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

[Strathos]

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.

All of those are. Just different types.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Choice perceives more than one path. Predestination provides that perception, and all the causes by which the chooser is influenced. The chooser indeed chooses, and if the chooser had chosen differently, THAT would have been what was predestined. I really don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I could say you are not "locked in" any more than you are "forced" but that is semantics. You WILL choose, of your own "free will" according to all the influences and desires that drive you, a slave to your desires and your mind and your intellect; you will do what you want to do, and that has already been planned.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Likewise, you seem to be unable to comprehend that if you admit to influences, yet insist it is still choice, it should suddenly somehow NOT be choice that God caused those influences.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Science doesn't even hint at why matter exists.

So it's not as if there is a gap in knowledge. Science only describes and observes the properties of what exists.

It's like looking at an infinitely intricate painting that looks infinitely old
and not wondering about the painter. That's not exactly a gap. It's the root of the painting.

All "science" describes is how the layers of paint were laid down and why they blended.
Knowing the artist is the key to understanding a painting.

Knowing God Through Answered Prayer - Steps 1,2,& 3
- They work every time

 

[SLP]

So all you can consider is infinite regression? "All effects are caused". First Cause is not an effect.

No, it is a cop out.

You are assuming a First Cause, and worse - you are assuming that it is your preferred tribal deity.

There is no reason to believe either premise.

 

[Kylie]

Choice perceives more than one path. Predestination provides that perception, and all the causes by which the chooser is influenced. The chooser indeed chooses, and if the chooser had chosen differently, THAT would have been what was predestined. I really don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

If I perceive there to be several paths and yet there is only one, then it only appears to be a choice. It isn't actually a choice.

 

[Kylie]

I could say you are not "locked in" any more than you are "forced" but that is semantics. You WILL choose, of your own "free will" according to all the influences and desires that drive you, a slave to your desires and your mind and your intellect; you will do what you want to do, and that has already been planned.

if it has already been planned, then it wasn't planned by me, and so it can hardly be MY desires that drive the choice, can it?

 

[Ken-1122]

Science doesn't even hint at why matter exists.

That’s because science doesn’t know.

So it's not as if there is a gap in knowledge.

But there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

Science only describes and observes the properties of what exists.

It's like looking at an infinitely intricate painting that looks infinitely old
and not wondering about the painter. That's not exactly a gap. It's the root of the painting.

All "science" describes is how the layers of paint were laid down and why they blended.
Knowing the artist is the key to understanding a painting.

Knowing God Through Answered Prayer - Steps 1,2,& 3
- They work every time

No, Paintings have painters; we know that. There is no evidence that matter was created, so to assume it was, then assume this creator is God is what they call “God of the gaps” argument; IOW it provides empty claims where science does not have answers.

 

[SkyWriting]

That’s because science doesn’t know.But there are gaps in scientific knowledge.No, Paintings have painters; we know that. There is no evidence that matter was created, so to assume it was, then assume this creator is God is what they call “God of the gaps” argument; IOW it provides empty claims where science does not have answers.

It's not a "Gap". It's the source of all reality.
It's the reason we have a soul.
The reason we think we are people.
It's the reason we know we are thinking.
The reason gravity exists.
The reason the strong force operates stronger at greater distances the opposite of all other forces.
It is the source of all the forces.
It is the reason life exists instead of non-life.

Science only just observes a few of the things we see.
The source of all we see is not even considered.

Science can't provide any answers if those answers can change from day to day.
Then it wasn't really an answer.
Math provides answers. Science just offers variables as temporary placeholders.

I know scientists think a lot of themselves. But while they claim they offer answers, they also admit all the "answers" are temporary placeholders in a transient reality. Kind of hard on the ego to admit that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, it is a cop out.

You are assuming a First Cause, and worse - you are assuming that it is your preferred tribal deity.

There is no reason to believe either premise.

Yet you can show no better cause.

First Cause simply is. There is no need to describe it according to my God. The necessary attributes of first cause simply make sense. But if God is not First Cause, he is not God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

if it has already been planned, then it wasn't planned by me, and so it can hardly be MY desires that drive the choice, can it?

It is not your desires that drive God's choice, but yours --yes, indeed it is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I perceive there to be several paths and yet there is only one, then it only appears to be a choice. It isn't actually a choice.

That's a bit vague: "...yet there is only one"what? One path? One path what? One path taken? One path chosen? One path available? One path possible?

Even if there is only one path possible, if you think there is more than one, you are still choosing.

 

[Michael]

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

True, but then as I mentioned, I agree with your position that we do have some amount free will. I would say that there's also some amount of 'predestination' related to when and where we're born, the values we're taught as children, etc.

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.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean we aren't "predisposed" or set upon a predestined path of some sort.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All of those are. Just different types.

1 isn't, the rest are. But that also shows that the chess analogy is poor since there are multiple possible outcomes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Likewise, you seem to be unable to comprehend that if you admit to influences, yet insist it is still choice, it should suddenly somehow NOT be choice that God caused those influences.

Explain. Influence can still leave options, therefore God has not chosen as you claim.

Please, before you go repeating your tired, refuted claim take time to think. If I make a choice, can you change that choice? If so, how? If not, why not? Let's take an example - I choose a yellow ball. Can you now make my choice the green ball?

 

[ruthiesea]

Science does not have all of the answers and scientists know that. It is the strength of science that it is a search for more knowledge. “I don’t know” is the most important phrase in science. As Moses ben Maimon said, “Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress.”

As far as studying the existence of G-d through science goes, Robert L. Dorit said, “The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.”

 

[Ophiolite]

I could say you are not "locked in" any more than you are "forced" but that is semantics. You WILL choose, of your own "free will" according to all the influences and desires that drive you, a slave to your desires and your mind and your intellect; you will do what you want to do, and that has already been planned.

In which case there is no free will.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's not a "Gap". It's the source of all reality.
It's the reason we have a soul.
The reason we think we are people.
It's the reason we know we are thinking.
The reason gravity exists.
The reason the strong force operates stronger at greater distances the opposite of all other forces.
It is the source of all the forces.
It is the reason life exists instead of non-life.

Do you have any proof of any of this? Or am I supposed to assume because you said it, that makes it true. If there were an ounce of merit to any of those claims you’ve made, you should be able to provide something other than your word to back it up; otherwise I will assume those are just more empty claims.

Science only just observes a few of the things we see.

Really? So what are all of these things we see that isn’t observed by science?

The source of all we see is not even considered.

Just because they may not know the source, or if there is a source, doesn't mean they aren't considering it.

Science can't provide any answers if those answers can change from day to day.

No; there are a lot of things that are in a constant state of change answered by science

Then it wasn't really an answer.
Math provides answers. Science just offers variables as temporary placeholders.

I know scientists think a lot of themselves. But while they claim they offer answers, they also admit all the "answers" are temporary placeholders in a transient reality. Kind of hard on the ego to admit that.

Science gives us the best information they have at the moment. Sometimes when they get more information, they update their answers; IOW Science admits to the possibility that they could be wrong. Unfortunately those providing "God did it" answers don't seem willing to do that

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oooo! Big word! I'm glad that I could help you figure out what it means; and teach you a fundamental of science.

Causality isn't actually a fundamental of science.