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

[Kylie]

Look into Lee Strobel,
He Was an investigative journalist in 1980 who was an avowed atheist,
Who Tried to Debunk the Resurrection of Christ,
pretty interesting.

Care to provide a link that sums up his arguments? Would you be interested in participating in a thread specifically examining Strobel's position?

 

[timothyu]

This kind of sums it all up using recent scientific discovery to emulate what was written 2000 years ago

 

[YahuahSaves]

If we extend this, then we could all be brains in a jar. I'm sure you don't want to take it that far. So the question is, where do we draw the line?

exactly! Who says there is a line? The scientific community?

Yes, because perhaps they failed to consider that Person B is heavier than Person A, and while Person A wasn't heavy enough to cause the chair to collapse, Person B was.

I didn't mention weight.

And, I must point out that if they had actually bothered to examine the chair to verify the chair's stability, they could have avoided the whole thing. See how relying on faith and faith alone can get you into trouble?

Do you do this every time you sit on a chair? That would get pretty tiresome.

They aren't relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God.

You guys keep saying this as though I had no right to respond on this thread. I do. So I did.
The only reason this discussion is still going is because you won't stop responding.

 

[YahuahSaves]

If we are given a good reason to believe in something, we'll believe it. But faith is not sufficient reason, since it doesn't produce reliable information about the world.

So you lack trust then?
Do you trust your family and friends?
No relationship can begin without it.

 

[YahuahSaves]

If there really is a God that exists as an independent being, then such a God is more than personal. Such a God would exist in objective

He is, and he does.

Do you really think that people have never been wrong about another person? "I've lived next door to him all my life, there's no way he could be a murderer!"

My analogy was referring to a close family member or friend. And before you respond to that with something like: we can never really know them either", the issue is trust - we first must offer to a person based on who they appear to be. That's faith.

 

[Kylie]

exactly! Who says there is a line? The scientific community?

The line is drawn with testing.

There's no way to test the "brain in a jar" idea. If you know a way to test it, I'd certainly love to hear it.

So we go with what can be tested.

If different people do the testing and they all get the same result, then we can conclude that what they are testing exists independent of them. I mean, let's say you and I were testing how high a particular tree is. If the tree does NOT exist independent of ourselves (if the tree I see exists only in my mind and the tree you see exists only in your mind) then why would we get the same result? We wouldn't. We'd get different results.

But if we both test it and get the same results, we can be pretty sure that this means the tree actually exists outside our minds.

How does that sound to you?

I didn't mention weight.

Then why did the chair collapse?

Do you do this every time you sit on a chair? That would get pretty tiresome.

Agreed.

But I have past experience to go by. And if I sit on the chair that I usually use and something feels off, like it sags a bit, then I get up and check it.

That being said, I did once sit on a chair at school that was broken and it did collapse. If I had checked it, I would have saved myself the pain and the embarrassment.

You guys keep saying this as though I had no right to respond on this thread. I do. So I did.
The only reason this discussion is still going is because you won't stop responding.

No. Me pointing out that the message conveyed by a parable is not relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God is NOT me telling you that you have no right to post here.

 

[dlamberth]

Many if not most relogious traditions
involve invoking said state of mind through
stress inducing activities such as fasting
chanting etc. As you are pointing out.
No doubt each, ignorant of the mechanism
and how common it is thru cultures,
thinks it is unique to them and theirs.

Interesting perspective. I think thou, how ever it's achieved, mind altering stimuli has been a part of the Human spiritual experience for a very long time.

 

[timothyu]

I think thou, how ever it's achieved, mind altering stimuli has been a part of the Human spiritual experience for a very long time.

Perhaps we subconsciously sense our senses have been muzzled and we seek way to remove the scales from our senses.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look into Lee Strobel,
He Was an investigative journalist in 1980 who was an avowed atheist,
Who Tried to Debunk the Resurrection of Christ,
pretty interesting.

Strobel is an amateur apologist. His work reflects that. Quite derivative in his arguments. Nothing that hasn't been torn down.

 

[YahuahSaves]

The line is drawn with testing.

Not all Scientific theory is based around the things we can see with our naked eyes.

If different people do the testing and they all get the same result, then we can conclude that what they are testing exists independent of them.

That's what happens with believers. (And no, it's not group think).

then why would we get the same result? We wouldn't. We'd get different results.

Exactly my point about how we experience God.

But if we both test it and get the same results, we can be pretty sure that this means the tree actually exists outside our minds.

Exactly, and that "testing" can extend beyond the physical realm.

Then why did the chair collapse?

The analogy was about the level of trust in the chair. I thought that was obvious.

That being said, I did once sit on a chair at school that was broken and it did collapse. If I had checked it, I would have saved myself the pain

You can do the same with God.

Me pointing out that the message conveyed by a parable is not relevant to a discussion about scientific evidence for God

I was pointing out how 3 of you responding to me so far have said the same thing - that God is irrelevant here. Considering the full context of the OP, that's not true.

