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

[Kylie]

Nothing to say eh?

How can you literally quote my response to your post and then claim I have nothing to say?

No one says every disease or condition is demon possession. Get serious.

You can't even show ANY of them are demon possession.

Scripture may be stories to you.

You've provided nothing to suggest they're anything more..

 

[dad]

But the point is that Scripture is not what science is based upon, nor could science ever work that way.

No, it sure isn't. The beliefs origin sciences are based on are other beliefs.

 

[dad]

How can you literally quote my response to your post and then claim I have nothing to say?

Easy.

You can't even show ANY of them are demon possession.

Or you that they were not, so I will believe Jesus, thanks.

 

[Kylie]

Easy.

As usual, your responses are short on words and shorter on quality.

Or you that they were not, so I will believe Jesus, thanks.

Is that the best you've got?

"You can't prove they WEREN'T demon possession, so I win by default!"

Do you not see how utterly weak that is?

 

[Michael]

You still need to provide support for the claim that it's usually a mental issue.

I don't really feel obligated to do that unless you're trying to claim it's caused by something *other than* a "mental issue". It's certainly a mental choice one makes, and it's not a good one.

So you are saying that religion is doing a better job of treating mental illness than medicine?

No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just pointing out that religion does have a track record of helping people turn their lives around, and help them deal with depression and such.

Care to support this claim? I've seen precious little of support from you.

Religious people are happier, study finds

 

[dad]

As usual, your responses are short on words and shorter on quality.



Is that the best you've got?

"You can't prove they WEREN'T demon possession, so I win by default!"

Do you not see how utterly weak that is?

Do you believe in spirits? If so, then no one needs to prove good and bad ones exist. If not, then why would we discuss spirits?

 

[SelfSim]

But the point is that Scripture is not what science is based upon, nor could science ever work that way.

No, it sure isn't. The beliefs origin sciences are based on are other beliefs.

No .. science is based on objectively tested definitions (operational), the scientific method and objective results. Religions aren't .. that's it .. no more to it than that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The belief in supernatural constructs certainly isn't limited to religion and atheists sometimes embrace them too. Science posits the supernatural all the time as well, including extra dimensions, supernatural forms of matter and energy, etc.

You appear to be using an unusually broad definition of 'supernatural'.

Perhaps it's just a human "desire" to embrace the "unseen' in the lab that causes this.

Perhaps not.

 

[pitabread]

You do not get to define mental illness.

Neither do you.

Mary tested it. You cannot. You test your own life.

Right. Which confirms your claims about not testing past Bible events.

Comprehension deficit?

Just pointing out your contradictions.

 

[Michael]

You appear to be using an unusually broad definition of 'supernatural'.

Not really. The only purpose of introducing a hypothetical new form of matter and/or energy into any cosmology model is because no known "natural" form of energy or matter would suffice. It's introducing a "non-natural' element into the model. Why not call it what it is, and call it "supernatural"?

Perhaps not.

I recall hearing Michelle Thaller (sp?) say in a video that it would be "boring" and disappointing to know all there is to know about cosmology while trying to justify the use of dark energy and dark matter in the BB model. I for one would not be disappointed in the least if it turns out that we can understand and explain our universe from the perspective of laboratory physics.

I think some folks just enjoy a good "mystery". It gives them some consolation and some excitement to *not* know how things work and to believe that we have so much further to go to really "understand" our universe.

Why do people believe in ghosts, and why are they so fascinated with things like magic (Harry Potter ilk), and jump to the conclusion that all "unidentified flying objects" necessarily come from another planet, or read their horoscope? I think the human mind is quite creative, and it embraces the "supernatural" all too willingly. It seems like a "human nature" sort of thing that isn't strictly limited to religion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not really. The only purpose of introducing a hypothetical new form of matter and/or energy into any cosmology model is because no known "natural" form of energy or matter would suffice. It's introducing a "non-natural' element into the model. Why not call it what it is, and call it "supernatural"?

As far as I am aware, there is no concept of the unnatural or supernatural in science, only good and bad hypotheses. Hypothetical new forces, fields, or particles are generally consistent with, predicted by, or derived from current successful theories; as hypotheses they are assessed according to common abductive criteria. If you proposed a hypothesis involving spirits or magic or other ideas commonly called 'supernatural', it would rank so low by those criteria that it would simply be rejected as a waste of time.

In the case of dark energy explanations, the one considered most probable is Einstein's cosmological constant - it's a gravitational field effect in the Einstein Field Equations, but other solutions and explanations for the phenomenon have been proposed - all 'natural' hypotheses.

I recall hearing Michelle Thaller (sp?) say in a video that it would be "boring" and disappointing to know all there is to know about cosmology while trying to justify the use of dark energy and dark matter in the BB model. I for one would not be disappointed in the least if it turns out that we can understand and explain our universe from the perspective of laboratory physics.

I would be happy if we can understand and explain our universe, period. Nature doesn't care if astronomers are bored.

 

[dad]

Neither do you.

I'll go with God's definition, thanks.

Right. Which confirms your claims about not testing past Bible events.

They tested. We test. You do live in this time period?

Just pointing out your contradictions.

Or echoing inner confusion.

 

[Ophiolite]

They tested. We test. You do live in this time period?

