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

[Kylie]

Where do you get "forced"? When MacBeth tried to fulfill what the Fates had decreed, was he not choosing? Was he forced to do what he did?

If the outcome is set in stone, then I do not have free will about it.

I cannot freely choose if the outcome is already determined. Henry Ford once said that people who bought his cars could have any colour they wanted, as long as it was black. Tell me, were those people freely choosing black, or did they just accept it because there were no options?

"Possibility" is speculation. Only one thing will happen. Chance is a logical non-fact.

Let's say I have a bucket with numbered balls, 1 to 100. I draw out 47. Was there some force that was making sure I did not pull out ball 32? If so, what was that force?

If God changes your nature and circumstances, are you no longer you? Of course you can still decide!

People are changing all the time. Am I the same person I was when I was 10?

 

[Kylie]

Interesting this conversation came here, lol.

I repeat something I said (I thought) to you before: If you are free willing to decide in the face of your genetics, influences from without and within, etc etc, how is it any different if God is the one who set up those influences?

I'm not talking about influences. I'm talking about set in stone.

If God knows I'm going to drop a plate at a particular time, I have to drop it at exactly that time. I am incapable of dropping it even a nanosecond earlier.

It's like a character in a computer game in a cutscene. They can't choose to do anything different than what they have been programmed to do.

 

[Kylie]

I haven't seen any.

You need to look harder. Failed Prophecies

 

[dad]

You need to look harder. Failed Prophecies

The promise that Abraham's seed would be as the stars is a prophesy that is not yet fulfilled.

 

[Kylie]

The promise that Abraham's seed would be as the stars is a prophesy that is not yet fulfilled.

Boy, using this logic, every single prophecy ever made is real!

(What about all the others?)

 

[SelfSim]

You're certainly right about the fact that we seem to have a fundamental *difference of opinion* in our "belief(my case)"/"lack of belief(your case)" that "objective reality" exists independently of the human mind. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but it does seem to be a core disagreement between us.

Except I have never said that I hold a 'lack of belief' at all.
What is evidenced is that when conversing with scientific thinkers in rigorous scientific discourse, beliefs make exactly zip difference to the objective science!
The reason they make a difference here, is because you consistently demonstrate holding a fixed one, (belief), and you thus exclude yourself as being a scientific thinker when you do this.

I can contemplate your opinion of course, but it simply doesn't jive with the fields of archeology, astronomy, evolutionary theory, etc. The archeological record for instance suggests that many lifeforms predated human existence on Earth, and underlying physical realities like gravity and EM radiation allowed that to happen. I don't therefore *agree* with your belief that a human mind is necessary for objective reality to exist and to have a physical influence on physical objects and living organisms.

Stop arm-waving .. go ahead demonstrate your test and objective evidence then! (You have previously made such several attempts and they consistently failed in excluding minds).

I would even disagree about your belief that there is zero evidence to support the idea of an "objective reality" that exists in the absence of a human mind. I'm not even sure how you can "hold belief" in *any* particular cosmology model, save perhaps YEC, without believing in laws of physics which predate the Earth, humans and human minds. Your position on a need for "mind" seems to be incompatible with large swaths of physics and science, at least to me (my mind).

The beliefs make no difference to honest scientific thinkers.
I point to myriads of Christians who are professionally involved in real science for a living.

The rest of what you say is complete nonsensical .. ie: where is the person who understands physics, yet displays no evidence of possessing a mind, for goodness sake!?

How would you explain the first life forms appearing on our planet in the absence of laws of physics, and things like gravity which would need to predate the human mind for life to even exist?

The laws of physics are an objective model. There is no evidence that such laws exist independently of the minds which devised them (or those who make use of them). What is demonstrably evident is that those laws serve as an explanation for an audience of human minds .. and what they portray is highly consistent and makes sense to human scientific thinkers (believers .. less so).

Meh. About the only area of science where you and I even seem to fundamentally disagree is cosmology.

Are you kidding? You attempt to completely erase your extensive track record pertaining your mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of fundamental physics and basic math, when conversing with me!?

I doubt for instance that you reject evolutionary theory, or quantum mechanics, etc.

