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

[AV1611VET]

I'm guessing that what you mean by "Spirit" is something with no more form than anything else that's imaginary and wholly nonexistent.

You should know "something" out there exists.

After all, you've been fighting His influence on you for how long now?

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Don't be one that draws back until it's too late.

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Let go and let God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate.

Let me see I can summarize what you have written before in premises and then re-ask my question:

P1: The body is controlled by the brain and the brain is a physical object.

P2: There is "spirit" and spirit is non-physical.

P3: The spirit controls the brain or interacts with the brain.

Q: How does the spirit interact with the brain per premise 3?

What is the mode of action? What forces or fields are involved? etc.

 

[Kylie]

Did you read any of the articles I linked. I am not claiming that we can verify consciousness beyond the brain just like we can't verify consciousness emerging from the brain.

All the evidence we have so far is consistent with consciousness emerging from the brain. There is no evidence to support anything further than that.

I am saying that on the face of it from what we find with consciousness and how we experience the world that the most elegant, simplest and best fit explanations are along the lines of non-material ideas because consciousness seems 'well' non-material.

This is a very fallacious argument. You can't argue that some position is more likely just because it SEEMS like it is.

This is the great paradox. On the one hand the scientific materialist claims our conscious experience is an illusion of sorts and material reality is all there is. On the other hand there are those who say material reality is the illusion, an interface we create to perceive a deeper reality, one of Mind and consciousness.

How is this paradoxical? The fact that people say something incompatible with another position is not sufficient to make a paradox.

There is support for both but it seems the non-material reality in the form of the Mind is fundamental and creates reality or everything comes down to Information or Math which are abstract ideas and also require a Mind and even in QM interpretation the Mind and the observer is fundamental it makes more sense to think that some form of a non-materialist paradigm is required to move forward.

There is no evidence for that position at all.

 

[stevevw]

All the evidence we have so far is consistent with consciousness emerging from the brain. There is no evidence to support anything further than that.

All the evidence you cite are correlations and correlations are not sufficient for scientific verification. In fact the evidence seems to show that consciousness cannot be measured in terms of scientific material mechanism because its very nature is non-material. I mean how would you even find an experience within a neuron or chemical signals to measure them.

This is a very fallacious argument. You can't argue that some position is more likely just because it SEEMS like it is.

It doesn't just seem that way, it is that way. The experience of say the joy of music or the pain of touching a hot plate are not reducible to material stuff. They are by nature non-material yet they are as real as any material object.

How is this paradoxical? The fact that people say something incompatible with another position is not sufficient to make a paradox.

Its not just saying, its a fact. These at present are the two positions materialism as opposed to immaterial phenomena. The options are consciousness as an emergent property of the material brain or consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality outside the brain.

But because the nature of consciousness is non-material it is reasonable to look for non-material ideas like experience and Mind as possible explanations. For example behind everything we do is Mind. So saying consciousness is emergent is reducing consciousness to a concept of the Mind which undermines the material view as its trying to prove consciousness as a concept which is non-material.

There is no evidence for that position at all.

There's no evidence either way you look at it. Even in science consciousness is a weird thing in that its claiming that somehow a phenomena that cannot be measured in material terms somehow emerges from material matter. So even science is inherently metaphysical in that its posing non-verifiable stuff as being real and of the material world.

Even the idea of matter is a metaphysical claim because science claims there is such a thing as matter. Yet the evidence for matter is abstract because as far as we know reality is 99% empty space. We cannot get outside matter to measure it. The simple act of measuring matter involves the subject and as you said the subjects conscious experience is something the brain produces. Its circular reasoning.

If your theory of being-a-subject (i.e. consciousness) relies solely on matter, but your theory of matter can't get rid of the subject's being, then you're walking on swampy ground.

 

[Kylie]

All the evidence you cite are correlations and correlations are not sufficient for scientific verification.

It's more than you've got.

In fact the evidence seems to show that consciousness cannot be measured in terms of scientific material mechanism because its very nature is non-material. I mean how would you even find an experience within a neuron or chemical signals to measure them.

Artificially induce the same reactions in the brain and see if the same experience occurs.

Oh, wait, that's been done and it works.

A Successful Artificial Memory Has Been Created

It doesn't just seem that way, it is that way. The experience of say the joy of music or the pain of touching a hot plate are not reducible to material stuff. They are by nature non-material yet they are as real as any material object.

No, you are providing nothing more than claims.