 

[dlamberth]

Okay, and if you can tell me this process by which we can OBJECTIVELY determine the truth about spirituality?

Remember, if it's OBJECTIVE, it's the same for everyone.

Feeling it very strongly does not make it a fact. And if it can't be verified, you can't claim it as a fact.

Even the word "spiritual" is subjective. We all experience reality a little differently so there's no way to objectively determine the truth about spirituality. But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.

 

[Lost Witness]

Strobel is an amateur apologist. His work reflects that. Quite derivative in his arguments. Nothing that hasn't been torn down.

Pretty well known for an 'amateur'.

 

[stevevw]

OK - but do you agree with it?

Yes as far as I understood what he was saying.

 

[stevevw]

But you can give a blind person an objective way to determine the colour of something. A small handheld thing which they can put against a surface, it shines a light and measures which wavelengths are reflected back, and then speaks what colour it is. I use similar technology every few months on my computer monitor to make sure it is properly calibrated. Such objective determination is impossible when it comes to determining if God is real or now. All you can do is go on feeling, and there is no way to verify those feelings.

But what the light meter is reading out is technical data, its not the experience of say the color red. Yet red is as real as any objective in the world. The ironic thing is even though color is not something that occupies space or has mass you support its objectivity by claiming that we can measure it objectively with a light meter even to calibrate the color on you monitor like its the basis for what color is or should be.

So here we have some immaterial phenomena that has realness and fact that is applied in the world

 

[Astrid]

Not all Scientific theory is based around the things we can see with our naked eyes.


That's what happens with believers. (And no, it's not group think).


Exactly my point about how we experience God.


Exactly, and that "testing" can extend beyond the physical realm.


The analogy was about the level of trust in the chair. I thought that was obvious.


You can do the same with God.


I was pointing out how 3 of you responding to me so far have said the same thing - that God is irrelevant here. Considering the full context of the OP, that's not true.

Don't include me in said 3

 

[AV1611VET]

If different people do the testing and they all get the same result, then we can conclude that what they are testing exists independent of them. I mean, let's say you and I were testing how high a particular tree is. If the tree does NOT exist independent of ourselves (if the tree I see exists only in my mind and the tree you see exists only in your mind) then why would we get the same result? We wouldn't. We'd get different results.

Now try that with how we got our moon.

If different people do the testing, will they all get the same result?

If so, why do we have some five different theories?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.

As long as it's love, and not infatuation.

Else your "love" could result in what's called a Love Triangle, which often leads to murder.

 

[Astrid]

Science works by using the idea of an objective universe to test ideas. You can't test a supernatural being in that same fashion, hence no scientific claims involving anything supernatural can have any meaning.

This is also why you see so many contradictory ideas in creationism; there is no way to test such ideas, thus no way to distinguish which ideas are correct.



[citation needed]

Of course creationist claims can be tested.
They just don't like the results.

 

[stevevw]

Even the word "spiritual" is subjective. We all experience reality a little differently so there's no way to objectively determine the truth about spirituality. But I do think the closet in doing so is throu the avenue of Love. And even that will draw differences. But it does have observable results.

I think we can see spirituality at work in the world. People call it different things like meditation, transcendence, that sense of being part of something bigger and beyond. We see this expressed everyday in society in different forms.

Even in psychology with Maslow's hierarchy of needs which begins with physical needs like food and water and safety needs like health but ends with aesthetic needs like beauty in life, self actualizing needs which are about realizing the inner self and then transcendent needs like spirituality. Each stage is a recognized need to fulfil human potential and wellbeing.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[stevevw]

Don't like it too much .. Unlike yourself, I don't make any desperate grabs for beliefs in things like consciousness existing independently from our own in the universe.

Yet

Don't like it too much .. Unlike yourself, I don't make any desperate grabs for beliefs in things like consciousness existing independently from our own in the universe.

But who said its a desperate grab. It seems to me what you were saying and what the evidence seems to point to is consciousness and Mind being fundamental. As you said "'The thing itself' never gets tested in science. Science deals in models". Those models are of the Mind and the 'thing itself' like 'matter' can never be verified in itself as real because its a model about something outside our mind. This makes consciousness and Mind fundamental before all else.

But I do disagree that our subjective model of reality is a mind model. I think its just what it is, our direct experiencing of the world. From this we can derive realities about the world. For example our experience of color and pain which are not measured in the same way as objective material reality but nonetheless can be measured in terms of them being embodied into our lives.

You said "Our minds demonstrably update our knowledge with new meanings for the word 'reality' used there". I took this as support for the idea that consciousness/mind is fundamental in that it is Minds that have knowledge and information and it is the conscious observer who creates the meaning of reality and reality itself through knowledge. Without the conscious observer and knowledge there is no reality. Interpretations of QM seem to support this.