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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It looks like a branch of Catholicism, would that be right? I'm pretty sure the Catholic teaching does not teach Jesus is God, but only the Son of God, from what I've been told.

I was taught (by Catholics) that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. It sometimes seemed they went out of their way to make it 'beyond understanding'...

 

[AV1611VET]

I was taught (by Catholics) that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. It sometimes seemed they went out of their way to make it 'beyond understanding'...

Plants beget plants.

Animals beget animals.

People beget people.

God ...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

The idea that God is an immaterial spirit is a myth concocted by theologians. You won't actually find that concept in the Bible.

you clearly did not read the bible

1. John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
2. First Timothy 1:17 To hthe King of the ages, iimmortal, jinvisible, kthe only God, lbe honor and glory forever and ever.4 Amen.
3. John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
4. 1:John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that mGod is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
5. 1 timothy 6:16, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
6. Psalm 104:2 He wraps Himself in light as with a garment; He stretches out the heavens like a tent.
7. James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow.
8. Ezekiel 1:28 The appearance of the brilliant light all around Him was like that of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell facedown and heard a voice speaking.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

There really wasn't any point in discussing the technological similarities between some Star Trek technologies and some related things we can accomplish. (Transport of material object from point to point is not feasible and even close to the "teleportation" experiments being done in atomic physics.)

you keep trying to avoid the subject and the point. you cannot even respond correctly to the post. that is not point the point is that based on the know physics scince that predict what is possible. the nature of the universe is not fixed but changable. I believe that is the 1st law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed it simply changes form. you know that and should know that. any look for God should be equal to or greater then that Law. you know that is what I am saying. this tread is about looking for the scientific evidence for God. any look for god in the natural must begin with those laws and be equal to or greater then them. this points us to what we are looking for and where to begin. that is what I said and you are well aware of that. you are avoiding because you are running from something.

 

[Hans Blaster]

you keep trying to avoid the subject and the point. you cannot even respond correctly to the post.

It would help if you stopped accusing me of stuff and just get to your argument...

that is not point the point is that based on the know physics scince that predict what is possible.

Known physics is what has been discovered. The enterprise of physics is looking to see if there is more.

the nature of the universe is not fixed but changable.

It depends on what you mean. Do things in the universe change? (Yes) Does the overall universe change? (Yes) Does our understanding of the universe change? (yes) Do the laws of the universe change? (Not as far as we can tell.)

I believe that is the 1st law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed it simply changes form.

It is one of those laws. Conservation of energy. The ordinal number doesn't matter much.

you know that and should know that.

Indeed, I have taught it.

any look for God should be equal to or greater then that Law. you know that is what I am saying.

This statement does not it within my comprehension, unless you are saying you want a god that is greater than the universe (and could violate or change laws) and I don't see any need for that.

this tread is about looking for the scientific evidence for God.

And so far it has come up blank.

any look for god in the natural must begin with those laws and be equal to or greater then them.

That's certainly one way to look for a god scientifically.

this points us to what we are looking for and where to begin. that is what I said and you are well aware of that.

I don't recall exactly what you said and looking back while typing a message is tricky. Your messages tend to be a bit vague and written in a context that is not familiar to me.

you are avoiding because you are running from something.

Oh really? And you know this how?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

It would help if you stopped accusing me of stuff and just get to your argument...

it would be helpful if you would respond to the post instead of talking about you. I am not accusing you of anything. I am observing you behavior and how you keep avoiding the subject. just like now. just answer the post and stop taking offence. stop making everything personal. your behavior is what I am talking about not your motive

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Oh really? And you know this how?

because I can observe your behavior and and compare it with other people and there common behavior and how they respond and realize that something is not normal. it's called science. based on the patterns that emerge I can see that your response falls outside of the norm and fall well with in the abnormal responses and the habits of those who are avoiding questions. Why I don't know. thats how sicence works

 

[Adventist Heretic]

It depends on what you mean. Do things in the universe change? (Yes) Does the overall universe change? (Yes) Does our understanding of the universe change? (yes) Do the laws of the universe change? (Not as far as we can tell.)

I think you got what I was trying to say for the most part

This statement does not it within my comprehension, unless you are saying you want a god that is greater than the universe (and could violate or change laws)

bingo, that is what I am saying and that is the being that is described in the Bible and since this is a Christian forum the Bible is what we look to for guidance when we want to understand God.

and I don't see any need for that.

that is called in the scripture "idolatry" you make a god to suit yourself because you are either unaware of who God is or you don't like the God described there.

And so far it has come up blank.

that is subjective. that is based on what one wants to see and the assumption made by the individual and what they will or will not accept.

That's certainly one way to look for a god scientifically.

 

[Hans Blaster]

because I can observe your behavior and and compare it with other people and there common behavior and how they respond and realize that something is not normal. it's called science. based on the patterns that emerge I can see that your response falls outside of the norm and fall well with in the abnormal responses and the habits of those who are avoiding questions. Why I don't know. thats how sicence works

I've lost the plot here as the last post from you was several pages back.

So what question am I dodging/avoiding?

(And just for "fun") What do you think I am running from?

 

[dlamberth]

God ...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God birthing Himself and than killing Himself to appease Himself because His creation didn't live up to His own high standards?

 

[Hans Blaster]

bingo, that is what I am saying and that is the being that is described in the Bible and since this is a Christian forum the Bible is what we look to for guidance when we want to understand God.

That's theology. I'm not here to "understand god" generally, and in this thread just to consider evidence of the scientific kind.

