How to prove God exists.

[Mountainmike]

So, you haven't read any Dawkins. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you read just one of his books, say, "Unweaving The Rainbow," you'd change your opinion of Dawkins.

"This is the book [Unweaving The Rainbow] Richard Dawkins was meant to write: a brilliant assessment of what science is (and isn't), a tribute to science not because it is useful but because it is uplifting."

So, it seems he does actually explain limitations of science. But of course if you had actually read Dawkins, and not just what creo sites say about him, you might learn something.

I have most of dawkins books, except interestingly that one.
Now I am aware of it, I may read that too.
They have no scientific merit because they are too Interwoven with Dawkins beliefs set which he wrongfully feels empowered to intermingle with evidential science .

You only have to look at some of his statements on probability to realise he goes way past his competence level at such as quantum chemistry, or study his comments on telepathy and so his refusal to engage with evidence generally preferring his apriori beliefs instead, indeed his support for sagans folly " extraordinary claims" says it all : he simply does not look at the world as a scientist is obliged to. That is go where the evidence leads, regardless of how " extraordinary" you think it is

So whether or not he pays lip service in " the rainbow" to proper context of philosophy of science, he does not embrace it. His other writings, which are just an anti religious rant, using every known method of falacious reasoning to do it.
He is entitled to his world view, but he is not entitled to misrepresent science , or I deed logic as though it supports his beliefs.

So what he writes is useless.

 

[dmmesdale]

Causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies in the space-time continuum.
It is necessarily temporal, since effects happen after causes.

So?

Therefor, causality can not be invoked to explain the very origins of the space-time continuum itself.

Yes it can. You know why, it has far greater explanatory power than nothingdidit which is evidenced nowhere. Explanatory impotent.

What is the explanatory power of a theory?
Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. The opposite of explanatory power is explanatory impotence. In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed.

Whatever "triggered" the big bang (by lack of a better word), it was an uncaused event by definition in context of what we understand causality to be.

Uncaused event is nothingdidit explanation which is explanatory impotent and evidenced nowhere. Seeking ad hoc exceptions to cause and effect might be more compelling if the ones making the assertions were able to demonstrate their argument by not using cause and effect. As it is they employ cause and effect to deny cause and effect. Contradictions do not exist.

In order to still posit some "cause", in the sense of what we understand by causality, you'ld have to make a boatload of assumptions that simply aren't in evidence in any way.

Cause and effect is evidenced everywhere as is life from prior existing life. Uncaused effects and life from nonlife is evidenced no where.

 

[dmmesdale]

Look up dawkins youtube interview with creationist wendy wright. It seemed to be this type of thinking, that dawkins railed against.

It was not in the form of a formal debate. Dawkins has a checkered history with women including atheist females there was in house fighting. Case in point, magician Rebecca Watson and the elevator incident. Seems atheists do not know how to treat women when they get in groups. Sensitivity training is in order.
Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists - The Atlantic
''Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don't tell me again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery," Dawkins wrote. "But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with."

Return Volley: Several Science Blogs readers reacted negatively to Dawkins' comment. "Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home? By that argument, I shouldn't complain when our local high school biology teacher tosses around idiot arguments because there are children elsewhere who can't even go to school? Or I shouldn't complain that my sister was raped by three men because far worse things are happening now in the Congo?"

 

[bhsmte]

It was not in the form of a formal debate. Dawkins has a checkered history with women including atheist females there was in house fighting. Case in point, magician Rebecca Watson and the elevator incident. Seems atheists do not know how to treat women when they get in groups. Sensitivity training is in order.
Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists - The Atlantic
''Stop whining will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don't tell me again, I know you aren't allowed to drive a car, and can't leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery," Dawkins wrote. "But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with."

Return Volley: Several Science Blogs readers reacted negatively to Dawkins' comment. "Did you just make the argument that, since worse things are happening somewhere else, we have no right to try to fix things closer to home? By that argument, I shouldn't complain when our local high school biology teacher tosses around idiot arguments because there are children elsewhere who can't even go to school? Or I shouldn't complain that my sister was raped by three men because far worse things are happening now in the Congo?"

The comments Wendy made, spoke for themself.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Hebrews 11.6: "He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."

What about those who were genuinely of Christ, who diligently sought him with all their hearts, but found nothing or that God never answered them and became agnostic or atheist?

 

[faroukfarouk]

What about those who were genuinely of Christ, who diligently sought him with all their hearts, but found nothing or that God never answered them and became agnostic or atheist?

I am reminded of Jeremiah 29.23:

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

 

[CrystalDragon]

I am reminded of Jeremiah 29.23:

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

But there are many that did search with all their hearts, and did not find, sometimes having been completely devoted to God before questioning and becoming atheist. Here's one example that's long but eye-opening, especially those who say "Atheists are just angry at God" or "they just want to sin", or "they didn't really seek and weren't true Christians":
Why I Am No Longer a Christian

 

[faroukfarouk]

But there are many that did search with all their hearts, and did not find, sometimes having been completely devoted to God before questioning and becoming atheist. Here's one example that's long but eye-opening, especially those who say "Atheists are just angry at God" or "they just want to sin", or "they didn't really seek and weren't true Christians":
Why I Am No Longer a Christian

Well, I would be included to go back to the Word of God, and rely on its promises.

 

[Michael]

Causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies in the space-time continuum.
It is necessarily temporal, since effects happen after causes.

