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

[Ophiolite]

Again, the fact you do the choosing does not mean someone else did not also choose to cause you to make that choice.

Considering English as it is spoken by native speakers leads to the conclusion that, while your sentence is grammatically sound, it is nonsense. A choice one is unknowingly forced into is not a choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think of it like this...

As we go through life, it's like we are walking down a path. As we walk, we get to places where the path branches off into different forks. These represent the times we have to make choices in our lives. Some of them are big choices - which car do I buy - but others are much smaller choices - do I take my hat off when I get on the bus, or do I leave it on? Nonetheless, whether we are aware of them or not, we face many choices, and these are like forks in the path.

At the forks, there are gates closed across the entrance to each of the possible paths we can take. They are closed because we haven't gone through them, but they are not locked. We have several gates we can open and go through. Once we make a decision, we open one gate and step through. Once we do this, all the other gates we could have chosen are now locked, because we can never go back and make the choice again.

I believe that at each branching of the path, all the gates that are there are unlocked and available for us to go through. This is because each gate represents a choice that we could conceivably make, and there is nothing stopping us from, in theory, choosing any one of them. But if our lives were predestined, each time we come to a fork, we would find all the gates are locked bar one, and that is the gate we must go through. We do not choose which gate, the choice has been made for us. That is the difference between predestination and free will.

There are many ways to look at it, and look we do. The fact we look does not define the facts. By this I don't mean to discredit how you look, but to point out another fact: that how a thing looks to us, and how we act upon what we see doesn't hinder the driven course of history.

I think it is worth mentioning that for First Cause to be First Cause, logically it seems to me, it must operate on a different level or from a different KIND of existence from us. It is that different. Among the differences is the time-independent, intimate, involvement in the particulars of its Creation. To me, if God is not First Cause, he is not God. God is not one of the inhabitants of this Universe the way we are. He is not subject to our understanding of the principles we espouse. God does, and so we do. It is the difference between Creator and created.

I don't think that it is mere philosophy that produces images of things like an inventor watching his machine tick along, or an engineer making his computer accomplish a task. God is every bit that much more "alive" than we are. It is more than a man guiding his puppy along --God is the very substance of that puppy's being. The puppy would cease to exist without God upholding its existence. We are not God's peers. We are not his essence, but he is ours. He owns us --we don't own him. Our will is in every way subject to his.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Considering English as it is spoken by native speakers leads to the conclusion that, while your sentence is grammatically sound, it is nonsense. A choice one is unknowingly forced into is not a choice.

You seem to equate "force" with "cause". Have it your way. But don't pretend our wills are not therefore completely involved in the decisions we make, simply because God chose first.

 

[Strathos]

No, me being predetermined to die at 84 locks me into one specific outcome. I have zero choice in the matter. I am forced down a single path.

Me being limited by the speed of light does not lock me into one specific outcome. There are still many different paths I can take.

You can still take any number of paths in your life.

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to be missing the fact that if I have free choice, then I must be the one doing the choosing. If God is making the choice, then I am not, and thus I am not acting of my own free choice.

This simple fact seems to be elusive to you for some reason.

I think what they’re trying to say is that God’s choices in the past have an effect or influence on your choices now, but also that God’s choice in the past was effected or influenced by your choice now since he was aware of all your choices back then. Maybe quantum physics can explain it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.amp

Or

Can the future affect the past? – Physics World

 

[Ophiolite]

My words: A choice one is unknowingly forced into is not a choice.

You seem to equate "force" with "cause". Have it your way. But don't pretend our wills are not therefore completely involved in the decisions we make, simply because God chose first.

If I am able to make a choice that differs for the one that God has chosen for me that requires that my will is stronger than God. If I am not able to make a different choice from the one made by God, then I do not have free will.
You say "have it your way". My way respects logic and language. Yours, not so much.

 

[Kylie]

Lol, we seem to be repeating ourselves.

Again, the fact you do the choosing does not mean someone else did not also choose to cause you to make that choice.

And again, if someone is causing me to do a thing, then the choice to do it is not mine. If someone makes me "choose", then it is not a choice, because I am not freely choosing. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, yet you seem incapable of grasping it.

 

[Kylie]

You can still take any number of paths in your life.

Not if predestination has locked all but one.

 

[Kylie]

I think what they’re trying to say is that God’s choices in the past have an effect or influence on your choices now, but also that God’s choice in the past was effected or influenced by your choice now since he was aware of all your choices back then. Maybe quantum physics can explain it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.amp

Or

Can the future affect the past? – Physics World

I know what they are trying to say, but it relies on "influence" being the same as "force." Something can influence me without forcing me.

 

[Strathos]

Not if predestination has locked all but one.

Just because it ends the same doesn't mean there aren't an infinite number of paths to get there.

 

[HitchSlap]

So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.

This is why I'm incapable of belief in god/s.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You seem to equate "force" with "cause". Have it your way. But don't pretend our wills are not therefore completely involved in the decisions we make, simply because God chose first.

