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

[Kylie]

Your link is broken. At least for me.

For me too.

 

[SelfSim]

Being consciously aware of something is not the same as creating it.

Scientifically speaking, 'being consciously aware of something', and 'creating it', are both models now that you used language to communicate those concepts there.

.. But the map (model) is not the terrain.

Again, the more supportable scientific interpretation there, is that both 'the map' and 'the terrain', are demonstrably mind models .. just different kinds of models.

When used as just a truism, 'the map is not the terrain', is quite useless (practically speaking). The reason its useless is that it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call 'a map', is a different kind of concept than what we call 'the terrain', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps. So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be: 'what we call the terrain is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test .. whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of 'map' and 'terrain' are suitably serving our needs.
(It's as though some people think 'maps' and 'terrain' are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!?)

But the Boltzmann brain concept is cognitively unstable - if everything you know is the result of random fluctuations that constructed your brain, you have no reason to trust that any of it corresponds to any objective reality - including the idea of Boltzmann brains itself, so you have no justification for accepting your reasoning (and statistically, you're far more likely to be a Boltzmann brain that doesn't model objective reality than one that does).

Where the aim is to construct a meaning of practical use for the phrase 'objective reality', the 'correspondence' there is superfluous/irrelevant.
I'd agree that the Boltzman brain idea is also of no practical use in pursuing that purpose, (ie: beyond just us using our own conscious brains), and so it can be more easily dismissed it on that basis alone.

 

[stevevw]

Being consciously aware of something is not the same as creating it. We construct a predictive model of the causes of our observations (sensations). But the map (model) is not the terrain.

That seems to support that consciousness creates reality because its the conscious observer/subject that is creating the mental models. This makes knowledge fundamental and not some actual objective reality beyond mind. Knowledge is of mind and therefore all that is real.

But the Boltzmann brain concept is cognitively unstable - if everything you know is the result of random fluctuations that constructed your brain, you have no reason to trust that any of it corresponds to any objective reality - including the idea of Boltzmann brains itself, so you have no justification for accepting your reasoning (and statistically, you're far more likely to be a Boltzmann brain that doesn't model objective reality than one that does).

I am not saying that these ideas are correct but rather appealing to similar basic idea about Mind and knowledge being fundamental in creating reality. For me I think the idea of a Boltzmann brain primarily is about consciousness being the determining factor. I agree the universe could have produced a Boltzmann brain without consciousness just like it could have produced zombies through evolution if we assume materialism as fundamental.

The question is why consciousness comes about in a universe that is non conscious. If we assume the observer effect then it may be that some form of consciousness pervades the universe and human consciousness or conscious Boltzmann brain may have been an inevitable part of the universe unfolding. In some ways the universe is how it is because conscious beings are here.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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.

What did humans ever create that even comes close to creation? Like a popular YouTube evangelist likes to say: "Nothing could not have created Everything".


Romans 1:19-20

19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

 

[Astrid]

What did humans ever create that even comes close to creation? Like a popular YouTube evangelist likes to say: "Nothing could not have created Everything".


Romans 1:19-20

19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

A little slogan that is in no way even related
to any opposing viewpoint, ie a total strawman
is a poor basis for any belief.

 

[YahuahSaves]

A little slogan that is in no way even related
to any opposing viewpoint, ie a total strawman
is a poor basis for any belief.

I don’t know how the word of God is a poor basis for belief, you either believe God created everything through the word (Jesus), or you don't. Personally, I have no choice but to follow him now... human opinion doesn't matter.

Peace

 

[Astrid]

I don’t know how the word of God is a poor basis for belief, you either believe God created everything through the word (Jesus), or you don't. Personally, I have no choice but to follow him now... human opinion doesn't matter.

Peace

I don't know how you decided
that I said or remotely implied
that the word of God is a poor basis.

Maybe you didn't even read what
I said.

The quote you highlighted about
"Nothing creating everything" is not
the "word of god", and it's nonsense.

Nobody thinks that, so it's just a
strawman.
If strawman arguments, nonsense
claims falsely leveled at people
suit you, so much the worse for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your link is broken. At least for me.

Oops! Sorry about that - I've fixed it now. There's a fair bit of technical detail, but the relevant bit is the last section.

The PDF is downloadable from here - Why Boltzmann Brains are Bad.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For me too.

Sorry - now fixed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientifically speaking, 'being consciously aware of something', and 'creating it', are both models now that you used language to communicate those concepts there.

Yup - that's how forum communication works.

Again, the more supportable scientific interpretation there, is that both 'the map' and 'the terrain', are demonstrably mind models .. just different kinds of models.

The difference is what I was pointing out.

When used as just a truism, 'the map is not the terrain', is quite useless (practically speaking). The reason its useless is that it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call 'a map', is a different kind of concept than what we call 'the terrain', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps. So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be: 'what we call the terrain is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test .. whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of 'map' and 'terrain' are suitably serving our needs.
(It's as though some people think 'maps' and 'terrain' are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!?)

As always, one hopes one's intended meaning will be understood.

Where the aim is to construct a meaning of practical use for the phrase 'objective reality', the 'correspondence' there is superfluous/irrelevant.
I'd agree that the Boltzman brain idea is also of no practical use in pursuing that purpose, (ie: beyond just us using our own conscious brains), and so it can be more easily dismissed it on that basis alone.

OK.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That seems to support that consciousness creates reality because its the conscious observer/subject that is creating the mental models. This makes knowledge fundamental and not some actual objective reality beyond mind. Knowledge is of mind and therefore all that is real.

OK, let me put it this way - consciousness creates subjective reality, not objective reality. Knowledge (what we think we know) is fundamental to our subjective reality (i.e. our internal model).

