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

Bungle_Bear said:

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.

Click to expand...

But that's true of any number of decisions you could possibly make. If you decide to jump into the air and fly to the moon, it won't have the outcome you desire. If you decide to try to turn lead into gold, it won't have the outcome you desire. If you try to telepathically order everyone to make you king of the world, it won't have the outcome you desire.

Your argument is the same as saying that anyone who's not omnipotent has no free will.

Kylie said:

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

Click to expand...

Way to totally miss the point.

Strathos said:

Way to totally miss the point.

Click to expand...

Yoo apparently missed the point is that if things are predestined, then we are also just actors performing a script that we have no say in.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure that fictional movie logic has any bearing on the way the real world works.

Bungle_Bear said:

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?

Click to expand...

It can indeed be both. Even in human terms, if I choose for my child to do something wrong so that I can teach him right, preparing circumstances before him knowing that he will choose the wrong, he still chooses.

Kylie said:

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.

Click to expand...

To say that choice is uncaused necessarily implies chance, not cause and effect. You seem to want it to be "kinda this, a little that". You want to credit the agent with absolute freedom of choice, yet admit to influences as causes.

Logically, it must be one or the other. "Almost 50/50" is not chance, "as if it was chance" is not chance. There is a reason you chose one option over the other. Something caused that choice. You declare free will choice because you don't know the causes, perhaps, but there was cause anyway.

Mark Quayle said:

To say that choice is uncaused necessarily implies chance, not cause and effect. You seem to want it to be "kinda this, a little that". You want to credit the agent with absolute freedom of choice, yet admit to influences as causes.

Logically, it must be one or the other. "Almost 50/50" is not chance, "as if it was chance" is not chance. There is a reason you chose one option over the other. Something caused that choice. You declare free will choice because you don't know the causes, perhaps, but there was cause anyway.

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that I make the choice freely, without being forced to pick a particular option. I'm not saying the choice is uncaused, I'm saying I'm the one making the determination.

Mark Quayle said:

It can indeed be both. Even in human terms, if I choose for my child to do something wrong so that I can teach him right, preparing circumstances before him knowing that he will choose the wrong, he still chooses.

Click to expand...

You can make choices for your child?

Okay, choose for your child to jump up, run around the room three times in one direction, then once in the other direction, then do a handstand and sing "I'm a little teapot." Or choose for him to bite down on his hand really hard.

I bet you can't.

You don't seem to realise that encouraging someone to do something is not the same thing as making the choice for them. And if you leave them with no option, then you aren't giving them a choice, you are taking their option to choose away.

dad said:

Those who do not believe the word may see folks that do as blasphemers.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, I'm simply questioning your *literal* interpretation of a single book. The largest single 'sect' of Christianity doesn't try to interpret those particular passages "literally", and neither do I.

Heb 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Click to expand...

I think you just made my point that the "Word of God" is a living being (Christ), not a book.

By the way, folks in the New Testament believed in a real created man and woman.

Click to expand...

So do I, but I don't believe they were "created" 6-10 thousand years ago.

His words are alive. The words of the word of God are alive. His spirit and word make alive.

Click to expand...

The concept of something being "alive" precludes it from being a book.

Very lame. translations do not matter, all of them agree on creation, far as I know.

Click to expand...

Apparently not since Catholics disagree with your interpretation of Genesis, and their "Bible" probably has more books in it than yours.

They are in the original spirit. You are straining at nats and swallowing camels.

Click to expand...

You seem to overlook that fact that *interpretation* is required to understand a "book", and your personal interpretation isn't "infallible".

Kylie said:

No, I am saying that I make the choice freely, without being forced to pick a particular option. I'm not saying the choice is uncaused, I'm saying I'm the one making the determination.

Click to expand...

Would you say that your "choices" are limited by things like where you were both, who your parents were, gravity, etc?

It seems to me that there is room for "some" choice, within the confines of causes/circumstances that have been made for us.

Kylie said:

You can make choices for your child?

Click to expand...

I made a *lot* of choices for my children, including who their father was, who their mother was, when and where they were born, what schools they attended prior to college, etc. I didn't micro manage every aspect of their life of course, nor make *every* choice for them, but it would be fair to say that I made many choices for them.

Michael said:

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, I'm simply questioning your *literal* interpretation of a single book. The largest single 'sect' of Christianity doesn't try to interpret those particular passages "literally", and neither do I.

Click to expand...

Eve is always referred to as a real woman. Adam as a real man. Throughout the Bible.

I think you just made my point that the "Word of God" is a living being (Christ), not a book.

Click to expand...

A Living Person that told us He would send His spirit to help get His words and life correct. Jesus also confirmed the OT was very true. Moses even chatted with Him on a mountain and was not rebuked for having written Genesis. The Bible makes it plain His words are alive and from God.

So do I, but I don't believe they were "created" 6-10 thousand years ago.

Click to expand...

Let's look at that. Did you not just deny that Eve was a real woman created in the garden from Adam's bone by God a few posts ago? Be clear. We do have the sons of Adam listed, so it is not like the time when He lived is some great mystery. You apparently do not believe in Adam and Eve.

The concept of something being "alive" precludes it from being a book.

Click to expand...

