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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The first living cell from chemical soup.
Since nobody knows the structure of it, no test is possible.
But Still it’s presented as a “ fact” it happened.
So Actually it’s just a faith statement.

It probably is for anyone that actually makes that claim - but what competent scientist does? Those in the field know that the best they can do is demonstrate that it was possible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by 'subject to', but a belief in something not 'subject to' logic, reason or existence, sounds like a belief in something illogical, irrational, and non-existent...

 

[SelfSim]

As I have pointed out in other threads, your concept of a mind dependent reality seems to be fundamentally flawed, because it lacks the ability to explain how conscious minds can create anything new. For example, here's a link to a random article.

http://majdalani.eng.auburn.edu/courses/02_fluids/handout_f01_history.pdf

Oh .. good grief! You cite an article on history of the development of Fluid Mechanics, by human beings, with even their specific names included, and then ask how conscious minds could have created it? Are you serious? What were you reading before you asked that question?

Absent an independent source your mind now needs to create from whole cloth an article which is in every way identical to the article which my mind has created.

How is your mind going to do that?

So now you miscomprehend what true 'mind independence' means. The term covers all human minds .. not just your own.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by 'subject to', but a belief in something not 'subject to' logic, reason or existence, sounds like a belief in something illogical, irrational, and non-existent...

i) The distinction between subject and object always was, (figuratively speaking), a mind dependent distinction.
ii) I think beliefs can be reasoned beliefs .. but the reasons usually also end up 'testing out' as beliefs.
iii) I find the part many people overlook, in a testable definition of a belief, is the: 'held as being true out of preference'. That's the only possible inference remaining after the test specifics have been applied and consistency with the hypothesis remains .. (Which is usually then displayed, by the believer, as an unwillingness to deviate, in any way, from the originally held position, I might add).

 

[partinobodycular]

Oh .. good grief! You cite an article on history of the development of Fluid Mechanics, by human beings, with even their specific names included, and then ask how conscious minds could have created it? Are you serious? What were you reading before you asked that question?

No, I'm not asking how human minds could've created it. That's irrelevant. I'm asking how it is that our minds, yours and mine, have created the exact same article without an independent source from which to draw?

To get from the creator's mind, to our minds there must be an actual mind independent medium by which that information gets from its creator's mind to ours. Which means that something must exist independent of our human minds.

Which then leads to a second question. Where did the creator of that article get the information? It too must have come via a mind independent source.

 

[SelfSim]

No, I'm not asking how human minds could've created it. That's irrelevant. I'm asking how it is that our minds, yours and mine, have created the exact same article without an independent source from which to draw?

Ok .. (I got a little excited in my last reply ..)

So, its surprising to you that our minds think on the same topic, (ie: observations/perceptions), in similar ways, (still with some variations)? Why is that in the least surprising?

That there's a consistent persistency there in those observations/perceptions, is no evidence for supporting/jumping to conclusions about the existence of some mind independent 'thing'.

To get from the creator's mind, to our minds there must be an actual mind independent medium by which that information gets from its creator's mind to ours. Which means that something must exist independent of our human minds.

What 'creator' do you mean there? An original author writes in language that conveys their meaning to subsequent readers. Its a cumulative buildup of knowledge thing going on there, no(?) There's a bunch of minds building on their predecessor's work .. so where's the evidence of 'mind independent things', when all we see is a bunch of active minds thinking in similar ways?

Which then leads to a second question. Where did the creator of that article get the information? It too must have come via a mind independent source.

Huh? Not at all necessarily so. Where's you objectively tested evidence for that conclusion? Can you even cite the test?

 

[partinobodycular]

What 'creator' do you mean there? An original author writes in language that conveys their meaning to subsequent readers. Its a cumulative buildup of knowledge thing going on there, no(?)

True, it's a cumulative buildup of knowledge, but as I see it there are two distinct problems. The first problem is how that knowledge makes the transition from one mind to another. Once the author writes that article and publishes it in some form such as a book or an internet article the author no longer needs to exist for that information to persist. It has in effect taken on an existence of its own that's now independent of both the mind that created it, and anyone else who may subsequently read it. And mustn't all information exist in some independent form in the interim between one mind and the next, even if that existence is simply in the form of spoken words? (I.E. soundwaves propagating through a medium)

The second problem is an age old one, and it's the problem of an infinite regress. If each mind builds upon knowledge obtained from other minds, and those other minds obtained their knowledge from still others, then where did the first mind get it's knowledge from?

An infinite regress of minds would seem to be insufficient to explain the existence of knowledge.

 

[SelfSim]

True, it's a cumulative buildup of knowledge, but as I see it there are two distinct problems. The first problem is how that knowledge makes the transition from one mind to another. Once the author writes that article and publishes it in some form such as a book or an internet article the author no longer needs to exist for that information to persist. It has in effect taken on an existence of its own that's now independent of both the mind that created it, and anyone else who may subsequently read it. And mustn't all information exist in some independent form in the interim between one mind and the next, even if that existence is simply in the form of spoken words? (I.E. soundwaves propagating through a medium)

A paper written in human interpretable form's content, is objectively testable. So what? The encoded information there is in no way mind independent: a human wrote it, and a human read it (and then maybe even observably acted upon the content).

'Information' has a lot of different meanings. In general a 'bit' is the fundamental, objectively measurable quantity/parameter of an information model. There's nothing mind independent in any of that.

The second problem is an age old one, and it's the problem of an infinite regress. If each mind builds upon knowledge obtained from other minds, and those other minds obtained their knowledge from still others, then where did the first mind get it's knowledge from?

That's just philosophical mumbo-jumbo, with philosophers creating nonsense problems for themselves and then trying to 'discover the hidden answers' to their self-made conundrums. Mumbo jumbo, it is.