Repeating the claim does not prove the claim.

Its not just saying, its a fact. These at present are the two positions materialism as opposed to immaterial phenomena. The options are consciousness as an emergent property of the material brain or consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality outside the brain.

But because the nature of consciousness is non-material it is reasonable to look for non-material ideas like experience and Mind as possible explanations. For example behind everything we do is Mind. So saying consciousness is emergent is reducing consciousness to a concept of the Mind which undermines the material view as its trying to prove consciousness as a concept which is non-material.

Again, you are just repeating your claims and pretending it is proof. It is not.

There's no evidence either way you look at it. Even in science consciousness is a weird thing in that its claiming that somehow a phenomena that cannot be measured in material terms somehow emerges from material matter. So even science is inherently metaphysical in that its posing non-verifiable stuff as being real and of the material world.

Even the idea of matter is a metaphysical claim because science claims there is such a thing as matter. Yet the evidence for matter is abstract because as far as we know reality is 99% empty space. We cannot get outside matter to measure it. The simple act of measuring matter involves the subject and as you said the subjects conscious experience is something the brain produces. Its circular reasoning.

If your theory of being-a-subject (i.e. consciousness) relies solely on matter, but your theory of matter can't get rid of the subject's being, then you're walking on swampy ground.

The fact that damage to the brain produces changes in personality and brain function is evidence for that. Your alternative would require us to believe in something extra for which there is no evidence. Occam's razor would tell us to discard your alternative. Perhaps, if you can provide evidence that only your position can explain, it will be worth paying more attention to it, but for right now, you have a fantasy that consciousness exists beyond the brain and absolutely nothing with which to back that claim up.

In short, evidence or get out.

 

[SelfSim]

... Its not just saying, its a fact. These at present are the two positions materialism as opposed to immaterial phenomena. The options are consciousness as an emergent property of the material brain or consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality outside the brain.

'Material and immaterial phenomena' are both demonstrably concepts of the mind. Try conceiving of either independently from your mind. You will not succeed.

Exactly the same applies for: 'consciouness as an emergent property' of a brain, as well as the notion of 'a reality outside of the brain'. They are all mind concepts, which we currently know due to abundant testing, where it can be shown, consistently, that an active healthy mind is present (and conscious). There is *zip* evidence for any of those concepts existing independently from a mind/brain.

But because the nature of consciousness is non-material it is reasonable to look for non-material ideas like experience and Mind as possible explanations. For example behind everything we do is Mind. So saying consciousness is emergent is reducing consciousness to a concept of the Mind which undermines the material view as its trying to prove consciousness as a concept which is non-material.

'Non material' is still a mind concept .. (which you appear to have overlooked).

There's no evidence either way you look at it. Even in science consciousness is a weird thing in that its claiming that somehow a phenomena that cannot be measured in material terms somehow emerges from material matter. So even science is inherently metaphysical in that its posing non-verifiable stuff as being real and of the material world.

Even the idea of matter is a metaphysical claim because science claims there is such a thing as matter. Yet the evidence for matter is abstract because as far as we know reality is 99% empty space. We cannot get outside matter to measure it. The simple act of measuring matter involves the subject and as you said the subjects conscious experience is something the brain produces. Its circular reasoning.

Your algebra of models is simply wrong because your model of 'material/non-material' assumes, without evidence, that things like 'empty space' (or 'the non material') exist somehow, (magically), independently of the minds which conceive of those models, in spite of the abundancy of objective evidence supporting the mind dependency of them.

Your argument is the circular one because its based on an assumed 'true' posit (eg: that things like 'empty space' or 'the immaterial' exist independently of the minds which conceive of those models), whereas the objective evidence supporting all concepts being mind dependent, is merely where the test evidence takes us (with no need for any logically 'true' imperatives, such as the ones you've based your argument upon). This is how scientifically formed arguments differ, in a big way, from purely logic based arguments.

TIf your theory of being-a-subject (i.e. consciousness) relies solely on matter, but your theory of matter can't get rid of the subject's being, then you're walking on swampy ground.

Word salad, I'm afraid.

