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

[Hans Blaster]

Study the evidence first.
Comment second.
Thats the scientific way.
Ive listed a few books to try
These are not written by quacks or wishful thinkers.
They are written by ED doctors, cardiac specialists, neurologists.
They performed longitudinal studies.

I don't know why you continue to write long messages at me. I don't care enough about what you have to say to read them anymore.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hormones(?)

and neurotransmitters.

 

[Kylie]

Hmm .. why wouldn't the measures of:
i) reports of the experience of love from the experiencer and;
ii) noticeable changes in brain activity when they experience love;
not be objective measures applicable to the experience?
Is what the individual experiences, really of any relevance to the objective experience?
(I mean after all, Newton never attempted to describe a cause for gravity .. ?)

Reports of the experience of love? How is that going to work? Sure, you can get Person A to say, "Yes, I experienced the emotion I call love," and you can get Person B to say, "Yes, I experienced the emotion I call love," but there's no way to objectively verify that what A calls love is the same as what B calls love, since the love they feel is subjective, not objective, and short of reading their minds, there's no way to actually compare the two.

Noticeable changes in brain chemistry? Sure, we can do that. And we HAVE done it. Looking at brain activity when different emotions are being experienced is something that we've been doing for ages. But that doesn't mean that two different people are going to have the same subjective experience when that brain activity occurs, in just the same way we can't verify that what you call red is the same as what I call red, even if we measure the wavelength of the light to make sure the light I see is the same colour as what you see.

There's a difference between love and gravity. Gravity after all can be described mathematically using an equation. You drop an object from such and such a height in a vacuum and the gravity has this particular strength, and the object will take this number of seconds to hit the ground. It works the same, every time. Love doesn't work like that. Even if you measure the brain activity when a person experiences love and then find a way to induce that same activity, is the person going to have the same emotional response? What if you leave it going for several days? What if you rig it up so every time they tap their nose they experience that brain activity. Will their subjective experience of love remain the same? I doubt it.

 

[SelfSim]

Reports of the experience of love? How is that going to work? Sure, you can get Person A to say, "Yes, I experienced the emotion I call love," and you can get Person B to say, "Yes, I experienced the emotion I call love," but there's no way to objectively verify that what A calls love is the same as what B calls love, since the love they feel is subjective, not objective, and short of reading their minds, there's no way to actually compare the two.

I agree.
Yet the results are still objective measures applicable to the experience.

Noticeable changes in brain chemistry? Sure, we can do that. And we HAVE done it. Looking at brain activity when different emotions are being experienced is something that we've been doing for ages. But that doesn't mean that two different people are going to have the same subjective experience when that brain activity occurs, in just the same way we can't verify that what you call red is the same as what I call red, even if we measure the wavelength of the light to make sure the light I see is the same colour as what you see.

I agree.
Yet we both stop when we see red lights at an intersection.

There's a difference between love and gravity. Gravity after all can be described mathematically using an equation. You drop an object from such and such a height in a vacuum and the gravity has this particular strength, and the object will take this number of seconds to hit the ground. It works the same, every time. Love doesn't work like that. Even if you measure the brain activity when a person experiences love and then find a way to induce that same activity, is the person going to have the same emotional response? What if you leave it going for several days? What if you rig it up so every time they tap their nose they experience that brain activity. Will their subjective experience of love remain the same? I doubt it.

Sure .. and yet the results of the tests are still objective measures applicable to the experience.
Oh .. and gravity can be thought of as a fictitious or fake force, which can only be experienced by observers in accelerated frames of reference. Inertial observers, or observers in stationary frames, or frames moving at a constant velocity, do not even experience gravity.

 

[Kylie]

I agree.
Yet the results are still objective measures applicable to the experience.

But the experience itself can not be described objectively.

I agree.
Yet we both stop when we see red lights at an intersection.

Correction, we both stop when we see lights that are the colour we have been told is red at the intersection.

For all we know, what you think of as red could be the same as what I think of as blue. And if I could telepathically link with your mind and share your experiences, I'd see you stopping at, what is to me, a blue light.

Sure .. and yet the results of the tests are still objective measures applicable to the experience.

Again, the experience itself can not be described objectively.