This thread is about connecting god claims and scientific evidence. You can find things in the bible and see if they match scientific evidence, or find scientific facts that point to a god. Those would be the "normal" was to interact with the topic. It is really the only way I am interested in this thread.

You put out some stuff equating god and light and I addressed it from the physics of electromagnetic waves. (It's kind of what I do.)

that is called in the scripture "idolatry" you make a god to suit yourself because you are either unaware of who God is or you don't like the God described there.

I'm not interested in idols or gods of any kinds. I have no need for any such things. It is not a matter of liking or not liking the god you (and others here) describe, but rather not finding it to be plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

God birthing Himself and than killing Himself to appease Himself because His creation didn't live up to His own high standards?

Isn't He wonderful!

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, that was my experience. I was told 'Jesus is God' and took it as something I was supposed to accept, but I'm not sure what I would have said if asked whether I believed that Jesus is God...

I feel certain I was taught there were only five Holy Sacraments, too(?) I looked it up, and that defintely doesn't seem to be in keeping with nowadays Catholicism(?)
We had a hell, fire and brimstone style of local parish Priest, (of Irish decent he was .. loved his Pulpit, he did).

My 'awakening' came with realising I was making up sins to satisfy the creepy dude inside the confessional booth!
I sorted him out though .. I always made up ones that would only get me five 'Hail Marys' ('cause they resulted in a shorter 'sentence' than the 'Our Father ..' ones).

 

[AV1611VET]

My 'awakening' came with realising I was making up sins to satisfy the creepy dude inside the confessional booth!

Who took you there to meet this "creepy dude"?

 

[SelfSim]

Who took you there to meet this "creepy dude"?

My mother.

 

[sjastro]

You have two scientists Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam.
Weinberg was a militant atheist with strong views on religion.

Weinberg said:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Abdus Salem was a devout Muslim (couldn't find a Christian but as a religion example he will do.)

Salam said:
The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart.
"Thou seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection, Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure? Then Return thy gaze, again and again. Thy gaze, Comes back to thee dazzled, aweary." (Quran 67:3–4) This, in effect, is the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze."

So what links these individuals with polar opposite views; they both won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on Electroweak Theory.
Furthermore they worked independently of each other in the development of the theory.

The moral of the story is the existence or non existence of God played no role in Electroweak Theory which also applies to science in general as God is unfalsifiable.
Science cannot be used to support religion or atheism.

 

[Kylie]

Of course not because God doesn't make mistakes, he created us and we are fearfully and wonderfully made just as we are. Satan is at work in the world in a big way but only Christians can see it.

I suppose you think it's just as bad that I wear glasses then. God gave me imperfect eyesight, I shouldn't try to change what he deigned to give me!

Because Astrology is a form of sorcery according to Gods word. People predicting their own futures, dabbling in the occult, etc is not what God wants.

Genesis 1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Isn't astrology the practice of reading the stars as signs?

Yes because brothers and sisters in Christ are meant to uphold each other and keep the peace. We symbolise the body of Christ, we're not supposed to be divided. Atheists coming against the word of God is a different story, we're meant to tell the truth that is in God's Word.

You missed the point.

You are trying to paint this website as anti-Christian and pro-atheist, when that simply isn't true. You don't get to claim you're a victim just because people tell you they don't want to hear you proselytizing to them, particularly in a part of the forums that wasn't intended for that.

 

[Kylie]

So, if I give an "brief" overview of an author/book/source I've read or used, you'd prefer for me to not used the specific terms that author/source used? I don't remember that being a requirement when I when to uni. But maybe your university was different?

This isn';t university.

If you are going to communicate, then please communicate so the average person who has not studied this sort of thing at uni can understand it.

Hyers wasn't trying to "prove" that the Bible is divine or inspired. He was actually explicating his point in support of the fact that he didn't think that Creationism should be taught in the classroom. He wasn't offering "evidence" for belief; he was offering evidence that the Bible is, as he put it, "Cosmogony, not Cosmology."

Cosmogony - the study of how the universe came into being.

How is that not a question science can try to answer?

But I get it. You place a high priority on discussions about scientific evidence, so a book by an author who favors science over religion in the science classroon isn't going to be of any interest to you.

You don't seem to get what I'm asking.

According to this guy, what did the authors of Genesis intend when they wrote it? Did they mena it literally? Did they mean it figuratively, or metaphoiricall? Did they mean it in some other way?> Why can't you just answer this question?

What position are you expecting?

Why should I have any expectations about what it should mean? That would only serve to bias my opinion.

I'm not interested in what my opinion about what his position on the original intent of the Genesis authors is. I want to know what his position on the original intent of the Genesis authors is. My opinion contributes nothing to that.

 

[Kylie]

As far as I'm concerned, if the Bible is reported to be a literal, inerrant, inspired "history," then it's game over by chapter 2, maybe even by chapter 1.

What is there left to test when I already can't get over or through the conceptual WALL that Adam and Eve aren't, and never were, historical persons, Kylie?

The idea of Humanity starting from two people who existed some 6000 odd years ago is one that can be tested.

Why not test it and see if what we find in the real world is consistent with that claim?

Do I need to question [or test] the rest of the Bible after that, chapter by chapter, book by book?

That's like me saying, "Star Trek has been right about several things, so I'm just going to accept Star Trek as correct. Do I need to check every episode, every series?"

 

[AV1611VET]

My mother.

So your mother, who cared for your soul, took you to a priest, who cared for your soul, and you think this guy, who was doing his work, was "creepy"?

Could it just be that you're projecting his "creepiness" on to Jesus on the Cross, who died for your soul?