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Apparently not since Catholics disagree with your interpretation of Genesis, and their "Bible" probably has more books in it than yours.

Click to expand...

They don't get to change the bible, only their own opinions. Their opinion was different in the past also. In all ways, they are now irrelevant to the issue.

Creation is a fact of Scripture. Those calling it interpretation are not telling the truth.

Michael said:

Would you say that your "choices" are limited by things like where you were both, who your parents were, gravity, etc?

It seems to me that there is room for "some" choice, within the confines of causes/circumstances that have been made for us.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am limited in what I can do. I can't choose to float up into the sky, for example. I can't choose to turn into a bird.

But being limited by gravity is NOT the same thing as being predestined.

Michael said:

I made a *lot* of choices for my children, including who their father was, who their mother was, when and where they were born, what schools they attended prior to college, etc. I didn't micro manage every aspect of their life of course, nor make *every* choice for them, but it would be fair to say that I made many choices for them.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing.

Strathos said:

But that's true of any number of decisions you could possibly make. If you decide to jump into the air and fly to the moon, it won't have the outcome you desire. If you decide to try to turn lead into gold, it won't have the outcome you desire. If you try to telepathically order everyone to make you king of the world, it won't have the outcome you desire.

Your argument is the same as saying that anyone who's not omnipotent has no free will.

Click to expand...

As you said, "Way to totally miss the point."

Perhaps you need to go back and read my response in the context of your posts, not as a standalone post. Your argument is pretty much what you just accused me of, but I pointed out that with predestination some choices are yours to make and some aren't. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the two. I even gave specific examples of a choices you can make and choices you can't.

Mark Quayle said:

It can indeed be both.

Click to expand...

No, it really cannot.

Even in human terms, if I choose for my child to do something wrong so that I can teach him right, preparing circumstances before him knowing that he will choose the wrong, he still chooses.

Click to expand...

We are not discussing manipulating chance so that one decision is more likely than another (I assume you wish to claim there is still a possibility the child can choose something other than the action you want?). We are talking about unavoidable, predetermined actions. Do you really not see the difference?

Nm

Bungle_Bear said:

.. but I pointed out that with predestination some choices are yours to make and some aren't.

Click to expand...

This may be slightly out of context of your discussion with Strathos, but I think what you say here is Mark Quayle's argument .. which is flawed because produces logical contradictions(?)

I think the point emerging in the overall discussion however, is that predestination and freedom of choice aren't logically compatible .. a future which is inexorably locked into place doesn't account for our freedom of choice.

SelfSim said:

This may be slightly out of context of your discussion with Strathos, but I think what you say here is Mark Quayle's argument .. which is flawed because produces logical contradictions(?)

Click to expand...

No, Mark Quayle's argument appears to be that God makes all decisions but at the same time we make those decisions. There's some sort of weird duality going on which is logically impossible.

I think the point emerging in the overall discussion however, is that predestination and freedom of choice aren't logically compatible .. a future which is inexorably locked into place doesn't account for freedom of choice.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily true. What we have here is an argument where only certain things are predestined. In that case, some choices are unavoidable, but free will is still applicable to everything else. And that appears to be the distinction they are struggling to understand.

Kylie said:

You can make choices for your child?

Okay, choose for your child to jump up, run around the room three times in one direction, then once in the other direction, then do a handstand and sing "I'm a little teapot." Or choose for him to bite down on his hand really hard.

I bet you can't.

You don't seem to realise that encouraging someone to do something is not the same thing as making the choice for them. And if you leave them with no option, then you aren't giving them a choice, you are taking their option to choose away.

Click to expand...

I only demonstrated that two can choose for the one choice to be made. I am not God; of course I can't make my child do all that. Nor am I claiming God makes all our choices "for us". He doesn't --but he does make the choices, and causes the choices.

I remind you, logically, if you "could have" chosen otherwise, that is to say, if all choices were equally possible, then you are relying on chance to make the difference.

Bungle_Bear said:

No, it really cannot.

We are not discussing manipulating chance so that one decision is more likely than another (I assume you wish to claim there is still a possibility the child can choose something other than the action you want?). We are talking about unavoidable, predetermined actions. Do you really not see the difference?

Click to expand...

Nobody manipulates chance --not even God. There is no such thing as chance: chance is only a "placeholder for 'I don't know.'" (Voltaire). I am not God-- nor can I, like him, be absolutely sure what my child will choose. I only gave the example to show that two can make the one choice. God can choose, and predestine, and know absolutely that what he chose will happen, because God is First Cause, all other causes are effects.

One always chooses the option available to them that they want to (And don't start arguing that point. In the end it is true, what they choose is what seems best to them at the moment. Even if the decision was careless, flippant, or nearly equal with other options, it is still what one wants to decide, that they decide.

SelfSim said:

This may be slightly out of context of your discussion with Strathos, but I think what you say here is Mark Quayle's argument .. which is flawed because produces logical contradictions(?)

I think the point emerging in the overall discussion however, is that predestination and freedom of choice aren't logically compatible .. a future which is inexorably locked into place doesn't account for our freedom of choice.

Click to expand...

So "freedom of choice" means what? Take this to its logical beginning --what caused the choice --nothing?