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

[Mark Quayle]

In other words: 'I hold that there exists an absolute truth, outside of the requirement to demonstrate that logically or objectively' .. (aka: a belief).

More like, in that situation: 'What they said was false' because it would be unreasonable to claim that their (above) notion of 'truth', could be used to prove that they were 'wrong'.

Their orginal notion of 'truth' was a belief .. and beliefs are never 'wrong' .. they're just beliefs.

.. and he would never know that, unless science kicked in, and did its thing.
Where his reasons for believing that he was right, were not based on logic or the scientific process, his belief would have been irrelevant to the outcome.

If you took the plumber's advice, and he happened to be right, how is his belief irrelevant?

Meanwhile, either you didn't explain yourself well, or I didn't follow, or maybe you are wrong, because you mostly seem to be saying that if something is not verified, it is only belief. Again --if it is true, verified or not, it is not only belief. My apprehension to it may be only belief, but if it is true, it is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it is unverifiable, how can you call it evidence?

With your plumber example, how do you know he had access to some source of information and wasn't just guessing?

I think I said verifiable scientifically. Maybe I didn't make that plain. If I am convinced of something in some way that science cannot access, that doesn't mean I have no evidence. It only means that science cannot access it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not the answer I was expecting, but that's okay.

Still, a question. If God plans for me to believe, and thus I will believe sooner or later, doesn't that interfere with my free will?

How does that interfere with your free will, if he convinces you? But more than that, if he changes your nature, your mind and heart, so that now you understand something that you did not before, how does that interfere with free will? You still decide.

Meanwhile, to me at least, free will, as most people take it, is bunk. Most people don't even know what they are saying when they talk about it. How free can it be, if they are bound by their nature, circumstances, desires, etc etc? Their decisions are real --no question there-- but to say they are capable of what a quick google comes up with: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." is a bit vague at best. Fate??? What is that?

We already know that what happens is whatever happens --nothing else is evident as having ever happened. Is that what they mean by fate? Then they have said nothing. Necessity??? What is that? They had to do it? Can anyone prove otherwise? The idea of free will as Google posts is only a concept of mind --not fact.

Meanwhile, as some of my favorite atheists are proud of saying, if First Cause determines, there is no free will. Yet the most logical of scientists and philosophers claim poetically, the law of Cause-and-Effect shows that "the seeds" of every detail we have now were sown at the beginning.

 

[Kylie]

Not in the bible.

You have to actually explain why, not just make the claim.

 

[dad]

We are all very aware of that. The frustrating thing is that you keep putting those claims forward as if they have some sort of merit.

Talk vaguely all you like. I know.

 

[Kylie]

NO.

 

[Kylie]

I think I said verifiable scientifically. Maybe I didn't make that plain. If I am convinced of something in some way that science cannot access, that doesn't mean I have no evidence. It only means that science cannot access it.

Well, the thing is that science has built in safeguards to make sure that a single person's biases and opinions can't influence the results. Is your non-scientific verification something like just feeling something in your heart or something else along those lines? If so, how have you made sure your own biases haven't influenced your conclusion?

 

[dad]

He cannot lie because he doesn't want to lie. Or perhaps he doesn't want to lie because he cannot want to lie. It matters not. He will not lie --it is a non-thing. Not so much a restriction on him as mere non-fact.

It is both an absolute fact and a restriction that He places upon Himself.

Tit 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

To suggest he might be able to lie is to like saying he can make a rock too big for him to lift; why would he want to do that? It is silly --a self-contradictory proposition. Of course he cannot lie.

I do not find the bible silly.

Totally in agreement about creation and belief. But with one addition: it is also reasonable. God does not counter science ---only the scientific community, perhaps. Yet even they are not such fools as people like to portray them. They admit, for the most part, that they do not know. They admit, this is only where research has taken us...

I would say, for the most part, science is offered in a way that says it does know.

We are logically able to see the possibility of First Cause, and that with Purpose,
for example. No need to look to belief for that.

I do not know what that means. If the first cause means God created the earth before the rest of the universe, and that He created man and woman, rather than evolution and the BB, great. If not, then it has no meaning and seems to be a little phrase people might try to use in referring to some creation story that is not of God.

 

[Kylie]

How does that interfere with your free will, if he convinces you?

Do you not understand how my free will is not free if I am being forced to do something?

But more than that, if he changes your nature, your mind and heart, so that now you understand something that you did not before, how does that interfere with free will? You still decide.

No, I am not deciding to do anything if God is changing me.

Meanwhile, to me at least, free will, as most people take it, is bunk. Most people don't even know what they are saying when they talk about it. How free can it be, if they are bound by their nature, circumstances, desires, etc etc? Their decisions are real --no question there-- but to say they are capable of what a quick google comes up with: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." is a bit vague at best. Fate??? What is that?