Human minds demonstrably come with the capacity for 'acquiring' knowledge. Minds demonstrably constantly update our knowledge with new meanings. This function is fundamental in a model of 'what a mind does'. Our minds demonstrably evolved, along with the rest of us, (as did our capacity for updating our knowledge with new meanings).

An infinite regress of minds would seem to be insufficient to explain the existence of knowledge.

The human mind gives 'the existence of knowledge' its meaning .. all mind dependent stuff.

An operational test for 'knowing' might look something like this:

The test of knowing, (at least when restricted to testable outcomes), is akin to the odds a person would give on being right, (ie: 'I'm 95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they 'really know'.
(Note also that this suggested operational definition, makes use of science's concept of uncertainty .. as in: 'the odds').

 

[stevevw]

No.

That statement depends entirely on what you mean by the term 'is real'. There are only two ways we know for coming up with a meaning for that term: (i) by way of beliefs or, (ii) by way of the scientific (objective) method.

Particles and fields are given their meanings by way of the scientific method/process. They test out well in theory and practice, when following that process. Because of the abundance of test results consistent with science's category of that type, (aka: 'objectively real'), particles and fields are then concluded as being objectively real.
No doubt this could well be in direct conflict with the other way of determining what's real (ie: the belief way).

But strangely enough in reality there are no particles.

 

[SelfSim]

But strangely enough in reality there are no particles.

Please explain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But strangely enough in reality there are no particles.

That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.

If particles aren't real, then very little of our everyday experience of what we call 'reality' is.

 

[SelfSim]

That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.

If particles aren't real, then very little of our everyday experience of what we call 'reality' is.

Its a highly ambiguous statement, methinks. Certainly calls for an explanation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.

That's what my 'Empire State building' dialogue demonstrates.

Your 'Empire State Building' dialogue only demonstrates that we depend on our senses and reasoning. It doesn't begin to touch the fact that what does exist, exists independent of us noticing it or even knowing it.

Assuming that you are an atheist who believes in Evolution, what in the world was going on before anybody noticed it? Do you believe nothing existed at that point? Did we create ourselves? How does this work?

 

[SelfSim]

Your 'Empire State Building' dialogue only demonstrates that we depend on our senses and reasoning. It doesn't begin to touch the fact that what does exist, exists independent of us noticing it or even knowing it.

Which only goes to show that ya just can't keep a good human down, eh?
(Even when considering a model of a mind independent reality).

Assuming that you are an atheist who believes in Evolution, what in the world was going on before anybody noticed it? Do you believe nothing existed at that point? Did we create ourselves? How does this work?

What I believe about those is irrelevant to the objective science (and resulting evidence) behind the models of Evolution by natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

Please explain.

As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space. We cannot directly observe particles and they are hypothesized theories or equations about physical reality. So whatever is being measured regarding objective physical reality is not really physical and it seems that some other non-physical force/influence is at the fundamental level of nature.

 

[stevevw]

That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.

Reality has been a hard thing to pin down and its probably become more ambiguous in recent years. But I think it requires a comprehensive all inclusive definition rather than just being physical. WE have to consider what role we play in reality as we cannot separate ourselves from whatever meaning we give.

If particles aren't real, then very little of our everyday experience of what we call 'reality' is.

I disagree. You premise what is real on particles so if there's no particles then there's no reality. But there may be other ways we know reality such as through conscious experience and belief.

As consciousness doesn't equate to particles then this would be a better fit for reality considering its also not made of particles but some other phenomena. Well that's what many think and this is at the heart of the matter.

 

[SelfSim]

As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space. We cannot directly observe particles and they are hypothesized theories or equations about physical reality. So whatever is being measured regarding objective physical reality is not really physical and it seems that some other non-physical force/influence is at the fundamental level of nature.

The term particle is general in meaning, and is refined as needed, within the various scientific fields of study. (Notice that implies a particle isn't 'a thing' in science .. its a pliable concept, as all science's definitions are). The concept of a particle is deliberately made to be useful model in science.

A particle, in models of 'nature', can be classified under three different general sizes: microscopic, macroscopic and sub atomic. Microscopic and subatomic particle study is usually performed within the quantum mechanics domain of physics. (See here for more info).

The term 'physical reality' is pretty well a useless concept in science. I think its probably a hang over from philosophy (and therefore has no testable definition in science).
Because science follows the scientific objective method, I use the term 'objective reality' to distinguish science's focus from all the other meanings one usually finds in a dictionary for 'reality', which turn out to be woefully inadequate in science, due to their objective untestability.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which only goes to show that ya just can't keep a good human down, eh?
(Even when considering a model of a mind independent reality).
What I believe about those is irrelevant to the objective science (and resulting evidence) behind the models of Evolution by natural selection.

Ok, so you admit to two realities? I see you saying there are the models, and there is objective reality.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok, so you admit to two realities?

No, what I see is people using their minds to come up with different meanings for the word reality there. Those minds do that when they think in two different ways, either: the way of belief or, the way of the scientific (objective) method.

I see you saying there are the models, and there is objective reality.

Minds create models when they express their perceptions using language.
The Objective Reality model is formed by the results which test out, following the objective testing method (science).

PS: These aren't just my 'admissions' or 'opinions'. They are conclusions formed on the basis of objective test results. Its science .. not philosophy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, what I see is people using their minds to come up with different meanings for the word reality there. Those minds do that when they think in two different ways, either: the way of belief or, the way of the scientific (objective) method.
Minds create models when they express their perceptions using language.
The Objective Reality model is formed by the results which test out, following the objective testing method (science).

PS: These aren't just my 'admissions' or 'opinions'. They are conclusions formed on the basis of objective test results. Its science .. not philosophy.

Objective reality MODEL isn't what I am asking you. I thought that was abundantly obvious.