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

[Mark Quayle]

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.

This is the point, though. By universe, we mean all that is --including all that was-- minus the one uncaused first cause. Not only what we know, is the universe, but what we don't know, (as long as it is true --not simply imagined). If we include First Cause in The Universe, we have principled First Cause subject to Principle, which is illogical. First Cause also caused principle.

First Cause has more supporting evidence than the posits claimed as basis for many scientific pursuits. Perhaps the strongest is that very need to solve infinite regression of cause-and-effect.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps the strongest is that very need to solve infinite regression of cause-and-effect.

What we think of as classical cause and effect may not apply in a scenario involving the origin of space-time itself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What we think of as classical cause and effect may not apply in a scenario involving the origin of space-time itself.

Do you find validity in the idea of First Cause not being subject to principle as such, but the cause of principle --even if, as you seem here to suggest-- the law of cause-and-effect itself is a 3rd level effect? The words turn on themselves to say such a thing, yet I cannot get away from the notion that First Cause is not only logically necessary, but actually prevalent.

I agree that all principles turn on themselves if they are considered self-existent and if self-existence is the only meaning for "reality", which is another reason I say that First Cause is not merely principle.

 

[Ophiolite]

The words turn on themselves to say such a thing, yet I cannot get away from the notion that First Cause is not only logically necessary, but actually prevalent.

(Emphasis added).

I'm not sure the opinion of a bipedal ape on a tiny planet, orbiting an obscure star in one galaxy out of billions counts very much when postulating the nature of and origin of all things. I prefer the more modest, "I have absolutely no idea".

 

[Tone]

You appear to be under the false impression that all science is reductionist. This could account for your faulty conclusions.

Any examples of a science that does not label and distinguish things (this is what it reduces personality to)?

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.

You can just as easily say anything you want, but the fact of the matter is that we have not observed dragons, turtles, unicorns, leprechauns, etc...doing what human beings do, as self aware personalities able to discuss such things and to fashion the world as we have. This is in line with being made in the image of the Creator, as the Bible says. The Bible also explains that our Creator is a Person...what do you know. If we were in the image of any of those "fantastic beasts", we would be discussing nothing and doing nothing, as they do.

 

[46AND2]

Any examples of a science that does not label and distinguish things (this is what it reduces personality to)?



You can just as easily say anything you want, but the fact of the matter is that we have not observed dragons, turtles, unicorns, leprechauns, etc...doing what human beings do, as self aware personalities able to discuss such things and to fashion the world as we have. This is in line with being made in the image of the Creator, as the Bible says. The Bible also explains that our Creator is a Person...what do you know. If we were in the image of any of those "fantastic beasts", we would be discussing nothing and doing nothing, as they do.

We have nothing to distinguish a supreme being from any of those fantastic beasts. "Person-like" attributes from the imagination of primitive people does not make the concept any more reasonable than any fantastic beast.

 

[46AND2]

This is the point, though. By universe, we mean all that is --including all that was-- minus the one uncaused first cause. Not only what we know, is the universe, but what we don't know, (as long as it is true --not simply imagined). If we include First Cause in The Universe, we have principled First Cause subject to Principle, which is illogical. First Cause also caused principle.

First Cause has more supporting evidence than the posits claimed as basis for many scientific pursuits. Perhaps the strongest is that very need to solve infinite regression of cause-and-effect.

A beginning (and 'first' as well) marks a point in time. Time did not even exist "prior" to the expansion of the singularity. In light of that, the concept of first cause itself makes no sense.

 

[dad]

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.

Fine. I like when believers in science admit freely that they basically do not know what they are talking about regarding the way the past was. After all, if one says he may be missing much of the facts and doesn't really know, any model of the past they came up with would be viewed as a half baked guess destined to change. Fine with me.

 

[Tone]

"Person-like" attributes from the imagination of primitive people does not make the concept any more reasonable than any fantastic beast.

Let's just say that this is true--that the Bible arose merely from the imagination of primitive people. How do you account for the fact that the Bible and its contents are not and have never been treated on par with fairy tales, at no time in history. Has anyone ever gave their life to preserve mother goose?

*All these people over thousands of years must have found something reasonable.

 

[pitabread]

Fine. I like when believers in science admit freely that they basically do not know what they are talking about regarding the way the past was. After all, if one says he may be missing much of the facts and doesn't really know, any model of the past they came up with would be viewed as a half baked guess destined to change. Fine with me.

