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

[Kylie]

It seems more like both of you are refusing to understand my point.

Just like in the chess example, you have free will to choose what actions you take, but they will inevitably lead to the same result.

No one is saying that there aren't things that can't be avoided.

What I am saying is that if there is something we have a choice about, then it can't be predetermined.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It seems more like both of you are refusing to understand my point.

Just like in the chess example, you have free will to choose what actions you take, but they will inevitably lead to the same result.

Looks more like you don't understand the counter argument. "You will die one day" is not really what counts as a predestined result. It's too vague and obvious. It's no more informative than "you will breath" or "you will sleep". You're right that whatever I choose to do, I must die one day but that's not the point. Predestination says, for example, "you will die of pneumonia aged 84". That's specific. I cannot choose to die earlier, and at age 84 I will get pneumonia and die. I have no choice.

Same with your chess game. You obviously want to handwave away the multiple different possible outcomes because you only see it as one possible outcome (white wins). If predestination says "white wins after another 15 moves" then black cannot choose to resign after 3 moves even though it's a logical option.

 

[Tinker Grey]

At least a portion of Christians view God as outside time. If one deems God the creator of all that is and that the space-time continuum is of a whole--that is, space and time are wholly integrated to make reality--then this makes a certain amount of sense. (At least until one wonders how a god outside time could sequence its actions not to mention its very thoughts.)

If God is outside space and time and creates space-time, should we imagine that it is incrementally creating reality one nanosecond at a time? Or rather, is the whole of space-time spoken into existence in an instant?

When I was Christian, I'd say the latter. I would guess that ideas of a god doing things completely and perfectly would strongly lead a believer to this position.

What this means is that not only did it create the past, it has created now and it has created the future.

Everything is fait accompli. It's all done. That is, not only does this god know what you will do, it created you doing it. It created that future action as already done.

So, what choice?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you need to actually read the question, because you didn't actually answer it.

I answered the issue you were after --not your leading question. You suppose the arm was grabbed and made to point or something --you would be right that that isn't choice-- however, God doesn't grab your arm and force your finger to point. (He is way more subtle than that, lol).

Again, God does not force you to choose --your choice is real-- but I repeat myself. To me it is plain that if you believe you have actual choice in the midst of all the circumstantial causes affecting your decision, how is it any different if there to be someone manipulating all those circumstances --how are you suddenly then "forced"?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I answered the issue you were after --not your leading question. You suppose the arm was grabbed and made to point or something --you would be right that that isn't choice-- however, God doesn't grab your arm and force your finger to point. (He is way more subtle than that, lol).

Again, God does not force you to choose --your choice is real-- but I repeat myself. To me it is plain that if you believe you have actual choice in the midst of all the circumstantial causes affecting your decision, how is it any different if there to be someone manipulating all those circumstances --how are you suddenly then "forced"?

Your argument is nothing more than perception vs reality. You may think you made a choice, but if you were unknowingly forced to make that choice it wasn't really a choice. Kylie's grabbing your arm is a good analogy. Your rebuttal is simply saying "ah yes, but if you didn't know I'd grabbed your arm and forced it to point at that plate then it was your choice". No, it wasn't. If you force me to point at a particular plate, whether or not I am aware of you forcing me, it was not my choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your argument is nothing more than perception vs reality. You may think you made a choice, but if you were unknowingly forced to make that choice it wasn't really a choice. Kylie's grabbing your arm is a good analogy. Your rebuttal is simply saying "ah yes, but if you didn't know I'd grabbed your arm and forced it to point at that plate then it was your choice". No, it wasn't. If you force me to point at a particular plate, whether or not I am aware of you forcing me, it was not my choice.

All you have done is restate her posture of what God does. God does not force your choice. To cause is not the same thing at all as to force.

Let's say your nature as a lion is to hunt and kill, and events have led you to an empty belly. If God gave you that nature, and dearth of game to eat, and ran a fat springbok a few yards away from you, you would surely chose to get up and try to kill it. You chose. Your choice was destined, as a matter of fact, even caused, but not forced.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All you have done is restate her posture of what God does. God does not force your choice. To cause is not the same thing at all as to force.

Let's say your nature as a lion is to hunt and kill, and events have led you to an empty belly. If God gave you that nature, and dearth of game to eat, and ran a fat springbok a few yards away from you, you would surely chose to get up and try to kill it. You chose. Your choice was destined, as a matter of fact, even caused, but not forced.

That's not at all the situation being discussed. Trying to use your analogy, imagine 2 Springboks ran past the lion, one slow and weak, the other fast and strong. The natural instinct would be to chase the slow, weak one. So if God caused the lion to chase the fast one, that would not be the lion's choice, it would be God forcing the lion to chase the fast one. You can call it "cause" instead of "force" if you want. It doesn't alter the fact that it was not the lion's choice.

