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

[Mark Quayle]

If material is subject to principles outside of itself, that doesn't mean the material did not exist eternally.

If you want to say God can have made the logically contradictory thing of no beginning and no end, that's bad enough, but to say that the thing can be existent in and of itself, can you tell me how it came to be? Intent!

 

[Ken-1122]

How? If both are creator of all things, you have said they must share ability, results, are possessed of independence from each other.

When I said multiple, I wasn’t speaking of only 2, multiple can be a billion different things, a trillion or more. And I wasn’t speaking of all eternal things actually creating anything. Remember that law of Thermodynamics that says nothing is created nor destroyed, it only changes form? That kinda goes in line with the idea that all the material in the Universe has always existed in one form or another.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you want to say God can have made the logically contradictory thing of no beginning and no end, that's bad enough, but to say that the thing can be existent in and of itself, can you tell me how it came to be? Intent!

I never said anything about God making anythig, and "Came to be" implies a time in history when it did not exist. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about always existing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When I said multiple, I wasn’t speaking of only 2, multiple can be a billion different things, a trillion or more. And I wasn’t speaking of all eternal things actually creating anything. Remember that law of Thermodynamics that says nothing is created nor destroyed, it only changes form? That kinda goes in line with the idea that all the material in the Universe has always existed in one form or another.

Fine, but what set that system, or principle, up? I have heard physicists say such things as it is the nature of existence to exist, or the nature of reality for existence to exist, and other corollary-sounding things to go along with that idea. But even then, they are describing a system, that is itself a principle -- mere principle. How can mere principle, not possessing of personhood, self-exist?

We still don't know what life is, awareness, nor even what gravity is. We are finding out, and we can describe a lot of stuff about it, but we don't really know. To me it doesn't make any sense to say that mechanical fact can self-exist, being subject to principles outside itself. And principle, apart from personhood, is mechanical fact, I think.

 

[expos4ever]

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid?

One can certainly believe in God and not be "stupid". But, to be fair, a fair number of believers defend their belief using flawed reasoning and arguments.

 

[expos4ever]

Except there are reasonable Christian explanations and there are no reasonable scientific explanations.

It is clearly incorrect to claim that there are "no reasonable scientific explanations". Almost all, if not all, scientific explanations are reasonable. Perhaps you need to qualify what you are claiming here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never said anything about God making anythig, and "Came to be" implies a time in history when it did not exist. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about always existing.

I'm sorry my man, I'm very tired. I find it impossible that mechanical fact can be self-existing. I wish I knew how to explain myself better. There is a book I wish you could read, by RC Sproul, called Not A Chance, (the Revolt Against Reason). He addresses the logical leaps scientists, or at least scientific reporters, make in describing their discoveries and theories. He touches on this issue too, but I can't remember how he puts it.

For me to try to describe the way I see this, I would be just repeating myself, and I really need to get to bed. Good night

And thanks for discussing this with me.

 

[Ken-1122]

Fine, but what set that system, or principle, up? I have heard physicists say such things as it is the nature of existence to exist, or the nature of reality for existence to exist, and other corollary-sounding things to go along with that idea. But even then, they are describing a system, that is itself a principle -- mere principle. How can mere principle, not possessing of personhood, self-exist?

We still don't know what life is, awareness, nor even what gravity is. We are finding out, and we can describe a lot of stuff about it, but we don't really know. To me it doesn't make any sense to say that mechanical fact can self-exist, being subject to principles outside itself. And principle, apart from personhood, is mechanical fact, I think.

They say scientists know only about 4% of the Universe. That leaves 96% of the Universe that our best scientists have no clue about. I have no problem admitting to not having answers to the mysteries beyond the grasp of science.

 

[expos4ever]

So far, First Cause is the ONLY viable explanation for existence.

I am not sure what you are saying. If you are suggesting that positing God as a "first cause" solves the "first cause" problem, I think it is clear such a line of argument fails - an objector can rightly point out that you are simply the shifting the problem to a new target: we still need some sort of "first cause" to explain the existence of God.

But perhaps this is not what you are saying.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm sorry my man, I'm very tired. I find it impossible that mechanical fact can be self-existing. I wish I knew how to explain myself better. There is a book I wish you could read, by RC Sproul, called Not A Chance, (the Revolt Against Reason). He addresses the logical leaps scientists, or at least scientific reporters, make in describing their discoveries and theories. He touches on this issue too, but I can't remember how he puts it.

