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

[SelfSim]

I'm coming into your argument a little late, so I don't really know what you are trying to say here, but do you think reality does not exist apart from a person perceiving it?

Bottom line answer is: 'I don't know'.

There is abundant objective evidence that some human mind or other either has, is, or will .. give a meaning to what they perceive as being 'real' (or exists) .. whereas there is no objective evidence (or even a test for) that such a meaning exists independently from humans.
That is my position until someone can come up with a test for the latter.

Most religions posit truths, believe (or have faith in) that reality exists independently from humans and, usually that god created it. That position is fine to hold as far as I'm concerned, as long as it isn't confused with being arrived at by scientific means (aka: the scientific method).

 

[Michael]

Bottom line answer is: 'I don't know'.

There is abundant objective evidence that some human mind or other either has, is, or will .. give a meaning to what they perceive as being 'real' (or exists) .. whereas there is no objective evidence (or even a test for) that such a meaning exists independently from humans.
That is my position until someone can come up with a test for the latter.

Most religions posit truths, believe (or have faith in) that reality exists independently from humans and, usually that god created it. That position is fine to hold as far as I'm concerned, as long as it isn't confused with being arrived at by scientific means (aka: the scientific method).

Its seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too but suggesting there's "objective scientific evidence" to support a "big bang" theory in spite of the fact that such an event predates all human "minds" by billions of years.

 

[SelfSim]

.. but suggesting there's "objective scientific evidence" to support a "big bang" theory
.. in spite of the fact that such an event predates all human "minds" by billions of years.

You have forgotten how we got into this conversation.
The LCDM model is not only internally consistent (logical), it is also 'scientifically objective' in so as far as mainstream science and scientists, have those two words as meaning.

See, you view 'time' as being like a physical object (or 'a thing') which sort of drifts around in space waiting for us to grab hold of .. whereas science views it as measurements which provide the word with meanings such as: second, hour, minute, etc (which it can test for).
Time in science is thus no different from any other model it can test .. like: atoms, electricity, magnetism, force, mass, etc .. they're all testable (or measurable) models, There is no evidence (or tests) that demonstrates they are 'things' independent of how the scientist's mind models them.

Oh .. its not just me who takes this view either .. Hawing/Mlodinow wrote the book on Model Dependent Realism 10 years ago, now: 'The Grand Design'.

 

[SelfSim]

Its seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too ..

Oh .. and just because I answered: 'I don't know', doesn't then mean that anyone else does either .. for the exact same reason - the human mind doesn't presently have access to that knowledge. (Ie: your posited 'cake' is just a belief .. can't eat that!).

 

[pitabread]

The LCDM model is not only internally consistent (logical), it is also 'scientifically objective' in so as far as mainstream science and scientists, have those two words as meaning.

What does "scientifically objective" mean?

Earlier you seemed to reject the idea that science is performed in the framework of assuming an objective universe. I'm not sure how can reconcile that with the above claim.

 

[SelfSim]

What does "scientifically objective" mean?
Earlier you seemed to reject the idea that science is performed in the framework of assuming an objective universe. I'm not sure how can reconcile that with the above claim.

I wrote a response on what I mean by 'scientifically objective' a few posts ago, here. If one actually attempts to consider carefully what I put in that post, it provides a different and more scientifically consistent way of thinking about 'objectivity'.
You may notice that it shifts the emphasis away from 'things which exist independently from a scientifically thinking minds' and puts it back onto a scientifically thinking mind .. (hence it is more consistent with the scientific method .. because its testable).

 

[pitabread]

I wrote a response on what I mean by 'scientifically objective' a few posts ago, here. If one actually attempts to consider carefully what I put in that post, it provides a different and more scientifically consistent way of thinking about 'objectivity'.
You may notice that it shifts the emphasis away from 'things which exist independently from a scientifically thinking minds' and puts it back onto a scientifically thinking mind .. (hence it is more consistent with the scientific method .. because its testable).

Okay, thanks for the reference.

Just a couple further questions: Do you think science adheres to or is required to adhere to methodological naturalism?

And if yes, how would you reconcile methodological naturalism with your views on scientific objectivity?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is abundant objective evidence that some human mind or other either has, is, or will .. give a meaning to what they perceive as being 'real' (or exists) .. whereas there is no objective evidence (or even a test for) that such a meaning exists independently from humans.
That is my position until someone can come up with a test for the latter.

You have, or so it seems to me, just repeated the same claim, just stated them two different ways. Also, you seem, (to me, again), to equate reality with meaning. Seems pretty sloppy to me.

Most religions posit truths, believe (or have faith in) that reality exists independently from humans and, usually that god created it. That position is fine to hold as far as I'm concerned, as long as it isn't confused with being arrived at by scientific means (aka: the scientific method).

So far, I've heard no good arguments against First Cause --a rationally arrived at consideration, at the least.

I can't help but wonder if you think a tree falling in the forest makes no sound, if no person was there to hear it. Who do you think we are? If God does something, it is pretty plausible that he is not only aware of it, but validates it by his very generating of it. We are no account in the matter.

 

[SelfSim]

Just a couple further questions: Do you think science adheres to or is required to adhere to methodological naturalism?

Seems like superfluous baggage to me.

Doing science is simply a choice. It is defined by a quite simple, widely taught (and published) methodology.
By defining beliefs operationally, (ie: in a way that's testable), from what I can see, basically results in the treatment of most explanations of methodological naturalism, as being just another belief system. (The link is just my attempt at using 'common ground' definitions here).

And if yes, how would you reconcile methodological naturalism with your views on scientific objectivity?

No need to where it can be distinguished as being another untestable belief. (The exclusions that come with the adoption of such a philosophical stance, also seem to also have untestable beliefs underpinning them).

 

[SelfSim]

You have, or so it seems to me, just repeated the same claim, just stated them two different ways. Also, you seem, (to me, again), to equate reality with meaning. Seems pretty sloppy to me.

How would you say, (Ie: evidenced based), meaning comes about then? .. Ie: so that I can test the alternative(s)?

'Reality', like all other words, carries a meaning .. (otherwise I wouldn't have clue as to what you mean when you use it). For all those other words, it takes a human mind to assign their meanings. If you think the word 'reality' should be excluded from the normal process by which all other words acquire their meanings, then please explain why .. (because, in the process of your making such an attempt, it will be plainly obvious that you used your mind (or others') in doing that.

So far, I've heard no good arguments against First Cause --a rationally arrived at consideration, at the least.

Sorry .. your 'first cause' is just word-salad to me once the concept of time is put to the test, and just generates yet more evidence of mind dependence.

Causality doesn't appear in any equations in science .. so it can be simply discarded as being another untestable belief.

I can't help but wonder if you think a tree falling in the forest makes no sound, if no person was there to hear it.

The answer is of course it does, because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falling in a woods, does what we mean by making sound. The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical tree for crying out loud!

I doubt that makes sense to you though because mind independent reality believers don't think their beliefs about hypothetical futures or pasts are about hypothetical things either, even though that's the meaning of hypothetical.
Such is the nature of belief ... it generates blind spots to scientific thought.

Who do you think we are?

Err .. Human beings intrinsically integrated with a mind(?)

If God does something, it is pretty plausible that he is not only aware of it, but validates it by his very generating of it. We are no account in the matter.

Nothing objectively testable here .. all arrived at by way of beliefs, and you're welcomed to hold those. Nothing to do with science though ..

 

[Mark Quayle]

How would you say, (Ie: evidenced based), meaning comes about then? .. Ie: so that I can test the alternative(s)?

'Reality', like all other words, carries a meaning .. (otherwise I wouldn't have clue as to what you mean when you use it). For all those other words, it takes a human mind to assign their meanings. If you think the word 'reality' should be excluded from the normal process by which all other words acquire their meanings, then please explain why .. (because, in the process of your making such an attempt, it will be plainly obvious that you used your mind (or others') in doing that.

Sorry .. your 'first cause' is just word-salad to me once the concept of time is put to the test, and just generates yet more evidence of mind dependence.

Causality doesn't appear in any equations in science .. so it can be simply discarded as being another untestable belief.

The answer is of course it does, because what we mean by a tree, doing what we mean by falling in a woods, does what we mean by making sound. The mind dependence of all of that could not possibly be more obvious, it's a hypothetical tree for crying out loud!

