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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Perhaps even that is a belief about what the world feels like.

 

[Astrid]

The existence of God can be approached, or dealt with the same as any other assumption of science. So far, First Cause is the ONLY viable explanation for existence. We can't prove it to the satisfaction of those who don't want to believe it, but it does make sense. Many scientific pursuits have been based on weaker reason.

Hard to see how reasons could be weaker than
no reason at all.
Unless " want to believe" is a "reason".

And scientific pursuits that never go
anywhere are abandoned.

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)?

It's just the flip side of the moldy oldy about
"No atheists in foxholes".

Here's a thought: you and @Estrid do what I do: just ignore those "no atheists in foxhole" asides that come in from the peanut gallery since they have no real epistemological substance?

Just an idea.

It's a idea. There's a lot of posters I ignore.
There's at least one should go on your list.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's just the flip side of the moldy oldy about
"No atheists in foxholes".

Exactly.

 

[dlamberth]

Perhaps even that is a belief about what the world feels like.

Could be true.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Recall this comment of yours.

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.

1.the problem with this objection is that it is it ignores the application of E=mc² when it comes to Energy and matter being interchangable. you see this in popular science fiction about what is possible if we have the we had the tech to do it. Take Star Trek the transporter, the holodeck, the food replicator, all examples of what is possible if we had the tech to do it. we can imagine the possibility based on the known science. if that is true and possible then that demonstrates that the universe is more flexible then fluid then previously believed. that any looking for God using the physical evidence must with what the physical evidence states and it state the energy and matter are interchangeable. and God being a being of light and spirit meets that creteria. sorry you don't like the answer but a resonable person would consider that sufficient.

2. you came on the forum, a religious forum wanting to talk God. If you don't like that then leave. you don't get to set your own rules. To expect most of these people to have a detailed knowledge of Science is not reasonable and out of bounds. A general knowledge may be. The scripture is not designed to do what Science does, go into detail. it is not a science book, but it has science in it. It is not a History book, but it has history in it. it Is designed to give an accurate account of Gods dealing and interactions with Man. when God says he is light and lives there it speaks accurately about the universe. When He says certian events happened, they happened. Now if you are going to come here and say to us it is not possible and we won't believe it, until you prove to us that it is possible. then there is no point in trying to speak with you. you have already made up your mind that it is not possible. so what is the point and why are you here? I have given you a reasonable explination of how it is possible the fits with the known scientific evidence. you cannot expect more then that on this forum. if you want more detailed evidence then you will have to talk to a christian scientist.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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

exactly how did you come to that conclusion. When Christ transfigered, Gk. Metamorphsos, he became a being of light. that shined bright. so the evidence in the scripture would deny that assertation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got any of the scientific proof god exists?

Merry Christmas

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

That's like looking at your liver spots to see how you were born.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

So?

 

[SelfSim]

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

I don't know what that means ..

 

[SelfSim]

.. you don't get to set your own rules.

That's a demonstration of setting your own rule.

To expect most of these people to have a detailed knowledge of Science is not reasonable and out of bounds. A general knowledge may be.

The science @sjastro presented there, is general knowledge

.. Now if you are going to come here and say to us it is not possible and we won't believe it, until you prove to us that it is possible. then there is no point in trying to speak with you. you have already made up your mind that it is not possible. so what is the point and why are you here? I have given you a reasonable explination of how it is possible the fits with the known scientific evidence. you cannot expect more then that on this forum. if you want more detailed evidence then you will have to talk to a christian scientist.

I expect to be kept honest on this forum. @sjastro and several other scientific thinkers are great at doing that.

 

[sjastro]

1.the problem with this objection is that it is it ignores the application of E=mc² when it comes to Energy and matter being interchangable. you see this in popular science fiction about what is possible if we have the we had the tech to do it. Take Star Trek the transporter, the holodeck, the food replicator, all examples of what is possible if we had the tech to do it. we can imagine the possibility based on the known science. if that is true and possible then that demonstrates that the universe is more flexible then fluid then previously believed. that any looking for God using the physical evidence must with what the physical evidence states and it state the energy and matter are interchangeable. and God being a being of light and spirit meets that creteria. sorry you don't like the answer but a resonable person would consider that sufficient.

