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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
IMO the problem with the First Cause argument is that it claims there could only be one first cause dismissing the possibility of multiple, and it implies the first cause had to be more intelligent than everything that came after it.
I do claim both of those are necessary: there can be only one, and yes, more intelligent. If not, then it is subject to principles beyond itself, which is impossible for first cause.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It does complicate things for those who insist there is no more logical reason for First Cause to be With Intent, or of a personhood, or even intelligent, than there is for simply mechanical fact to be first cause, or for the Whole of Existence to be that first cause.

It complicates things in the context of adding an 'entity' to the equation without any additional explanatory power. Consequently the first cause argument is no more explanatory than assuming the universe itself is its own cause (e.g. it self-exists without anything additional beyond it).
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do claim both of those are necessary: there can be only one, and yes, more intelligent. If not, then it is subject to principles beyond itself, which is impossible for first cause.
And that is the main problem with the first cause argument. I find it absurd to insist there could only be one first cause, and just as absurd to assume this first cause must be intelligent.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
It complicates things in the context of adding an 'entity' to the equation without any additional explanatory power. Consequently the first cause argument is no more explanatory than assuming the universe itself is its own cause (e.g. it self-exists without anything additional beyond it).
I guess I see what you are getting at. I'm not sure I agree, though. To me it, because it does answer at least that if he is the origin, many things can be reasonably extrapolated from there that necessarily preclude many other encumbrances --at least, that is concerning absolute origin.

I think it does give some explanatory power; I cannot accept a God who is less than First Cause. And since God, is necessarily as First Cause above all, and all powerful, and all things were made by him, I can also begin to see that he makes according to his nature, and for his own sake, and many other things begin to make sense, including sin.

If by "explanatory power" you are referring to the physical / mathematical provable ways how he did what he did, I think we would have to go a lot further with our cosmology. So maybe you are right there, yet I keep hearing hints --eg. people like to say quantum particles appear from nowhere, uncaused --really? Also, long believed laws like conservation of energy, and logical laws like non-contradiction and so on, at least to me, point to both his nature and the necessary fact that those very laws --indeed logic and existence itself, are his "inventions", which he did not suddenly himself pop into being subjected to. They may seem to be simply "what is" or "the way of things" but that has, to my mind at least, be his arrangement. Not simply fact.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
And that is the main problem with the first cause argument. I find it absurd to insist there could only be one first cause, and just as absurd to assume this first cause must be intelligent.
If there is more than one first cause, then one or both are caused by something else, since both operate under a principle that, involves them both. Even if you want to say they can both co-emerge simulltaneously,it is false, because First Cause does not emerge. There is no pre-existing principle by which First Cause is produced.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
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.
Another possibility that of a perpetual cause. The trouble with first cause arguments is that they lock one into an chronological timeline. The impression I get from first cause arguments is that they assume that in order for God to have created the universe He must have existed 'before' it began--whatever that may mean..
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If there is more than one first cause, then one or both are caused by something else, since both operate under a principle that, involves them both.
Logic tells us, if one thing can exist without being caused by something else, multiple things can exist without being caused by something else.
Even if you want to say they can both co-emerge simulltaneously,it is false, because First Cause does not emerge. There is no pre-existing principle by which First Cause is produced.
I’m not talking about emerging or being produced, I’m talking about having always existed.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
And that is the main problem with the first cause argument. I find it absurd to insist there could only be one first cause, and just as absurd to assume this first cause must be intelligent.
If not intelligent, then it is mechanical fact. Mechanical fact cannot be self-existent, as it operates by principles to which it is subject. Therefore, pre-existent principle either caused it to begin to exist, or was co-emergent with it. Either way contradicts that it could be first cause, since first cause does not begin to exist, nor bring itself into existence.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If not intelligent, then it is mechanical fact. Mechanical fact cannot be self-existent, as it operates by principles to which it is subject. Therefore, pre-existent principle either caused it to begin to exist, or was co-emergent with it. Either way contradicts that it could be first cause, since first cause does not begin to exist, nor bring itself into existence.
What is mechanical fact? Is a rock mechanical fact? Is bacteria mechanical fact?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Another possibility that of a perpetual cause. The trouble with first cause arguments is that they lock one into an chronological timeline. The impression I get from first cause arguments is that they assume that in order for God to have created the universe He must have existed 'before' it began--whatever that may mean..
I agree that the terminology begins to fall apart, beginning with time sequence. As far as I can go back though, though delicately held, Logical sequence need not be time-dependent but cause-dependent. God need not operate like we do, to be logical.

