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

Mark Quayle said:

If the outcome is predetermined (or post-determined --it matters not) there can possibly be only one outcome. You don't choose from outcomes, you choose from options set before you. How you choose from those options is certain to happen.

Click to expand...

I don't get this. You say that if there is only one possible outcome then it's not a choice, but then say it's a choice that has only one possible outcome.

Mark Quayle said:

If the outcome is predetermined (or post-determined --it matters not) there can possibly be only one outcome. You don't choose from outcomes, you choose from options set before you. How you choose from those options is certain to happen.

Click to expand...

.. and your choice then affects the outcome.

What you're saying is just word-salad and your generalisations are completely falsified by quantum eraser delayed choice experiments.

Kylie said:

I don't get this. You say that if there is only one possible outcome then it's not a choice, but then say it's a choice that has only one possible outcome.

Click to expand...

Abortion

Look at my post here, it should be insightful.

SelfSim said:

.. and your choice then affects the outcome.

What you're saying is just word-salad and your generalisations are completely falsified by quantum eraser delayed choice experiments.

Click to expand...

Just as I've expected, the experiment is not pure.

Demystifying the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser

Kylie said:

I don't get this. You say that if there is only one possible outcome then it's not a choice, but then say it's a choice that has only one possible outcome.

Click to expand...

I don't think I said it isn't a choice. I think I said that your choice is not between outcomes, but between options set before you [that cause (or result in) outcomes].

Kylie said:

If numbers other than 47 were not possible, how is it a choice?

Like I said, a choice requires more than one possible option.

Click to expand...

You had many balls to choose from. These were the options available to you. Why did you choose the one you did?

How is this not obvious? Something caused you to choose the one you did, or rather, many many things caused you to choose the one you did.

Kylie said:

Love is a subjective thing, and people have loved when such love was betrayed. It doesn't seem to be a good way of finding something real.

Click to expand...

No insult intended, but it seems you are equivocating. Moving the goalposts, so to speak.

If you mean to say that love is not real, ok. But you depend on things like it every day, things that are not scientifically defined --not "falsifiable".

Kylie said:

If the outcome is set in stone, then I do not have free will about it.

I cannot freely choose if the outcome is already determined. Henry Ford once said that people who bought his cars could have any colour they wanted, as long as it was black. Tell me, were those people freely choosing black, or did they just accept it because there were no options?



Let's say I have a bucket with numbered balls, 1 to 100. I draw out 47. Was there some force that was making sure I did not pull out ball 32? If so, what was that force?



People are changing all the time. Am I the same person I was when I was 10?

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

If numbers other than 47 were not possible, how is it a choice?

Like I said, a choice requires more than one possible option.

Click to expand...

There are options set before you. You choose from among them. But always according to the many reasons pressing upon you.

"1. The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 21 Notice here, the king's HEART is turned this way or that, according the the will of God. Yet the king makes his decision; but according to the inclination of his heart.

SelfSim said:

Except I have never said that I hold a 'lack of belief' at all.

Click to expand...

You're really going to nitpick on the term "lack of belief"?

What is evidenced is that when conversing with scientific thinkers in rigorous scientific discourse, beliefs make exactly zip difference to the objective science!

Click to expand...

Pfft. You seem to hold the belief (I'd call it faith) that space expansion is a "cause" of redshift. If that "belief" is false, then your entire belief system about a "big bang" is likewise false. Beliefs are typically quite subjective, and they have *everything* to do with what you're calling 'objective science', particularly scientific claims that defy empirical (in the lab) support.

The reason they make a difference here, is because you consistently demonstrate holding a fixed one, (belief), and you thus exclude yourself as being a scientific thinker when you do this.

Click to expand...

No I don't. I realize I'm the "observer" in the scientific process, and even the concept of "science" is a human concept. On the other hand, I see ample evidence that gravity works the same way in every part of the universe, with or without a "mind" present to measure it everywhere. I see ample evidence of life on Earth which predated modern humans too.

Stop arm-waving .. go ahead demonstrate your test and objective evidence then! (You have previously made such several attempts and they consistently failed in excluding minds).

Click to expand...

You seem to gloss right over the fact that your preferred cosmology model *requires* that gravity and EM radiation predate human "minds".

The beliefs make no difference to honest scientific thinkers.

Click to expand...

"Honest" scientific thinkers? What exactly makes you think space expansion "honestly" has any effect on a photon?

I point to myriads of Christians who are professionally involved in real science for a living.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how that's even relevant to our discussion.

The rest of what you say is complete nonsensical .. ie: where is the person who understands physics, yet displays no evidence of possessing a mind, for goodness sake!?

Click to expand...

Strawman. I didn't make that claim to start with.

The laws of physics are an objective model.

Click to expand...

Define "objective".