I can whack you in the leg with a baseball bat, but that doesn't mean I KNOW what pain you experienced. The closest I can come is to know what pain I experience if I get whacked in the leg with a baseball bat, but there's still no guarantee that the pain I feel is the same as the pain you feel.

Oh .. and gravity can be thought of as a fictitious or fake force, which can only be experienced by observers in accelerated frames of reference. Inertial observers, or observers in stationary frames, or frames moving at a constant velocity, do not even experience gravity.

Gravity can be objectively described as the amount of curvature in spacetime.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't know why you continue to write long messages at me. I don't care enough about what you have to say to read them anymore.

I had hope you cared about evidence and science.
Fascinating stuff. My bad.

 

[Mountainmike]

Wrong. just focus last paragraph.
Science models are not the objective thing. They are abstract.

The closest you get is observations.
And they are through a subjective filter.

The only objective “ reality” is the underlying universe itself.
And we only have a blurred and limited view of it.

The models are an attempt to make sense of patterns in the view.

But the models are just abstract. Not objective, they live on paper and computers not in the world.

In philosophical terms it is a nonsense to believe that because some observations don’t conform to the model ( or materialist view of the world) , the observations are wrong.
The real world is king, but in absence of complete knowledge , observed evidence is king, accepting the limitations of observations. The model is a poor third and is dispensable if it doesn’t fit. Projections of the model are a distant fourth.


read val lommels book on NDE.

It goes a lot deeper into discussing neurologists viewpoints on consciousness.
Many now openly state that the hypothesis that the mind ie consciousness as a process of the brain is no longer supportable. The evidence doesn’t fit.
The mind controls the brain, and indeed can restructure it.

...
So your description underlined there, is your model for what the 'the real world' is. It is unknowable. That's your model.
...

The only confusion here, is caused by your immovable fliter of absolute beliefs.
You say 'the real world' trumps science's models, yet you claim that 'the real world' is 'unknowable'. Then you go onto to explain some things you alone, (somehow), know about it, which science doesn't.

So how do we know it trumps anything?

How your view 'trumps' anything of practical value, is completely delusional.

Science only ever tests its models and never tests 'the actual thing'.
Science's models, therefore, are our only view of the objective universe, (or your 'the real world'). You can't even offer any objective test which would lead us to distinguish between science's models and your 'the real world'. The two are therefore exactly the same .. with the exception for your fixed beliefs

 

[Mountainmike]

Consciousness of remote places during death. : D .

Right.

So have you ever actually read any of the examples , before dismiss them?

 

[dlamberth]

Hormones(?)

What would that be that kicks off the hormones and neurotransmitters into action?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What would that be that kicks off the hormones and neurotransmitters into action?

Stimuli.

 

[dlamberth]

Stimuli.

And where does the stemuli arise from if not from life itself?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And where does the stemuli arise from if not from life itself?

Many stimuli are non-living. For example: the temperature.

 

[Astrid]

Many stimuli are non-living. For example: the temperature.

Or raindrops a fallin on your head

 

[SelfSim]

Or raindrops a fallin on your head

Or loud sounds from electrical discharges (thunder) ..

 

[AV1611VET]

Or loud sounds from electrical discharges (thunder) ..

The late Henry M Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible, points out that Job mentions electronic communications.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[Kylie]

The late Henry M Morris, in his Defender's Study Bible, points out that Job mentions electronic communications.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

That's a reach, even for you, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a reach, even for you, AV.

Yup.

Reached right into my Defender's Study Bible and gleaned it out.

And for the record, how many times have I mentioned this?

Are you just hearing this for the first time?

 

[Kylie]

Yup.

Reached right into my Defender's Study Bible and gleaned it out.

And for the record, how many times have I mentioned this?

Are you just hearing this for the first time?

Repeating it many times does not make it any less ridiculous.

Or do you often get electrical sparks out of your telecommunication devices? If so, I would advise you to be careful, it could be deadly!

 

[AV1611VET]

Repeating it many times does not make it any less ridiculous.

And calling it a "reach, even for me," when I've been saying it for years, is mislabeling.

 

[Kylie]

And calling it a "reach, even for me," when I've been saying it for years, is mislabeling.

Doesn't matter how long you've been saying it. It's a reach because it's implausible.

Things do not become more plausible just because you've been saying it for a long time.