Your argument simply boils down to extremely weak semantic differences between "cause" and "force". And in this instance the difference is so slight as to be irrelevant.

 

[Strathos]

Are you familiar with the Final Destination movies? It's something like that. You can make your own choices but events will always conspire to reach the same fate, if it does happen to be your fate. It doesn't have to be super specific.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's not at all the situation being discussed. Trying to use your analogy, imagine 2 Springboks ran past the lion, one slow and weak, the other fast and strong. The natural instinct would be to chase the slow, weak one. So if God caused the lion to chase the fast one, that would not be the lion's choice, it would be God forcing the lion to chase the fast one. You can call it "cause" instead of "force" if you want. It doesn't alter the fact that it was not the lion's choice.

Your argument simply boils down to extremely weak semantic differences between "cause" and "force". And in this instance the difference is so slight as to be irrelevant.

Ok, so the lion didn't choose? Of course it chose!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok, so the lion didn't choose? Of course it chose!

You cannot just assert it and expect it to be true.

The lion did not choose. You're obviously struggling with the concept of choice. Let's try approaching it from a different angle:

You are driving on a road and arrive at a crossroads. You can go any of 4 directions. Each direction leads to a different town. You get to chose which town you go to, so the road you choose is your choice.

Now imagine God wants you to go to town B. He "causes" you to head down that road. You did not make that choice, God did. You may think you made the choice, but you didn't. You could not have taken any other road, no matter what. There may have been the appearance of a choice, but in reality there was no choice to make - you were always going to take the road to town B and you couldn't have taken any other road.

It's really not a difficult concept, I just wonder why you find it so hard to grasp?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you familiar with the Final Destination movies? It's something like that. You can make your own choices but events will always conspire to reach the same fate, if it does happen to be your fate. It doesn't have to be super specific.

You're almost there. You need to now separate out the choices which directly affect the predestined outcome and those which have no direct influence. Imagine you are predestined to die of pneumonia at age 84. Your choice of vacation destination at age 23 makes no difference, so you can choose wherever you want. But perhaps you try to commit suicide at age 30 - that would make a difference if it succeeded, right? You slit your wrists, but somebody finds you and binds your wrists, keeping you alive. How and when you die is not your choice. That's the whole point of predestination. No matter how you try to change that one particular outcome, you cannot. That doesn't in any way preclude you from making choices along the way, but it does mean certain choices cannot have the outcome you desire (ie you didn't get the outcome you chose at age 30, so the outcome you got wasn't your choice) and, ultimately, certain choices are not yours to make.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You cannot just assert it and expect it to be true.

The lion did not choose. You're obviously struggling with the concept of choice. Let's try approaching it from a different angle:

You are driving on a road and arrive at a crossroads. You can go any of 4 directions. Each direction leads to a different town. You get to chose which town you go to, so the road you choose is your choice.

Now imagine God wants you to go to town B. He "causes" you to head down that road. You did not make that choice, God did. You may think you made the choice, but you didn't. You could not have taken any other road, no matter what. There may have been the appearance of a choice, but in reality there was no choice to make - you were always going to take the road to town B and you couldn't have taken any other road.

It's really not a difficult concept, I just wonder why you find it so hard to grasp?

So it is with the choice of Salvation. God made the choice. I choose God because he already made the choice, and put his Spirit within me causing me to choose what I did.

This is why some Calvinists say there is no free will, But others say that those who reject Christ freely choose to do so, and will never do otherwise unless God gives them a different kind of freedom.

It seems to me that you are struggling with the concept of Choice. In the digital world, choice is simple, even if it is programmed, it is still choice. If we are robots (which I deny) we still choose. If there is reason enough to say we choose in the midst of all the circumstances, passions and desires, genetics and whatever other influences there may be, then why is it not choice if God is the one who directed all those circumstances and influences?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So it is with the choice of Salvation. God made the choice. I choose God because he already made the choice, and put his Spirit within me causing me to choose what I did.

This is why some Calvinists say there is no free will, But others say that those who reject Christ freely choose to do so, and will never do otherwise unless God gives them a different kind of freedom.

It seems to me that you are struggling with the concept of Choice. In the digital world, choice is simple, even if it is programmed, it is still choice. If we are robots (which I deny) we still choose. If there is reason enough to say we choose in the midst of all the circumstances, passions and desires, genetics and whatever other influences there may be, then why is it not choice if God is the one who directed all those circumstances and influences?

You have moved the goalposts again. We were talking about God causing us to make specific choices, not about whether or not freewill actually exists. The part you are consistently failing to address is: If something or somebody causes me to take a certain action, it was the something or somebody who made the choice, not me. I may think I made a choice, it may look like I made a choice but I didn't. Your claim that God causes us to make decisions means the choice is God's not ours. Asserting otherwise is not a counter argument. A counter argument would need to address how a decision that is predetermined is actually not predetermined.