I accept both as being our currently best tested models and expect they will be updated with new evidence as it is distilled.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not talking about influences. I'm talking about set in stone.

If God knows I'm going to drop a plate at a particular time, I have to drop it at exactly that time. I am incapable of dropping it even a nanosecond earlier.

It's like a character in a computer game in a cutscene. They can't choose to do anything different than what they have been programmed to do.

I don't know if you are familiar with philosophers. They have done a lot of work on logical extrapolations or logically necessary implications of presuppositions. Some of them, using the given that First Cause exists, have come up with many of the things that Christianity also teaches, (although probably most Christians aren't familiar with some of them). Among them is the logical necessity that First Cause "inhabits" or "is the very essence of" all matter and energy, down to the most miniscule possible particle or whatever energy/ force can be reduced to.

If that is true, then First Cause has absolute control and interest in every motion of fact. This still does not negate choice. You absolutely do choose. (Rhetoric has a wonderful way of misleading and confusing people). I have heard Christians that disagree with Reformed Theology who take pretty much the same tack you do, except much more heatedly, lol. To them, if God chooses, the person is not choosing. I cannot for the life of me see that. To me it is logically one and the same whether or not God has chosen and is causing, we are still choosing just as surely either way. (For what it is worth, there are also plenty of Reformed, that say there is no such thing as free will, and that choice is an illusion, that it is just us fitting what is already determined.)

 

[dad]

Boy, using this logic, every single prophecy ever made is real!

(What about all the others?)

Never seen any others. All are either fulfilled or will be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the outcome is set in stone, then I do not have free will about it.

I cannot freely choose if the outcome is already determined. Henry Ford once said that people who bought his cars could have any colour they wanted, as long as it was black. Tell me, were those people freely choosing black, or did they just accept it because there were no options?



Let's say I have a bucket with numbered balls, 1 to 100. I draw out 47. Was there some force that was making sure I did not pull out ball 32? If so, what was that force?



People are changing all the time. Am I the same person I was when I was 10?

Can you show that you are not freely choosing, if the outcome is already determined?

Your Henry Ford example is not representative. Their options were whether to accept the one color or not, not whether there were no other colors from which to choose.

According to cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers, you do choose ball 47, however unwittingly so. But as surely as the butterfly wingbeat on the other side of the globe has its part in the hurricane on this side, they will say that logically, everything you choose is caused.

Further, logically, free will CANNOT be based on chance, or randomness, because these are logically powerless. If you decide something good, bad or whatever, it is not because you are by chance good, bad or whatever. It is because you have become what you are.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know if you are familiar with philosophers. They have done a lot of work on logical extrapolations or logically necessary implications of presuppositions. Some of them, using the given that First Cause exists, have come up with many of the things that Christianity also teaches, (although probably most Christians aren't familiar with some of them). Among them is the logical necessity that First Cause "inhabits" or "is the very essence of" all matter and energy, down to the most miniscule possible particle or whatever energy/ force can be reduced to.

If that is true, then First Cause has absolute control and interest in every motion of fact. This still does not negate choice. You absolutely do choose. (Rhetoric has a wonderful way of misleading and confusing people). I have heard Christians that disagree with Reformed Theology who take pretty much the same tack you do, except much more heatedly, lol. To them, if God chooses, the person is not choosing. I cannot for the life of me see that. To me it is logically one and the same whether or not God has chosen and is causing, we are still choosing just as surely either way. (For what it is worth, there are also plenty of Reformed, that say there is no such thing as free will, and that choice is an illusion, that it is just us fitting what is already determined.)

I think you misunderstand the point.

If it is to be a choice, then there must be more than one possible outcome. If there is only one possible outcome, then it isn't a choice.

 

[Kylie]

Never seen any others. All are either fulfilled or will be.

I hereby submit a prophecy that I will one day go into orbit around Pluto.

This prophecy is absolutely certain to come true, since at any point it will either be fulfilled or it will be going to be fulfilled. Thus my prophecy is certain, and you should acknowledge me as a prophetess.

 

[Kylie]

Can you show that you are not freely choosing, if the outcome is already determined?

