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

[YahuahSaves]

No I'm not atheist. At the moment I don't know what I believe. But its none of your business anyway. Also just an fyi, spellcheck will help you spell the word "A T H E I S T" correctly

Well if you ever decide to become a Christian, the first thing God will deal with is your spiteful attitude. (FYI).

 

[Kylie]

Your attempt at prayer was not a belief, it was unbelief and is what I was trying to point out to you.


It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I clearly drew the line at trying to convince you. Does not mean I didn't continue relaying the truth of Gods word in the rest of the post.


I know.


No, I tried to tell you why you didn't get an answer to your prayer. You never provided my quotes to show I told you what you believe either, all I did was point out your unbelief. And you keep twisting everything I say, even though I've provided your quotes in my posts that I've responded to. Again, you have no basis for your report as I haven't accused you of anything, I stated facts regarding faith and you are the one in denial of your own words in your own posts. Only your unbelieving friends have attacked me on your behalf, any person with any integrity wouldn't respond the way you have in such a spiteful way.


I am justified because you started saying my belief is a just a belief, then turned and accused me of judging you for your unbelief. It's just not accurate in the context of our conversation.


Neither was I.


I was directing my post at the OP as a fellow believer, not non-believers like yourself. You and 3 others responded to my OP, yet It had nothing to do with you.


I never stated your reasons for being an atheist I stated the reasons many turn away from God, and I queried if you had experienced the same thing. You making me repeat myself is not proving your point, it's showing you have assumed I said something I didn't say.


You keep proving my point of not being interested in understanding Christianity. (As you claimed you were on this website to do).


Try watching delafe testimonies on YouTube.


Sharing of the Gospel is never asked for, but God commands that we do.


Here we go emphasising words out of context again. I've already explained my initial error, and therefore I don't have to explain it again. See my previous post.


It's called auto correct. *eye roll* My phone does it automatically when I don't hit the letters right. But maybe I shouldn't have bothered attempting keyboard etiquette since you misinterpret and twist everything I say anyway.


No I couldn't care less what you think of me. unlike you, I'm not spiteful or hateful.


It was sarcasm. See what I meant about not understanding you were calling me an arrogant Christian? Sarcasm doesn't compute well in writing, does it.


Yes I definitely have and it's a sad fact of Gods word that not everyone will be saved. I just have to live with that.

Have a nice life.

I'm done with you.

Your rudeness has driven me further from Christianity than I was before. Well done.

 

[Kylie]

Well if you ever decide to become a Christian, the first thing God will deal with is your spiteful attitude. (FYI).

Spiteful attitude? She was pointing out an error! If you chose to take it as rudeness, then that's on you. But she wasn't rude to you, just as you weren't rude to Ruthie. She was trying to help you by pointing out an error so you could avoid making the same error in the future.

Bye bye.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I'm done with you.

Your rudeness has driven me further from Christianity than I was before. Well done.

Spiteful attitude? She was pointing out an error! If you chose to take it as rudeness, then that's on you. But she wasn't rude to you, just as you weren't rude to Ruthie. She was trying to help you by pointing out an error so you could avoid making the same error in the future.

Bye bye.

I did nothing but try to have a genuine discussion with you, but you failed to understand your misinterpretation of my words.

I shake the proverbial dust off my feet. Mark 6:11

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

Likewise, as usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Likewise, as usual.

Perhaps you could give us an example of someone who lost his faith in WW1 or WW2 and stayed faithless?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You can't compare these things with God because he's not imaginary. (Contrary to popular opinion).

The comparison was in terms of supernatural belief, particularly in intelligent non-human agency. The point was that, as a child, I had no trouble believing that they were real (until they proved to be otherwise). IOW, I had no inability or resistance to belief in supernatural agency.

On reflection, I think I believed in them because they consistently and reliably lived up to (and sometimes exceeded) the claims made for them. Even when I hadn't been particularly good (in my own view), Santa still came through. The Tooth Fairy always swapped the tooth under my pillow for the correct coinage. Clear evidence of personal connection.

OTOH, the claims made for God were never realised, from my POV. No response to prayers, no sense of presence, no reassuring inner voice, etc. - and the people that said they believed seemed no different to anyone else; not kinder, not friendlier or happier, and the monks - supposedly the holiest - were worst of all. It actually came as a relief in my teens when I realised I just didn't believe and didn't have to worry about any of that stuff anymore.