The fundamental assumption that underpins science is the idea of an objective universe. In that framework, we certainly can derive and test models of the universe's past.

However since you appear to reject the idea of an object universe, then all bets are off. Though in past discussions (no pun intended), you do not appear to have an epistemological basis. I'm not sure how one can even function in that framework.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

And that is your fundamental belief causing you to completely ignore an abundance of objective (scientific) evidence for what you're discounting.

Where do you think the meaning for the term 'existence' came from? (A pertinent question for someone who wants to identify causes). Do you think it was just floating around somewhere in the universe waiting for us to grab and use it? Nope, all the evidence points to that we, (English speaking), humans to decide what we want the word 'existence' to mean.

'It is what it is' is a childish truism which completely ignores where the meanings used in this phrase originated. Language is ours. We use it to communicate and explain what we perceive amongst ourselves.

One has to outright deny an abundance of evidence in order to argue against that we 'own' the meanings of the terms we use. Your logic is totally reliant on that affirming evidence. There is zero evidence that they simply materialised out of the blue.

 

[46AND2]

Let's just say that this is true--that the Bible arose merely from the imagination of primitive people. How do you account for the fact that the Bible and its contents are not and have never been treated on par with fairy tales, at no time in history. Has anyone ever gave their life to preserve mother goose?

*All these people over thousands of years must have found something reasonable.

Is there anything reasonable to you about the Koran? The Book of Mormon?

 

[SelfSim]

The fundamental assumption that underpins science is the idea of an objective universe. In that framework, we certainly can derive and test models of the universe's past.

I would say that the observation of: we constantly conceive models, (and sometimes test them), uniquely distinguishes the scientific method. There is no need for any 'fundamental {preconceived} assumption' when this is recognised.
'The universe' then, is just one of many testable models - and nothing more than that.
(Ie: No assumptions are needed prior to doing science).

 

[pitabread]

I think it does give some explanatory power; I cannot accept a God who is less than First Cause. And since God, is necessarily as First Cause above all, and all powerful, and all things were made by him, I can also begin to see that he makes according to his nature, and for his own sake, and many other things begin to make sense, including sin.

Unless I'm misinterpreting the above, it sounds like you are looking for explanatory power strictly in terms of theology. Although I would still argue that the first cause argument still do not offer explanatory power in that regard and consequently the above sounds more like validation as opposed to explanation. This is especially since there are no implicit theological implications with respect to the first cause argument by itself.

If by "explanatory power" you are referring to the physical / mathematical provable ways how he did what he did, I think we would have to go a lot further with our cosmology.

When I refer to explanatory power, I'm referring to an explanation that offers a greater degree of knowledge or understanding of the question at hand.

So maybe you are right there, yet I keep hearing hints --eg. people like to say quantum particles appear from nowhere, uncaused --really?

This is why I suggest anyone looking to the origin of the universe, first examine research in quantum mechanics. There are a lot of things in quantum mechanics that defy conventional knowledge or understanding (such as bending of normal causality). You have to be willing to forget

Also, long believed laws like conservation of energy, and logical laws like non-contradiction and so on, at least to me, point to both his nature and the necessary fact that those very laws --indeed logic and existence itself, are his "inventions", which he did not suddenly himself pop into being subjected to. They may seem to be simply "what is" or "the way of things" but that has, to my mind at least, be his arrangement. Not simply fact.

This is all a very "classical" way of looking at the universe, which is why I think the first cause argument inherently fails. You can't necessarily assume classic physics apply to the origin of the universe and indeed we already can determine that's not really the case.

This is where I'd suggest researching further into quantum mechanics, which will challenge many preconceptions about how the universe fundamentally operates.

 

[Tone]

Is there anything reasonable to you about the Koran? The Book of Mormon?

I have not read (snippets here and there) those books. Have they been treated on par with the Bible and have any given their lives to preserve them?

 

[pitabread]

I would say that the observation of: we constantly conceive models, (and sometimes test them), uniquely distinguishes the scientific method. There is no need for any 'fundamental {preconceived} assumption' when this is recognised.
'The universe' then, is just one of many testable models - and nothing more than that.
(Ie: No assumptions are needed prior to doing science).

For scientific testing to have any meaning requires a degree of assumption about the nature of universe. Namely that the universe itself is an objective baseline against which to test such ideas, models, etc.

If the universe weren't assumed to be an objective baseline, then anything derived via scientific inquiry wouldn't mean anything.

I liken this to asking the question, "does God have their finger on the scale?"

If I weigh an apple via a bunch of different methods and it consistently yields a weight of 100g, it seems reasonable to conclude the apple weighs 100g. But if those results were continually manipulated by an invisible, omnipotent deity, how could I ever tell? Perhaps the apple only weighs 75g. Or 125g. Etc.

Only by assuming inherent objectivity does that 100g result have meaning.

 

[SelfSim]

For scientific testing to have any meaning requires a degree of assumption about the nature of universe. Namely that the universe itself is an objective baseline against which to test such ideas, models, etc.

I understand this is one way of thinking about it .. but it puts the emphasis of all ensuing discussions on the existence of a 'something', which then admits the existence of a 'something' else referred to as God (or First Cause) .. which is untestable, whereas only models are testable.

If the universe weren't assumed to be an objective baseline, then anything derived via scientific inquiry wouldn't mean anything.

Sure it would - because meaning is what we do and its us who do observing. The idea is that its always been us humans adding meanings to perceptions, in order to describe them.

I liken this to asking the question, "does God have their finger on the scale?"

If I weigh an apple via a bunch of different methods and it consistently yields a weight of 100g, it seems reasonable to conclude the apple weighs 100g. But if those results were continually manipulated by an invisible, omnipotent deity, how could I ever tell? Perhaps the apple only weighs 75g. Or 125g. Etc.

Its your fundamental assumption which begs the question of the 'invisible, omnipotent deity'. No such thing arises in the alternative I'm proposing (which is evidence based .. with no untestable preconceived assumptions).

Only by assuming inherent objectivity does that 100g result have meaning.

I don't think so .. the meaning is created by us .. not some believed, untestable 'inherent objectivity' .. (Just sayin').

 

[pitabread]

understand this is one way of thinking about it .. but it puts the emphasis of all ensuing discussions on the existence of a 'something', which then admits the existence of a 'something' else referred to as God (or First Cause) .. which is untestable, whereas only models are testable.

I'm not quite sure how you took this from what I posted. Assuming the universe is inherently objective doesn't assume the existence of anything else beyond the universe itself. All the assumption of an objective universe does is assume there isn't something else inherently meddling with the nature of the universe (as per the prior thought experiment I described).

Because if the latter is the case (e.g. the universe is non-objective) then all bets are off.

Its your fundamental assumption which begs the question of the 'invisible, omnipotent deity'. No such thing arises in the alternative I'm proposing (which is evidence based .. with no untestable preconceived assumptions).

The example I listed is strictly a thought experiment. I'm not making any such claims that such a being exists.

It's simply meant to illustrate the problem of answering the question, if the universe wasn't objective, how would you tell? The same problem is equally illustrated by other thought experiments, Last Thursdayism probably the most notable.

I don't think so .. the meaning is created by us .. not some believed, untestable 'inherent objectivity' .. (Just sayin').

Without the assumption of objectivity inherent to the measurement process, one cannot reasonably conclude the apple weighs 100g. That's the point.

 

[46AND2]

I have not read (snippets here and there) those books. Have they been treated on par with the Bible and have any given their lives to preserve them?

People have been willing to die for a great many beliefs; it says nothing about the veracity of those beliefs.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Emphasis added).

I'm not sure the opinion of a bipedal ape on a tiny planet, orbiting an obscure star in one galaxy out of billions counts very much when postulating the nature of and origin of all things. I prefer the more modest, "I have absolutely no idea".

I agree about the bipedal fool. And I am one. As are we all. That doesn't mean we can't think on it and even come up with some valid ideas.

Not to disparage your pov, but the Bible makes it clear that "I have no idea" doesn't give us excuse. Further, it makes it pretty clear that those who do so, to whatever degree they do so, do so because they are unwilling to submit to God's authority. I call that pride.

If you reject the Bible, ok, have at it, but as far as I have been able to tell, to ignore the compelling logic that First Cause is (so far) the only valid posit to explain existence, is intellectual dishonesty. Most who have done so, that I have posted with, eventually stop thinking about it, because their chain of logic begins to fragment at some point. To merely say, "I don't know", might hint at misgivings beyond intellectual. (But I could be wrong --there are many reasons to say "I don't know").