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

[Kylie]

Why?

If I did, would you stop being an atheist?

If I started believing in things that can't be tested, I'd end up believing in all sorts of things that aren't true.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Because assuming they are spiritual forces does nothing. It does not give us some new understanding of how the force works, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's necessary.

 

[timothyu]

If I started believing in things that can't be tested, I'd end up believing in all sorts of things that aren't true.

Can you prove you exist, or just the existence of your body?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I started believing in things that can't be tested, I'd end up believing in all sorts of things that aren't true.

Like abiogenesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because assuming they are spiritual forces does nothing. It does not give us some new understanding of how the force works, and there's no evidence to suggest that it's necessary.

In other words, science would still be as ignorant as it is now?

I disagree.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[Kylie]

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?

Thoughts and emotions can be easily detected by machines that look at brain activity.

And if you want me to tell you if I have a spirit, you must first define what a spirit is.

Jesus is not religion.

Belief in Christianity is indeed a religion.

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.

Funnily enough, all believers can say the same thing about their particular brand of faith.

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

Ah, so if someone disagrees with you, you get to say, "Ah, but they're not TRUE believers."

No true Scotsman fallacy.

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.

Ah, but it feels foolish because I'm taking a person and trying to interact with them in a situation that is different to the way I normally interact with them. From my point of view, however, such an interaction with God would be exactly the same, since I don't think he's ever there.

So your argument is that it feels different, that's because it IS. In one case I'm pretending to speak to a real person in a completely different situation, and in the other case the situation is the same as it has always been.

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

And it's also an example of the Christian arrogance I've seen so often. You know, just before I got married my husband (who is a Christian) asked me to pray to God, since his belief is important to him and he just wanted me to make the effort. Because I love him, I agreed. I prayed to God and asked him to show me if he existed. And you know what I got? Absolutely nothing. My husband was disappointed, but accepted it because I had made the effort. But you come in and assume that since I am an atheist, I must not have done anything like that, because you assume that if I had, I MUST have come to the same conclusion as you.

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.

And I agree. There is no scientific evidence for God, and God (and all other religious claims) are specifically designed to be unfalsifiable.

So why do you keep going on about it?

 

[Kylie]

Like abiogenesis?

Show me that abiogenesis can't be tested.

 

[Kylie]

In other words, science would still be as ignorant as it is now?

I disagree.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

What good would science be if it just chose to accept things because it wanted to, and not because of evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Can you prove you exist, or just the existence of your body?

What's the difference?

 

[timothyu]

What's the difference?

That's an unscientific question

 

[Kylie]

That's an unscientific question

So you are asking for scientific proof for something that you claim isn't scientific? Your request is nonsensical. It's like being given the equation 1+1=2 and being asked to circle the verb.

 

[timothyu]

So you are asking for scientific proof for something that you claim isn't scientific? Your request is nonsensical. It's like being given the equation 1+1=2 and being asked to circle the verb.

Or you are unwilling to show there is no scientific distinction between the two.

 

[Kylie]

Or you are unwilling to show there is no scientific distinction between the two.

You are the one who claimed there was a distinction between the two, not me. I'm simply asking you to support your claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

Unless, of course, Conrad Hyers and other scholars who take a similar interpretive approach as his on Genesis 1 are correct.

 

[Kylie]

Unless, of course, Conrad Hyers and other scholars who take a similar interpretive approach as his on Genesis 1 are correct.

Could you give a brief overview of his approach on Genesis 1 please?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I come to discuss Christianity because I have an interest in why religious people believe what they believe, and also because religious people seem to have an interest in dictating the laws that affect me.

I thought I would quote this previous post first, because it kept coming to mind yesterday and today. It's interesting in the post quoted below you say you have a Christian husband, so why don't you discuss the "religion" with him instead of getting on a Christian website? Or does it cause arguments with your spouse to do that?

"Because religious people seem to have an interest in dictating the laws that affect me".
What laws are you referring to specifically?
Is this the reason you don't believe God exists?

And if you want me to tell you if I have a spirit, you must first define what a spirit is.

If you prefer identifying as a sack of meat and everything you experience is just electrical impulses in the brain, that's OK.

Belief in Christianity is indeed a religion.

I said Jesus is not religion. The term Christianity was coined when the religion was established. I believe in Jesus, not religion.

Funnily enough, all believers can say the same thing about their particular brand of faith.

