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

[Bungle_Bear]

Your cowardice is noted.

Lol. Nice try, but not buying it. I called you on a claim, you couldn't support it. I offered to participate in an experiment you thought up, and asked what would be the outcome if you didn't get your desired result. Your responses are becoming increasingly emotional indicating you feel the discussion is not going in your favour.

Meh.

 

[SelfSim]

Why?

Because it ends up going nowhere. It's like you're speaking two different languages.

That doesn't seem to prevent dad from using those same 'faith based details' to propagate misinformation (and get nowhere) about how science works, though ..
Ie: he exercises self-restraint on one aspect, but acts completely the opposite when it comes to the other(?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then why consider it at all? Sounds like a big cop out.

So all you can consider is infinite regression? "All effects are caused". First Cause is not an effect.

 

[dad]

Always excuses to avoid supporting your claims.

Why support the tried and proven with the folks that play 'let's wave it all away'?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Always excuses to avoid supporting your claims.

Good to hear Bertrand's opinion. That is all it is.

IF the Bible is true, then his opinion is not about the kind of faith the Bible says is evidence. --A simple enough thing for me to say, I know, but my point is, Russel seems to think he has the whole of the possible uses of the word. I get a kick out of people who think they can clinically separate definition from use, or application.

What Theologians refer to as Salvific Faith, is much more than emotion, and according to the Bible is not engendered by the individual possessing it. So IF the Bible is true, there is something causing it, or someone, giving the individual possessing that faith empirical evidence not available to science, nor to unbelievers. You may object to my use of the word, "empirical", there, but who has the authority to set the boundaries on its application, use, or meaning?

 

[dad]

Ie: he exercises self-restraint on one aspect, but acts completely the opposite when it comes to the other(?)

Discretion?

 

[SelfSim]

Discretion?

There's no evidence for any of that.

 

[Ophiolite]

You may object to my use of the word, "empirical", there, but who has the authority to set the boundaries on its application, use, or meaning?

The OED is always a good starting point. Otherwise you can reflect on the impractical value of the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicology you seem to favour.

 

[SelfSim]

What Theologians refer to as Salvific Faith, is much more than emotion, and according to the Bible is not engendered by the individual possessing it. So IF the Bible is true, there is something causing it, or someone, giving the individual possessing that faith empirical evidence not available to science, nor to unbelievers. You may object to my use of the word, "empirical", there, but who has the authority to set the boundaries on its application, use, or meaning?

So the premise of 'truth' is deliberately used to exclude more than 75% the population of the planet, then? How more divisive than that can something get?

(Otherwise the premise of 'the Bible is true' is false .. and thus so too, is 'the something causing it').

 

[Mark Quayle]

The OED is always a good starting point. Otherwise you can reflect on the impractical value of the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicology you seem to favour.

I don't disagree that the pov I scorn has its uses. I just find it difficult to attach the same meaning in one use to the meaning in another use. And the dictionaries don't really lend any light in the meaning of some words. Faith is one of them. "Salvific Faith", that is...

 

[Mark Quayle]

So the premise of 'truth' is deliberately used to exclude more than 75% the population of the planet, then? How more divisive than that can something get?

75% is nowhere near as divisive as truth is. Your statement is nearly meaningless --but I do get some sort of scorn intended --so, what is wrong with "divisive" if it hinges on truth?

(Otherwise the premise of 'the Bible is true' is false .. and thus so too, is it as a 'cause').

Not sure what you are asking here. Almost all effects are also causes. Are you asking if the Bible is a causeless effect? Of course it is not causeless. But there is a pun involved upon a deeper pun, better than just a riddle, having to do with the Word of God and the Son of God and the Creator. I'll leave it to you.

 

[SelfSim]

.. so, what is wrong with "divisive" if it hinges on truth?

How is exclusion of 75% of the world's population not also pure evil?
(The purpose of this meaning of 'truth' sounds like a keycode to a weapon of mass destruction to me!?)

 

[Mark Quayle]

How is exclusion of 75% of the world's population not also pure evil?
(The purpose of this meaning of 'truth' sounds like a keycode to a weapon of mass destruction to me!?)