Huh? That sorta got a bit muddled at the end there, not quite sure what you're asking.

We already know that what happens is whatever happens --nothing else is evident as having ever happened. Is that what they mean by fate? Then they have said nothing. Necessity??? What is that? They had to do it? Can anyone prove otherwise? The idea of free will as Google posts is only a concept of mind --not fact.

No. You are looking at the past and seeing that it turned out a certain way, then concluding that the future can only turn out a certain way as well.

Meanwhile, as some of my favorite atheists are proud of saying, if First Cause determines, there is no free will. Yet the most logical of scientists and philosophers claim poetically, the law of Cause-and-Effect shows that "the seeds" of every detail we have now were sown at the beginning.

Citation required.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, the thing is that science has built in safeguards to make sure that a single person's biases and opinions can't influence the results. Is your non-scientific verification something like just feeling something in your heart or something else along those lines? If so, how have you made sure your own biases haven't influenced your conclusion?

I agree. And yes, I can fool myself, and in fact have fooled my self, rather bullheadedly at that. No, I don't think science should kiss the rear end of Religion. I prefer for people to think for themselves and to believe what they have come to believe, although I insist, like you, I expect, that if new information, or other compelling reason demands updating what one believes, one should consider it honestly. (I remain open-minded, (so to speak, lol), but nobody has been able to show me where I am wrong yet). I have a healthy dose of skepticism toward everything I hear, even if it fits my own ideology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not find the bible silly.

Agreed. I did not say otherwise.

 

[dad]

 

[dad]

You have to actually explain why, not just make the claim.

Because there is not one failed prophesy in Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would say, for the most part, science is offered in a way that says it does know.

That is the writers, and those who seek affirmation among the scientific community. Not true science. It is so-called (though I doubt it) scientific consensus. Funding has more influence than people want to admit.

 

[dad]

Agreed. I did not say otherwise.

Great. I posted the verse that says He cannot lie.

 

[dad]

That is the writers, and those who seek affirmation among the scientific community. Not true science. It is so-called (though I doubt it) scientific consensus. Funding has more influence than people want to admit.

Is that like a True Scotsman? Are origin sciences true? Is the TOE science?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not know what that means. If the first cause means God created the earth before the rest of the universe, and that He created man and woman, rather than evolution and the BB, great. If not, then it has no meaning and seems to be a little phrase people might try to use in referring to some creation story that is not of God.

As my old Dad used to say, "how old was Adam when God created him?" And when I quote that to my relatives, they object, "Then God was lying when he made him grown up only 1 day old?" I say, "Here we are, writing stories and postulating theories on time manipulation, and congratulating ourselves on our cleverness, and we cannot allow the Creator of time the ability and right to do such a thing without lying?"

No, dad, I think he indeed created everything in 6 twenty-four hour periods. But I think how he did it will surprise us all. Even modern cosmology claims (and does so as if it disproved religion) that time is relative to motion (position) of matter and energy and gravity, that all began with the big "sudden expansion". What was the rate of time at that point compared to the rate at this point in the expansion? We really know next to nothing about it. God can do anything he wants to do, and he can do it however he wants, and we cannot gainsay it. If he did it in six days, and says he did, then he did.

Science has yet to prove anything in the Bible to be wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Talk vaguely all you like. I know.

What was vague? I said it's frustrating that you keep putting forward certain unsupportable, ignorant claims as if they have merit. Which part would you like me to clarify?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you not understand how my free will is not free if I am being forced to do something?



No, I am not deciding to do anything if God is changing me.



Huh? That sorta got a bit muddled at the end there, not quite sure what you're asking.



No. You are looking at the past and seeing that it turned out a certain way, then concluding that the future can only turn out a certain way as well.



Citation required.

Where do you get "forced"? When MacBeth tried to fulfill what the Fates had decreed, was he not choosing? Was he forced to do what he did?

"Possibility" is speculation. Only one thing will happen. Chance is a logical non-fact.

If God changes your nature and circumstances, are you no longer you? Of course you can still decide!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Great. I posted the verse that says He cannot lie.

And I agree with it. It does not contradict what I said. When it says God cannot, that does not deny that it is impossible for him not to lie, by virtue of his very being what (or actually, I say who) he is.

To try to show what I mean: God does not do good because he decided that good is a good thing to do or be, but good is what it is, because God is good. God did not create himself --he simply is. He does not decide to be what he is --he simply is. You could say he cannot be otherwise, and that is true, but not because he chose to be true and consistent, but because he is.

This is how, or why, he is the only truly sovereign. We say, for our own understanding, that he is bound by his nature, and that's ok, but it is much more simple than that. He does because he is.