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

[46AND2]

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.

The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning. A much more reasonable explanation for that beginning is a change of form, whether it be sprouted from a blackhole of another universe, or reversal of a big bang/big crunch cycle, or something else entirely that we have not yet conceived of.

What isn't reasonable is inserting an arbitrarily powerful being which is described as having no beginning SOLELY to avoid the "everything has a beginning" conundrum. It is not a reasonable conclusion for the beginning of the universe because it has no supporting evidence. I could just as easily say that a magic purple dragon-turtle chimera created the universe, or literally ANYTHING you could imagine. That we don't yet know how the universe started does not make any imaginative explanation more reasonable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The facts you are aware of may not constitute the bulk of facts.

Quite. That's one reason we may never know the correct explanation. It's one of the tenets of science that scientific explanations are always open to revision or falsification, and new data can do that.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I think it depends on what you mean by beginning. According to the Big Bang theory, there was a singularity that expanded, and that expansion was the beginning of the Universe as we know it. What was the origin of the Singularity? Science does not know. IOW science does not claim a time in history when nothing existed.
Big Bang - Wikipedia
As you can see from the link under "misconceptions"
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state

And for those who like to claim a size for the Singularity:

It is misleading to visualize the Big Bang by comparing its size to everyday objects. When the size of the universe at Big Bang is described, it refers to the size of the observable universe, and not the entire universe.[15]

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If somebody told me the square root of 95,836,295 were 13 I would reject his claim. Will I reject his claim because I know the answer? No. I will reject his answer because whatever the answer is, I know the correct number would be a heck of a lot larger than 13. I may not know all the right answers, but I can often recognize a wrong answer when it is put before me. Faith nor science is needed; just logic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I can agree with that. In fact, I would say that scientists know far less than that. When they get down to quarks and leptons, just like with atoms, then electrons and protons, etc we want to say there is nothing smaller and that we understand the makeup and principles by which the smallest particles behave, I say that's foolish. Likewise, don't remember if it was you, or who, posting on here, said we have no idea about edges of the universe or what might be beyond, and when physicists start talking about edges of "reality" based on the big bang expansion etc, I can't help but think they are pretty presumptuous.

For all I know, the day is coming when we will see philosophy combined with physics. For all I know, the smallest particle or force may be something very physical, that we currently refer to as God's love. We don't know much of anything, really.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The reason you will not get a satisfactory answer is because nobody knows how or even IF the Universe began. The best science can give us assumes the existence of the Singularity that started it all.

 

[expos4ever]

In a universe according to evolution governed by randomness how is it that the universe is orderly.

Evolution is NOT random - this falsehood is repeated over and over by creationists. While some elements of the process are indeed random, the whole process is certainly not random.

 

[expos4ever]

My opening questions still remain.

What caused the universe to begin?

I think this is ultimately an insoluble mystery. But let's be clear: asserting that God created the universe is a claim that is equally plagued by mystery - what explanation is on offer for the existence of God?

In short:

- You (the believer) are correct to point out that the standard "atheist" model of the origin of the universe does not explain the origin of the universe.

- The atheist is correct to reply that simply plugging in God as a first cause is equally problematic - what explanation is there for the existence of God?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

No, I'm not saying that. I do believe that God is first cause. (If he is not first cause, then he is not God, as far as I'm concerned). But as far as the argument is concerned, that is not necessary to say. The objector would be correct.

 

[expos4ever]

My opening questions still remain.
......
Why is the universe reasonable, maths can predict where planets will be etc?

I agree that there is a profound mystery here. But I am not sure what your point is. Simply assuming the existence of a creator God simply pushes the mystery back one step. Surely you must realize that simply assuming the existence of such a God leaves a huge question unanswered - how do we explain the existence of God?

I am a believer. However I think it is important that we "fight fair". And you appear to be following a line of reasoning that goes nowhere.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evolution is NOT random - this falsehood is repeated over and over by creationists. While some elements of the process are indeed random, the whole process is certainly not random.

The reason they say it is random, you just now stated. Logically, if Adam, then all his descendants are of Adam. Just so, if anything is random, anything caused 'downstream' of that randomness is also random.

The problem with randomness is that logically, there simply is no such thing. It is all cause-and-effect. Thus the need for first cause. "Randomness", like "chance", is simply a place-holder for "We don't know".

 

[expos4ever]

Currently science is dependant on Christian philosophy.....

