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

[AV1611VET]

The earth is building mountains as two plates collide over million of years. The earth is unable to lie about that truth. The evidence is in the mountains themselves and the earthquakes that happen as a result.

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.

Tell me:

Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?

 

[dlamberth]

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.

Tell me:

Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?

I don't know.

What's that have to do with the Earth showing us a very different story than the Bible Creation story. The very cause of the L'Aquila earthquake is a perfect example of that truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's that have to do with the Earth showing us a very different story than the Bible Creation story.

Nevermind.

You don't understand.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Either this "light" verbiage is some bad poetic reference, or god is made of photons with a few eV energy and I can block god with a decent

Your young Sheldon references noted. So let's actually get back to talking about the subject matter.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.

Tell me:

Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?

Where you are looking at people's reaction to an earthquake, I'm looking at the Earth.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm not going to get into the debate of equating God with light but from a purely physics perspective the equation E = mₒc² does not describe the energy of light or a photon which is a wave packet of light.
E = mₒc² is part of a more general equation E = c√(p² + mₒ²c²) where p is the momentum, mₒ is the rest mass and c is the speed of light.

Since photons have a zero rest mass mₒ = 0 , the equation reduces to E = c√(p²) = pc which is the correct equation for the energy of photon.
For particles with a rest mass mₒ, p = 0 and the equation reduces to E = c√( mₒ²c²) = mₒc².

Your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where you are looking at people's reaction to an earthquake, I'm looking at the Earth.

So were the seismologists, who were asked if it was safe to back into the water.

They looked at the earth too.

And the earth lied to them, didn't it?

(Or maybe the scientists just thought they were "hearing" what they wanted to hear?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

nice attempt at denial, deflection & obscurification. In fact it does make it science, because it is consistent with what science has already observed and demonstrated is possible. this just demonstrates that you don't want any evidence and are close minded. you have not given any valid reason for your objection , you just said "i don't like that answer" so open your mind and get some integrity

I can apologise for not giving chapter and verse, but it's really difficult to fully explain why a screed like that is just one long non-sequitur, from the 'nature of the universe' being quantifiable, to scripture being 'completely accurate and consistent with all known science'. Using a scattering of scientific terms doesn't make it scientific. It's fine if you want to claim God created the universe and/or is bigger than the universe, or is a being made of light in some poetic or metaphorical way, but none of that is remotely scientific, and it only detracts from the poesy to claim that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I can apologise for not giving chapter and verse, but it's really difficult to fully explain why a screed like that is just one long non-sequitur, from the 'nature of the universe' being quantifiable, to scripture being 'completely accurate and consistent with all known science'. Using a scattering of scientific terms doesn't make it scientific. It's fine if you want to claim God created the universe and/or is bigger than the universe, or is a being made of light in some poetic or metaphorical way, but none of that is remotely scientific, and it only detracts from the poesy to claim that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Not using a proper definition of science. Because science is about observable evidence. You wanted observations for the natural world where you got it. What you are doing is playing a game. You asked for an answer you got one and then you dismissed it because you didn't like it. You have stated that it's not science I'm not actually really given anything any real objections even in your last answer it was not an objection it was just a dismissal. You have you're making up some imaginary definition of of science to reject something you don't want to accept to begin with so there's no point in trying to speak with you.

 

[sjastro]

Your point?

Recall this comment of yours.

Light is an energy form and is subject E=mc²

It is not subject to E=mc² because light (and photons) are massless.
Using this equation would mean E = 0.
The correct equation for massless photons is E = pc.

If you are going to conflate religion with physics at least get the physics part right.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your young Sheldon references noted.

I have very intentionally *NOT* watched that show. Old Sheldon was barely tolerable.

So let's actually get back to talking about the subject matter.

Got any of the scientific proof god exists?

 

[dlamberth]

So were the seismologists, who were asked if it was safe to back into the water.

They looked at the earth too.

And the earth lied to them, didn't it?

(Or maybe the scientists just thought they were "hearing" what they wanted to hear?)

What was the cause of the Earthquake? What caused the build up the Apennine Mountains? Why are there so many Earth Quakes as well as active volcanoes in Italy? That's the area to look towards to see that the Earth is telling a very different Creation Story than the Bible Creation Story.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. We don't know as much about light as other things in Physics.

For example? I would have thought it more accurate to say that we know more about light than many other things in physics.

2.That is how God is described in the scripture, it does not contradict science.

Perhaps it doesn't contradict science because science says nothing about such things...

3. Scripture says "we live and move and have our being IN Him. so we exist in light, move in light and are made up of light. That is accurate scientific view of our existence and material matter.

Well, no. We are not made up of light. We're made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Angels on the head of a pin, when compared with the real issue .. which is belief based thinking.

OK. But isn't all thinking fundamentally belief based?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.

Tell me:

Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?

IIRC, the scientists were acquitted on appeal, 'no case to answer'.

 

[dlamberth]

2.That is how God is described in the scripture, it does not contradict science.

I think it wrong to connect Divine Light with light seen in the physical world. They are two very different things.

 

[dlamberth]

OK. But isn't all thinking fundamentally belief based?

You don't think that some thinking is experiential based?

 

[sjastro]

IIRC, the scientists were acquitted on appeal, 'no case to answer'.

Thank goodness sanity prevailed; who would have been next target for imprisonment, the weatherman?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not using a proper definition of science. Because science is about observable evidence. You wanted observations for the natural world where you got it. What you are doing is playing a game. You asked for an answer you got one and then you dismissed it because you didn't like it. You have stated that it's not science I'm not actually really given anything any real objections even in your last answer it was not an objection it was just a dismissal. You have you're making up some imaginary definition of of science to reject something you don't want to accept to begin with so there's no point in trying to speak with you.

OK, let's assume what you said was spot on, but I didn't understand it because it was a summary presented in an unusual format and couched in unfamiliar terms.

That being so, can you explain what you mean by 'equal to or greater then the nature of the universe'? How big is the nature of the universe? It sounds like a category error, or did you mean the size of the universe?

Why must 'any being called God' be equal to or greater than that? What's in a name - If I call my cat 'God', does it become equal to or greater than the nature of the universe'?

You said 'universe is energy in a fluid form or a fixed form'. But energy is a property that stuff (matter, fields, spacetime, etc) has. In what sense can it be in a fluid form or a fixed form? Can you explain, or better still, give an example of each?

How does it follow from God being greater than the nature of the universe that he/it 'must have the ability to change energy from a fluid form to a fixed form and back again'?

You say that is 'the exact description of the being Called God in the Bible'. Where in the bible does it say exactly that?

You say 'Light is an energy form and is subject E=mc² '. But light has energy as a property that varies with its frequency, and - as @sjastro pointed out, is not subject to E=mc² 'because light (and photons) are massless.'

But even if those two statements about light were correct, why do they mean that a being of light that dwells in light could exist? How would that be possible?

If I was wrong to criticise your post for being unscientific, you should be able to give plausible scientific answers to the questions I have about it.