Not true. The Holy Bible is Gods word. Have you read it? Do you understand that when Jesus died on the cross, the veil was torn - so prayer/confession etc, we can do directly between ourselves and God? We can come "boldly to the throne of grace". (That's a hint by the way.) Jesus is the bridge - no denominations or religious practices can add to, take away or replace the word of God.

Yes, I've read it - at least the parts considered important; it was a necessary part of one's education. The stories were good, I got the moral lessons, I thought some of what Jesus said made a lot of sense (and wondered why no-one followed it). The core doctrinal parts never really made much sense to me.

So you believe you're a sack of meat and when you die that's it? In the ground never to be of any use or relevance ever again? Nothing beyond your physical life? That's a pretty sad.

'Sack of meat' is a pretty disparaging term for any animal. The human body has its flaws, but it's an amazing product of 3.5 -4 billion years of evolution. If you had studied the human body and brain at a degree level, as I have done, I don't think you'd use that phrase.

But yes, the evidence clearly indicates that we're born, we live, and then we die, and that's an end to it. I didn't exist at all before my parents had me, and I won't exist except as remains of some sort, and in the memories of others, once I'm dead. It's sad when you lose a loved one, and it's hard to conceive of non-existence. I expect that's partly why despite the lack of evidence, belief in an afterlife has been so universal and persistent over time. Wishful thinking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No .. the differnce is still demonstrably a belief because there's no objective evidence supporting it, (even if the logical reasoning and intent behind that difference is sound, which it doesn't have to be).

I'm not saying it's not a belief, just that it's a different kind of belief, and therefore there's a difference. I thought you'd already agreed to that.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not saying it's not a belief, just that it's a different kind of belief, and therefore there's a difference. I thought you'd already agreed to that.

Could you say why it's different?

 

[YahuahSaves]

The comparison was in terms of supernatural belief, particularly in intelligent non-human agency. The point was that, as a child, I had no trouble believing that they were real (until they proved to be otherwise). IOW, I had no inability or resistance to belief in supernatural agency.

I know what your comparison meant. But you wouldn't say such things if you've experienced the reality of demons, which is where these false ideologies come from. But I'm not trying to convince you saying this, I'm just stating the facts of Gods word.

On reflection, I think I believed in them because they consistently and reliably lived up to (and sometimes exceeded) the claims made for them. Even when I hadn't been particularly good (in my own view), Santa still came through. The Tooth Fairy always swapped the tooth under my pillow for the correct coinage. Clear evidence of personal connection.

I understand that, I also believed in these things as well. But deep in my heart I always believed in God as well (even though he never seemed to answer my prayers) but I also grew up in religion and wasn't taught that Jesus is God (not just Gods Son). Once I realised what the cross meant and came to saving faith in Jesus, is when he has answered almost every single prayer. God is good, but he's not a genie and every prayer answered is according to HIS will.

OTOH, the claims made for God were never realised, from my POV. No response to prayers, no sense of presence, no reassuring inner voice, etc. - and the people that said they believed seemed no different to anyone else; not kinder, not friendlier or happier, and the monks - supposedly the holiest - were worst of all. It actually came as a relief in my teens when I realised I just didn't believe and didn't have to worry about any of that stuff anymore.

Yes the man-made Church has distorted the word of God for centuries and led many away from God, it is sad. I believe God is drawing people to him in this time as you only have to see the countless testimonies of faith around the world in the past few years. Not to cause you offence, but I'm going to pray that he does that for you.

Yes, I've read it - at least the parts considered important; it was a necessary part of one's education. The stories were good, I got the moral lessons, I thought some of what Jesus said made a lot of sense (and wondered why no-one followed it). The core doctrinal parts never really made much sense to me.

Again this is often the case with kids indoctrinated in religion. I wondered the same things and believed a lot of churchgoers were hypocrites. I developed my own belief about God until I was corrected.

'Sack of meat' is a pretty disparaging term for any animal. The human body has its flaws, but it's an amazing product of 3.5 -4 billion years of evolution. If you had studied the human body and brain at a degree level, as I have done, I don't think you'd use that phrase.

Ah ha! I was excited that you had a wonderful answer to my question but then

You said this.

But yes, the evidence clearly indicates that we're born, we live, and then we die, and that's an end to it. I didn't exist at all before my parents had me, and I won't exist except as remains of some sort, and in the memories of others, once I'm dead. It's sad when you lose a loved one, and it's hard to conceive of non-existence. I expect that's partly why despite the lack of evidence, belief in an afterlife has been so universal and persistent over time. Wishful thinking.

