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

[AV1611VET]

When tested by what the Earth is actually showing us, the Bible Creation story fails the test.

Fine.

Take something the earth is showing you.

Put it in a lab and test it for either creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia.

Should be simple, right?

If you're right, the tests should fail.

Until then, please quit telling me the Creation Story fails "the test" -- (whatever "the test" is) -- and expecting me to believe it.

The truth is though, your myopic cheap science can't test for a single thing mentioned in Genesis 1.

Science is as effective against the Bible as Goliath was against David.

A lot of show, big and tall, plenty of Philistine backing, lots of tough talk, plenty of mockery of the God of heaven, but brought down in the end and his head cut off by a simple shepherd boy your guys consider to be an ignorant, mutant, copy error, desert nomad.

 

[Kylie]

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

Do I trust my family and friends?

I can SEE my family and friends. I know they exist.

 

[Kylie]

He is, and he does.

I'm gonna need more than your say-so to demonstrate that.

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.

But that's not RELIGIOUS faith.

 

[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.

I'm reading some of his apologetics now. I find it filled with logical fallacies.

 

[dlamberth]

What then is your opinion of the short vid in #2782

If this is what's your looking for, though it works for you, it''s not what I'd use to prove God's existence.

 

[Kylie]

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

Any idea that is presented as a scientific theory (and that is using the word "theory" in it's scientific sense, not in the colloquial sense) is indeed based on what can be objectively measured.

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

If that were true, then why are there so many different sects of Christianity? Why are there so many religions? How can all these people using the tool of faith get such wildly different results if faith is a tool that leads to objective truth?

Exactly my point about how we experience God.

Yeah, different believers experience God in different ways. Which is not the way tools that give us objective information about the world work.

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

Into the spiritual realm?

Please, describe how this is done.

We know that testing in the physical realm is accurate because it provides the same answers all the time. Show me how testing of the spiritual realm can do the same thing.

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

But if it broke there must be a reason for it.

You can do the same with God.

And how exactly does one check God?

I could check the chair because I could make testable observations about the chair. How do I do that 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.

No, I'm saying religious faith is not relevant here, because the thread is about SCIENTIFIC evidence for God.

 

[Kylie]

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.

But why doesn't the same thing apply to other things?

Why is it no one has to say, "We all experience reality a little differently so there's no way to objectively determine the truth about the height of the Empire State Building" to explain why different people get different measurements for the height? I'd say it's because we don't need to. We all measure the height of the Empire State Building the same, despite the fact that we are all experiencing reality a little different. The fact that we can't all get the same result with religion or spirituality is best explained by the position that it's just not real. It exists only within the minds of those whop believe. This is why we can get measurements about the ESB that are in agreement, but not measurements about religion. Because the ESB actually exists in objective reality, and religion/spirituality doesn't.

 

[Kylie]

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

Our experience of red is entirely subjective.

It is our subjective interpretation of an objective thing. What appears red to us would look very different to some other animal, such as an insect, or an octopus.

But if something actually exists in the real world, then we can make some kind of objective measurement about it. And that's what the device does. It makes an objective measurement about the wavelength of the light. If there was a super-intelligent insect or octopus who could also measure the wavelength of the light, they would get exactly the same readings, even if they experienced the colour differently.

And yet this agreement is impossible when it comes to spirituality.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Yes they will.

They will get the same isotope ratios and whatever else you want to measure.

We have five HYPOTHESES because the data we have are not sufficient to eliminate all but one. But that's the great thing about science. We can make a hypothesis, see if that hypothesis predicts something, then go and see if that thing actually exists. If it does, then it supports that particular hypothesis. This is basic scientific method, AV. If you don't understand it, a discussion about science may not be the best place for you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

E =MC2 squared

E=mc²

Did you have a point?

 

[Kylie]

Fine.

Take something the earth is showing you.

Put it in a lab and test it for either creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia.

Should be simple, right?

If you're right, the tests should fail.

Until then, please quit telling me the Creation Story fails "the test" -- (whatever "the test" is) -- and expecting me to believe it.

The truth is though, your myopic cheap science can't test for a single thing mentioned in Genesis 1.

Science is as effective against the Bible as Goliath was against David.

A lot of show, big and tall, plenty of Philistine backing, lots of tough talk, plenty of mockery of the God of heaven, but brought down in the end and his head cut off by a simple shepherd boy your guys consider to be an ignorant, mutant, copy error, desert nomad.

Only someone who doesn't understand science would think that being unfalsifiable somehow defeats science.

 

[dlamberth]

Our experience of red is entirely subjective.

It is our subjective interpretation of an objective thing. What appears red to us would look very different to some other animal, such as an insect, or an octopus.

