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

[SelfSim]

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

And so? You're just asking questions that lead nowhere of practical usefulness, nor provide any distinctiveness from all the other beliefs ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

A 'comprehensive all-inclusive' definition means what?
That you want to comprehensively include everything that's real? No-one's going to argue against that - but it's tautological.

What do you mean by 'not just physical'? In what way(s) is something 'not physical' real? (apart from conceptual abstractions).

You premise what is real on particles so if there's no particles then there's no reality.

Nope, that's not my premise. I was questioning your statement about the reality of particles. Our everyday experience of the world is of aggregations of particles. Those particles may ultimately be made of stuff that isn't particulate, but does that mean they're not real?

... there may be other ways we know reality such as through conscious experience and belief.

Conscious experience is the only way we know about reality (though I suppose it could be argued that we can learn about reality through unconscious experience). Belief has no necessary relation to reality at all.

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.

That's rather confused; consciousness is a process. Do legs equate to running? is running made of legs?

I'd rather hear your own views than 'what many think'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space.

The space in matter is not empty but is permeated by fields.

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.

We can't directly observe anything, but that doesn't mean that nothing is physical

 

[SelfSim]

Belief has no necessary relation to reality at all.

I agree with everything else you say there in your post, except the above quoted bit.
Surely, even in your paradigm, (with which I think I differ slightly), both of: what is meant by reality and belief, are related via evident mind processes(?)

PS: That may be a 'sufficient' reason though I suppose(?) .. (in retrospect).

 

[SelfSim]

We can't directly observe anything,

Hmm .. very interesting!

 

[stevevw]

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).

Ok but what does pliable actually mean. The measuring method for science in physics as far as reality is concerned is about matter (particles and fields). If its just a pliable concept or an equation then its abstract and not about anything real. Its just a human made idea based on some assumptions.

If that's the case then when anyone uses science to support the idea that reality is matter they are making a metaphysical claim about what the nature of reality. I see conscious experience another type of abstract idea that we can also say is fundamental to reality.

IMO consciousness makes more sense as if we are dealing with abstract ideas about reality then the conscious observer has to be a big part of that even when applying a methodology to measure reality as we are the ones creating these ideas and we can't separate ourselves from whatever we do. Maybe we should listen to ourselves more and we could get some good insights into what reality is.

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).

Yet that is what many using science to support the idea that reality equates to matter. People defend reality as physical like its the only way we can know reality. Mention the supernatural or anything that requires understanding beyond science and its argued by using science to claim the facts about the matter and anything else is woo.

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.

Yes and because science has a strong foothold people use it beyond methodology and make metaphysical claims in arguments. If that's the case then its stepping beyond method. But its understandable because science and tech have provided some much in certain ways. Its something tangible and easy to relate to.

But I don't think people can separate the metaphysical from the method. The method implies a metaphysical position because people have to make assumptions about reality being 'matter' and the method only acknowledges matter as a possible explanation and cause of reality. Methodology implies a cause and for science that cause is physical.

If methodological naturalism is not implying any ontological position then why do so many use it as a means to dispute all other possible causes and explanations. I think because science and tech have infiltrated society so much that its easy to slip from methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

Like I said maybe we bring a worldview to how we view reality and its hard to detached our personal beliefs from how we measure reality. This goes back to how we can't take ourselves our of the equation if you can call it that.

Maybe there's a good reason why we can't really detached ourselves from how we view reality which is that reality is not really about 'matter' or not completely about 'matter' and about how we experience matter on different levels. That's why I like Peterson's quote that reality is not just about 'matter' as in the physical sense. But its also about 'What Matters'. What matters to the observer and how they interact with the physical world and how we can alter reality even the physical world.

 

[Mountainmike]

The space in matter is not empty but is permeated by fields.

Not true!
That statement is true only of the axiomatic model , and it is a demonstration of the difference between the universe and the model. It is not true of the universe.

A field does not exist. It is an abstract mindgame.
It is an expression of the forces on matter which WOULD exist , only if matter were introduced into the space. The forces are consequence of influence of matter outside the space, not present in it , interacting with matter inside it. But if matter enters the space so the force is realised , the space is no longer empty.

When travelling fields travel through the space, a photon, energy enters and leaves the space, so it is equally no longer empty at the point fields are contained in it.

Its an interesting philosophical distinction, it’s another “ observer” problem similar to QM. Does it exist before it interacts, when existence is an expression of interaction.

 

[Halbhh]

Everyone:
If fields and matter are only abstractions that aren't about an objective (actual) external reality, then the endlessly repeatable experiments in physics would...not exist. But they do.