75% wasn't my number. If the number is relevant, it is worse than 75% as far as I can tell. But the number is irrelevant. We have a habit of attributing value beyond our prerogative. Not only that, but our type, our idea, of value is off. We want to compare ourselves to God, who alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. Our Creator is the only one to whom belong all honor and respect. (No, I am not saying we shouldn't show respect and certain amount of honor to our fellow human beings, but we are not God's 'fellows'). He has no such reason to honor and respect us as apart from himself. We are not his peers.

If you think it is evil to create vast numbers of creatures for the purpose of showing his glory and justice and power to those to whom he has shown mercy, then you have a pretty poor concept of how great this First Cause, God Almighty, is. We don't compare. We aren't even alive, compared to him.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why support the tried and proven with the folks that play 'let's wave it all away'?

We're deluded in thinking you might stop waving it away one day?

 

[Kylie]

Why support the tried and proven with the folks that play 'let's wave it all away'?

You're projecting again. You're the one who waves it all away, not me.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't disagree that the pov I scorn has its uses. I just find it difficult to attach the same meaning in one use to the meaning in another use. And the dictionaries don't really lend any light in the meaning of some words. Faith is one of them. "Salvific Faith", that is...

I don't know if you are talking above me, beneath me, or past me, but the end result it the same.

 

[dad]

You're projecting again. You're the one who waves it all away, not me.

I do not have to accept your beliefs and faith. Thank you very much. You do need more when offering a scientific position. I do not wave away all of Scripture and history because they record spirits. Nor do I wave away anything that exists in the nature we live in.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Our Creator is the only one to whom belong all honor and respect. (No, I am not saying we shouldn't show respect and certain amount of honor to our fellow human beings, but we are not God's 'fellows'). He has no such reason to honor and respect us as apart from himself. We are not his peers.

Your arguments about what should be honored and respected appears confused.
Hierarchies (peer-subordinate relationships) are models created by us to shape behaviors directed towards achieving certain goals.

I'm not seeing any signs of acceptance of the personal responsibility for behaviors here. This appears to be completely abrogated. All humans are being classified as either psychopathic or sociopathic .. which is a clear contradiction with the abundant evidence of human sociological development. Profound denial .. Akin to a complete erasure of the concept of self awareness and self identity.

Are these the goals for unifying the human spirit? (.. good luck if they are ..)

If you think it is evil to create vast numbers of creatures for the purpose of showing his glory and justice and power to those to whom he has shown mercy, then you have a pretty poor concept of how great this First Cause, God Almighty, is.

Purely megalomaniacal reasoning .. where did that come from?

We don't compare. We aren't even alive, compared to him.

Gobbledegook .. no scientific foundations whatsoever.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your arguments about what should be honored and respected appears confused.
Hierarchies (peer-subordinate relationships) are models created by us to shape behaviors directed towards achieving certain goals.

I'm not seeing any signs of acceptance of the personal responsibility for behaviors here. This appears to be completely abrogated. All humans are being classified as either psychopathic or sociopathic .. which is a clear contradiction with the abundant evidence of human sociological development. Profound denial .. Akin to a complete erasure of the concept of self awareness and self identity.

Are these the goals for unifying the human spirit? (.. good luck if they are ..)

Purely megalomaniacal reasoning .. where did that come from?

Gobbledegook .. no scientific foundations whatsoever.

You go through a lot of words to simply say you don't believe in God.

 

[SelfSim]

You go through a lot of words to simply say you don't believe in God.

Its the wrong question to ask in a thread about how science can be applied for establishing existence. Science only aims at devising a best (currently tested) model. Does that mean I 'believe in it'? Absolutely not. Nor does it mean I believe there isn't a 'God' -- it means it is simply not a matter of belief at all, and if I do choose to form a belief on that topic, no one else should even care!

By way of another an example of what I mean here; if you were to ask me whether or not I have an informed belief that say, dark energy existed, that would also be the wrong question for me in a science thread. The right question would be: 'does my experience and expertise lead me to regard dark energy as our best current model?', and then my answer would be 'yes' .. and I can then answer without having to stop and ponder just what you were actually asking me .. and why you would care!

Either way, I'll be using mind mind to devise that answer .. denying that (or accepting an untestable model which denies that) is completely scientifically pointless.