But if something actually exists in the real world, then we can make some kind of objective measurement about it. And that's what the device does. It makes an objective measurement about the wavelength of the light. If there was a super-intelligent insect or octopus who could also measure the wavelength of the light, they would get exactly the same readings, even if they experienced the colour differently.

And yet this agreement is impossible when it comes to spirituality.

I think it's because life is way more than the physical measurement of things. There's a place where stuff become alive in a way that the experience of the colors, smell, feeling and such have different meaning to people or even different life forms. That's where it becomes subjective, yet very real for a person. For instance, I have no idea the height of the Empire State Building, yet I hold subjective feelings about it as a national symbol that others may or may not hold. There's no reason why there needs to be an agreement when it comes to spirituality. But I'm not going to deny what I experience as reality which has a spiritual aspect about it.

 

[dlamberth]

Until then, please quit telling me the Creation Story fails "the test" -- (whatever "the test" is) -- and expecting me to believe it.

I think by now you know me well enough to know that I will never stop telling you that the Creation Story fails the test with what the Earth is actually showing us.

 

[Kylie]

I think it's because life is way more than the physical measurement of things. There's a place where stuff become alive in a way that the experience of the colors, smell, feeling and such have different meaning to people or even different life forms. That's where it becomes subjective, yet very real for a person. For instance, I have no idea the height of the Empire State Building, yet I hold subjective feelings about it as a national symbol that others may or may not hold. There's no reason why there needs to be an agreement when it comes to spirituality. But I'm not going to deny what I experience as reality which has a spiritual aspect about it.

There needs to be an agreement about SOME aspect of spirituality if spirituality is objectively real.

If it is not objectively real, then it exists only in the mind of people who believe in it and does not exist independent of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only someone who doesn't understand science would think that being unfalsifiable somehow defeats science.

Just don't try to lead me to believe something can be tested, when it can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think by now you know me well enough to know that I will never stop telling you that the Creation Story fails the test with what the Earth is actually showing us.

That's because you don't know what "the test" is.

So you can ACT like scientists have checked into the Creation Week and found it lacking in data.

When in fact, they don't even know what to look for.

That's why I started a challenge thread on what they should look for.

Ion trail? plasma cloud? microwave background? time crystals? what exactly?

 

[Kylie]

Just don't try to lead me to believe something can be tested, when it can't.

Don't put up something that can't be tested and then expect me to believe that it's true.

 

[AV1611VET]

There needs to be an agreement about SOME aspect of spirituality if spirituality is objectively real.

If it is not objectively real, then it exists only in the mind of people who believe in it and does not exist independent of them.

Just out of curiosity, what is keeping science from considering any of the four forces of physics to be spiritual forces?

Put another way, what does gravity, for example, look like?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't put up something that can't be tested and then expect me to believe that it's true.

Why?

If I did, would you stop being an atheist?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I can SEE my family and friends. I know they exist.

So your thoughts and emotions don't exist? How do you know they're real? What about your spirit? Do you believe you have one? Can science tell you specifically what keeps you alive and breathing, or where you go after you die? Or are you a sack of meat that has no use or purpose but to exist as an organism for a short while before you're put in the ground?

But that's not RELIGIOUS faith.

Jesus is not religion.

If that were true, then why are there so many different sects of Christianity? Why are there so many religions? How can all these people using the tool of faith get such wildly different results if faith is a tool that leads to objective truth?

Because man decided for themselves this is what "church" looks like, and have often used the tool of religion to control others. Jesus hated religion. His Church is built by HIM not by humans.

Yeah, different believers experience God in different ways.

Only in the case of spiritual gifts.
Often the true followers can agree on the experience of the presence of God.

Please, describe how this is done.

And how exactly does one check God?

As an exercise in faith. You can do this alone.
Place a chair opposite a chair you're sitting on, and picture someone you know sitting in that chair - perhaps it's someone you're angry at and need to confront (as an example). Speak to that person as though you're really talking to them and they're just sitting there listening to what you have to say. Then apply the same method to Jesus. Tell him straight out what you think of him and why. It will feel foolish at first. But once you tell God directly how you really feel you may be surprised at what happens. If you just want to tell him you don't believe he's real and you need him to prove he is. You can do that too.

I could check the chair because I could make testable observations about the chair. How do I do that with God?

After you complete the exercise above, go about your normal life and see what happens.

No, I'm saying religious faith is not relevant here, because the thread is about SCIENTIFIC evidence for God.

Not true. The OP consistently mentioned God and was asking how to witness to unbelievers if they need to have scientific evidence.
Did you provide the answer to her question? I did. I said it's not possible because God requires people to have faith.