We get actual external reality partially known via a correspondence way (our concepts proven to correspond by experiment) that works

This bridge stands reliably (until it rusts enough or there is a large enough earthquake, explosion, etc. to knock it down), because of a entirely independent objective external reality -- the process of physics is about finding parallels to aspects of that real external reality (aka "physical reality", etc.) -- which we have learned how to measure things that perfectly correspond to some consistent aspects of that objective external reality. (this isn't saying we know every aspect, or even every aspect that will matter to our various projects like bridges. But of course, obviously, we do know enough aspects to make bridges and even know what can make them collapse so that when one does collapse, we can figure out why in a way that we can demonstrate is consistently so, a reliable factor).

So, in short, we can 'know' external reality as much as we can know that we exist, or know anything we know -- equally known -- real things, out there, in part. That is, in our own aspects we have developed which evidently (by repeated experiments) show consistent behaviors that correspond perfectly to our best theories, within their limits (which we also know some about, though never all about).

So, physical reality exists, it's objective, and we can know things about it (in part) in reliable, consistent ways that work always when only the factors we know about are dominate (which for very many things is most all the time; we know very much about structural steel and bridges by experience, and can be highly confident). None of this says we can't tomorrow learn some new behavior we didn't already measure.

 

[Astrid]

Hmm .. very interesting!

It's not that deep. You can't actually touch anything either

 

[AV1611VET]

But of course, obviously, we do know enough aspects to make bridges and even know what can make them collapse so that when one does collapse, we can figure out why in a way that we can demonstrate is consistently so, a reliable factor).

Was this made to do this?

I don't think it was, and I'm sure you don't either.

But where was science's predictive powers when this thing was being rushed into place?

If science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives, why isn't science's foresight being used to do something [pun] constructive [/pun]?

 

[Halbhh]

Was this made to do this?

I don't think it was, and I'm sure you don't either.

But where was science's predictive powers when this thing was being rushed into place?

If science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives, why isn't science's foresight being used to do something [pun] constructive [/pun]?

Of course, some bridges collapse too soon, before they should, due to design or building flaws which we can figure out with effort. You could say that Engineering is really trial and error, gradually getting more reliable knowledge over time.

This though is just an atheist idea: "science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives". It's about like saying 'because oranges are tasty, we should jettison God out of our lives.'

 

[AV1611VET]

This though is just an atheist idea: "science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives". It's about like saying 'because oranges are tasty, we should jettison God out of our lives.'

Do oranges demand we provide them testable evidence for God? do they make fun of us for believing in a "sky daddy"? demand we give equal airtime to other so-called deities? define our faith as "believing something we know ain't so"? poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)? kick our right to pray out of our schools? tear down any public displays on public property? etc.?

 

[Halbhh]

Do oranges demand we provide them testable evidence for God? do they make fun of us for believing in a "sky daddy"? demand we give equal airtime to other so-called deities? define our faith as "believing something we know ain't so"? poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)? kick our right to pray out of our schools? tear down any public displays on public property? etc.?

Well, of course (as you know), science, just like an orange, isn't itself conscious and verbally demanding anything of us, and this isn't a small point. Anyone could try to characterize science in some way for their own agenda -- individually make their own odd claims about science says this or that (which it doesn't say at all) -- but in reality 'science' is only just the effort to try to understand how nature works.
When someone trolls us by random insults like 'sky daddy' it says something about the bad place they are in mentally, but nothing about us.
About 'poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)?' -- I've never done that, and don't expect to, but to me it would be a somewhat funny thing to see I'm thinking, because I don't need a theme park to believe, and a theme park seems likely to be...sorta like a movie set, full of inventions (imagined fill ins that someone has to imagine up). Sorta like this movie: Noah (2014 film) - Wikipedia If I went to the studio and saw the props of that movie (which I enjoyed as a movie), I'd be both amused and a little bored I think. It would have about 1 minute of interest max I think for me. The film is entertaining and fun though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, of course (as you know), science, just like an orange, isn't itself conscious and verbally demanding anything of us, and this isn't a small point. Anyone could try to characterize science in some way for their own agenda -- individually make their own odd claims about science says this or that (which it doesn't say at all) -- but in reality 'science' is only just the effort to try to understand how nature works.
When someone trolls us by random insults like 'sky daddy' it says something about the bad place they are in mentally, but nothing about us.
About 'poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)?' -- I've never done that, and don't expect to, but to me it would be a somewhat funny thing to see I'm thinking, because I don't need a theme park to believe, and a theme park seems likely to be...sorta like a movie set, full of inventions (imagined fill ins that someone has to imagine up). Sorta like this movie: Noah (2014 film) - Wikipedia If I went to the studio and saw the props of that movie (which I enjoyed as a movie), I'd be both amused and a little bored I think. It would have about 1 minute of interest max I think for me. The film is entertaining and fun though.

