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

Bungle_Bear · Jan 23, 2020

Strathos said:
Abortion

Look at my post here, it should be insightful.

Problem with that situation is that there are multiple possible outcomes from black choices. Most outcomes lead to a white victory, but there are different ways that can happen (black resigns, black loses in <549 moves, black loses in 549 moves etc). Not the same victory, so not just a single possible outcome. It's also possible the clock runs out and black gets a win. Or white gets bored and forfeits. Whatever, there are multiple possible outcomes.

Ophiolite · Jan 23, 2020

SelfSim said:
Unevidenced opinion duly noted.

The opinion is well supported by the relevant posts in this thread. They are the evidence. Paradoxically, as noted previously, you have to use your own beliefs in order to interpret that evidence correctly. It is telling that you choose not to. I don't know if that is intent, incompetence or ignorance, but you ought to revisit your motives in order to introduce integrity to your arguments.

Finis.

Strathos · Jan 23, 2020

Kylie said:
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.

I'm assuming that you believe that you are inevitably going to die some day. If that is predetermined, does that make any and all choices you make in life pointless?

dad · Jan 23, 2020

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

Why would we be concerned about the opinions of groups that have left God's word and even their own traditional positions? I think the operative word there is apostasy.

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.

The whole bible talks about creation and how God created. Trying to minimize that by calling it interpretation (especially if in some denomination that has abandoned biblical positions) is not an honest strategy.

Not all forms of Christianity come into direct conflict with science, at least not as often as your beliefs come into conflict with science.

Not all forms of 'christianity' accept or believe or follow the bible. Some are in direct conflict with His word! The only issue is who you chose to be in conflict with.

dad · Jan 23, 2020

Bungle_Bear said:
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.

God is going to conquer the whole world, of course. It is known that He will use us to rule with Him here forever. If Neb was saved that means Neb will help rule. I could deduce that he may be involved with ruling iw....what part of the world, class?....Ha

Michael · Jan 23, 2020

dad said:
Why would we be concerned about the opinions of groups that have left God's word and even their own traditional positions? I think the operative word there is apostasy.

That's rather presumptuous and judgemental. The Bible makes it clear that I should "judge not" lest I be judged.

The whole bible talks about creation and how God created.

It doesn't say exactly when however.

Trying to minimize that by calling it interpretation (especially if in some denomination that has abandoned biblical positions) is not an honest strategy.
Not all forms of 'christianity' accept or believe or follow the bible. Some are in direct conflict with His word! The only issue is who you chose to be in conflict with.

A Catholic Bible doesn't even have the same number of Books as a Protestant version, so they might very well claim that other denominations don't follow the correct "Bible" to start with. There's obviously a subjective aspect in terms of "interpreting" the Bible, not to mention how many books should be in the 'Bible' to begin with.

dad · Jan 23, 2020

Michael said:
That's rather presumptuous and judgemental. The Bible makes it clear that I should "judge not" lest I be judged.

Nonsense. It is required to know what God says on the matter and people and spirits are to be weighed according to that standard. When they abandon that standard, they judege themselves.

It doesn't say exactly when however.

Do you believe there was a real woman created from the bone of man and that this is how mankind started? Yes or no?

A Catholic Bible doesn't even have the same number of Books as a Protestant version, so they might very well claim that other denominations don't follow the correct "Bible" to start with.

They had traditional teaching on creation. Book numbers do not matter. Even when I was a child the catechism taught about creation.

Michael · Jan 23, 2020

dad said:
Nonsense. It is required to know what God says on the matter and people and spirits are to be weighed according to that standard. When they abandon that standard, they judege themselves.

Um, AFAIK, you and the Catholic church simply 'interpret' the Bible in different ways. Their way is *not* in conflict with science, whereas your interpretation is in conflict with science. From my vantage point, I have no logical or scientific reason to distrust their interpretation of the book of Genesis, and every reason to question your interpretation of the same book. How do you know they got it wrong and you got it right rather than the other way around?

Do you believe there was a real woman created from the bone of man and that this is how mankind started? Yes or no?

I certainly believe that there was a genetic "Eve" based on mitochondrial DNA studies. According to science, we all share a common female ancestor.

They had traditional teaching on creation. Book numbers do not matter. Even when I was a child the catechism taught about creation.

Alright, but even still every Christian denomination tends to subjectively interpret the Bible differently, so even different people from the same denomination might have different opinions about it. In this case, one interpretation is not in conflict with science, whereas your interpretation is in conflict with science. How is one to know which interpretation is right and which is wrong? If science is used to determine that, then your interpretation is clearly the wrong one.

dad · Jan 23, 2020

Michael said:
Um, AFAIK, you and the Catholic church simply 'interpret' the Bible in different ways.

