method of "justification" of a belief.

That's exactly where the perpetually implied question of the scientist: 'Do you have an informed belief that dark energy is real?', is simply the wrong question to ask a scientist. The right question would be: 'Does your experience and expertise lead you to regard dark energy as our best current model', and then their simple answer would be: 'Yes', which they can say without having to stop and ponder just what you were actually asking them and why they would care!

But even holding the "belief" that DE is a real cause of redshift is still a 'belief' that may be right or wrong, and the concept of "best" is simply a subjective choice.

The only problem is in denying the misconceived question you keep 'asking' (implied).

You'll need to show me where I asked any misconceived questions. I think you're confusing your own strawman for my position.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Do you think the past is real though? Do you think that if you stare up at a galaxy that is a million light years away that you are actually looking at something a million years in the past?

Hmm. I would say that 'change over time' is real process, and we can measure how long it takes light to travel various distances. The terms past, present and future tend to include a lot of additional baggage however.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,364
69
Pennsylvania
✟944,243.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You should be able to see now why "God-did-it" is not an explanation as it stands. It fails on all criteria.
I do see that, though I think an understanding of (and reliance on) persistent cause-and-effect is sufficient to see that "First Cause did it". But you seem to think Cause-and-effect is not persistent, pervasive. --I don't know what to say to that except to say that to me it seems the math has taken the minds of the mathematicians past logic to intuition or worse. They seem to illogically equate improbability with impossibility.
I've mentioned possible histories of our universe, consistent with known physics - temporally infinite histories, mirror time histories, and finite-but-unbounded-in-time histories. They're currently untestable, but they're possible explanations.
But do these not imply both logic and system/principle by which the whole history operates? I ask, what set that principle in place?
Inevitably, unless reality has infinite levels of scale, there will be unexplained fundamental 'stuff', out of which everything else is made, and which it makes no sense to ask of what it's made. The same applies to existence in general - ultimately, it's a brute fact.
"Brute fact" unless caused, is First Cause. The fact that we don't know what caused Brute Fact does not negate that it was caused, if it is not First Cause. I admit to much ignorance concerning quantum physics, but I find it ridiculous to say that something is only cause in and of itself, if it is not First Cause. While the calculations may accurately show a probability of a future event to be extremely small, if it happened the probability was 100%. If it categorically should not happen, then, I suppose we can accurately predict it won't happen again --but who knows? Meanwhile, the fact it happened does not make it causeless.
But on the topic of unexplained existence, you previously said, "Existence begs explanation." I then asked you if God exists. You didn't respond.

You can see why I asked the question - if existence begs explanation and God exists, then God begs explanation. If you insist that everything that exists must have an explanation, then either God must have an explanation or you're special pleading again.

Alternatively, 'begging explanation' may be a wistful aspiration that acknowledges that not everything necessarily has an explanation; in which case, the universe (or multiverse/metaverse) itself may not have an explanation, making a First Cause redundant.

My statement, "Existence begs explanation", may have been incomplete. But to say that First Cause exists, does not mean that First Cause is subject to our use of the term "existence" --that is, it does not mean that First Cause's existence is of the same sort to which meaning all other things belong. (I'm not meaning to say we totally understand their existence either, but that is beside the point (For all I know, it could be said that existence too is unfalsifiable like logic or math.).) If the existence of First Cause begs explanation, it does not mean it is unexplained, just by definition uncaused . The logical, that is, the philosophical, or maybe better, rhetorical, cause of the existence of First Cause is self-existence (ok, still question-begging). Logically, as I think I have said before, there can be only one first cause, because "multiple first causes" implies an overriding principle applying to all of them (except perhaps one --and to me, that implies that one is First Cause --the rest are not.) If First Cause is subject to a principle from outside itself, it is not first cause (this at least, I hope you can agree with).

I rather imagine your protests to this will draw from Quantum Physics for support --if so, it seems to me incumbent on you to show I have misunderstood the nature of the calculations you mention above, or to say that I categorically don't know what I am talking about concerning Quantum Physics (which granted, may be true) and, perhaps, that it is too much trouble to educate me (which also I grant may be true.) Meanwhile, consider what I said about First Cause not needing our calculations, that is, doing whatever it does in spite of our supposed improbability.

(I'm wondering if you read and enjoyed Douglas Adams as much as I did. This conversation makes me smile again about the spaceship's Infinite Improbability Drive.)
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps you should define "agnosticism" in this context; I get the feeling I know where you are going, but I'm not quite seeing the connection to scientific methodology in the above paragraph.
That's fine .. the extreme skepticism towards over-extrapolation may eventually get to a point where the notion of doing science becomes simply choice (I/one) may make .. (where a 'choice' is an elective made for no particular reason). Science can demonstrate with its own evidence that it can make useful predictions .. which I find attractive.
The methodology then appears as the 'nuts and bolts' of how to go about doing it. At that point, any philosophical beliefs I hold simply become superfluous/irrelevant as I follow the methodology.

pitabread said:
And is there anything else?
There may be many undistinguished concepts my mind comes up with (I'm not sure) .. let's go explore some anyway, eh?

pitabread said:
Do you think the past is real though?
I hold a model in my mind where the past is referenced as being real .. . but that depends entirely on the meaning my mind gives to the concept 'real' .. (its all still models in my mind though) .. There's also an abundance of science model processed evidence which also leads me to that conclusion .. (and I hold that conclusion provisionally, also).
pitabread said:
Do you think that if you stare up at a galaxy that is a million light years away that you are actually looking at something a million years in the past?
My mind conceives the model where that is true (because of the objective evidence) .. but whether that's 'actually real' (ie: exists independently from my mind), then becomes just another belief I choose to hold .. or not hold.

pitabread said:
'dad''s entire argument is that the past might as well be illusionary because we can't say make any claims about how anything works in said past.
So? He is free to hold that belief .. It isn't a particularly useful one though .. It clearly doesn't convince any scientific thinker .. because he can't demonstrate any more than: 'because I (dad) said so'. The physical constants are held (provisionally) as applying universally in science's models of reality which has been well tested. We conclude that under precisely specified conditions, light in our local universe propagates at a constant speed. From that model, science extrapolates in order to query events in what we mean by 'the past', and notices present day similarities (provisionally and contextually) - that's a highly useful model (for making predictions) in science.

pitabread said:
Do you agree with this or no?
No - but that is my opinion .. which is ultimately based on a belief in the scientific model I just referenced.. However, if you'd asked me does the evidence lead me to regard his model as our best tested current model, I would simply respond with an emphatic: 'No!'
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Science can demonstrate with its own evidence that it can make useful predictions .. which I find attractive.
The methodology then appears as the 'nuts and bolts' of how to go about doing it. At that point, any philosophical beliefs I hold simply become superfluous/irrelevant as I follow the methodology.

For clarification, I'm not talking about your own specific philosophical beliefs. I'm speaking of philosophy of science.

I suppose perhaps we should start with this question: Do you think that there is such a thing as philosophy of science? Do you think that science (insofar as a methodology goes) is dependent on any philosophical underpinnings?

I hold a model in my mind where the past is referenced as being real .. . but that depends entirely on the meaning my mind gives to the concept 'real' .. (its all still models in my mind though) .. There's also an abundance of science model processed evidence which also leads me to that conclusion .. (and I hold that conclusion provisionally, also).
My mind conceives the model where that is true (because of the objective evidence) .. but whether that's 'actually real' (ie: exists independently from my mind), then becomes just another belief I choose to hold .. or not hold.

Do you believe that reality is real? Does the universe exist?

So? He is free to hold that belief .. It isn't a particularly useful one though ..

At least we seem to agree on that much.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,182.00
Faith
Atheist
I do see that, though I think an understanding of (and reliance on) persistent cause-and-effect is sufficient to see that "First Cause did it". But you seem to think Cause-and-effect is not persistent, pervasive. --I don't know what to say to that except to say that to me it seems the math has taken the minds of the mathematicians past logic to intuition or worse. They seem to illogically equate improbability with impossibility.

But do these not imply both logic and system/principle by which the whole history operates? I ask, what set that principle in place?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Your assertion that a 'first cause did it' is opaque and unsubstantiated - and why the capitalisation? it doesn't make the words any more interesting or important.