I think you do not understand that causing something to happen is the same as forcing it to happen. While there are slight differences in semantics for each word, and the linguistic baggage each carries differ, in this instance there is no difference in meaning. From Merriam-Webster definition of force (bolding mine):

3: to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
//forced to admit my error
//the last minute goal forced overtime


Of course, if you'd like to provide your particular definitions showing how causing and forcing are different, we may get a better understanding of what you believe is going on.

 

[Kylie]

Just because it ends the same doesn't mean there aren't an infinite number of paths to get there.

If something is predestined, there is only one path to get there. The path you were predestined to take.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My words: A choice one is unknowingly forced into is not a choice. If I am able to make a choice that differs for the one that God has chosen for me that requires that my will is stronger than God. If I am not able to make a different choice from the one made by God, then I do not have free will.
You say "have it your way". My way respects logic and language. Yours, not so much.

Hahaha. Nice.

Since you claim free will in the face of the existence of First Cause, let me show you some logic: According to science, "the seeds" of everything we now have were sown at the beginning --First Cause. In other words, EVERY little thing that happens now, is CAUSED. You want to define free will as uncaused? Partly caused? You want to play with semantics and say "you could have" when in fact "you didn't"? Then you are invoking CHANCE as a player. Chance cannot play --it is a logical fail as a player. It is self-contradictory to say chance can determine anything.

Or are you going to say that "will" is above all that, and not subject to cause-and-effect, nor need "will" make decisions caused by cause-and-effect? Are you going to say that "will" is not natural? (And I get catcalls for believing in the supernatural!)

 

[Mark Quayle]

If something is predestined, there is only one path to get there. The path you were predestined to take.

How does that negate choice?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How does that negate choice?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And again, if someone is causing me to do a thing, then the choice to do it is not mine. If someone makes me "choose", then it is not a choice, because I am not freely choosing. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, yet you seem incapable of grasping it.

I get the concept. But it is not logically derived. It is an attempt at definitions, where you attribute more ability to human will than it possesses.

Read my response to Ophiolite here:

"Since you claim free will in the face of the existence of First Cause, let me show you some logic: According to science, "the seeds" of everything we now have were sown at the beginning --First Cause. In other words, EVERY little thing that happens now, is CAUSED. You want to define free will as uncaused? Partly caused? You want to play with semantics and say "you could have" when in fact "you didn't"? Then you are invoking CHANCE as a player. Chance cannot play --it is a logical fail as a player. It is self-contradictory to say chance can determine anything.

Or are you going to say that "will" is above all that, and not subject to cause-and-effect, nor need "will" make decisions caused by cause-and-effect? Are you going to say that "will" is not natural? (And I get catcalls for believing in the supernatural!)"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hahaha. Nice.

Since you claim free will in the face of the existence of First Cause, let me show you some logic: According to science, "the seeds" of everything we now have were sown at the beginning --First Cause. In other words, EVERY little thing that happens now, is CAUSED. You want to define free will as uncaused? Partly caused? You want to play with semantics and say "you could have" when in fact "you didn't"? Then you are invoking CHANCE as a player. Chance cannot play --it is a logical fail as a player. It is self-contradictory to say chance can determine anything.

Or are you going to say that "will" is above all that, and not subject to cause-and-effect, nor need "will" make decisions caused by cause-and-effect? Are you going to say that "will" is not natural? (And I get catcalls for believing in the supernatural!)

Seriously? There's you saying "First Cause" and causality are responsible for everything, but at the same time saying you can ignore causality and make your own choices. You contradict yourself in a single sentence but seem completely unable to understand this fact.

Question for you: if everything is caused by a previous event, how is free will possible?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you do not understand that causing something to happen is the same as forcing it to happen. While there are slight differences in semantics for each word, and the linguistic baggage each carries differ, in this instance there is no difference in meaning. From Merriam-Webster definition of force (bolding mine):

3: to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
//forced to admit my error
//the last minute goal forced overtime


Of course, if you'd like to provide your particular definitions showing how causing and forcing are different, we may get a better understanding of what you believe is going on.

No, you described it quite well. If you wish to call causing "forcing" that is up to you. But like you said, the two carry different baggage. That's why I said they are not equal. I happily admit, for example, that God did not confer with me first, nor ask my permission, before changing my heart. But I do not say that he forced me. When he gives me options to obey or disobey, and works on my heart to do according to his good will, in this I still choose, just as when he regenerated me (gave me new life) I indeed also chose to receive him --but how could I do otherwise when he is the source of my choice?

I expect you don't really want to hear about my beliefs concerning God, but God is part of the OP. But if you need to hail to "science" since the OP does, then call God "First Cause". For now you can even rule out "With Intent" without my immediate objection, though if you wish to argue that point, yes, I will object.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Seriously? There's you saying "First Cause" and causality are responsible for everything, but at the same time saying you can ignore causality and make your own choices. You contradict yourself in a single sentence but seem completely unable to understand this fact.

Question for you: if everything is caused by a previous event, how is free will possible?

You are right. I can't even find the single sentence where I contradicted myself. Perhaps you could oblige. Also, since apparently you say that me saying "you (I) can ignore causality, and make my own choices" (apparently those were my words and not your interpretation of what I said), contradicts the fact that everything is caused, you can show how what I do within my thinking during my decision-making, is relevant to the fact that everything is caused.