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

Status
Not open for further replies.

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In terms of "science", that would tend to nicely correspond to mitochondrial "Eve" and the father of her children. I'm quite sure they were real.
No. Nothing remotely similar. Science believes Eve descended from a shared ancestor with a flatworm.

Um, except there are dozens of "sects" in Christianity, so apparently there's still some ambiguity.
No excuse to deny clear truth.

Yet that still doesn't explain why your "interpretation" is more valid than the entire Catholic sect.
Yes, it does, they abandoned their traditional belief in Scripture and replaced it with ...whatever they felt like.

Actually, I absolutely *do* believe that we come from a common female (and male) ancestor because there is scientific evidence to support it which is found in the fact that we all share a common female ancestor.
That says nothing. An evo could say something like that, having in mind a couple that evolved fresh from some ape thingy.

You have been evasive and slippery. Perhaps it grieves you to admit publicly that you don't believe in a woman that was created from a bone in a man by God in the garden?
You keep citing Jesus as the source of Spirit and life, which still doesn't explain what makes your interpretation of a *book* (not in red letters) any better than anyone else's interpretation.

"
1. Christ said that Man lives not by food alone, but by the “Word of God” quoting Deut 8:3

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

We can conclude that every Word that proceeds from the Mouth of God is known as the “Word of God” by comparing Mat 4:4 with Luk 4:4. We can also understand that the “Word of God” referred by Christ in these verses, is the same as what was referred to by Moses in Deut 8:3, as this is the exact verse quoted by Messiah.

2. Christ confirms that God’s Commandments given through Moses is the “Word of God”

Mar 7:9-13 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

In the above passage, Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) rebukes the Pharisees telling them that they are breaking God’s Commandments by keeping their own traditions (Please read about the Pharisees for a clearer explanation on what they believed). One of the most important things that many glance across in this reading, is that Christ calls the Commandments of God, given through Moses as the “Word of God”.

3. Christ preached the “Word of God”

Luk 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

Christ preached the Word of God as clearly stated in the above passage. If the “Word of God” was (by His own definition), the writings of Moses, then this means that what He preached came from what we now call the Old Testament. (Much of the misunderstandings, such as Christ abolished the Law, comes from a weak knowledge of what He preached. Read an example here)

4. Christ called whoever hears the “Word of God” and does it, “Blessed” and also part of “His own Family”

Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

5. The “Word of God” stands forever according to Isaiah and Peter

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1Pe 1:24,25 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

We see Peter quoting the words written by Isaiah agreeing with him, that “God’s Word” stands forever, which means it cannot fade away or be abolished.

6. Christ says that “Scripture” (which is the Old Testament) cannot be broken, and refers to it as the “Word of God”

Joh 10:34,35 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

In the above verse we see Christ quoting Psalms 82:6, and goes on to say that Scripture cannot be broken (done away/abolished). Furthermore, He calls the people who received this Word (which is in Psalms, which is part of the Old Testament) as the ones to whom the “Word of God” came. Thereby making “The Word of God” equal to “The Scriptures” or “Old Testament” as it is known today.

7.Conclusion
Yeshua saw every word that proceeded from God’s Mouth as “The Word of God”, and clearly equaled it to the writings of Moses in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament we see clear phrases such as “The LORD (Yehovah) spoke”(Exo 25:1) or “The Word of the Lord came”(Gen 15:1) that refers to “God’s Word” or the “Word of God”.

Even though much of today’s believers are taught that some parts of the Bible are no longer valid for them, and that the “Word of God” is the New Testament Writings, looking at the evidence, we can conclude that “The Old Testament” was regarded as the “Word of God” by our Messiah."

What is the Biblical definition of the phrase “Word of God”.


The words of God are the word of God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
And no one is saying that others can't influence our lives or even force our hand sometimes.

