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

Mark Quayle · Jan 29, 2020

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

Pretty simple, really. "Free Will" is a term I admit to, for the sake of those who would have "spiritual indigestion" if I did not, that simply means we do indeed have real, responsible, choice that brings consequences and even eternal effects. ("Free Will" is not a term the Bible uses except in one instance, where it is used to describe an offering that one is not obligated to make. It does however make use of the word, "predestination", in multiple passages where the meaning is exactly what it says.)

Question for you: if Free Will, or even simply choice, demands options that are equally able to be chosen, why is it that only one is ever chosen? (Engineering calls this hysteresis, lol.) Of course, it is ludicrous to suggest that two or more mutually exclusive choices could be chosen simultaneously, which is kinda my point. Only the one chosen had more influence, or stronger cause, than the other(s). Make it as fine a line as you wish, the principle still pervades.

Strathos · Jan 29, 2020

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

Not at all. Only the endpoint is predetermined, there are an infinite amount of ways to get there. See my chess example.

Michael · Jan 30, 2020

Kylie said:
Missing the point. You did not force your children to follow one particular set of circumstances. You did not predetermine their lives. Providing opportunities is NOT the same thing as predestination.

So you provided opportunities, but you didn't predestine or predetermine anything in your kids' lives.

I didn't *just* provide them with opportunities, my decisions about whom I married, when I chose to have kids, where I lived also ended up limiting their choices of which elementary and high schools they might attend, their friendship opportunities, and affected the types of experiences they had in their early years, etc. I provided a relatively structured framework for them to grow up in, and of course opportunities. I certainly didn't micromanage their lives, but I did make many choices for them in life prior to them becoming adults.

Providing opportunities for your children is not the same thing as predetermining their lives. Your choice to move so they could grow up in a better environment gave them different opportunities, but they still had plenty of choices which were theirs to make.

Sure they made plenty of choices as well, and like I said earlier, I ultimately agree wit you that we all have *some* amount of free will. I'm simply noting that it's not necessarily an 'either/or' scenario. Parts of lives may be predetermined (or guided), whereas some amount of freedom of choice also applies.

Kylie · Jan 30, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
How does that negate choice?

Because a choice requires several paths. Predestination leaves only one path.

Kylie · Jan 30, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
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!)"

I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I know that choices are caused. But they are only true choice when I am the cause. If anything other than me is the cause that locks me into a certain course of action, then it is not my choice.

Kylie · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
Not at all. Only the endpoint is predetermined, there are an infinite amount of ways to get there. See my chess example.

If I recall, that example was pretty nicely refuted.

Kylie · Jan 30, 2020

Michael said:
I didn't *just* provide them with opportunities, my decisions about whom I married, when I chose to have kids, where I lived also ended up limiting their choices of which elementary and high schools they might attend, their friendship opportunities, and affected the types of experiences they had in their early years, etc. I provided a relatively structured framework for them to grow up in, and of course opportunities. I certainly didn't micromanage their lives, but I did make many choices for them in life prior to them becoming adults.

I noticed that you said YOU made the choices, admitting that when someone else makes the choices, it's not actually your kids' choice.

Sure they made plenty of choices as well, and like I said earlier, I ultimately agree wit you that we all have *some* amount of free will. I'm simply noting that it's not necessarily an 'either/or' scenario. Parts of lives may be predetermined (or guided), whereas some amount of freedom of choice also applies.

The trouble is that if we are allowed to choose some things but others are predestined, then we can make choices which will ensure that what has been predestined can never happen.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
See my chess example.

It's an awful example. As I have explained several times there is no predestined result, there are multiple possible results.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 30, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
Only the one chosen had more influence, or stronger cause, than the other(s). Make it as fine a line as you wish, the principle still pervades.

Oh look, now you're talking about influencing with respect to causing. That's not at all what this discussion has been about, so it's a little low to sneakily move those goalposts and hope nobody noticed.

Whatever, if God has, as you claim, already made our choices for us, it doesn't matter if you call that causing, influencing or forcing. The fact remains that God made the choice. You seem to be unable to comprehend the simple fact that we cannot make a choice that does not exist since it has has already been made.

Strathos · Jan 30, 2020

Kylie said:
If I recall, that example was pretty nicely refuted.

You recall incorrectly.