 

[Kylie]

I answered the issue you were after --not your leading question. You suppose the arm was grabbed and made to point or something --you would be right that that isn't choice-- however, God doesn't grab your arm and force your finger to point. (He is way more subtle than that, lol).

Again, God does not force you to choose --your choice is real-- but I repeat myself. To me it is plain that if you believe you have actual choice in the midst of all the circumstantial causes affecting your decision, how is it any different if there to be someone manipulating all those circumstances --how are you suddenly then "forced"?

If the thing I point to is predetermined, then it doesn't matter if my arm is physically grabbed or not. Either way, I am incapable of pointing to anything else. This is the point you seem to be missing. If I am not able to point to anything else, it's not a choice.

 

[Kylie]

All you have done is restate her posture of what God does. God does not force your choice. To cause is not the same thing at all as to force.

Let's try a different take on it.

If God knows I will point to the plate with the steak and not the plate with the salad, but there is NOTHING forcing me, then what's to stop me from pointing to the salad?

 

[Kylie]

Are you familiar with the Final Destination movies? It's something like that. You can make your own choices but events will always conspire to reach the same fate, if it does happen to be your fate. It doesn't have to be super specific.

Of course, the characters are predestined to do what is in the script. They have no choice.

 

[Kylie]

So it is with the choice of Salvation. God made the choice. I choose God because he already made the choice, and put his Spirit within me causing me to choose what I did.

I have no idea how you can say God made the choice, then turn around and say that you made the choice and then go back to saying someone else made the choice for you and expect us to take you seriously.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have moved the goalposts again. We were talking about God causing us to make specific choices, not about whether or not freewill actually exists. The part you are consistently failing to address is: If something or somebody causes me to take a certain action, it was the something or somebody who made the choice, not me. I may think I made a choice, it may look like I made a choice but I didn't. Your claim that God causes us to make decisions means the choice is God's not ours. Asserting otherwise is not a counter argument. A counter argument would need to address how a decision that is predetermined is actually not predetermined.

My point is that it doesn't matter what you call it. Even if I call it free will or choice or whatever else, or deny choice altogether, I do choose. Not only that, but also, my choice is the result of God's choice.

You and Kylie can go on and on about whether that denies whether I actually make choices, and I really don't mind discussing that, because I don't care what you call it. But in the end, our decisions are real and have real effects and consequences.

Far be it from me to claim the kind of free will that most people seem to think it means --that chance rules; there is logically no such thing as chance --the notion that chance can cause, is self-contradictory. Yet this is what you espouse to say that this or that "could have equally likely been chosen". The fact you considered, vacillated, flippantly chose or that the other option seemed nearly to be chosen, is not the same thing as "equally likely".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My point is that it doesn't matter what you call it. Even if I call it free will or choice or whatever else, or deny choice altogether, I do choose. Not only that, but also, my choice is the result of God's choice.

You and Kylie can go on and on about whether that denies whether I actually make choices, and I really don't mind discussing that, because I don't care what you call it. But in the end, our decisions are real and have real effects and consequences.

Far be it from me to claim the kind of free will that most people seem to think it means --that chance rules; there is logically no such thing as chance --the notion that chance can cause, is self-contradictory. Yet this is what you espouse to say that this or that "could have equally likely been chosen". The fact you considered, vacillated, flippantly chose or that the other option seemed nearly to be chosen, is not the same thing as "equally likely".

You say "God chooses" and then say "it was my choice". It cannot be both, no matter how you twist and turn. If God makes the choice, then it's God who chooses. By definition. There is no possible definition where God makes the choice but it is you who chooses.

Here's another example: for dinner we can have roast pork or roast chicken. I will eat whichever you choose. You choose chicken, so I eat chicken. Did I choose chicken, or did you choose it for me?

 

[Kylie]

My point is that it doesn't matter what you call it. Even if I call it free will or choice or whatever else, or deny choice altogether, I do choose. Not only that, but also, my choice is the result of God's choice.

You and Kylie can go on and on about whether that denies whether I actually make choices, and I really don't mind discussing that, because I don't care what you call it. But in the end, our decisions are real and have real effects and consequences.

Far be it from me to claim the kind of free will that most people seem to think it means --that chance rules; there is logically no such thing as chance --the notion that chance can cause, is self-contradictory. Yet this is what you espouse to say that this or that "could have equally likely been chosen". The fact you considered, vacillated, flippantly chose or that the other option seemed nearly to be chosen, is not the same thing as "equally likely".

No one is talking about chance. All I have been saying is that when the outcome is set in stone, then choice is impossible. At best, it just appears to be choice.