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

[SelfSim]

The link you provided has a pay wall. The laws that govern our universe are not a material thing so there is nothing to create.

The physical Laws and constants are empirically derived from observations of the universe. 'Creation' and 'material' are objectively meaningless terms for our objective model of the universe.

So how did they come about.

A bunch of talented observers and scientific thinkers deduced (and inferred) them from observations .. that's how.

If the ingredients of our entire universe were present at the beginning of our universe then something must have put those ingredients into the makeup of our universe including intelligent conscious life.

And so what? What you're sayin' there is that your conditional 'if' fails.
Oh well .. no matter .. I guess there's many more where that one came from.

 

[partinobodycular]

How do we know it always existed. That seems a non-verifiable claim.

One thing that we can be absolutely sure of is that there was never a time when nothing existed. You can claim that there was a God who always existed, or that energy has always existed, but you can never claim that there was a time when nothing existed.

 

[stevevw]

Its not a claim .. its a conditional assumption.

Isn't that convenient.

 

[stevevw]

One thing that we can be absolutely sure of is that there was never a time when nothing existed. You can claim that there was a God who always existed, or that energy has always existed, but you can never claim that there was a time when nothing existed.

But when talking about the material universe/existence we can.

 

[SelfSim]

One thing that we can be absolutely sure of is that there was never a time when nothing existed. You can claim that there was a God who always existed, or that energy has always existed, but you can never claim that there was a time when nothing existed.

Hmm .. 'existed' still implies a time dimension .. I suppose a hypothetical singularity could represent a discountinuity, as a discrete event in the time continuum used in representing the dimension of time ..

 

[Hans Blaster]

The causal principle tells us that everything has a cause and effect.

The problem with that "principle" is that the evidence we have is that material things that come in to existence from pre-existing material have a cause. As for universes, we don't know.

 

[partinobodycular]

But when talking about the material universe/existence we can.

No you can't. You can't even say for certain that there was a time when this specific universe didn't exist. You can, if there was something that existed before this universe existed, but you currently have no way of knowing that. So if this universe is all that has ever existed, then it has always existed, and "nothing" could never have existed...ever.

 

[partinobodycular]

Hmm .. 'existed' still implies a time dimension

Correct, that's the problem. Existence implies a temporal dimension. You simply have to ask yourself...if "nothing" existed, how long did it exist? The answer to that question would have to be that the amount of time that "nothing" existed was precisely zero. Thus it could never have existed.

 

[SelfSim]

Correct, that's the problem. Existence implies a temporal dimension. You simply have to ask yourself...

No you couldn't ask anything because there'd be no means to do that .. you don't exist ..

Unfortunately, I (yet again), find this purely philosophical mode of conversation as being complete and utter bogus word salad .. meaningless and leading nowhere of any practical significance.

Philosophers always forget to recognise (and thus completely ignore) the obvious evidence of the existence of the voice posing the hypothetical and using words and meanings which 'truly' wouldn't exist in the scenario they attempt to describe. Where are the meanings coming from? They're modern day meanings and words and thus the logic is meaningless in the so-called 'thought experiment'. Complete waste of thinking time, it is.

Mind independent realism at best is just a belief .. alongside all the rest of them .. so many of them there are in fact, that such specific beliefs/inferences/conclusions (logical or otherwise) just self-destruct, instantly. Logic does not establish existence. Science does.

 

[partinobodycular]

No you couldn't ask anything because there'd be no means to do that .. you don't exist ..

I'm talking about the real me (or you) asking a question about a hypothetical nothing.

Unfortunately, I (yet again), find this purely philosophical mode of conversation as being complete and utter bogus word salad .. meaningless and leading nowhere of any practical significance.

That is your prerogative.

Philosophers always forget to recognise (and thus completely ignore) the obvious evidence of the existence of the voice posing the hypothetical and using words and meanings which 'truly' wouldn't exist in the scenario they attempt to describe. Where are the meanings coming from? They're modern day meanings and words and thus the logic is meaningless in the so-called 'thought experiment'. Complete waste of thinking time, it is.

Mind independent realism at best is just a belief .. alongside all the rest of them .. so many of them there are in fact, that such specific beliefs/inferences/conclusions (logical or otherwise) just self-destruct, instantly. Logic does not establish existence. Science does.

Just as a side note, your position on mind independent realism has been well established, at least for me, so you really don't need to be bringing it up all the time. (It gets to be a bit annoying)

 

[stevevw]

The problem with that "principle" is that the evidence we have is that material things that come in to existence from pre-existing material have a cause. As for universes, we don't know.

But that is not how science works. It assumes there's a material cause (causal closure of the physical) so that is all it will look for.

 

[stevevw]

No you can't. You can't even say for certain that there was a time when this specific universe didn't exist. You can, if there was something that existed before this universe existed, but you currently have no way of knowing that. So if this universe is all that has ever existed, then it has always existed, and "nothing" could never have existed...ever.

Then that dispels the Big Bang theory that states our universe had a beginning.

 

[stevevw]

Just explaining @Hans Blaster answer a bit further:

The conjecture of a near zero net energy assumption is that positive matter energy is balanced by negative field potential energy. Alas there is still an apparent imbalance in as far as anyone can tell. So who knows? the idea is way old.

Thanks. What do you mean the idea is way old.

 

[Larniavc]

So if an apple was created from nothing into our current universe then it would create new additional energy which would break the law of conservation.

How would you know the apple was not taken from some other location?

 

[Larniavc]

Do you believe Ka did?

If you don’t you have forgotten the face of your father.

 

[Astrid]

Just like it always existed is an unsupported idea. Cause is a scientific idea inherent in its method so its logical to ask what caused something.

You didn't ask a question, you made a statement of
fact and claimed it was logical.

Why do you state an opinion as fact?

 

[Astrid]

But its only zero because of gravity so now we have another force to explain how it got there.

But the quantum fields as far as I understand have energy. So are you saying this was always there.

Either is the argument that the universe came from something that was always there. Its on par with God as an idea. The causal principle tells us that everything has a cause and effect.

Really. So mathematical principles are a effect.
And what cause them was an effect and it
was the effect of some other cause

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you believe Ka did?

If not, okay if I don't either?

Or am I obligated to give Ka equal airtime?

Priceless!

You don't speak Japanese, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't speak Japanese, do you?

Negative.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks. What do you mean the idea is way old.

I recollect Gamow ( one of the underrated physicists who never got a law after his name) and Einstein discussed formation of stars - Gamow put it to einstein that the mass of the star could balance negative potential energy in the quantum field and that quantum processes could have allowed the formation spontaneously.
That makes it interwar? But I think the idea preceded Gamow. Point is it’s a century old give or take. My memory gets hazy with ano domini!
But and it’s a big but. Regardless of whether the process could happen the known mass does not balance, either so that leads to questions of dark matter etc. so there is the unanswered question of where matter / energy came from.

for all the attempts to pretend science knows, in reality it has no real idea about how the origin of the universe could have happened. Only speculation.

I referred elsewhere that one of the ideas proposed of particles anti particles popping into existence has also been suggested as a model of mass formation.

But it’s interesting that even though hawking said in his book that spontaneous matter creation is how Hawking radiation occurs at the surface of a black hole, the present model used even by him is the difference in quantum field energy in increasingly curved space time near the black hole, so the region around a black hole leaks photons which is how black holes evaporate. So not particle pairs then.