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

[YahuahSaves]

You could have easily changed my mind

Could I have? Do my recent posts get you to question your ideologies on gender theory?

 

[Kylie]

Could I have? Do my recent posts get you to question your ideologies on gender theory?

If you had bothered to quote the entire sentence instead of deceptively quoting mining what I said, you would have seen that I said, "You could have easily changed my mind by providing evidence to back up your claim."

At no point did you provide evidence to back up your claim.

All you could do was post a video where TWO trans people posted testimonies. There are two big problems with that. First, two people is a lousy sample size, and can't be used to infer anything about the trans population as a whole. Second, testimonials aren't reliable. Personal reviews just aren't that trustworthy. There's no control mechanism in place at all. It's all subjective opinion. Why You Can’t Really Trust Negative Online Reviews (Published 2018)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now you're just getting further away from what I asked you.

Does what's his name think:

1. Genesis is literal
2. Genesis is metaphorical
3. Genesis is some third option.

Is it 1, 2, or 3? And if 3, please go into more detail.

When I have more time, I can. But I'm not sure it matters.

You are avoiding the issue.

Why are my opinions about someone else's position relevant to what their position is?

So it he thinks it was metaphorical.

No, not exactly. But it doesn't matter.

And what exactly was the theological relevance?

For you, it doesn't matter.

My opinion is meaningless when it comes to someone else's position.

Or are you suggesting that my opinion today is capable of altering Hyers' position in the past?

Your opinion is a partial expression of your Subjective thoughts and feelings which are present when you engage with the Objective world. So, yeah, it can affect your perception and willingness to engage. However, it won't change Hyers' position in the past ... unless we're in some Star Trek episode or Avengers movie.

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

So, you're a defeator of illogic, ay?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you had bothered to quote the entire sentence instead of deceptively quoting mining what I said, you would have seen that I said, "You could have easily changed my mind by providing evidence to back up your claim."

At no point did you provide evidence to back up your claim.

All you could do was post a video where TWO trans people posted testimonies. There are two big problems with that. First, two people is a lousy sample size, and can't be used to infer anything about the trans population as a whole. Second, testimonials aren't reliable. Personal reviews just aren't that trustworthy. There's no control mechanism in place at all. It's all subjective opinion. Why You Can’t Really Trust Negative Online Reviews (Published 2018)

Sometimes, it's not even subjective opinion. There's better, more fitting words for those instances of bias: Subterfuge is one. Sabotage is another. Sophistry is a third.

But now, there's a problem in your little counter-claim above. It sounds like a deduction, but it fails.

 

[Mountainmike]

Has this thread stopped talking about the topic in the title?

It needs to go back to a zero base.
Since I am back from abroad , here is An attempt to bring back on track.

1/ Science is an observation model from our senses, not the underlying reality of the universe.
2/ There is also a method to build that model that relies on what does repeat naturally or can be repeated. Science can say ittle about anything else. It has a problem dealing with one offs or conscious experience which is the bedrock of all observation.

3/ The model 1/ does not exist in the universe, it is not the same as the universe, it does not "underpin" the universe, it is just an observation model of it, limited to our senses of things which intereact with our senses or instrumentation. The model cannot state that what normally happens, will always happen, or that what happens at one place and time, always happens everywhere else and for all time. The model is limited to its own observation space.
Everything in the model man put there. It lives on paper and computer models.

It is a good fit and valuable model ( as a scientist I used it for math modelling complex things) , but materialists cannot pretend the model IS the universe. The two are wrongly conflated. What the universe truly "is"and all that is in it is unknowable.

4/ "Scientific proof" in the title is therefore a misnomer. It is simply a conformance statement to the existing model.
Everything else that does not conform can be valid evidence or even proof of existence.
The absence of conformance to the present model is neither here nor there. it does not invalidate evidence of existence that does not conform to the model.

5/ The scientific model does not include God. God is not "repeatable" therefore hard to model. There is no "Godness" test.
Therefore science cannot "prove" God. Whether or not he exists. It is a limitation of science and philosophy not God.

6/ So the question is not scientific "proof" God exists, the thread title is a self defeating proposition, it is evidence God exists. That exists in abundance.

7/ And what is that evidence that God exists? It is
a- phenomena that do not conform to the model
b- that violate a prime tenet of the model (eg prophecy beyond the predictable that therefore violates the time arrow) so science cannot accomodate the phenomena
c- that point at an aspect of theistic belief.

8/ eg God said he could create, and that after the eucharistic blessing , bread would become His flesh.
The forensic pathologyEucharistic miracles shows bread did indeed become living flesh. It was created.
And since only God said that He could do that, it is reasonable to attribute to Him.
It is only scientific evidence not proof of God - but that is the BEST that SCIENCE can do, because of LIMITATIONS of SCIENCE.
As that example shows, God apparently can do anything. Creation is the ultimate ability. So He has no apparent limits.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

But more a case of 'God begets himself' - not to mention the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

 

[AV1611VET]

But more a case of 'God begets himself' - not to mention the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Yup.