All we are saying is that when our hands are forced, it's not our choice.
So, would you also generalise that and say that a future which is inexorably locked into place, doesn't permit our freedom of choice?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
So "freedom of choice" means what? Take this to its logical beginning --what caused the choice --nothing?
From a scientific (Physics) standpoint, all I would say is that Physics never provides the cause to anything, all it ever does is unify connections between causes and effects. The cause is a cause because of its effects, the effects are effects because of their causes. There is never anything happening but connections being made between the two sets of answers: the initial conditions and the predictions.

Causality is about the domain of initial conditions needed to make predictions in some other domain .. it's about the domains of the answers that can be connected to each other .. that's a long way from unifying with Physics, our vague notions of our own free will and how it is actualized.

If one cannot specify a question in the form that Physics answers, then one cannot use Physics on that question ... it simply has nothing at all to say about it.

And I realise your question didn't ask for a scientific response .. but the thread is about the scientific viewpoint .. so it is relevant as far as the OP is concerned .. so that's more what I'm addressing here in this post.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,681
5,240
✟302,097.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, would you also generalise that and say that a future which is inexorably locked into place, doesn't permit our freedom of choice?

If the events of the future are locked into place and cannot be changed, then we would have no ability to choose. I would agree.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So, would you also generalise that and say that a future which is inexorably locked into place, doesn't permit our freedom of choice?
Well, that would be a horrendous generalisation which I wouldn't make. There are many choices to be made which would have no direct influence on the future (unless you believe all choices are interrelated). Whether I wear a red or a black T-shirt today is highly unlikely to influence the result of an election in 10 years time, for instance. However, my making a donation to a political party might.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Well, that would be a horrendous generalisation which I wouldn't make. There are many choices to be made which would have no direct influence on the future (unless you believe all choices are interrelated). Whether I wear a red or a black T-shirt today is highly unlikely to influence the result of an election in 10 years time, for instance. However, my making a donation to a political party might.
Well .. you mentioned 'highly unlikely' there. Perhaps that just means we don't know about any connections between red or black T-Shorts and the result of the election in 10 years time .. but the connection is still at least possible, I suppose(?)

I think I tend to agree with Kylie, in that a predestined (/predetermined) future might pretty well rule out freedom of choice altogether however(?)

Oh .. and there might also be more than one future too, no(?)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Hmm .. interesting. Perhaps there are several different types of 'freedom of choice' being discussed so far then(?)

I'd say there are three main realms of philosophy: ethics (like moral responsibility), ontology (what exists), and epistemology (what counts as knowledge). I think each of these may have their own version of what 'freedom of choice' is important for(?)

An example of the ethics kind might be: 'we must accept moral responsibility for actions that our own freedom of choice constrains us to perform' .. 'Here I am. I can't help it. God help me' (a Martin Luther quote).

One might also talk about the epistemological version, like can we tell if someone has freedom of choice by asking them, and how can you tell that you have freedom of choice.

Then there's the ontological version: what is freedom of choice, and does it play any fundamental role in the very structure of what exists, and what happens, in the universe. It may be a small slice of all of there is that is affected directly, but it also tends to be the slice that matters to us the most(?)
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Well .. you mentioned 'highly unlikely' there. Perhaps that just means we don't know about any connections between red or black T-Shorts and the result of the election in 10 years time .. but the connection is still at least possible, I suppose(?)
Possibly. We'd be unlikely to ever know.
I guess the way I look at it is like a journey. We need to get from A to B, but there are multiple routes. Which route we take is not important, we just have to arrive at B.
I think I tend to agree with Kylie, in that a predetermined future might pretty well rule out freedom of choice altogether however(?)
That comes down to either all choices being interrelated or every choice being predetermined. Either way, how would we ever know?
Oh .. and there might also be more than one future too, no(?)
It's possible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Possibly. We'd be unlikely to ever know
I agree .. (and there's that 'unlikely' word again .. :) )
Bungle_Bear said:
That comes down to either all choices being interrelated or every choice being predetermined. Either way, how would we ever know?
Might have to invoke some sort of external agent or something, eh(?)
Bungle_Bear said:
It's possible.
Dunno .. but I suppose ..
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I agree .. (and there's that 'unlikely' word again .. :) )
It's the honest answer. Until, or unless, we have a definitive answer we cannot rule anything out.
Might have to invoke some sort of external agent or something, eh(?)
Why an external agent? I'd accept "something" as that means nothing other than "an explanation" ;)
 