I doubt that makes sense to you though because mind independent reality believers don't think their beliefs about hypothetical futures or pasts are about hypothetical things either, even though that's the meaning of hypothetical.
Such is the nature of belief ... it generates blind spots to scientific thought.
Err .. Human beings intrinsically integrated with a mind(?)
Nothing objectively testable here .. all arrived at by way of beliefs, and you're welcomed to hold those. Nothing to do with science though ..

I admit to our use of meaning being supreme in our considerations. but still not entirely trusted. If so, we would stop searching, assuming we had the end of the matter. Reality is a completely other matter. It is what is, not what we take it to be. That is plumb silly. Reality, even reality of particular parts of the universe, does not depend on what we consider it to be. Where do you get this?

Causality appears in ALL equations of science. It may not be stated by that name, but it IS assumed as one of the fundamentals of logic. Untestable, that is, unfalsifiable, does not make it discardable. That is silly. Reason itself depends on logic, science depends on math, neither are falsifiable. You yourself use it with every sentence you try to use to disable your opponent --ok, sorry that is debatable.

 

[SelfSim]

I admit to our use of meaning being supreme in our considerations. but still not entirely trusted. If so, we would stop searching, assuming we had the end of the matter. Reality is a completely other matter. It is what is, not what we take it to be. That is plumb silly. Reality, even reality of particular parts of the universe, does not depend on what we consider it to be.

Every perception, (sensory or otherwise) your mind has, once described using language, acquires meaning. The perception of reality, (or what exists), once descibed, is no different. This is the process by which reality acquires its meaning. This is objectively testable, and that test generates abundant evidence. I've already demonstrated how it generates evidence, several times over in this thread, (in the sub-conversation with Michael) .. but you have to actually look to see it.

All you've done above is restate your belief in that what you say must be true. You're now even relying on meaningless truisms in making your point (see my underline above). There is no evidence you have produced thus far.

Causality appears in ALL equations of science. It may not be stated by that name, but it IS assumed as one of the fundamentals of logic. Untestable, that is, unfalsifiable, does not make it discardable. That is silly.

And I say the concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't exist in Physics. It's not in any equation, (if you think it is, then cite your references), .. it's not used in any formal sense. Yet as an informal tool, it is used all the time, making it a very bizarre notion.

Philosophers have had great fun with it, but it has largely eluded them. One treatment was by Hume, who basically said that no one can really say what connects an effect to a cause, yet even small children use the notion effortlessly. You could say it's a bit like the notion of good and evil, which philosophers have also never really figured out, yet, it gets used all the time. It just shows how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all!

Say event A happens and it is consistently followed by event B, and this is taken to be event A causing event B:
What if event X causes both A and B, and A and B are only connected via event X..?
Right, that's why it's not a clear-cut physical notion that A could cause B. There are many other possibilities, you can have X cause both A and B but A always comes first, you can have the occurrence of B necessitating that A must have come before, etc. And you can have situations like, let's say I hold a gun to your head and I decide not to pull the trigger. Have I "caused" you to not die? Is the rest of your life an effect of my decision not to shoot you? Can I cause an outcome via an action I didn't even take? One person might say yes, another no. What test could decide who was right?

Reason itself depends on logic, science depends on math, neither are falsifiable. You yourself use it with every sentence you try to use to disable your opponent --ok, sorry that is debatable.

Logic/math are not science. The processes involved are completely different. Logic/math is used in science to maintain consistency and to track dependencies back to its posits .. but so what? .. What is your point? Is it a defence of logic? If so, what does that have to do with anything I've said?

 

[ruthiesea]

Correct

In Judaism it is also considered paganism.

 

[Michael]

You have forgotten how we got into this conversation.
The LCDM model is not only internally consistent (logical), it is also 'scientifically objective' in so as far as mainstream science and scientists, have those two words as meaning.

Not only is the LCDM internally *inconsistent*, it's also based on several (at least four) cause/effect claims that defy empirical (in the lab) support. I have no idea what you mean by claiming the LCDM model is "scientifically objective" since you're also claiming that "mind" is part of the process and "mind" is entirely subjective, in fact even the concept of mind is subjective.