Lack of evidence is not a good reason to believe you have no ultimate purpose on earth or in the kingdom of God. But I understand where you're at, because many people are there. They create their own idea of what the purpose of their life is and don't know that God has so much more planned for them...if only we are willing.. thank you for your genuine explanation of why you came to unbelief, I pray the love of God draws you to himself and you will never be the same again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If anyone believes in a God other than the Holy Bible, they're following the wrong God.

And they would likely say that of you. Others would say it's all the same God, but different, equally valid interpretations. Meh.

I had to come to this realisation before I came to Christ. Satan is very much at work in the world today now as he was at the beginning. He's blinded the world to God, but worse, he's blinded the world to himself, even some of the Christian community don't understand the source of where true evil comes from anymore.

OK.

Intelligent design "redundant"? That's a cynical view to take. Knowing a house didn't just appear out of thin air, and having the understanding that, although you may not know the builder, there was still someone who built the house is not a poor analogy. It's pointing you to a simple truth. Our universe didn't just appear out of thin air without a builder.

Redundant as unnecessary and unwarranted. It's not cynicism, it's an evidence-based view. We don't know where our universe came from. We can infer from current observations that it was once in a very hot, dense, and uniform state, then expanded rapidly, cooling and condensing into the matter that forms stars and galaxies, etc.

We don't yet have to tools to work out what would have happened prior to that (we need a theory of quantum gravity), but there are plenty of scientifically based more or less plausible ideas that have been suggested.

There are also many thousands of ideas based on creative imagination. Origin myths, involving everything from swirling chaos, empty voids, seeds, cosmic monsters, battling cosmic monsters, gods, battling gods, combinations of those, and many more. These are often accompanied by a set of religious beliefs of varying complexity and sophistication.

And you have managed to pick the one (or did it pick you?) that happens to be the One True Religion™. What are the chances?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Memories of who we were, and what we made our lives stand for, persist in our remaining friends/family's/community's minds.
We made a conscious reality persist beyond our death.

Not for long... Years ago I liked to visit cemeteries when I travelled to see what the oldest grave was and I would see many family members buried together (as is the case) I would wonder what they were like, what their life was like and realised many hadn't had a visitor to their grave for years and they were overgrown. I couldn't imagine an existence without God now that I know him, or what would be the point of this existence we call life? It's certainly something to think about.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Redundant as unnecessary and unwarranted. It's not cynicism, it's an evidence-based view. We don't know where our universe came from. We can infer from current observations that it was once in a very hot, dense, and uniform state, then expanded rapidly, cooling and condensing into the matter that forms stars and galaxies, etc.

So you don't think the design of the universe and everything in it that we understand about it so far is sophisticated? OK. But I bet humans could never replicate it

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know what your comparison meant. But you wouldn't say such things if you've experienced the reality of demons, which is where these false ideologies come from.

You're right, I haven't experienced the 'reality' of demons; now I feel sorry for you...

Once I realised what the cross meant and came to saving faith in Jesus, is when he has answered almost every single prayer. God is good, but he's not a genie and every prayer answered is according to HIS will.

Oh yes; we used to hear that a lot - and, as you just demonstrated, we still do. When we asked "Why didn't God answer our prayer?" we'd get "He did, but in His own way", or "He doesn't answer every prayer", or "That's not the sort of prayer He answers", "He's very busy", or "You weren't sincere", and so on.

It was another unfalsifable proposition - for every prayer that wasn't answered, an excuse a reason could be found, and if anything good happened that could remotely be connected with a prayer, God had 'obviously' answered.

Yes the man-made Church has distorted the word of God for centuries and led many away from God, it is sad. I believe God is drawing people to him in this time as you only have to see the countless testimonies of faith around the world in the past few years. Not to cause you offence, but I'm going to pray that he does that for you.

Whatever.

Ah ha! I was excited that you had a wonderful answer to my question but then

You said this.

Sorry to disappoint you. I agree that it's superficially unappealing, but it does make life something very special. It used to puzzle me why those who made a lot of noise about the wonders of the afterlife would fight so hard to avoid it!

Lack of evidence is not a good reason to believe you have no ultimate purpose on earth or in the kingdom of God. But I understand where you're at, because many people are there. They create their own idea of what the purpose of their life is and don't know that God has so much more planned for them...if only we are willing..

I refer you to my sig (below).

thank you for your genuine explanation of why you came to unbelief...