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

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,193
1,971
✟177,142.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It's the honest answer. Until, or unless, we have a definitive answer we cannot rule anything out.
I think the kinds of questions we ask there might be more significant (at least, to me) than a definitive answer (IMO).

Bungle_Bear said:
Why an external agent? I'd accept "something" as that means nothing other than "an explanation" ;)
Yep .. I agree .. (I was being snarky).
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I think the kinds of questions we ask there might be more significant (at least, to me) than a definitive answer (IMO).
Agreed. I think a definitive answer would take too much anticipation and enjoyment out of life.
Yep .. I agree .. (I was being snarky).
Ah, OK.
 
Upvote 0

PencilStick

New Member
Jan 26, 2020
3
1
Singapore
✟15,213.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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.

Science only deals with what you can physically observe and measure according to current technology. This is a limitation.

What if, let say, "weight" wasn't discovered yet? We only have in our current technology, a ruler to measure length, width, and height. The idea of weight wasn't even conceived yet. But, some people say it exist. They feel it. However, science disproves its existence because the ruler cannot measure it.

When discussing about God, I think it is better to put in under the subject of extra-terrestrials, meaning, beings outside of the earth. Do they exist? With billions of galaxies out there and with possibly billions of universes out there with different physical laws, there is a possibility that such being can exist.

Are we alone? Can we prove that we are alone? Have we explored other galaxies out there? Other universes? So, far we have only set foot on the moon.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, you miss the point completely. I am saying there are some choices which you can make. You don't seem to recognise that.

There are always choices you can make, and choices you can't make.

And you have failed to show that it applies to the real world.

Except that wasn't my point. I was trying to explain the mechanism of how it works, even though I already know you don't believe in it.

No one is saying that there aren't things that limit what we can choose. We are saying that if our hand is forced for any reason whatsoever, even if we aren't aware of it, then it's not our choice.

The laws of physics say you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore since you can't hop over to Alpha Centauri and back in an afternoon, you have no free will?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
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?
By that logic, a thermostat makes a choice whether to turn on or not...

This rather devalues the useful meaning of 'choice' - and if choice implies free will (does it?), it also makes free will meaningless.
 
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

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
There are always choices you can make, and choices you can't make.
At this point I have no idea what your position actually is. Previously you have put forward a position of predestination precluding any possibility of choice, now you are saying it is always possible to make a choice. That sort of self contradiction is not helpful.

Except that wasn't my point. I was trying to explain the mechanism of how it works, even though I already know you don't believe in it.
The mechanism you have presented is too vague to have any real meaning. All you seem to say is "there are things in the future, such as death, which must happen, therefore any choice you make is predetermined". When presented with problems in your mechanism you simply ignore them.

That, again, is not helpful.

The laws of physics say you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore since you can't hop over to Alpha Centauri and back in an afternoon, you have no free will?
Has anyone, other than you, made that claim?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
At this point I have no idea what your position actually is. Previously you have put forward a position of predestination precluding any possibility of choice, now you are saying it is always possible to make a choice. That sort of self contradiction is not helpful.


The mechanism you have presented is too vague to have any real meaning. All you seem to say is "there are things in the future, such as death, which must happen, therefore any choice you make is predetermined". When presented with problems in your mechanism you simply ignore them.

That, again, is not helpful.


Has anyone, other than you, made that claim?