 

[Astrid]

This topic is "what is the scientific proof" on the charismatic's belief the spirit starts on the top of the head and ends to the feet causing them to babble vocally out loud. They claim its the spirit entering the body. What they didn't know, which could be scientifically explained with real proofs, they caused that themselves and lied about it, not knowing the real truths.
They bounce their gel-like brains in their bowl-like skulls. Over a short time, electrical static circulates in the brain and releases throughout the body causing them to flap like a flipping flopping fishes with uncontrollable laugher while babbling and moo-ing like cows. They lied to you that the sudden release of the electrical energy or static is the holy spirit.
The ancients tell you to touch the tongue to roof of the mouth so energy, a natural human phenomenon, can flow, circulate through the body. Another way to say, "shutup" and enjoy the flows. They understood it to be the Kundalini spirit, the serpent sleeping at the base of the spine coiled 3 1/2 times. The charismatics mistakenly thinks it the holy spirit. Be careful of the wolves in sheepskins. They'll tell you Qanon-like conspiracies not found in the 66 book bible.

This is how things get misdiagnosed as the formless spirit.
This topic is about the scientific part of it all.
I just proved it here, briefly.
Easy to understand but denying it feels good like the devil said.

You offered an opinion about someone's
religious belief and didn't touch on what a
"Spirit," supposedly is.

 

[Astrid]

It's more than you've got.



Artificially induce the same reactions in the brain and see if the same experience occurs.

Oh, wait, that's been done and it works.

A Successful Artificial Memory Has Been Created



No, you are providing nothing more than claims.

Repeating the claim does not prove the claim.



Again, you are just repeating your claims and pretending it is proof. It is not.



The fact that damage to the brain produces changes in personality and brain function is evidence for that. Your alternative would require us to believe in something extra for which there is no evidence. Occam's razor would tell us to discard your alternative. Perhaps, if you can provide evidence that only your position can explain, it will be worth paying more attention to it, but for right now, you have a fantasy that consciousness exists beyond the brain and absolutely nothing with which to back that claim up.

In short, evidence or get out.

Seriously. Saying " science" this and " scientific" that
with no evidence or citation is popular as a attempt
to fluff up credibility. It doesn't work.

 

[Astrid]

Spirit is God

So something undetrctable, undefinable, having
no exidence of it's existence and in all other ways
having the typical and invariable characteristics
of the nonexistent.

 

[Astrid]

those stony hearts soften by God will understand.

" ....from a scientific pov" isn't really the topic, is it

 

[AV1611VET]

So something undetrctable, undefinable, having
no exidence of it's existence ...

You want evidence of "it's existence"?

Here you go:

1. The Bible
2. Time divided into BC and AD.
3. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
4. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
5. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
7. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
8. Christmas & Easter
9. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
10. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
11. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
12. Two major nations founded upon His existence.

Plenty of cause-and-effect evidence of God's existence.

Psalm 145:10 All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

 

[Mountainmike]

So something undetrctable, undefinable, having
no exidence of it's existence and in all other ways
having the typical and invariable characteristics
of the nonexistent.

To shades of the halloween theme tune..... "hes back..."
No not actually, still abroad for another week. But came to see if anything had changed here!

You mean no evidence you accept.
There is a world of difference.

If you want something that actually has no evidence, try abiogenesis of the life from non living unguided accidental chemical soup kind.
Nobody can say when , where or how it happened, and therefore nobody can say for certain it did actually happen.

It cannot be repeated and worse, it does not repeat.

So it has the "typical and invariable characeristics" of the non existent to use your phrase...

On the other hand so called "eucharistic miracles" did repeat.
Other events classed as miracle also have actual evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

If the brain is just a receiver for spirit then what is the physical mechanism or force by which the brain is altered?

That is of course a good question.
However the inability to answer it does not affect whether or not it exists.

Gravity happens. Nobody can say "why". . Gravity is just a name used to describe behaviour of what normally happens from analysis of a patttern that repeats. It is not the description of an underlying mechanism for it. Labelling it as "gravity" or deciding it is inverse square does not "explain" it. It observes it.

I suggest those who doubt separable consciousness, read a book called "the self does not die"

It is a compendium of so called veridical experiences, in which a second party has confirmed the details of what was experienced during an NDE. The details are way beyond reasonable doubt that those who were "out of body" did indeed witness events they could never have known from the standpoint of consciousness as a process of a brain. Not least because during cardiac arrest death and so flat ECG occurs after seconds. There can be no consciousness then if it is a brain process. Yet it is during those periods conscious experience is described.

There is some fascinating stuff in there.