There is no evidence that such laws exist independently of the minds which devised them (or those who make use of them). What is demonstrably evident is that those laws serve as an explanation for an audience of human minds .. and what they portray is highly consistent and makes sense to human scientific thinkers (believers .. less so).

Click to expand...

Do you really think that a mind is necessary for gravity to function?

Are you kidding? You attempt to completely erase your extensive track record pertaining your mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of fundamental physics and basic math, when conversing with me!?

Click to expand...

This from the guy that failed his own math quiz.

I accept both as being our currently best tested models and expect they will be updated with new evidence as it is distilled.

Click to expand...

My point is that regardless of our differences in beliefs with respect to this need for 'minds' which you insist upon, we both seem to arrive at pretty much the same set of conclusions about the validity of *most* scientific concepts. Only when we get to cosmology do our 'beliefs' tend to be radically different. It's therefore doesn't seem like our differences with respect to "mind" are all the relevant to our overall perception of 'reality'.

dad said:

Give a few examples.

Click to expand...

If one doesn't 'interpret' the book of Genesis literally, the age of the Earth as described by "science" doesn't necessarily come into conflict with "Christian" beliefs as Catholics can attest.

I would prefer to believe thanks.

Click to expand...

Ultimately I would argue that you simply prefer/choose to believe that your own personal interpretations of the Bible are accurate in spite of the fact that they tend to come into serious conflict with "science". Catholics don't have those same conflicts between their religious beliefs and science.

Mark Quayle said:

Then that isn't science. It is maybe "science" or what is called "science", or the scientific community or consensus, but not science. There are MANY scientists studying origins, following where logic leads, trusting no "final" suppositions, doing the gruntwork of elimination of bunk ideas, who love and believe in God, or who at least have some admission of the apparent necessity of the existence of First Cause With Intent. Many of those claim outright to believe in a literal 6 days of creation; though they don't claim to be able to justify it with the present concepts of scientific study, they don't deny the possibility that they do indeed justify perfectly.

I did a short search (like 10 minutes spent on it) one time for such scientists who are known to publicly claim belief in God, and it was easily over a hundred.

Click to expand...

Of those hundred how many believe Eve was a real woman made from the bone of a man? I rest my case.

Bungle_Bear said:

Ezekiel 29:19

Let me guess - Nebuchadnezzar is going to be resurrected at some point so this can come true?

Click to expand...

God was working on him. Not only Daniel had dreams from God but so did Neb. I see no reason to assume that he was saved in the end.

Mark Quayle said:

Just as I've expected, the experiment is not pure.

Click to expand...

More word salad .. accompanied by a cop out!
What is 'not pure' supposed to mean?

Michael said:

If one doesn't 'interpret' the book of Genesis literally, the age of the Earth as described by "science" doesn't necessarily come into conflict with "Christian" beliefs as Catholics can attest.

Click to expand...

If we didn't interpret the resurrection literally I suppose you could say the same thing.

Ultimately I would argue that you simply prefer/choose to believe that your own personal interpretations of the Bible are accurate in spite of the fact that they tend to come into serious conflict with "science".

Click to expand...

Creation from cover to cover indicates a real Eve and real creation. It is a matter of belief not interpreting. Those who want to interpret creation away are simply trying to justify unbelief.

Catholics don't have those same conflicts between their religious beliefs and science.

Click to expand...

? Why would I care about what they think unless it agreed with what Jesus thinks?
An outfit that is so riddled with abuse of children that they should be bankrupt due to all the money they should pay victims does not rank high on my list of organizations I wish to emulate.

I was born Catholic by the way. In a Catholic school I was taught catechism. They taught about creation and Adam and Eve and Noah.



"
Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture “contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”[1] In the words of Fr. Victor Warkulwiz:

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. This does not mean that they agreed on every point in its interpretation, but their differences were accidental and not essential. Pope Leo XIII, following St. Augustine, affirmed the Catholic rule for interpreting Sacred Scripture, “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.”

For the first five centuries of the Church, all of the Fathers believed and proclaimed:

• that less than 6,000 years had passed from the creation of the world to the birth of Jesus.
• that the creation of the cosmos took place in six 24 hour days or in an instant of time
• that God created the different kinds of living things instantly and immediately
• that Adam was created from the dust of the earth and Eve from his side
• that God ceased to create new kinds of creatures after the creation of Adam
• that the Original Sin of Adam shattered the perfect harmony of the first-created world and brought human death, deformity, and disease into the world.

This patristic teaching on creation was implicit in the words of the Nicene Creed, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” Not until the Middle Ages when the Albigensian heresy denied the divine creation of the material universe did an Ecumenical Council elaborate on the first article of the creed in the following words:

God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.