That's one of the advantages of science. We can test events long after those events occurred. Based on what you are saying there are no creationists who are forensic scientists, or astronomers, or geologists, or historians, or . . . . It sounds like you are part of a very barren ensemble.

 

[dad]

That's one of the advantages of science. We can test events long after those events occurred. Based on what you are saying there are no creationists who are forensic scientists, or astronomers, or geologists, or historians, or . . . . It sounds like you are part of a very barren ensemble.

There are no...(insert anyone at all here)..that do forensics on ghosts. They can't even see spirits today.

You seem to try and treat belief in creation as a branch of science or alternative science. No. Creationism is just belief in Scripture, and trying to guess where science went wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I don't really feel obligated to do that unless you're trying to claim it's caused by something *other than* a "mental issue". It's certainly a mental choice one makes, and it's not a good one.

So lemme get this straight.

You can make up any wild claims you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence at all.

But I have to provide evidence for my claims, as well as provide evidence against your claims.

So you want me to do all the work.

Sorry, bucko, the burden of proof is on you. If you are going to make your claims without evidence, then I'm going to dismiss them without evidence.

No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm just pointing out that religion does have a track record of helping people turn their lives around, and help them deal with depression and such.

So what's the point of bringing religion into this then? If it can't do the job as well as medicine, if it is inferior in every way in the treatment of mental illness, what's the point of it?

Religious people are happier, study finds

"...through active participation in congregations..."

So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results. We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.

 

[Kylie]

Do you believe in spirits? If so, then no one needs to prove good and bad ones exist. If not, then why would we discuss spirits?

No I don't.

So you need to demonstrate they exist before I am going to take your claims about them seriously.

 

[SelfSim]

"...through active participation in congregations..."

So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results. We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.

The survey also appears to be a classic case of Michael shoot-from-the-hip, 'anything from Google will do' cherry-picking:

While “striking”, the link between happiness and religion requires further study – as “the numbers do not prove that going to religious services is directly responsible for improving people’s lives,” according to researchers.

Rather, the opposite could be true – that happier people engage in religious participation because they overall participate more in activities compared to unhappy people – as the surveys showed that many active religious people also reported voluntary involvement in other organisations.

 

[Michael]

In the case of dark energy explanations, the one considered most probable is Einstein's cosmological constant - it's a gravitational field effect in the Einstein Field Equations, but other solutions and explanations for the phenomenon have been proposed - all 'natural' hypotheses.

The problem is that when Einstein added a non-zero constant, it wasn't required to generate acceleration throughout an expansion process, it just needed to prevent the whole thing from imploding. In such a scenario, ordinary forms of matter and energy (like repulsion) could easily suffice. The way that "dark energy" is being used in the LCDM model however, requires dark energy to remain constant over multiple exponential increases in volume, something that no 'natural' form of energy ever does. In every respect, it's a 'non-natural' or 'supernatural' explanation for acceleration, and based on more recent SN1A studies, an unnecessary one at that. Essentially the whole concept just had the rug pulled out form under it in terms of supporting "evidence".

I would be happy if we can understand and explain our universe, period. Nature doesn't care if astronomers are bored.

Me too, which is why I embrace a purely empirical, lab tested alternative.

 

[Michael]

So lemme get this straight.

You can make up any wild claims you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence at all.

But I have to provide evidence for my claims, as well as provide evidence against your claims.

So you want me to do all the work.

Sorry, bucko, the burden of proof is on you. If you are going to make your claims without evidence, then I'm going to dismiss them without evidence.

FYI, I wasn't expecting (or asking) you to provide any evidence "against" the notion that committing murder is (at least in some cases) a form of "mental illness", and you're welcome to disagree if you like, it doesn't matter to me.

As I mentioned, I can conceive of some instances (like self defense or by accident) where murder might be the only logical option or it's not intentional, but in such instances people are usually not convicted of 'murder' to begin with.

So what's the point of bringing religion into this then? If it can't do the job as well as medicine, if it is inferior in every way in the treatment of mental illness, what's the point of it?

It need not "do the job as well" (or as often) as medicine, but why would someone want to take drugs to cure their depression if they have the same (or better) result by embracing (a) religion? I don't see that as being an "inferior" choice.

"...through active participation in congregations..."

So basically they showed that people who get out and socialise are happier than people who don't have social interactions. We can get rid of the religious aspect entirely and still get the same results. We could send them to a gardening club, or a games night, and they'd still get the same benefit.

Can you demonstrate (via a study) that we can get rid of the religious aspects entirely and still get the same result, or are you expecting me to "disprove" that claim for you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem is that when Einstein added a non-zero constant, it wasn't required to generate acceleration throughout an expansion process, it just needed to prevent the whole thing from imploding. In such a scenario, ordinary forms of matter and energy (like repulsion) could easily suffice. The way that "dark energy" is being used in the LCDM model however, requires dark energy to remain constant over multiple exponential increases in volume, something that no 'natural' form of energy ever does.

Don't forget that the idea that 'empty' spacetime contained 'vacuum energy' had been around long before the accelerating expansion was discovered (since the mid-'60s if memory serves), based on the energy of quantum field excitations as 'virtual particles' - remember the Cosmological Constant Problem described by Zel'dovich around 1967, which is still unsolved today? Whether you get there via GR or QM, scalar vacuum energy is not new or unnatural. You can think of it as work done on spacetime as it expands.