I don't find perpetual cause to be any more reasonable than infinite regression, itself (if not possessing of intent and intelligence) being mere mechanical fact. If it is possessing of intent and intelligence, then it is God, except for one small problem --so far we see beginnings in cosmology, not perpetual cause.

If, though, by perpetual cause you only mean that God keeps on causing, to me it is reasonable to say that sans time, it makes no difference to God whether he spoke it into existence or is continually causing it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
What is mechanical fact? Is a rock mechanical fact? Is bacteria mechanical fact?
Some scientists want to say we are mechanical fact. I personally define it as anything not possessing personhood, but then I guess that word needs definition. I don't know. I do think that if we can call it mere system, (no matter how complex), it is not person.

In my discussion with some mockers of Scripture's reference to the spiritually dead, I like to quote Christ's saying, that "if these are silent, the rocks themselves would cry out." I can't say that wasn't hyperbole, but I like to imagine that we persons really don't know how incomplete we are, apart from our Creator, as we were made for his sake. He is, to my thinking, super-person.
 
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
3,790
3,035
Northwest US
✟665,851.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As long as it is approached with an open mind, I think it is very possible that science will eventually find God. We just aren't there yet. Compared to say 500 years from now, I'm sure today's science will seem very crude and primitive, just like the science of the 1500's seems to us now. There is no telling what mysteries may be revealed to us in the future.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
As long as it is approached with an open mind, I think it is very possible that science will eventually find God. We just aren't there yet. Compared to say 500 years from now, I'm sure today's science will seem very crude and primitive, just like the science of the 1500's seems to us now. There is no telling what mysteries may be revealed to us in the future.
I agree except that I don't think science can find God, until God reveals himself. They may find things that can only logically be explained by First Cause, but I don't think they will mathematically prove his existence.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Logic tells us, if one thing can exist without being caused by something else, multiple things can exist without being caused by something else.

I’m not talking about emerging or being produced, I’m talking about having always existed.
Then they are still subject to the existence of the other. The principle governs them both, that there is another. Therefore, not first cause.
 
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
3,790
3,035
Northwest US
✟665,851.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree except that I don't think science can find God, until God reveals himself. They may find things that can only logically be explained by First Cause, but I don't think they will mathematically prove his existence.

I agree that is why I also used the term "revealed". As far as math, this might not be the science that is able to find God. There may be different sciences in the future, much in the way we now have the field of quantum physics, which is relatively new.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Then they are still subject to the existence of the other.
No. Multiple things existing eternally does not require that they are subject to the existence of each other. Again; if one thing can exist by itself, multiple things can exist by themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
So how do you know "mechanical fact" can not exist eternally? What do you base this on?
I thought I had answered. Mechanical fact is subject to principles it did not 'invent', i.e. from outside itself. It is a system. Therefore, it is caused to be or to do what it is.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I thought I had answered. Mechanical fact is subject to principles it did not 'invent', i.e. from outside itself. It is a system. Therefore, it is caused to be or to do what it is.
If material is subject to principles outside of itself, that doesn't mean the material did not exist eternally.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
No. Multiple things existing eternally does not require that they are subject to the existence of each other. Again; if one thing can exist by itself, multiple things can exist by themselves.

How? If both are creator of all things, you have said they must share ability, results, are possessed of independence from each other. That is not autonomy, nor absolute sovereignty. The one must behave according to the fact that the other exists but not under the one's authority. It doesn't work. They are responding to, being in some sense, controlled by the principle of both mutual and independent existence, First Cause is not subject to principle.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.