For 600 years, according to the foremost Catholic Doctors and commentators on this dogmatic decree, the words “at once from the beginning” signified that God created all of the different kinds of corporeal creatures and angels “simul” (“at once”). This could be reconciled with the six days of creation (the view of the overwhelming majority of the Fathers) or with the instantaneous creation envisioned by St. Augustine—but it could not be reconciled with a longer creation period. Among the commentators who taught that Lateran IV had defined the relative simultaneity of the creation of all things, perhaps the most authoritative was St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619), Doctor of the Church. In his commentary on Genesis, St. Lawrence wrote:

the Holy Roman Church determined in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels along with the creatures of the world were at once created ex nihilo from the beginning of time.

This precise meaning of the words of Lateran IV was also explained by the most authoritative catechism in the history of the Catholic Church—the Roman Catechism—which taught that God created ALL things by his Fiat instantaneously “in the beginning” without any natural process:

[T]he Divinity created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created.

According to the Roman Catechism, “Creator of heaven and earth” in the Creed also referred to the creation of all of the different kinds of living things. It states:

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures (Catechism of Trent).

Note that God created all of these creatures by his word, instantly and immediately. During the creation period, He made, specifically, trees, “every variety of plant and flower,” air creatures and water creatures and land animals. There was no evolution. There was no long interval of time.

The Council Fathers reiterated the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors, and Popes, that God created the first man, Adam, by an act of special creation. They wrote:

Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man’s soul He created to His own image and likeness; gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

Notice that the plain sense of the “sacred history of Genesis” is so sure a guide to the truth of the creation and early history of the world and of man that the council fathers direct the pastor to read the sacred history so that he can “easily” make himself familiar with the facts. “Lastly” means God created man last. There has been no further creation since the creation of Adam and Eve. Only variation within limits established during the six days.

The Catechism of Trent underscored the teaching of all of the Fathers and Doctors that creation was complete with the creation of Adam and Eve—and that God ceased creating new kinds of creatures after creating the first human beings.

We now come to the meaning of the word sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, having finished the creation of the world, rested on that day from all the work which He had done. Thus it is called by the Lord in Exodus (Catechism of the Council of Trent).

Note that God finished the creation of the world and all of the different kinds of creatures specifically on the sixth day of a seven day week. Soon after the Fourth Lateran Council, St. Thomas Aquinas had summed up the teaching of all the Church Fathers on the two perfections of the universe:"

The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation

dad said:

Creation from cover to cover indicates a real Eve and real creation. It is a matter of belief not interpreting. Those who want to interpret creation away are simply trying to justify unbelief.

Click to expand...

But again, your opinion isn't shared by many "Christians" today.

I'm simply noting that you're simply "assuming" that your personal interpretation of the book of Genesis (literally) is correct, whereas many "Christians" would disagree with your literal interpretation. Not all forms of Christianity come into direct conflict with science, at least not as often as your beliefs come into conflict with science.

Strathos said:

Abortion

Look at my post here, it should be insightful.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. There are lots of situations where the outcome is forced, even if there are multiple routes to get there. Just because the steps can be chosen doesn't mean the outcome of those steps is chosen.

Mark Quayle said:

You had many balls to choose from. These were the options available to you. Why did you choose the one you did?

How is this not obvious? Something caused you to choose the one you did, or rather, many many things caused you to choose the one you did.

Click to expand...

But by your logic, the outcome was predetermined, so there was something preventing me from choosing any other ball.

Mark Quayle said:

No insult intended, but it seems you are equivocating. Moving the goalposts, so to speak.

If you mean to say that love is not real, ok. But you depend on things like it every day, things that are not scientifically defined --not "falsifiable".

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that love is subjective. What one person may call love someone else may not. I can't say that what I feel is definitely love, I can only say that what I feel counts as love for me.

Mark Quayle said:

There are options set before you. You choose from among them. But always according to the many reasons pressing upon you.

"1. The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 21 Notice here, the king's HEART is turned this way or that, according the the will of God. Yet the king makes his decision; but according to the inclination of his heart.

Click to expand...

You are not understanding my point. Let me try it a different way.

There are three doors I can choose to go through. Door 1, Door 2 and Door 3.

In order for me to have a true choice, the probability of choosing any particular door must be more than 0%. So even if I prefer one door to the others, the probability of me choosing one of the non-favoured doors is still some positive probability.

If the probability of choosing a particular door is 0%, then that means that something is forcing me to not choose that.

Now, if the outcome is predetermined - say, to pick Door 1 - then the probabilities are like this:

Door 1 - 100%
Door 2 - 0%
Door 3 - 0%

Since only one option has a non-zero probability, that is the only option. If there is only one option, then it's not a choice.

dad said:

God was working on him. Not only Daniel had dreams from God but so did Neb. I see no reason to assume that he was saved in the end.

Click to expand...

That's nice, and all, but doesn't explain why Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer Egypt as prophesied. It's a failed prophecy in the bible. Now you are aware of at least one.

No need to thank me, it's always a pleasure defeating you.