Your Henry Ford example is not representative. Their options were whether to accept the one color or not, not whether there were no other colors from which to choose.

According to cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers, you do choose ball 47, however unwittingly so. But as surely as the butterfly wingbeat on the other side of the globe has its part in the hurricane on this side, they will say that logically, everything you choose is caused.

Further, logically, free will CANNOT be based on chance, or randomness, because these are logically powerless. If you decide something good, bad or whatever, it is not because you are by chance good, bad or whatever. It is because you have become what you are.

You cannot choose black if the only colour available is black. You can accept it, but that's not the same as choosing it.

I can only choose 47 if choosing other numbers is possible. If no other number is possible, then I may still PICK 47, but it won't be by choice. It will be because some force is forcing me to pick it.

 

[dad]

I hereby submit a prophecy that I will one day go into orbit around Pluto.

This prophecy is absolutely certain to come true, since at any point it will either be fulfilled or it will be going to be fulfilled. Thus my prophecy is certain, and you should acknowledge me as a prophetess.

Great. I notice that the prophecies of God had to do with Jesus. That He would come. How and when He would come. Where He would be born. To whom He would be born. Etc. The salvation of man was the goal. It was not some foolish merry go round Plutoride.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But how do you make sure that what you learn through non-scientific methods is real?

There is much that we learn by experience that science can't touch. Science isn't why you trust love, for example.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. All of science defies Genesis in a full-frontal assault. There is no end to the nonstop blasphemy train that runs along their line.

Then that isn't science. It is maybe "science" or what is called "science", or the scientific community or consensus, but not science. There are MANY scientists studying origins, following where logic leads, trusting no "final" suppositions, doing the gruntwork of elimination of bunk ideas, who love and believe in God, or who at least have some admission of the apparent necessity of the existence of First Cause With Intent. Many of those claim outright to believe in a literal 6 days of creation; though they don't claim to be able to justify it with the present concepts of scientific study, they don't deny the possibility that they do indeed justify perfectly.

I did a short search (like 10 minutes spent on it) one time for such scientists who are known to publicly claim belief in God, and it was easily over a hundred.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You cannot choose black if the only colour available is black. You can accept it, but that's not the same as choosing it.

I can only choose 47 if choosing other numbers is possible. If no other number is possible, then I may still PICK 47, but it won't be by choice. It will be because some force is forcing me to pick it.

This is why I said rhetoric can confuse. You put the word, "force" in there, because, as google says concerning free will, that it is done without necessity. Force is a perception of necessity, when in fact the sure outcome is irrelevant. Your choice may even be robotic, if you want to think of it that way, yet it is still choice. Looking back in your past, you may be able to see other numbers besides 47 to have been possible, but in fact, they were not possible. They may have been almost possible --lol, does that help? But a miss is as good as a mile.

You invoke "chance" as a cause, without even realizing it, I think.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Never seen any others. All are either fulfilled or will be.

Ezekiel 29:19

Let me guess - Nebuchadnezzar is going to be resurrected at some point so this can come true?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you misunderstand the point.

If it is to be a choice, then there must be more than one possible outcome. If there is only one possible outcome, then it isn't a choice.

If the outcome is predetermined (or post-determined --it matters not) there can possibly be only one outcome. You don't choose from outcomes, you choose from options set before you. How you choose from those options is certain to happen.

 

[Kylie]

There is much that we learn by experience that science can't touch. Science isn't why you trust love, for example.

Love is a subjective thing, and people have loved when such love was betrayed. It doesn't seem to be a good way of finding something real.

 

[Kylie]

This is why I said rhetoric can confuse. You put the word, "force" in there, because, as google says concerning free will, that it is done without necessity. Force is a perception of necessity, when in fact the sure outcome is irrelevant. Your choice may even be robotic, if you want to think of it that way, yet it is still choice. Looking back in your past, you may be able to see other numbers besides 47 to have been possible, but in fact, they were not possible. They may have been almost possible --lol, does that help? But a miss is as good as a mile.

You invoke "chance" as a cause, without even realizing it, I think.

If numbers other than 47 were not possible, how is it a choice?

Like I said, a choice requires more than one possible option.