For me to try to describe the way I see this, I would be just repeating myself, and I really need to get to bed. Good night

And thanks for discussing this with me.

Thank you and good nite

 

[SelfSim]

First Cause is not subject to principle.

However it seems it is subject to the meaning you assign to 'First Cause'.

That sounds pretty 'principled' to me(?)

 

[SelfSim]

... And since God, is necessarily as First Cause above all, and all powerful, and all things were made by him, ...

Hmm ... seems God is subject to some 'principle' called power there(?)

From that link, it seems there are many meanings applicable to the concept of power. One appears to have to understand the context of that word, in order to understand which meaning is applicable.
This implies that God's 'power' must then require context, in order for us to understand what is meant by 'all powerful' .. and that context would then be in conflict with the fundamental concept of 'First Cause'(?)

 

[Tone]

Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

science | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
"mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate")."

evidence | Origin and meaning of evidence by Online Etymology Dictionary
"c. 1300, "appearance from which inferences may be drawn," from Old French evidence, from Late Latin evidentia "proof," in classical Latin "distinction, vivid presentation, clearness" in rhetoric, from stem of Latin evidens "obvious, apparent" (see evident).

(Emphasis mine)

It seems that the phrase "scientific evidence" is oxymoronic. How can we get a clear picture (evidence) out of perpetual fragmentation (science)? It's like trying to see the whole by cutting it up into little pieces.

*Oh yeah, and if there were any "scientific evidence" it wouldn't "support" the Creator...because anything that supports "God" would then become God.

 

[Tolworth John]

It is clearly incorrect to claim that there are "no reasonable scientific explanations". Almost all, if not all, scientific explanations are reasonable. Perhaps you need to qualify what you are claiming here.

As per my first post.
What caused the universe to beging? Can you point to a reasonable scientific explanation.
Why does logic, maths and science work. In a universe according to evolution governed by randomness how is it that the universe is orderly.( Using maths one can predict where a planet will be etc.)

 

[Tolworth John]

Example?

Every thing that has a begining has a cause.
The universe has a begining, so something caused it.
Christianity say God, being outside of time and space was that cause.

While you don't have to believe it, you do have to have a more reasonable explanation.

 

[Tolworth John]

What is reasonable is subjective; just because you might find it reasonable doesn't mean someone else will

Science does not provide answers to everything, there is much science does not know

But to admit to not having an answer yet still reject yours is an honest, and perfectly reasonable position to take.

If one does not know the answer to a problem it is reasonable to look at all possible answers.
To reject an answer because it does not conform to one's own belief is unreasonable.

The honest answer would be to admit that one does not know and that one rejects some possible answer because of one's own belief.
The rejection is not scientific but a faith based desission.

 

[Tolworth John]

When these 'reasonable Christian explanations' are dependent on beliefs, science can ignore them (but not reject them) on the basis of objective untestability.

I personally think the funadamental Atheistic belief then eagerly jumps in, thence producing the 'rejection'(?) .. but this position is not a scientific one. Athesim is optional .. as is Christianity because they're both belief based.

Informed (reasoned) beliefs are still beliefs .. They usually appear in response to unscientifically formed questions.

It is reasonable to reject something because of one's belief, but one should make that clear.
To reject something because of one's belief but to claim that it was a scientific reason is wrong.

My opening questions still remain.
What caused the universe to begin?
Why is the universe reasonable, maths can predict where planets will be etc?
Currently science is dependant on Christian philosophy and it follows if science depends on Christianity, then society could too.

 

[Tolworth John]

As Ken suggests, what is reasonable and what is foolishness is a matter of opinion and judgement.

But to claim that an explanation is unreasonable without hearing it seems unreasonable in itself - but let's see how it works in practice - please explain why the current scientific explanations are not reasonable.

How the universe began? Every explanation I have come across assumes that there is something in existence prior to the formation of the universe.
The 'Nothing' is not nothing and so are not valid explanations.

Why is the universe reasonable rather than random? I have not heard an explanation for this, so look forward to your account.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientific explanations are now subject to Absolutism?

No; that's why I said we may never know...

 

[Ophiolite]

To reject an answer because it does not conform to one's own belief is unreasonable.

It is reasonable to reject something because of one's belief, but one should make that clear.

I don't think it is my "beliefs" that make it difficult to reconcile your two statements. Do you wish to clarify?

How can we get a clear picture (evidence) out of perpetual fragmentation (science)?

You appear to be under the false impression that all science is reductionist. This could account for your faulty conclusions.