You're welcome; although since I don't think I ever really believed, it's more a case of why I never came to believe. This is one of the reasons I spend time here - I'm curious to know why religious belief 'takes' for some but not for others.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you don't think the design of the universe and everything in it that we understand about it so far is sophisticated?

I didn't say that (why do you do that? I notice you don't like it when people do it to you).

One of the striking things about studying science is the relatively recent discovery of how the interaction of many simple items according to a few simple rules can give rise to emergent order and complexity and this can occur at many scales and levels, from particles to ecosystems to galaxy clusters.

I wouldn't say the universe is designed, but it has a wonderful emergent order and complexity to it - it's easy to see why people think it is somehow intentional. Having said that, it's not at all what one would expect from a designer whose intent was to produce a universe for the benefit of humans.

Biological evolution looks even more like design - but projecting purpose into the world is something we can't help doing (Dennett's 'Intentional stance', teleology, etc). Natural selection is a blind 'designer'; it has no purpose, but by trial and lots of error, produces organisms that appear to have goals and purpose because they can solve the problems of survival and reproduction - but when you take into account the vast mass of organisms that didn't make it - couldn't solve the problems and couldn't compete, you'll see what a terribly wasteful 'design' process it is.

It's kind of ironic that evolution eventually produced creatures that are flexible enough in their behaviour to calculate possible futures, plan ahead, define that as purpose, and project it onto the world.

OK. But I bet humans could never replicate it

No, indeed not. But we've modelled its cosmology in computer simulations, and we use the simple principle underlying evolution (reproduction with heritable variation, and selection) in computers to produce useful 'designs' that no human would have, or could have.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Said scientist gave a personal
opinion.6
A witness speaking in court is
tasked with stating facts.

It's wholly irresponsible for a witness speaking
as a witness, or a scientidtvspeaking as a scientist,
to state personal opinion as fact.

Likewise its not responsible to speak of PhD
professors saying god isnt real coz it's not smart.

That is clearly made up and no example is
going to be forthcoming.

 

[Astrid]

Sorry to disappoint you. I agree that it's superficially unappealing, but it does make life something very special. It used to puzzle me why those who made a lot of noise about the wonders of the afterlife would fight so hard to avoid it!

We doubt any soldier in his foxhole thinks
" Terrif, I'm about to get e-ternal life"
when he sees the tanks coming.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would accept claims from texts (there's no reason for me to have to accept an entire text or none of it).

I do the same. But that's not exactly what I was attempting to get at.

I would accept those claims for which there is independent and verifiable evidence. Such as coins minted with the person's face on them, letters written by the person, sources that come from the time that the person actually lived which detail the things that the person did...

Ok. I don't want to speak for you or guess about your outlook on how human rationality woks, but it sounds like where science is concerned, you tend toward a view that combines both a Logical Positivist expectation (like Bertrand Russell used to be) with a posture toward Philosophical Naturalism (like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne tend to be).

But please, correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm trying to cut into here is that you may be unconciously appropriating a position in Philosophy of Science that can be challenged, and I'm wondering how much you have done so.

It could also be that you're used to encountering only fundamentalist Christians and have yet to engage any non-WLC Christians of higher caliber. So, if you actually are motivated (on behalf of your husband) to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt on at least some level (not that of the fundamentalist), you're not encountering them because you haven't had the chance to find out who they are and, hence, read them.

It also helps.......................to apply critical thinking to various atheist's positions of argument first before going to engage the better of the Christian thinkers that may be out there.

This is what I do. Atheistic Epistemology is hurdled FIRST, then I engage Christianity. Not the other way around, and not less that that (by "less" I mean----Christian Fundamentalism).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Read the OP's entire post again and don't cherry-pick. I had a right to post on this thread just as much as you do. since you've bought this up again, did you answer the OP's question? You do realise she was wondering how to witness to unbelievers don't you?

I'm not disputing your right to post. Just pointing out that, by forum rules, posts should be on topic. Also, in case the inclination comes, apologetics are also not allowed in the science sub-forums.

I'm not sure if I already answered it, but if not, the answer is, as others have already made clear, you can't. God is scientifically ill-defined, and neither provable (nothing is provable in science) nor disprovable, like all such claimed supernatural phenomena. You can't use science in support of or help persuade to such beliefs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We doubt any soldier in his foxhole thinks
" Terrif, I'm about to get e-ternal life"
when he sees the tanks coming.

Well, that's a somewhat extreme example, but it fits my point - so why not? Why is it only the extreme fanatics, and then only for a sacred cause (and a promise of virgins)?