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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God doesn't have a history at all.

Quite (q.v. title of thread) - and science has a proven history of correcting its errors.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So is a field a physical thing in empty space as @FrumiousBandersnatch contendS?

That's not what I said. If you're going to paraphrase me, please get it right. See below:

A field is something that has a physical value/quantity at every point in space.

and...

... without matter, space still has fields (and dark energy), so is never empty in that sense - one could say that that's what space is. Even at its minimum energy state, space is not empty.

 

[David's Harp]

God doesn't have a history at all.

In a sense - true. God is beyond time. Yet, what was the impetus for the creation that you now experience and enjoy? What caused the so-called "big-bang"?

Science doesn't have a suitable answer for this unless, perhaps, diving into advanced theoretical physics and mathematics. Even then, it's speculative.

Surely the evidence of intelligence in this whole creation suggests this must have existed prior to the "big bang", else how would it have known to evolve into this world that we experience?

 

[Tinker Grey]

In a sense - true. God is beyond time. Yet, what was the impetus for the creation that you now experience and enjoy? What caused the so-called "big-bang"?

Science doesn't have a suitable answer for this unless, perhaps, diving into advanced theoretical physics and mathematics. Even then, it's speculative.

Surely the evidence of intelligence in this whole creation suggests this must have existed prior to the "big bang", else how would it have known to evolve into this world that we experience?

What causes lightening? Zeus?

 

[Astrid]

In a sense - true. God is beyond time. Yet, what was the impetus for the creation that you now experience and enjoy? What caused the so-called "big-bang"?

Science doesn't have a suitable answer for this unless, perhaps, diving into advanced theoretical physics and mathematics. Even then, it's speculative.

Surely the evidence of intelligence in this whole creation suggests this must have existed prior to the "big bang", else how would it have known to evolve into this world that we experience?

An awful lot of evidence- free assertions and assumptions.

A theory, fyi, is an explanation that
best fits the evidence.

Inventing something greater than the universe, that itself had no cause is somehow lacking logic or evidence.


An argument from incredulity or ignorance
has only only evidence for, well, the person making it not knowing much. As also evidenced by questions asked.

The " design" thing has been getting moldy for 150 years now.

Did something have to " design," 1+1=2?
Or a waterfall?

 

[Astrid]

What causes lightening? Zeus?

I saw him do it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What causes lightening? Zeus?

Oh, I imagine he threw one or two in his time.

He can't now ... not in this dispensation.

But for the most part, nature does it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I saw him do it.

Wow.

You're more skeptical than I give you credit for.

If you saw a fallen angel throw a lightning bolt, and you remain a skeptic, then science must have a really powerful influence on your mindset.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I saw him do it.

And I saw Iggy the magic elf fart out the universe. (I was standing on a barstool beyond space and time.)

 

[Astrid]

And I saw Iggy the magic elf fart out the universe. (I was standing on a barstool beyond space and time.)

.
Joseph Smith and Co. all saw the gold books.
I heard about that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?

Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

Trying to use science to come to a realization of the divine is akin to using a hammer as a magnifying glass. No matter how hard you stare into the hammer you won't get a better view of what is on the other side of it. Hammers, like the sciences, work extremely well when they are utilized as tools for the purpose they were created. Trying to use them for some other purpose just doesn't give positive results.

 

[AV1611VET]

Joseph Smith and Co. all saw the gold books.
I heard about that.

For the record, they were plates -- not books.

 

[David's Harp]

Inventing something greater than the universe, that itself had no cause is somehow lacking logic or evidence

You're absolutely right. Which is why it makes more sense to NOT having invented it, and accepting that it is the fundamental principle from which all else flows.

Please tell me how you understand - or believe - the universe had no cause. You have a keen intellect. Enlighten me. And please try and keep it simple for my limited mind.

Did something have to " design," 1+1=2?
Or a waterfall?

In trying to answer these questions, I found myself being drawn into the whole theory of evolution. This would be for another discussion.
I will raise just one question. How would you explain the Fibonacci sequence as found in nature?

 

[SelfSim]

A field is something that has a physical value/quantity at every point in space.

(Largely agree).
Or perhaps more explicitly(?), ie: as an option:
'Our model for a field, has parameter values/quantities for every point in our model for space'.
... Because its useful.

... without matter, space still has fields (and dark energy), so is never empty in that sense - one could say that that's what space is. Even at its minimum energy state, space is not empty.

(Largely agree).
Or perhaps more explicitly(?), ie: as an option:
'without matter, our model for space still has its field parameters (including those for dark energy), so is never empty in that sense - one could say that's what our operational model for what space is. Therefore, even at its minimum energy state, our operational model for space is not empty'.
... Because its useful

 

[Astrid]

You're absolutely right. Which is why it makes more sense to NOT having invented it, and accepting that it is the fundamental principle from which all else flows.

Please tell me how you understand - or believe - the universe had no cause. You have a keen intellect. Enlighten me. And please try and keep it simple for my limited mind.



In trying to answer these questions, I found myself being drawn into the whole theory of evolution. This would be for another discussion.
I will raise just one question. How would you explain the Fibonacci sequence as found in nature?

Sarcasm doesn't improve your attrmpt at an argument.
You clearly believe something greater than the universe exists with no cause.
I don't have to make that up, like you made up what you claim I believe.

 

[David's Harp]

Sarcasm doesn't improve your attrmpt at an argument.
You clearly believe something greater than the universe exists with no cause.
I don't have to make that up, like you made up what you claim I believe.

I'm sorry you thought I was being sarcastic. Reading back, I can see how it may seem that way. I do believe you have a keen intellect. I am genuinely interested in your view because of this.

Anyway, I'm going to respectfully bow out of this thread now. Best wishes.

 

[Astrid]

Trying to use science to come to a realization of the divine is akin to using a hammer as a magnifying glass. No matter how hard you stare into the hammer you won't get a better view of what is on the other side of it. Hammers, like the sciences, work extremely well when they are utilized as tools for the purpose they were created. Trying to use them for some other purpose just doesn't give positive results.

Assuming the conclusion ("realizing") is an
insult to intelligence.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Assuming the conclusion ("realizing") is an
insult to intelligence.

Read more carefully.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sarcasm doesn't improve your attrmpt at an argument.
You clearly believe something greater than the universe exists with no cause.
I don't have to make that up, like you made up what you claim I believe.

You clearly believe with no cause that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes.

 

[Astrid]

You clearly believe with no cause that the poster has no cause to believe what the poster believes.

Prease exprain this meaning of words.