The Trinity violates major laws of physics.

Which is what should be expected.

Or He wouldn't be God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Ironically, it is because the universe is 'not fixed but changeable [sic]' that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a local approximation. Per Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of time-translation symmetry invariance, i.e. the 'laws of physics' don't change over time. But this doesn't apply in a universe with expanding spacetime. See Energy is Not Conserved.

 

[Neutral Observer]

5/ The scientific model does not include God. God is not "repeatable" therefore hard to model. There is no "Godness" test.
Therefore science cannot "prove" God. Whether or not he exists. It is a limitation of science and philosophy not God.

This one seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. To make this assertion one would have to know the nature of God. However if the nature of God is untestable then it is by our limited capacity unknowable. Therefore you can't possibly make any claims about it. How would you test them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yup.

The Trinity violates major laws of physics.

Which is what should be expected.

Or He wouldn't be God.

Never mind the laws of physics, consider the poor rules of logic... oh, who will save logic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Never mind the laws of physics, consider the poor rules of logic... oh, who will save logic?

I'm more into theologic, than I am logic.

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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(?)

The only sacrament I recall was the transmogrifying wafer... that was a bit hard to swallow!

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).

Yes! I remember that - wondering which everyday misdemeanours would count. You had to think of something or the creepy guy would call you a liar

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Refer to post #3,260

But why would God not want unbelievers to 'see the light of the gospel' if that might make them believers?

And we're born with a predisposition to supernatural belief, not having any specific beliefs; i.e. we're born unbelievers. At what point does the 'blinding of unbelievers' kick in?

Yes. the truth is hard to find for someone always looking to discredit it.

It's not a question of discrediting it, but of considering an alternative more plausible. I accept that you believe it, but people make many unsupported and undemonstrable truth claims, often contradicting each other, and they often follow well-known and demonstrable patterns of thought involving various cognitive biases (that we're all susceptible to). IOW, strong belief tends to bias our interpretation of the world. When a scientifically implausible claim is made that follows such a pattern, a non-believer like me is inclined to point it out.

As I've mentioned way back in an earlier post, I didn't even check what forum the post was in and I didn't scroll to the top once on the page either. Don't worry I will never make such an error again.

OK, no problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm more into theologic, than I am logic.

Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Quite so.

 

[SelfSim]

The only sacrament I recall was the transmogrifying wafer... that was a bit hard to swallow!

That sounds like a miracle to me. Sacraments were sort of gateways one had to pass through in life in oreder to stay spiritually 'on track' I think(?)
We're going back to Angels dancin' on a pin again here, I think(?)

Yes! I remember that - wondering which everyday misdemeanours would count. You had to think of something or the creepy guy would call you a liar

Yeah ... the standing assumption, of course, was that we are all sinners .. so it can't be possible to have committed no sins over the period of a mere week or so. I remember being really screwed up by that .. well .. because I hadn't committed any sins over that period, so I was being forced into making them up ... which was lying!

 

[NagaMorningstar]

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.

Famous mathematician, Gödel, has a formal logic proof of God that has been verified on computer. It has a page on Wikipedia.

Simulation theory would mean anything is possible

Astral projection, near death experiences and shared death experiences show you’re more than you’re physical body.

 

[dlamberth]

But more a case of 'God begets himself' - not to mention the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

And than kills himself.

 

[SelfSim]

So what's your opinion on gender dysphoria? Can it be proven scientifically based on the above definitions? If the answer is yes, how does belief in one's identity, differ from a belief in God?

There's no point asking me for scientific 'proofs'. 'Proofs' aren't part of the scientific method because there are no 'truths' in scientific thinking to equate with the outcomes of testing. Logic uses truths .. not science.

Gender dysphoria is a useful classification used in diagnosis as the condition produces measurables consistent with distress.
The current medical science understanding is that gender dysphoria is not related to sexual orientation or attraction .. but I don't see how they can rule rule out the obvious common ground of those being states of the mind.

If the answer is yes, how does belief in one's identity, differ from a belief in God?

A belief is a belief because I can define an objective test for what a belief is. Beliefs can produce the meaning for what's real .. its called Mind Dependent Reality.

I think all human minds display the hallmark (testable) characteristics of self-awareness (identity), regardless of any beliefs in God, or gender orientation preferences. If someone succeeds in completely rejecting one's own sense of individual identity, I don't think an observer could infer the presence of a human mind, in that instance.

The belief in God is clearly optional, however .. I can choose to believe in that, or not to believe in that, when being guided by the criteria of (objective) testability. The belief in that case, is irrelevant to doing the science. Self-identity however, is essential to doing science or believing in God, whereas gender orientation isn't relevant to either. Those are the differences.

 

[Astrid]

And than kills himself.

To pay himself for his creation breaking
his rules.

It's too weird for me.