I think this is a very difficult case to make. Granted, a belief in the kind of God we see in the Bible would lead one to expect some degree of order in the cosmos. But I suggest it is self-evident that the scientific enterprise would have developed even in the absence of such a belief; human beings are practical creatures with a strong survival instinct. We do not need to believe in a creative divine power to recognize regularities in nature and codify them to our ultimate benefit.

 

[expos4ever]

The reason they say it is random, you just now stated. Logically, if Adam, then all his descendants are of Adam. Just so, if anything is random, anything caused 'downstream' of that randomness is also random.

I do not understand what you are saying. Either way, there is no doubt: evolution is NOT a random process despite systematic, repeated misrepresentation on the part of (some) creationists.

The problem with randomness is that logically, there simply is no such thing.

This is just a claim - how do you know that true randomness is not woven into the fabric of reality? I happen to be suspicious of the concept of pure randomness myself. But I see no substantial argument as to why randomness may not be an element of reality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree that there is a profound mystery here. But I am not sure what your point is. Simply assuming the existence of a creator God simply pushes the mystery back one step. Surely you must realize that simply assuming the existence of such a God leaves a huge question unanswered - how do we explain the existence of God?

I am a believer. However I think it is important that we "fight fair". And you appear to be following a line of reasoning that goes nowhere.

Let me put it this way. I find it [far] more reasonable that God should exist, than that I should. But here we are. I have always thought it amazing that God should be able to create something that is not him --something besides himself --but for that thing to be able to rebel against him is, to me, astounding.

God, or First Cause if you wish, by definition is uncaused. It is even illogical to say that it caused itself. It is a logical stop to the sequence of cause-and-effect, cutting off what would be an infinite regression. To me, that makes perfect sense. To me, the principle of existence is because of, or done by, that First Cause. It does exist, but is not subject to existence as we define it. Existence is what it is, because God exists --it is not the other way around.

 

[expos4ever]

God, or First Cause if you wish, by definition is uncaused. It is even illogical to say that it caused itself. It is a logical stop to the sequence of cause-and-effect, cutting off what would be an infinite regression.

I think I understand what you are saying, but it appears to me you are simply slapping a band-aid solution on that really evades the central mystery.

I agree that the issue of "first cause" is a profound mystery. You appear to be trying to "define away" the problem by positing the existence of a being who "by definition" is uncaused. This may indeed "stop the regression", of course, but I think it is an obvious cheat.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

That sounds pretty 'principled' to me(?)

I can't produce principle by which other things exist. My definitions are irrelevant. I use "First Cause" as a definitive substitute for God to avoid putting all the flavors that calling him God bring into the argument. It is, perhaps, the most definitive name I can give him, for the sake of this argument. However, like I said concerning existence, it (First Cause) does not exist subject to our use or understanding of the term "existence". Existence is what it is, because First Cause exists --not the other way around.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Which university professors say something like that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think this is a very difficult case to make. Granted, a belief in the kind of God we see in the Bible would lead one to expect some degree of order in the cosmos. But I suggest it is self-evident that the scientific enterprise would have developed even in the absence of such a belief; human beings are practical creatures with a strong survival instinct. We do not need to believe in a creative divine power to recognize regularities in nature and codify them to our ultimate benefit.

I don't think it is the scientific enterprise, i.e. the scientific community, that he is referring to, but science.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not understand what you are saying. Either way, there is no doubt: evolution is NOT a random process despite systematic, repeated misrepresentation on the part of (some) creationists.


This is just a claim - how do you know that true randomness is not woven into the fabric of reality? I happen to be suspicious of the concept of pure randomness myself. But I see no substantial argument as to why randomness may not be an element of reality.

Ask Einstein. Our ignorance is no indication that cause-and-effect does not prevail. I "appeal to authority", lol.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think I understand what you are saying, but it appears to me you are simply slapping a band-aid solution on that really evades the central mystery.

I agree that the issue of "first cause" is a profound mystery. You appear to be trying to "define away" the problem by positing the existence of a being who "by definition" is uncaused. This may indeed "stop the regression", of course, but I think it is an obvious cheat.

If all you look at is the post you responded to, I agree with you. However, all other explanations for existence I have heard of I find to be in and of themselves illogical, not to mention nebulous or incomplete in definition. We are left with First Cause, or "I don't know."

Like I have said before, many scientific pursuits are based on less reasonable posits than First Cause theory. Meanwhile, I find First Cause considerably more compelling than "I don't know" --in fact, I think it more reasonable that First Cause should exists, than that I should exist. But here I am.