It seems that you haven't been properly interpreting anything I've said. I'm not a Calvinist who believes in double predestination for every single soul if that's what you're implying.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You are contradicting yourself. First you say you aren't claiming that God makes choices on our behalf, then you say he does.

Let me spell it out once again - if God is the one doing the choosing, then we are not choosing, and thus it is not our choice.



That's just wrong.

I choose not to drive the long way to work because there is no gain for me to do that. It does not mean I am incapable of driving to work via that route. The reason I don't go that way is because I weight up the pros and cons and I choose which route to take. I don't know where you get the crazy idea that if our choices aren't predestined then they're down to random chance.

So you assert. But you are left with the same question you haven't answered. Using your example, if you choose to drive the short way because you have weighed the pros and cons, how is it any different if God decided which way you are to go, and set up those pros and cons?

By saying that you decided what you did because you weighed the pros and cons, you admit to causes. If God caused those causes, how is it any different --how are you still not choosing?

You want to appear to be able to choose the long way, and so it may appear to you, but in fact, you did not. You cannot prove that you could have. Yet you did choose. As it turns out, I'm not going to say you didn't have a choice. I probably shouldn't say you couldn't have, except that this one fact keep rearing its ugly head, that only one choice ends up happening.

It really isn't complicated. Your causes may be complicated, but God can handle that, if he is God. But the facts in the end remain, that God can choose which way you drive, and so, as it turns out, you weighed the pros and cons and chose what God chose for you.

For what it is worth, you are in good company with probably even most Christians --even just today I have been told my view is Satanic. But only God is sovereign, or he is not God. He needn't fly by the seat of his pants to accomplish his purposes. If God exists, and I have more reason to
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You are contradicting yourself. First you say you aren't claiming that God makes choices on our behalf, then you say he does.

Let me spell it out once again - if God is the one doing the choosing, then we are not choosing, and thus it is not our choice.



That's just wrong.

I choose not to drive the long way to work because there is no gain for me to do that. It does not mean I am incapable of driving to work via that route. The reason I don't go that way is because I weight up the pros and cons and I choose which route to take. I don't know where you get the crazy idea that if our choices aren't predestined then they're down to random chance.

So you assert. But you are left with the same question you haven't answered. Using your example, if you choose to drive the short way because you have weighed the pros and cons, how is it any different if God decided which way you are to go, and set up those pros and cons?

By saying that you decided what you did because you weighed the pros and cons, you admit to causes. If God caused those causes, how is it any different --how are you still not choosing?

You want to appear to be able to choose the long way, and so it may appear to you, but in fact, you did not. You cannot prove that you could have. Yet you did choose. As it turns out, I'm not going to say you didn't have a choice. I probably shouldn't say you couldn't have, except that this one fact keep rearing its ugly head, that only one choice ends up happening.

It really isn't complicated. Your causes may be complicated, but God can handle that, if he is God. But the facts in the end remain, that God can choose which way you drive, and so, as it turns out, you weighed the pros and cons and chose what God chose for you.

For what it is worth, you are in good company with probably even most Christians --even just today I have been told my view is Satanic. But only God is sovereign, or he is not God. He needn't fly by the seat of his pants to accomplish his purposes. He needs no plan B. If God exists, and I have more reason to think he should than that I should exist (yet here I am), he has absolute control over everything, including our choices.
 
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
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,180
5,695
68
Pennsylvania
✟792,053.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm not ignoring the cause. The cause of my choices is ME.

And me only.

That's why I say it is MY choice, because I am the one doing the choosing. If the choice was NOT being made by me, then it's not my choice.
I did not say the choice was not made by you. Of course you made the choice! So did God.

In the last post I answered you admitted to causes outside of yourself. Now you say it was only you. You drove the shorter route because you weighed the pros and cons, no? You said so. You want to insist you could have gone the long way, (and sometimes you might do so, because you weighed the pros and cons and decided to go the long way), but your influences CAUSED your choices (note the word you used, "because").
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.