I am not saying that these ideas are correct but rather appealing to similar basic idea about Mind and knowledge being fundamental in creating reality. For me I think the idea of a Boltzmann brain primarily is about consciousness being the determining factor. I agree the universe could have produced a Boltzmann brain without consciousness just like it could have produced zombies through evolution if we assume materialism as fundamental.

The question is why consciousness comes about in a universe that is non conscious. If we assume the observer effect then it may be that some form of consciousness pervades the universe and human consciousness or conscious Boltzmann brain may have been an inevitable part of the universe unfolding. In some ways the universe is how it is because conscious beings are here.

Sorry, that seems quite incoherent. A Boltzmann brain is necessarily conscious - that's the whole point of it. The observer effect is dependent on observers, it doesn't create them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What did humans ever create that even comes close to creation? Like a popular YouTube evangelist likes to say: "Nothing could not have created Everything".

Groovy, evangelists. I would try and guess, but so many have ignorantly taken up this empty aphorism.

Romans 1:19-20

19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

And Paul was clearly wrong:

1. It is not obvious.
2. It is not clearly seen.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What did humans ever create that even comes close to creation? Like a popular YouTube evangelist likes to say: "Nothing could not have created Everything".

Don't Christians claim that God created everything out of nothing? Educated humans don't make that claim.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I don't know how you decided
that I said or remotely implied
that the word of God is a poor basis.

Maybe you didn't even read what
I said.

The quote you highlighted about
"Nothing creating everything" is not
the "word of god", and it's nonsense.

Nobody thinks that, so it's just a
strawman.
If strawman arguments, nonsense
claims falsely leveled at people
suit you, so much the worse for you.

I was quoting another Christian evangelist when he queries an athiests unbelief.
I was not debating, I was stating the truth as I see it. There was no "big bang" with nothing behind the creation of everything.
You are the one taking my statements out of context and going on the attack, I simply responded with my view to the OP.

Peace

 

[YahuahSaves]

Groovy, evangelists. I would try and guess, but so many have ignorantly taken up this empty aphorism.


And Paul was clearly wrong:

1. It is not obvious.
2. It is not clearly seen.

I'm not an evangelist I just quoted one.
Do you believe in the possibility that everything came from nothing?
I was pinpointing the statements about science being able to "prove or disprove".
Unfortunately, us humans think more highly of ourselves than we ought to. If you can't see that someone all powerful created everything we see around us (or even wondered about it), then you haven't been alive.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Don't Christians claim that God created everything out of nothing? Educated humans don't make that claim.

When science proclaims it, it's often that nothing was behind creation itself.
Christians don't claim nothing created everything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not an evangelist I just quoted one.

I didn't say you were. I started to speculate on the name of that person, but I gave up as it is so, so common.

Do you believe in the possibility that everything came from nothing?

What is nothing?

I was pinpointing the statements about science being able to "prove or disprove".

Not quite how science works.

Unfortunately, us humans think more highly of ourselves than we ought to.

For example, many humans think the creator of the universe cares about them personally.

If you can't see that someone all powerful created everything we see around us (or even wondered about it), then you haven't been alive.

I don't see it and I am very much alive.


I know how stars, planets, and galaxies form. Mostly gravity, no god needed.
I know how trees and animals grow. I can comprehend how they evolved, etc.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I didn't say you were. I started to speculate on the name of that person, but I gave up as it is so, so common.

What is nothing?

Not quite how science works.


For example, many humans think the creator of the universe cares about them personally.


I don't see it and I am very much alive.


I know how stars, planets, and galaxies form. Mostly gravity, no god needed.
I know how trees and animals grow. I can comprehend how they evolved, etc.

OK so you're an atheist?
I use to be agnostic.
Unfortunately when the creator of the universe does reveal himself to you, you will be so humbled you'll regret saying such foolish things...of course, it's dependent on how open you are to the God you don't think is needed.
Every little thing matters to HIM, including us, including you.
I pray one day you seek and find the truth.

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Groovy, evangelists. I would try and guess, but so many have ignorantly taken up this empty aphorism.

You're right. It is an empty aphorism. But as Frank Close briefly notes, there is also the question we'll likely always have about what (or who) encoded a quantum possibility into the Void so that something can come out of a quantum fluctuation from nothing.

And Paul was clearly wrong:

1. It is not obvious.
2. It is not clearly seen.

Oh, I don't think Paul was wrong. It's just that we have little or no idea as to what his exact referent was when he was writing to the Roman church.

I'm surmising that, apart from mothers who kill their young, he had something like the following in mind when he said what he said:

​

It's just that today, we'd look at this behaviour scientifically and say, "Yep, there's an example of evolution! It's undeniable by definition."

Paul, by comparison and likely thinking according to both the Psalms and any essential philosophy of his own day, would have thought, "Where is God's moral order, you ask? It's THERE!!!" ...and he'd point to the mother duck and her ducklings as they casually waddled on by ...

I doubt that Paul had any bits or pieces of Lucretius or Leonard Susskind in mind when he said what he said. Just my guess.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK so you're an atheist?
I use to be agnostic.

I used to be a Christian.

Unfortunately when the creator of the universe does reveal himself to you, you will be so humbled you'll regret saying such foolish things...of course, it's dependent on how open you are to the God you don't think is needed.

In my 50ish or so years I have had no such revelation, even during the half or so I was a believer. Nor has any one I know closely had such a revelation, believers and non-believers alike.

Every little thing matters to HIM, including us, including you.

I lack the arrogance to think the creator of the Universe cares about me. I'm OK with that.

I pray one day you seek and find the truth.

It's why I do science, but don't waste your prayer time on me.

Peace

Ciao.