Yet the way they have interpreted it for centuries was not the same. So now we are supposed to abandon the bible and their traditional views and belief whatever the constantly changing claims of so-called science might say!?

Their way is *not* in conflict with science,

Who cares? The only thing that matters is if they are in conflict with Scripture.

. From my vantage point, I have no logical or scientific reason to distrust their interpretation of the book of Genesis, and every reason to question your interpretation of the same book.

From my vantage point, if I had a nickel for every time I heard someone question Scripture, I would have a lot of nickels.

How do you know they got it wrong and you got it right rather than the other way around?

One simple way is to ask what I think I asked you and never got a reply. Do you believe in a real Eve who was taken one day from a bone of a created man or not?

I certainly believe that there was a genetic "Eve" based on mitochondrial DNA studies. According to science, we all share a common female ancestor.

Not sure what that means. So you believe that God formed a man, brought him to life and later took a bone from him to make a woman? You believe man was on the planet bfore any woman was?

How is one to know which interpretation is right and which is wrong? If science is used to determine that, then your interpretation is clearly the wrong one.

No interpretation needed. You cannot claim God did not form man and created woman from man etc. Period. That would be unbelief, not interpretation.

SelfSim · Jan 23, 2020

Ophiolite said:
The opinion is well supported by the relevant posts in this thread. They are the evidence. Paradoxically, as noted previously, you have to use your own beliefs in order to interpret that evidence correctly. It is telling that you choose not to. I don't know if that is intent, incompetence or ignorance, but you ought to revisit your motives in order to introduce integrity to your arguments.

Undemonstrated claims duly noted.

Kylie · Jan 23, 2020

Strathos said:
I'm assuming that you believe that you are inevitably going to die some day. If that is predetermined, does that make any and all choices you make in life pointless?

No, because I can do things that will live on beyond my death.

In any case, since I am not choosing to die, this argument is irrelevant. The fact we can choose things does not mean that we choose everything that happens to us.

Strathos · Jan 23, 2020

Kylie said:
No, because I can do things that will live on beyond my death.

In any case, since I am not choosing to die, this argument is irrelevant. The fact we can choose things does not mean that we choose everything that happens to us.

None of that contradicts the fact that certain events being predestined does not negate free will.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 23, 2020

dad said:
God is going to conquer the whole world, of course. It is known that He will use us to rule with Him here forever. If Neb was saved that means Neb will help rule. I could deduce that he may be involved with ruling iw....what part of the world, class?....Ha

Oh, that is priceless. I've seen you come up with some really lame excuses before, but that has got to be one of your best efforts.

dad · Jan 23, 2020

Bungle_Bear said:
Oh, that is priceless. I've seen you come up with some really lame excuses before, but that has got to be one of your best efforts.

Funny how this stuff is not obvious to everyone.

Kylie · Jan 23, 2020

Strathos said:
None of that contradicts the fact that certain events being predestined does not negate free will.

The manner of my death is not predestined, so I'd hardly say that it's the same thing as knowing the exact details, as God allegedly does.

Mark Quayle · Jan 23, 2020

Kylie said:
In order for me to have a true choice, the probability of choosing any particular door must be more than 0%.

There is your problem. You are giving substance to "probability" when there is only one door you will choose. 100%. You may come up with the idea that any choice is possible, and yes, from the point of view of the chooser, it will seem so, yet even then, only one door is chosen. It makes no difference.

Probability is speculation. Possibility is up to God, and your choice.

Mark Quayle · Jan 23, 2020

Kylie said:
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.

Nevertheless, the definition of love was not what I was talking about, and is irrelevant to the discussion --science can't deal with it. Their prettiest attempts are in calling it only "chemical activity within the body and brain", as if that explains anything.

Mark Quayle · Jan 23, 2020

Strathos said:
None of that contradicts the fact that certain events being predestined does not negate free will.

To me it only makes sense that if certain events are predestined, all events are predestined.

Kylie · Jan 23, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
There is your problem. You are giving substance to "probability" when there is only one door you will choose. 100%. You may come up with the idea that any choice is possible, and yes, from the point of view of the chooser, it will seem so, yet even then, only one door is chosen. It makes no difference.

Probability is speculation. Possibility is up to God, and your choice.

If there's only one door, then I have no choice.

If I jump out of a plane, then there's only one direction I can go. I am not choosing to go down.

Kylie · Jan 23, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
Nevertheless, the definition of love was not what I was talking about, and is irrelevant to the discussion --science can't deal with it. Their prettiest attempts are in calling it only "chemical activity within the body and brain", as if that explains anything.

Seems like you are moving the goalposts. You were talking about things, "that science can't touch." And then you specifically used love as an example. Post 734.

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

Whoot!

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

No one important

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

A non "-ist"

Defeater of Illogic

No one important

Whoot!

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency