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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you can see something physical and see with your minds eye that there is something behind it. Like we see a physical car but also see that there is design (mind) behind it.

That's inferring there is design (mind) - you can do that because you already know that such items are designed by a mind.

...its more about seeing or mabe sensing through intuition that something is more than its physical makeup. Like the laws of physics or nature are not visible except by the effects they have on reality.

Intuition is a poor guide to things you are not experienced or familiar with. Feeling that something 'is more than its physical makeup' is not only vague but it's qualitatively different from the laws of physics or nature, which are codifications of observed patterns.

What does the intuition that something 'is more than its physical makeup' mean to you? 'more' in what way? how does it change anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

But what would that even mean?

It would mean science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

But some are just too well waterproofed.

Fireproofed.

 

[Astrid]

I wish someone could explain technical vs common parlance type definitions of words.

Eze - peeze. Just look in a dictionary!

A frog in biology is a hoppy amphibian
To a violonist its part of a bow
To a soldier its some bayonet thingy.

If the subject is formal scientific usage, " theory"
has a very specific meaning.
We recommend all creationists learn it.

 

[Astrid]

That's inferring there is design (mind) - you can do that because you already know that such items are designed by a mind.


Intuition is a poor guide to things you are not experienced or familiar with. Feeling that something 'is more than its physical makeup' is not only vague but it's qualitatively different from the laws of physics or nature, which are codifications of observed patterns.

What does the intuition that something 'is more than its physical makeup' mean to you? 'more' in what way? how does it change anything?

I tuition, more than physical? Super easy.

Walki g with this other girl, a nice autumn leaf fell at our feet.

To her, god sent it to represent the trinity.

 

[AV1611VET]

We recommend all creationists learn it.

Why would you recommend all creationists learn the scientific definition of "theory"?

Should that be a prerequisite for a class in Creation 101?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I tuition, more than physical? Super easy.

Walki g with this other girl, a nice autumn leaf fell at our feet.

To her, god sent it to represent the trinity.

That's sweet... In a South American religion/worldview, it's known as 'affirmations from the world around us'. It's a form of superstition.

There's an interesting parallel with the 'spurious sense of significance' attributed to ordinary events in schizophrenia. An old university friend had a schizophrenic breakdown where he thought he was seeing messages in car registration plates - a delusion not uncommon in such cases.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's sweet... In a South American religion/worldview, it's known as 'affirmations from the world around us'. It's a form of superstition.

My wife and I will see something neat in nature, and she'll go, "Look at that!," and I'll say, "Yup. It's a miracle of evolution, isn't it? You see, millions of years ago ..."

Then we'll both laugh and shake our heads.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My wife and I will see something neat in nature, and she'll go, "Look at that!," and I'll say, "Yup. It's a miracle of evolution, isn't it? You see, millions of years ago ..."

Then we'll both laugh and shake our heads.

Meh. Your loss.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the subject is formal scientific usage, " theory"
has a very specific meaning.
We recommend all creationists learn it.

Learning it denies Creationists their only greatest tool -- weaponized ignorance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Learning it denies Creationists their only greatest tool -- weaponized ignorance.

One weapon down... they'd still have a massive arsenal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One weapon down... they'd still have a massive arsenal.

True, but weaponized ignorance is the gunpowder that gives most of the rest of their arsenal its kick.

 

[SelfSim]

My wife and I will see something neat in nature, and she'll go, "Look at that!," and I'll say, "Yup. It's a miracle of evolution, isn't it? You see, millions of years ago ..."

Then we'll both laugh and shake our heads.

Agreeing to remain perpetually ignorant, raises the bar on the level of ignorance.
Why stand in the way of what comes naturally to us humans? I mean your wife was curious about seeing something neat in nature .. there's a scientific mindset, right there!

 

[SelfSim]

My wife and I will see something neat in nature, and she'll go, "Look at that!," and I'll say, "Yup. It's a miracle of evolution, isn't it? You see, millions of years ago ..."

Then we'll both laugh and shake our heads.

How I imagine @AV1611VET and his wife (figuratively) interacting over practical problems (a bit of US humour here).. go to the 38:16 mark thru to about the 40:05 mark.

 

[Opdrey]

My wife and I will see something neat in nature, and she'll go, "Look at that!," and I'll say, "Yup. It's a miracle of evolution, isn't it? You see, millions of years ago ..."

Then we'll both laugh and shake our heads.

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."

 

[Opdrey]

Why would you recommend all creationists learn the scientific definition of "theory"?

Because then they would have learned SOMETHING about science.

 

[Opdrey]

I understand what you're saying.

Then why do you ignore it?

Academia, if it had its way (and enough time), would eventually change every single jot and tittle of the Bible.

How would you know? You rely on a translation was was undertaken 1600 years after Christ's death in a language that didn't even exist at the time of Christ (let alone the rest of the Bible). There is no Christian alive who has EVER seen the original documents upon which the Bible is based.

We could even discuss the Johanine Comma as well! Was it in the original?

How about the word "almah" in Isaiah? Was it really a "virgin" or just a young unmarried woman?

The list goes on.

(And I understand you will simply blow all of this off because, well, special pleading. That's the game, right? Can't question the Bible, but you can question everything in science, even the stuff you don't even begin to understand. That's gotta be fun when you get to play your favorite game "AV Always Wins(TM)"

 

[stevevw]

Because there are things that science cannot explain now, does that mean that these things will remain unexplained, or that there is no chance of naturalistic explanations for them? Or merely that our present understanding does not produce an explanation.

It may be that there are phenomena that science will never be able to explain. But that does not justify unevidenced, non-naturalistic explanations of them - it just means they will remain unexplained.

My point was that its an assumption to think that everything is of a material nature and therefore the only way we can measure reality is by only measuring the physical.

If the natural world is all that exists - or all we can ever have access to - then this may not be true.

But its based on assumptions that everything has a physical cause and there is no way to prove methological naturalism is the only way to measure reality. How do you know we are not in some computer simulation as we cannot step outside that simulation to check. If we were in a simulation then everything we think is physical is not really physical.

Its the assumption that what we see and experience is physical reality in the first place that counts out all other possibilities even alternative ways of knowing like with the spiritual beliefs of Indigenous who have sucessfullly lived with nature for thousands of years.

If something exists outside the natural world, then this would be true (as science is necessarily bound to analysis/explanations of the natural world).

Yes I agree. But what I find interesting is it seems more and more that its not just a case of science not being able to explain something now but may in the future. But that its a measuring problem. The method is incapble of explaining everything we see and experience. Discoveries breach known laws and require hypothesis that step beyong what can be verified.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."

We don't profess ourselves to be Homo sapiens (wise ones).

 

[AV1611VET]

Because then they would have learned SOMETHING about science.

And what would that do for us exactly?

Would it then please others that we start saying "hypothesis," instead of "theory"?