Therefor, causality can not be invoked to explain the very origins of the space-time continuum itself.

No space-time = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Whatever "triggered" the big bang (by lack of a better word), it was an uncaused event by definition in context of what we understand causality to be.

Oy Vey. Give me a break. Name one other un-caused event.

In order to still posit some "cause", in the sense of what we understand by causality, you'ld have to make a boatload of assumptions that simply aren't in evidence in any way.

No you don't. You just have to assume it had a "cause" like every other physical process in nature.

 

[Mountainmike]

Causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies in the space-time continuum.
It is necessarily temporal, since effects happen after causes.

Therefor, causality can not be invoked to explain the very origins of the space-time continuum itself.

No space-time = no time = no temporal conditions = no causality.

Whatever "triggered" the big bang (by lack of a better word), it was an uncaused event by definition in context of what we understand causality to be.

In order to still posit some "cause", in the sense of what we understand by causality, you'ld have to make a boatload of assumptions that simply aren't in evidence in any way.

Do they indeed.

Check out some quantum effects. Effects sometimes precede cause, in the strange world of subatomic particles. And in others the cause can simply be observation!

Which rather proves the obvious.

Science is just a model. So some of what seems far fetched, simply proves limitations of that model. The absurdities like the nature of quantum uncertainty are Just part of the model, not necessarily the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oy Vey. Give me a break. Name one other un-caused event.

I can only observe events IN the universe, and IN the universe, the physics of the universe apply.

No you don't. You just have to assume it had a "cause" like every other physical process in nature.

Physical processes of the universe, are regulated by the physics of the universe.
Removing the universe, would remove the physics of the universe. That includes causality, which -as we understand it- requires temporal (=space-time) conditions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do they indeed.

Check out some quantum effects. Effects sometimes precede cause, in the strange world of subatomic particles. And in others the cause can simply be observation!

Which rather proves the obvious.

Science is just a model. So some of what seems far fetched, simply proves limitations of that model. The absurdities like the nature of quantum uncertainty are Just part of the model, not necessarily the universe.

We can only go by what we know and understand.

I never said that there is NO 'second' time dimension outside of the universe.
I also never said that the universe can not have a 'cause'.

I'm merely saying that based on our current knowledge of the universe, we cannot make such assumptions.

I'm saying that asking "what is the cause of the universe" might not be a sensible question.
And indeed, going by our current knowledge of the universe, it looks like it indeed is not a sensible question.


I also think it's kind of funny how you first acknowledge that some aspects of nature/reality seem completely absurd to us, yet are true, like certain phenomena of quantum mechanics... and in the very next breath, you insists on an origin of the universe which IS sensible to us, instead of "absurd", by insisting on a "classical flow of events" in terms of cause and effect, to explain an event which necessarily took place without the only time-dimension that we actually know exists.

I think it's safe to say that whatever is the origins of the universe, it might very well be something that our brains won't be able to comprehend.

Surely it will be something that completely escapes our "day-to-day" experience of classical physical processes which happen IN space and time.

 

[quatona]

No you don't. You just have to assume it had a "cause" like every other physical process in nature.

Since you believe in a natural god, I´m concluding now that you believe god´s existence is caused?

 

[Michael]

I can only observe events IN the universe, and IN the universe, the physics of the universe apply.

That was non-responsive to my question.

Physical processes of the universe, are regulated by the physics of the universe.
Removing the universe, would remove the physics of the universe.

How do you *know* that you can remove anything?

That includes causality, which -as we understand it- requires temporal (=space-time) conditions.

That sounds like new age mumbo-jumbo, not physics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so how did you expect to "take out" anything?

 

[Michael]

Since you believe in a natural god, I´m concluding now that you believe god´s existence is caused?

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That was non-responsive to my question.

Your question is an invalid question.
I never claimed that there are "uncaused" events taking place in the universe.

We observe the phenomena of causality in the universe. And for all practical intents and purposes, it seems that this phenomena requires conditions of the space-time continuum in order to take place. Like sequential flow of events, one happening after the other. You require "time" for that to be able to happen.

Seems rather obvious.

So if you are going to come on here and tell me that "causality" also applies in atemporal conditions - then I don't know what you are talking about.

And if you then are going to reply by saying "ow, but the space-time continuum itself exists in some 'exterior' temporal setting" to allow for the phenomena of causality to apply "outside" the universe (whatever that means), then I'm going to ask you to support that with evidence.

How do you *know* that you can remove anything?

When discussing how X came into existance, it seems rather obvious that we are talking about a state of affairs where X doesn't exist.

And no, I don't know that the universe at one point did NOT exist.
That is again, something that is assumed and embedded in the question of origins of the universe.

That sounds like new age mumbo-jumbo, not physics.

lol!

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so how did you expect to "take out" anything?

I'm not the one here who's pretending that it all had to be "created".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It wouldn't surprise me.

and would that cause then also have its own cause?
And so on?

 

[quatona]

It wouldn't surprise me.

So "God" isn´t an answer to the question for the origin of the natural world.

 

[dmmesdale]

Do they indeed.

Check out some quantum effects. Effects sometimes precede cause, in the strange world of subatomic particles.

Is that like saying you gave birth to your parents?

 

[dmmesdale]

and would that cause then also have its own cause?
And so on?

Not a standard in science. We do not need to know the identity or lineage of the coin maker to deduce the ancient coin found on the beach had an intelligent maker over a natural cause.