 

[Astrid]

"talk about the 66 book bible being scientific"
If you understood bitcoin, nfts and blockchains, you'll understand its tamper proof.
You can't add or subtract from The Word.
So some early denominations tried to add 7 extra books and failed to hack the Bible.
The bible blockchains are hacker proof.
Thats how we know the wolves failed. It never got minted or mined. It never entered the blockchain Bible. It wasn't po

ssible.
BitBible.

So you figure it's all literally true.

 

[partinobodycular]

Occam's razor would tell us to discard your alternative.

Occam's razor would also suggest that we discard materialism, because it proffers a step for which there is no need.

If we simply begin with the proposition that reality is the product of interacting fields, as quantum physics suggests, then there is no need for materialism. The fields themselves are capable of producing complex patterns, at least equal to, and quite likely far in excess of the patterns that any material entity can produce.

So why propose that a complex set of interacting fields first gives rise to a material world, and then this material world gives rise to a complex set of physical phenomena that we experience as consciousness?

Why not simply apply Occam's razor and assume that it's the fields themselves that are the source of consciousness, and that the material world is simply a manifestation thereof?

That's what Occam's razor would suggest that we do.

 

[SelfSim]

So why propose that a complex set of interacting fields first gives rise to a material world, and then this material world gives rise to a complex set of physical phenomena that we experience as consciousness?

Why not simply apply Occam's razor and assume that it's the fields themselves that are the source of consciousness, and that the material world is simply a manifestation thereof?

Simple:
i) quantum field theory (QFT) does not predict consciousness;
ii) the available objective evidence demonstrates that consciousness requires a brain.

That's what Occam's razor would suggest that we do.

Occam's razor is a heuristic centered around investigative choices likely to lead towards the best understanding.
Most humans wouldn't have even the slightest understanding of QFT.

 

[Tinker Grey]

2+2=4
this can be true. it could be wrong.
to test if 2+2=4 is true, you do scientific test.
Take your calculator, add 2 plus 2. the results should be 4.
To be sure its correct, we test it again. this is science.
you should get the same result. lets do this a hundred times and log it on paper.
you probably don't want to do this cause you know you'll get the same result.
this is the same with the bible. you can test it add you'll get the same results, everytime.
theres scientific proof that God is the author of the book.

This is wrong. A calculator does what we tell it to. It is not a force of nature. It is a product of human minds. If we were wrong about addition, a calculator would not be able to show it.

Addition is a model of how things work in the universe. The experiment is that we take two objects and place them beside two objects and count how many we now have. In general, the answer is 4.

But is 1 + 1 always 2? You'd expect that a 1/2 liter of alcohol + 1/2 liter of water would be 1 liter of solution. But it's not. It's 0.963 L of solution. (this link explains why).

One must understand what are the conditions that we are trying to model. In a sense, a calculator is just a device telling you what you want to hear.

 

[partinobodycular]

i) quantum field theory (QFT) does not predict consciousness;

I would be shocked if it did. But I'm not therefore going to assume that it's impossible. Some would assume that a materialistic explanation is equally unconvincing. It's not called a hard problem for nothing.

But if one is going to invoke 'complexity' as a necessary prerequisite for consciousness, then the fields are just as adequate of an explanation as a material cause is. By that measure a material cause isn't necessary.

ii) the available objective evidence demonstrates that consciousness requires a brain.

It definitely demonstrates correlation, but whether that amounts to causation is a whole different thing. I'll grant you that it's a reasonable assumption, but how is the alternative any less reasonable, that it's the fields that give rise to consciousness and concurrent with that consciousness is the 'illusion' of a material cause.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The magnetic fields tells where the birds to migrate to.

Not sure how this is relevant to proof for god or the spiritual, but no magnetic fields don't "tells where the birds to migrate to.", though it does seem likely that some sorts of birds do *detect* magnetic fields and use them for navigation.

So its not invisible. Your limited thresholds of the wavelike energies on the spectrum scales depends on each person. The ancients instructs us how to see the faint auras. Some, like real healers, can see black dark cloud-like fields around the cancers and diagnoses it when others can.

This is meaningless nonsense and unevidenced claims.

If you see people on elevators with this dark clouds, DON'T GET ON THE ELEVATOR ! Its been known the cable break crashing to the bottom.

Sure, dude, sure.

 

[Tinker Grey]

still, I had 4 apples and I ate them myself. I counted 4 apples. they were good! I should have given you an apple. I would be happy to eat 3 apples.
don't be so hard on yourself. don't worry, you wouldn't have been able to accept Jesus anyway. don't panic

Congrats. Welcome to my list of people I won't waste time on.