2. you came on the forum, a religious forum wanting to talk God. If you don't like that then leave. you don't get to set your own rules. To expect most of these people to have a detailed knowledge of Science is not reasonable and out of bounds. A general knowledge may be. The scripture is not designed to do what Science does, go into detail. it is not a science book, but it has science in it. It is not a History book, but it has history in it. it Is designed to give an accurate account of Gods dealing and interactions with Man. when God says he is light and lives there it speaks accurately about the universe. When He says certian events happened, they happened. Now if you are going to come here and say to us it is not possible and we won't believe it, until you prove to us that it is possible. then there is no point in trying to speak with you. you have already made up your mind that it is not possible. so what is the point and why are you here? I have given you a reasonable explination of how it is possible the fits with the known scientific evidence. you cannot expect more then that on this forum. if you want more detailed evidence then you will have to talk to a christian scientist.

I suggest you do some research and get your facts right before pontificating.
This is not a Christian forum, the Statement of Purpose makes this perfectly clear.

Physical & Life Sciences Statement of Purpose

The Physical & Life Sciences forum is a discussion and debate area on physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences. Other physical sciences may include but is not limited to astronomy, earth science, archeology, climate change, ecology, geology, oceanography and energy.

Physical Sciences address the nature and properties of non-living systems while life sciences address the nature and properties of living matter. This may include the way two or more of these have an effect on each other between observation, theory, deduction and application.

Remember to quote sources if applicable. When copying a portion of an article or informational piece, remember the copyright limits outlined by CF as well as the copyright stipulations of the article publisher.

Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.

You and others have violated the forum rules by turning this into a debate involving Christianity which is off topic.
I have addressed your comments purely from the science angle in line with the Statement of Purpose.
Your comments are so comprehensively wrong invoking sci-fi or God doesn't make it right.
Finally I don't have to talk to a Christian scientist having been one myself or more precisely a scientist who is a Christian so you can now take your foot out of your mouth.

 

[dlamberth]

exactly how did you come to that conclusion. When Christ transfigered, Gk. Metamorphsos, he became a being of light. that shined bright. so the evidence in the scripture would deny that assertation.

A transfigured Christ is a spiritual being. Spiritual light is a different kind of light. It shines differently. For instance, it's not able to reflect or bounce around like light in the physical world does. It just acts differently because it is different.

 

[Hans Blaster]

1.the problem with this objection is that it is it ignores the application of E=mc² when it comes to Energy and matter being interchangable.

As you have been told, E=mc² only applies for particles with mass that are not moving (rest-mass energy). Photons do not have mass and are moving. For photons (light) E=pc. (p == momentum)

you see this in popular science fiction about what is possible if we have the we had the tech to do it. Take Star Trek the transporter, the holodeck, the food replicator, all examples of what is possible if we had the tech to do it. we can imagine the possibility based on the known science.

That is fantasy technology.

if that is true and possible then that demonstrates that the universe is more flexible then fluid then previously believed.

What on earth does "more flexible than fluid" mean. It makes no sense to me.

that any looking for God using the physical evidence must with what the physical evidence states and it state the energy and matter are interchangeable. and God being a being of light and spirit meets that creteria. sorry you don't like the answer but a resonable person would consider that sufficient.

I don't think @sjastro nor I are being unreasonable.

2. you came on the forum, a religious forum wanting to talk God.

I won't speak for @sjastro but I came here to talk about science. God is not a topic that interests me in general, but I have participated in this "scientific evidence for god" thread because of the science, not the god. As I suspected when I spotted this as new thread 3080 post ago I had no hope for actual proof, but it might be amusing...

If you don't like that then leave. you don't get to set your own rules.

You're not the one that decides this. That is up to the owners, managers, and mods, and so far they have allowed me to stay, particularly in the "open to non-Christians" sections.

To expect most of these people to have a detailed knowledge of Science is not reasonable and out of bounds. A general knowledge may be.

When you misuse general knowledge (E=mc2) by applying it where it is not applicable and someone with more specific knowledge corrects your usage it is not out of bounds on the science sub-forum and it is definitely not your "right" to insist that the more complete knowledge is irrelevant.

The scripture is not designed to do what Science does, go into detail. it is not a science book, but it has science in it.