I've already said that cause and effect appears to be an emergent macro-scale phenomenon, dependent on an arrow of time, which is itself an emergent macro-scale phenomenon.

Your comment about mathematicians is a non-sequitur, and I'd be astonished if any mathematician would equate improbability with impossibility.

"Brute fact" unless caused, is First Cause. The fact that we don't know what caused Brute Fact does not negate that it was caused, if it is not First Cause.
A brute fact is simply something that has no explanation, that cannot be explained, i.e. it just is. Whether it can be considered a first cause of anything is moot. Again, the capitalisation is inappropriate (as are the scare quotes).

I admit to much ignorance concerning quantum physics, but I find it ridiculous to say that something is only cause in and of itself, if it is not First Cause.
I don't know what you're saying here. I also find it ridiculous to say that something 'is only cause in and of itself', because it doesn't seem to make sense - and in what way do you think knowledge or ignorance of quantum physics may be relevant?

My statement, "Existence begs explanation", may have been incomplete. But to say that First Cause exists, does not mean that First Cause is subject to our use of the term "existence" --that is, it does not mean that First Cause's existence is of the same sort to which meaning all other things belong. (I'm not meaning to say we totally understand their existence either, but that is beside the point (For all I know, it could be said that existence too is unfalsifiable like logic or math.).) If the existence of First Cause begs explanation, it does not mean it is unexplained, just by definition uncaused . The logical, that is, the philosophical, or maybe better, rhetorical, cause of the existence of First Cause is self-existence (ok, still question-begging). Logically, as I think I have said before, there can be only one first cause, because "multiple first causes" implies an overriding principle applying to all of them (except perhaps one --and to me, that implies that one is First Cause --the rest are not.) If First Cause is subject to a principle from outside itself, it is not first cause (this at least, I hope you can agree with).
I asked you if God exists, not an unspecified first cause. But if there was a first cause, it seems parsimonious to suppose it was the state at the big bang itself, because the big bang started the macro-scale arrow of time in this universe.

As I already described there are plenty of models for the origin of the universe, both temporally finite and temporally infinite that do not involve a beginning of time - in some of which our observable universe is a 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, so the choice of a 'first cause' depends on the scope you're considering, i.e. there may be multiple arrows of time in the greater universe (multiverse), each of which has a first cause. If you restrict the scope to the arrow of time of our observable universe, the big bang, or whatever caused it, would seem to be it.

My predilection is for a state that is unbounded in time (i.e. temporally infinite) from which our universe emerged, with its own arrow of time - as, possibly, have countless others - but that's just an amusing speculation. What might be considered to be a first cause seems arbitrary in such a model.

I rather imagine your protests to this will draw from Quantum Physics for support --if so, it seems to me incumbent on you to show I have misunderstood the nature of the calculations you mention above, or to say that I categorically don't know what I am talking about concerning Quantum Physics (which granted, may be true) and, perhaps, that it is too much trouble to educate me (which also I grant may be true.)
You admitted to much ignorance of quantum physics, but said nothing about it, and I haven't said anything about it (beyond that we don't claim to have a physical explanation for it), so I have no reason to invoke it, and nothing substantial to invoke it on.

(I'm wondering if you read and enjoyed Douglas Adams as much as I did. This conversation makes me smile again about the spaceship's Infinite Improbability Drive.)
Sure, I read it and enjoyed it as much as the sperm whale above Magrathea.

I don't think we're making progress in this discussion - I'm seeing unsubstantiated assertions, arguments from incredulity, claims of logic without explanation, a lot of apparent word-salad with unexplained capitalisation, you also seem to think I've said things I haven't, and I've asked a few simple questions and received no coherent response. You may have a clear idea of what you're trying to say, but it's not coming across in a form I can make sense of, so I'll stop here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's no answer at all. There are various interpretations of scripture and those who hold to those interpretations believe them. Doesn't everyone believe in his own interpretation of the Bible? You're not going to determine which interpretation is correct that way.
God knows which is right, ask Him. If a few people claim they did, we can check it out by seeing how it fits the bible. Now on this forum, we can't do that, because if someone offers an unbelieving position on creation we can't expose it. We are to treat it all as valued postings.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.