Good points.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok but what does pliable actually mean. The measuring method for science in physics as far as reality is concerned is about matter (particles and fields). If its just a pliable concept or an equation then its abstract and not about anything real. Its just a human made idea based on some assumptions.

If that's the case then when anyone uses science to support the idea that reality is matter they are making a metaphysical claim about what the nature of reality. I see conscious experience another type of abstract idea that we can also say is fundamental to reality.

IMO consciousness makes more sense as if we are dealing with abstract ideas about reality then the conscious observer has to be a big part of that even when applying a methodology to measure reality as we are the ones creating these ideas and we can't separate ourselves from whatever we do. Maybe we should listen to ourselves more and we could get some good insights into what reality is.

Yet that is what many using science to support the idea that reality equates to matter. People defend reality as physical like its the only way we can know reality. Mention the supernatural or anything that requires understanding beyond science and its argued by using science to claim the facts about the matter and anything else is woo.
Yes and because science has a strong foothold people use it beyond methodology and make metaphysical claims in arguments. If that's the case then its stepping beyond method. But its understandable because science and tech have provided some much in certain ways. Its something tangible and easy to relate to.

But I don't think people can separate the metaphysical from the method. The method implies a metaphysical position because people have to make assumptions about reality being 'matter' and the method only acknowledges matter as a possible explanation and cause of reality. Methodology implies a cause and for science that cause is physical.

If methodological naturalism is not implying any ontological position then why do so many use it as a means to dispute all other possible causes and explanations. I think because science and tech have infiltrated society so much that its easy to slip from methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

Like I said maybe we bring a worldview to how we view reality and its hard to detached our personal beliefs from how we measure reality. This goes back to how we can't take ourselves our of the equation if you can call it that.

Maybe there's a good reason why we can't really detached ourselves from how we view reality which is that reality is not really about 'matter' or not completely about 'matter' and about how we experience matter on different levels. That's why I like Peterson's quote that reality is not just about 'matter' as in the physical sense. But its also about 'What Matters'. What matters to the observer and how they interact with the physical world and how we can alter reality even the physical world.

@stevevw;
In order to see clearly where the evidence leads, one first has to clear all the philosophical baggage from the slate (and you have certainly clogged that up that view with a lot of it).

The evidence leads us to the seemingly inescapable simple conclusion that we all possess a single in-common mind type, which has been trying to make sense of its own perceptions. This has been going on for as long as we've been around.

We observe two kinds of perceptions: perceptions that are consistently persistent .. and perceptions that aren't. Science addresses the consistently persistently consistent kinds, using its formalised method and infers from these a meaning .. call it: 'Objective Reality'.
The other kind of perceptions .. the inconsistent ones .. are what we call: 'beliefs'.

That's it in a nutshell .. simple as I can make it.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not that deep. You can't actually touch anything either

That's rather disconnected though, wouldn't you say?

 

[SelfSim]

Everyone:
If fields and matter are only abstractions that aren't about an objective (actual) external reality, then the endlessly repeatable experiments in physics would...not exist. But they do.

All that shows is humans doing experiments for testing out the predictability and reliability of their persistently consistent perceptions.
There's no evidence of 'anything really existing externally' from those perceptions .. you just made all that up by basing it on philosophical baggage.

 

[Halbhh]

All that shows is humans doing experiments for testing out the predictability and reliability of their persistently consistent perceptions.
There's no evidence of 'anything really existing externally' from those perceptions .. you just made all that up by basing it on philosophical baggage.

From your wording, I wonder then if you think me existing might be just 'made up' in your mind, and not 'real'. (If the answer is 'yes', then next I'd ask: what about your own existing then -- is that also just 'made up' by your mind?)

 

[Astrid]

That's rather disconnected though, wouldn't you say?

Only you, if that many, know what you are talking about.

 

[SelfSim]

From your wording, I wonder then if you think me existing might be just 'made up' in your mind, and not 'real'.

Your posts convey to me persistently consistent meanings, which I somehow understand. Those meanings can be tested for, across the (english speaking) population of humans, using the scientfic method. Where they test out with consistency, (and they do), then I'd also associate them with a model I hold for what a human mind does, (communicate meanings), which is similar to my own (because I test out for similarly understood meanings). Human minds also test out following the same method, so I update my knowledge of 'objectively real' with the meaning of 'you' and 'others'.

(If the answer is 'yes', then next I'd ask: what about your own existing then -- is that also just 'made up' by your mind?)

Without holding consciousness and self-awareness, as properties of a human mind model, all bets about everything are off.