No they can't. Didn't you say you've read the bible? God is building his church. Refer to post #2,782

Ah, so if someone disagrees with you, you get to say, "Ah, but they're not TRUE believers."

I never said that but there is a difference between following Jesus example from the bible and actually following Jesus through the Holy Spirits guidance. Some people who believe in Jesus don't understand this.

John 10:27

So your argument is that it feels different, that's because it IS. In one case I'm pretending to speak to a real person in a completely different situation, and in the other case the situation is the same as it has always been.

No, it feels the same. Once you get past the "it is foolish to talk to thin air" phase, it isn't any different than speaking to someone physically with you. Because he does actually answer if you're listening. It's about heart posture, not brain power.

since his belief is important to him and he just wanted me to make the effort. Because I love him, I agreed. I prayed to God and asked him to show me if he existed. And you know what I got? Absolutely nothing. My husband was disappointed, but accepted it because I had made the effort.

But you made no effort to truly speak to God. You did it for your husband, not because you wanted to know God for yourself.
Again: heart posture.

So why do you keep going on about it?

Because you do?

 

[timothyu]

I said Jesus is not religion. The term Christianity was coined when the religion was established. I believe in Jesus, not religion.

Just acknowledging the wisdom of the statement

 

[dlamberth]

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.

We have very different perspectives of reality and of the Human experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you give a brief overview of his approach on Genesis 1 please?

Sure! Hyers thesis is that Genesis 1 is theological cosmogony rather than cosmology. It's purpose was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic cosmogonic structures of "creation" that permeate the mythos of the surrounding cultures which existed at the time Genesis 1 was written --like early Babylon, for instance, etc.

In short, Genesis 1 wasn't written to explain 'how' the world was created, especially not in a scientific way. It was written to assert a reversed cosmic heirarchy. Instead of an account in which the Universe exists first and births various gods who then 'create' mankind, Genesis 1 asserts that there is One Supreme God who exists as king in a court and creates every other physical structure, heaven and earth, humanity and the ecosystem.

Hyers definitely eschews the typical claim by Creationists that Genesis 1 is some kind of earlier scientifically laden account, to be somehow corroborated thousands of years later in the Modern Age of Technology.

In sum, Hyers would have disagreed with AV.

 

[Kylie]

I thought I would quote this previous post first, because it kept coming to mind yesterday and today. It's interesting in the post quoted below you say you have a Christian husband, so why don't you discuss the "religion" with him instead of getting on a Christian website? Or does it cause arguments with your spouse to do that?

Because he is one person and I am interested in a wide variety of viewpoints.

"Because religious people seem to have an interest in dictating the laws that affect me".
What laws are you referring to specifically?

Laws against abortion, stem cell research, teaching creationism in science classes... And I don't want my daughter forced to participate in religious education classes at school.

Is this the reason you don't believe God exists?

Why would religious people trying to push their religion into law be an argument against God?

If you prefer identifying as a sack of meat and everything you experience is just electrical impulses in the brain, that's OK.

No need to be dismissive. If you can't answer the question, just say so.

I said Jesus is not religion. The term Christianity was coined when the religion was established. I believe in Jesus, not religion.

Belief in Jesus is a religion. It's called Christianity.

No they can't. Didn't you say you've read the bible? God is building his church. Refer to post #2,782

Yeah, people of every sect of Christianity say the same thing. Funny isn't it? Every single believer just so happened to pick the One True Faith (tm).

I never said that but there is a difference between following Jesus example from the bible and actually following Jesus through the Holy Spirits guidance. Some people who believe in Jesus don't understand this.

John 10:27

You said, "Often the true followers can agree on the experience of the presence of God." The implication being that anyone who does not agree isn't a true follower. Hence, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No, it feels the same.

Oh, so now you get to dictate not only the test I should do, but also the results I should get.

Once you get past the "it is foolish to talk to thin air" phase, it isn't any different than speaking to someone physically with you. Because he does actually answer if you're listening. It's about heart posture, not brain power.

And here we go. If I don't get an answer, you put in a way to explain it away. "Oh, you just weren't listening!" Or maybe it was because he wasn't there to begin with.

But you made no effort to truly speak to God. You did it for your husband, not because you wanted to know God for yourself.
Again: heart posture.

Oh, how wonderful it is for you to be here so you can tell me the truth about something I did years ago, which you weren't there for, which you didn't even know about today, but still somehow have a greater understanding of it than I do!

Because you do?

I'm just waiting for someone to show me scientific evidence for God.