The "science" in the bible is questionable, but it is irrelevant to the nature of the thread about actual science providing evidence for god.

It is not a History book, but it has history in it. it Is designed to give an accurate account of Gods dealing and interactions with Man.

Fine, but irrelevant to the thread.

when God says he is light and lives there it speaks accurately about the universe.

Not from what I've seen.

When He says certian events happened, they happened.

Again, not relevant to the topic.

Now if you are going to come here and say to us it is not possible and we won't believe it, until you prove to us that it is possible.

As *I* said (not sjastro to whom the "you" is addressed) your "light" interpretation is incompatible with scientific reality.

then there is no point in trying to speak with you. you have already made up your mind that it is not possible. so what is the point and why are you here?

Again, it is not necessary to challenge anyone's motivation for being on this forum.

I have given you a reasonable explination of how it is possible the fits with the known scientific evidence.

You have not. It does not.

you cannot expect more then that on this forum. if you want more detailed evidence then you will have to talk to a christian scientist.

I can expect anything I want. There are plenty of Christians who are scientists on this board (I am one of those, but not the other).

 

[YahuahSaves]

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

No need, God has everything under his command.

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.

He is the creator and we are the created. He answers prayer according to HIS will. I will give you an example: one morning early in my walk of faith, I was struggling to pray, my mind would just go blank. So I said OK God, what do you want me to pray about? I don’t know what to say. Then a thought came to me to "pray for (lady from church), her husband is in palliative care". (The latter I didn't know until 2 days later). So I prayed that God would heal her husbands cancer. A week later, he passed away. I was very upset at God, I didn't understand the point of him telling me to pray a prayer he wasn't going to answer? I was talking to my mum (who is born again) and she said, think about what God actually said... pray for the wife, not the husband...and then it clicked. God wanted me to pray for the wife who would be grieving her husband very shortly. No, we don't always get what we ask for, but as the scripture says: HIS will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

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!

I wasn't just talking about the afterlife. Eternity with God is wonderful, yes.. but the kingdom of God is here and now, while on earth. We make a choice to enter it daily.

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.

I'm curious too. I cannot understand unbelief in God, any more than you can understand belief in God. But all I can go on is what the scriptures say about the farmer scattering seed.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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

Because you said this:

Redundant as unnecessary and unwarranted. It's not cynicism, it's an evidence-based view.

The idea of a creative designer or even sophisticated design for our universe is not "redundant" as per your definition (IMO).
But since you come from the viewpoint of evolution with nothing behind it, your post makes sense. I do enjoy science you know. God does use these tools to achieve his purpose, but science is not the authority, God is.

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.

Who says the benefit was solely for us? God created everything for "His good pleasure".

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.

We do live in a fallen creation, hence why nothing is perfect until he creates the new heaven and new earth. Generic biblical answer, you might say, but it is in the word.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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.

Well considering the OP's context, and the fact I was responding directly to her initially as another believer, there was no problem with that. Regardless if it's a scientific sub-forum, it's still a Christian forum overall. You guys kept responding to me. It's the only reason I'm still on this thread. Do you want to part ways now? Agree to disagree?

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.

Exactly the point of my initial response to the OP. God requires faith.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Again, does it show? How can you tell? Or is it just a way of talking about belief and non-belief?

Yes, it's the change is in the heart of the believer. They begin to talk differently, walk differently and they can no longer compromise with Gods word and what he requires of us.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Yuh. Brain study is how belief in God would be detected. Perhaps it was you that lost the context - the relevant context was in response to another poster who seemed to suggest that there was no detectable difference between God and belief in God.

How do you know? Do you study the brain? It was a suggestion that was "scientific".

 

[YahuahSaves]

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
GOD is a title but people do use his name and that's in violation of the First and Greatest Commandment which is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
the two Commandments the LORD Jesus told us to Obey covers the '10' commandments GOD set before us to Obey.
Including taking the LORDS name in vain.
Referring to the MOST HIGH GOD as Heavenly Father helps me to remember how i was raised to respect my parents and not to call them by name<----
Just My 2 cents

Taking the Lords name in vain concers speaking his name without intention (such as in communicating about him or to him). Using his name as a cuss word is one such example of taking his name "in vain".