Bungle_Bear said:
It's an awful example. As I have explained several times there is no predestined result, there are multiple possible results.

The result is that black ends up checkmated. There are many paths but they all lead there.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
The result is that black ends up checkmated. There are many paths but they all lead there.

How many turns to checkmate? Does it have to take 159 moves, or could it be fewer? As I pointed out, black can also resign at any point. The clock can run out and black wins. There are hundreds of possible outcomes - that is not what predestination means.

Ophiolite · Jan 30, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
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!)

The next statement is often used on forums as a form of flaming. I do not use it here in this manner, but as a genuine observation that reaches to the heart of this increasingly pointless discussion. You seem to have problems in reading comprehension.

I cite as additional evidence for this perception your mistaken belief that I have expressed a belief in free will. I have not done so. Rather, I have discussed consequences relating to the presence or absence of free will. (I felt compelled to do so. )

As a completely separate issue, which I have no interest in discussing, your comments in this post are directed against a strawman.

Strathos · Jan 30, 2020

Bungle_Bear said:
How many turns to checkmate? Does it have to take 159 moves, or could it be fewer? As I pointed out, black can also resign at any point. The clock can run out and black wins. There are hundreds of possible outcomes - that is not what predestination means.

Assuming perfect play by both sides, black is checkmated in no more than 549 moves. The fact that it could happen earlier if black plays less than perfectly is irrelevant.

Kylie · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
You recall incorrectly.

The fact you don't believe it was refuted does not mean it wasn't. Your chess example was not a valid representation of predestination because it did not lock the game into a single course of action.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
Assuming perfect play by both sides, black is checkmated in no more than 549 moves. The fact that it could happen earlier if black plays less than perfectly is irrelevant.

Could you please explain, in your own words, what predestination is? You appear to have a different definition to the rest of us. Either that or you do not understand the definition we share.

Strathos · Jan 30, 2020

Bungle_Bear said:
Could you please explain, in your own words, what predestination is? You appear to have a different definition to the rest of us. Either that or you do not understand the definition we share.

It does not mean that things are 'locked into a single course of action', as Kylie says, rather that there are events which are inevitable, regardless of the path taken to eventually arrive at them.

Here's another example - take the event horizon of a black hole. Beyond that, all possible paths in both space and time always lead to the singularity. In other words, according to General Relativity, any matter or energy beyond the event horizon can never leave. It can move in any number of directions, but it will always reach the same place.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 30, 2020

Strathos said:
It does not mean that things are 'locked into a single course of action', as Kylie says, rather that there are events which are inevitable, regardless of the path taken to eventually arrive at them.

Here's another example - take the event horizon of a black hole. Beyond that, all possible paths in both space and time always lead to the singularity. In other words, according to General Relativity, any matter or energy beyond the event horizon can never leave. It can move in any number of directions, but it will always reach the same place.

That's still very vague. Using your chess analogy, which of these, in your opinion, is predestination:

1) White will win at some point, maybe by checkmate after an indeterminate number of moves or by black resigning.
2) White will win by checkmate after exactly 76 moves.
3) Black will resign after 3 moves.
4) The clock will run out in 23 minutes and 6 seconds, black will win.

SkyWriting · Jan 30, 2020

JacquelineDeane55 said:
Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

Cause and effect. Matter is made of energy and holds itself into matter with properties.
There is no scientific reason why this happened.
There is no scientific reason why life exists.
There is no scientific reason why people believe in God.
We are the effect and God is the only logical first cause.

Ken-1122 · Jan 30, 2020

JacquelineDeane55 said:
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.

I couldn’t help but noticed but your description of God appears to be the same description of something that does not exist. If I were to describe something that doesn’t exist; if “X” doesn’t exist I would describe "X" as
*Non-material
*Can’t be seen or measured
*And cannot be proven nor disproven by science.

Ken-1122 · Jan 30, 2020

SkyWriting said:
Cause and effect. Matter is made of energy and holds itself into matter with properties.
There is no scientific reason why this happened.
There is no scientific reason why life exists.
There is no scientific reason why people believe in God.
We are the effect and God is the only logical first cause.

Also known as "God of the gaps". If you don't have an answer.... God did it! Works every time (LOL)

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

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

No one important

Contributor

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

Whoot!

No one important

Whoot!

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

No one important

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

No one important

Whoot!

The Librarian

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency