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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If he is travelling faster than c he would answer your question before you even asked it.

Sorry, you lost me...

 

[HARK!]

Wikipedia is being very general; nevertheless, there is no reference to 'causes'

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

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?

Only one path in existence. If there was a room with three doors, but two of them were fake doors just put on the wall and they didn't open, and even if you could remove the door there'd just be solid wall behind it, and one real door, could you freely choose which door you went through? No. You are just forced to change every time until you get to the door that is real.

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

No I'm not. Because what happens if I choose a path I think is there but it's one of the ones that isn't real?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

Indeed it is, and without an arrow of time, you have neither.

 

[Kylie]

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.

I wouldn't call that predestination, since it doesn't lock the children into a set course of action.

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

Yes it does.

Let's say a person is predestined to go overseas as an exchange student. The student MUST therefore hear about the exchange program, so that's another thing that must be predetermined. The student MUST carry out certain actions in order to be at the right place at the right time to find out about the exchange program. So there's more things that need to be predetermined. Because if any one of the things leading up to the student enrolling in the student exchange program doesn't happen, they can't get to their predetermined outcome.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

Before I repeat my question you still have not answered, nor do I wish, (nor does God), to change your choice. Do you make up hypotheticals on self-defeating notions often? But we weren't talking about changing choices. We were talking about two choosing what would happen.

Ok, I will explain. If, as you allow, influence can still leave options, what difference does it make where those influences come from? It doesn't, as far as your ability to choose is concerned. You still choose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In which case there is no free will.

In which case --that you are a slave, or that it has been planned? You will always do what you want, even when you don't think you want to, you do what for that moment you want to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But if the choice has already been made, then it's not my choice, is it? So whatever was driving that choice, it wasn't up to me in any way.

How do you explain that you choosing as caused by influences, as you claim is done without God arranging for your choice, is a different sort of thing if God does arrange those causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Only one path in existence. If there was a room with three doors, but two of them were fake doors just put on the wall and they didn't open, and even if you could remove the door there'd just be solid wall behind it, and one real door, could you freely choose which door you went through? No. You are just forced to change every time until you get to the door that is real.



No I'm not. Because what happens if I choose a path I think is there but it's one of the ones that isn't real?

Failed analogy. You will choose one of the three doors, fake or not. If you get the only real door, you may choose to go through it, but the fact two are fake does not negate you choosing one of the three.

 

[HARK!]

Indeed it is, and without an arrow of time, you have neither.

How would you present a logical argument to prove this?

 

[Kylie]

Before I repeat my question you still have not answered, nor do I wish, (nor does God), to change your choice. Do you make up hypotheticals on self-defeating notions often? But we weren't talking about changing choices. We were talking about two choosing what would happen.

Ok, I will explain. If, as you allow, influence can still leave options, what difference does it make where those influences come from? It doesn't, as far as your ability to choose is concerned. You still choose.

But that's not the same thing.

Influencing and leaving options is NOT predeterminism.

 

[Kylie]

How do you explain that you choosing as caused by influences, as you claim is done without God arranging for your choice, is a different sort of thing if God does arrange those causes?

If I am just being influenced, other possible paths are still open to me.

If my choice is arranged for me, the other paths are no longer open to me.

I have explained this countless times now. It is not a difficult idea to grasp. I can only conclude that you are intentionally misunderstanding my arguments.

 

[Ophiolite]

In which case --that you are a slave, or that it has been planned? You will always do what you want, even when you don't think you want to, you do what for that moment you want to do.

I can find no coherent logic in that. Why don't you pretend it makes sense and I'll pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Before I repeat my question you still have not answered, nor do I wish, (nor does God), to change your choice. Do you make up hypotheticals on self-defeating notions often? But we weren't talking about changing choices. We were talking about two choosing what would happen.

I'm not talking about changing, either, it's just a problem with language that there is no word for what I'm trying to convey. What I'm driving at is: please explain how it is possible for God to make a choice for me but at the same time leave me the possibility of making a different choice. Put extremely simply - can I choose something other than what God has already chosen?

Ok, I will explain. If, as you allow, influence can still leave options, what difference does it make where those influences come from? It doesn't, as far as your ability to choose is concerned. You still choose.

But your claim is that God makes the choice, not that he influences it. Are you changing your position now?

It strikes me that you change argument repeatedly when backed into a corner, and then circle back to the same refuted claim that, if God makes a choice for you, you can still make a choice yourself even though that choice has already been made for you.

The really revealing part is that you never explain how it is possible for God to make a choice that leaves you with any other option than to do what he has already chosen. You simply assert it and refuse to even try to explain how it is possible. The part in bold above is the part you just handwave away and pretend that it is not a problem.

 

[Kylie]

Failed analogy. You will choose one of the three doors, fake or not. If you get the only real door, you may choose to go through it, but the fact two are fake does not negate you choosing one of the three.

But it does mean that I can only go through one of them. If Door A is the real one, I can not choose to go through Door B. I can not choose to go through a door if it is one of the fake doors.

Once again, the fact that having only one possibility means I do not have a choice - a concept you seem incapable of grasping.

 

[sjastro]

Sorry, you lost me...

It’s an extension of the Minkowski diagram in my previous post.

Here is a simplified Minkowski diagram in a rest frame composed of a vertical t axis (expressed in units ct so it is dimensionally the same as the x axis) and a horizontal x or space axis.

For a photon travelling at c the world line or path in space time forms a 45⁰ angle with the t and x axis as it undergoes equal displacement in both time and space.
Note the line forms a part of the light cone in the Minkowski diagram.

An event is defined as having a position and time coordinate.
If two events occur on the x-axis then each event is only separated in space, there is no temporal displacement as each event occurs at t=0.
This has important consequences as there is no ordering of the events.

This is not a problem for particles travelling at velocities less than c where the world line forms an angle less than 45⁰ with the time axis.
This is because length contraction and time dilation causes the time and space axes to undergo rotation which is the geometrical version of the Lorentz transformations.

For each observer the degree of rotation depends on the velocity of the observer but if each observer travels at less than c they will always be in time like region where causality is not violated.

If the observers travel faster than light they fall in the space like region where causality is violated.
In this case it is possible to define events purely on the x-axis but as shown there is no temporal displacement or time ordering of events.

In the diagram in the time like shaded region event O definitely comes before event P, outside this region in the space like region one cannot tell if O comes before Q or Q comes before O.

From a physics rather than maths perspective what this is amounts to is that O and Q occur in such rapid “succession” that the time difference is less than the time needed for a light ray to traverse the spatial distance between the events.

So it is possible for an observer travelling faster than light to answer your question before it was even asked.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please provide a relevant citation from a work of philosophy, or the history of science that supports this claim. Otherwise your statement may be dismissed as unsupported opinion.

I'm waiting for you to justify your assertions first. Go ahead, I'm listening...

Scientific Proof Is A Myth - Forbes
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof
Where's the proof in science? There is none - The Conversation
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of
Theory - Oregon State University
What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove ..

Testing scientific ideas - Understanding Science
Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science. Any aspect of the natural world could be explained in many different ways.

The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
Testing Scientific Theories

Scientific Hypothesis vs Theory vs Law | Futurism
Testing Gravity with Gravitational Wave Source Counts

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm waiting for you to justify your assertions first. Go ahead, I'm listening...

Any words not mine already?

 

[Strathos]

Seriously? I listed just 4 out of hundreds of possible outcomes, and you agreed they are all possible. They included wins for both white and black. And now you want to claim there is only one outcome?

You're adding extra parameters to the scenario. Resigning and such is not part of this... it was discovered with tablebase research, a database of all possible moves with a limited number of pieces on the board.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You're adding extra parameters to the scenario. Resigning and such is not part of this... it was discovered with tablebase research, a database of all possible moves with a limited number of pieces on the board.

I'm not adding anything. You claimed that "mathematically white will win at some indeterminate point" is a good example for predestination; I have demonstrated that using the parameters you gave for your scenario white is not guaranteed to win, victory can come at multiple possible points and it's actually not an example of predestination in any way at all.