See, you view 'time' as being like a physical object (or 'a thing') which sort of drifts around in space waiting for us to grab hold of .. whereas science views it as measurements which provide the word with meanings such as: second, hour, minute, etc (which it can test for).
Time in science is thus no different from any other model it can test .. like: atoms, electricity, magnetism, force, mass, etc .. they're all testable (or measurable) models, There is no evidence (or tests) that demonstrates they are 'things' independent of how the scientist's mind models them.

The speed of light isn't really dependent upon how a scientist measures it. Even a scientists from another planet, with different concepts of "time" would arrive at the same figure. In other words, we could convert from their concept of time, to our own and the number would be identical.

Oh .. its not just me who takes this view either .. Hawing/Mlodinow wrote the book on Model Dependent Realism 10 years ago, now: 'The Grand Design'.

I have no idea what you think the speed of light has to do with "mind".

 

[dad]

The speed of light isn't really dependent upon how a scientist measures it. Even a scientists from another planet, with different concepts of "time" would arrive at the same figure. In other words, we could convert from their concept of time, to our own and the number would be identical..

We do not know how much time observers in different parts of the universe would see light take to move. We know how much time light takes to move on earth and the area of the solar system only. If you claim otherwise, show us the data.

 

[SelfSim]

Not only is the LCDM internally *inconsistent*, it's also based on several (at least four) cause/effect claims that defy empirical (in the lab) support.

I have no idea what you mean by claiming the LCDM model is "scientifically objective"

LCDM is a testable model which exists in science .. However I get that you take it as being a mind independent 'thing' (a claim which you cannot support with an objective test/evidence).
That you cannot, or will not, 'try it on' as a testable model, is your (unscientific) choice.

... since you're also claiming that "mind" is part of the process and "mind" is entirely subjective, in fact even the concept of mind is subjective.

Re underlined:
No .. the only 'claim' I made as far as the notion that reality might be truly mind independent, is that 'I don't know'. (In other words, I never actually entirely ruled out 'the existence of some truly mind independent reality'). The notion itself is actually evidenced as mind model too, of course - ie: a belief.

The rest of what I've highlighted in this thread is abundantly supported with objective evidence, whereas the notion of the mind independence of reality, is entirely unsupported with even an objective test.

As I already pointed out to you, (and supported with mind dependent reasoning), in post #211:

.. and the distinction of 'subjective' and 'objective' was always quite arbitrary in the first place. 'Objective' never meant 'mind independent', that was always a kind of lie we told ourselves.

I will not continue this discussion with you from hereon, as you have done you usual caper of distorting, without evidence, what I actually said .

Adios .. see ya 'round the traps ..

 

[pitabread]

By defining beliefs operationally, (ie: in a way that's testable), from what I can see, basically results in the treatment of most explanations of methodological naturalism, as being just another belief system. (The link is just my attempt at using 'common ground' definitions here).

If methodological naturalism is not a required framework for science, but "just another belief system", then would it be possible to use science to invoke and test supernatural explanations?

 

[SelfSim]

If methodological naturalism is not a required framework for science, but "just another belief system", then would it be possible to use science to invoke and test supernatural explanations?

Depends on how 'supernatural' is defined. Is 'supernatural' testable in theory .. in practice?
(Science doesn't invoke 'things' it can't test).

 

[dad]

Depends on how 'supernatural' is defined. Is 'supernatural' testable in theory .. in practice?
(Science doesn't invoke 'things' it can't test).

Science does restrict spiritual things from how it is defined. It includes only the physical. The supernatural is testable and has been tested and accepted by a majority of people in all the world in all of history. The means whereby we test the supernatural involves more than just the natural world, so science cannot be involved. It cut itself off.

 

[SelfSim]

Look, let me try and make this simpler:

All I'm saying here is that there might be a mind independent reality/universe, but when we look at and measure reality, all that data is always filtered, interpreted, named, given meaning too, etc by a mind. In short, it is always processed by a mind. And by what we perceive or communicate about it with the use of a mind, by definition is not mind independent.

To perceive reality, you need a mind, and a mind perceiving some aspect of reality, by definition, is not a mind independent aspect of reality. Mind Independent Reality in itself is a mental construct of a mind.