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

[Strathos]

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.

You're suggesting it's a real game scenario instead of a tablebase abstraction, which it was presented as.

 

[Tolworth John]

That's not true, a claim without evidence is just...well...a claim. I could say I think an all powerful, eternal K9 called Fido was that cause with equal evidence behind the claim. Actually not quite equal because we know that K9s exist.

The evidence you and I have to account for is the universe we live in.
What is your reasonable explanation for why it is here?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You're suggesting it's a real game scenario instead of a tablebase abstraction, which it was presented as.

It was presented as an analogy for predestination. I have shown that it is no such thing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How would you present a logical argument to prove this?

He believes cause-and-effect necessarily depends on time, as (apparently, then) does sequence. I think logical sequence does not, except as we experience it, and so, therefore, neither does cause-and-effect. A being who is independent of time should be able to cause without reference to time.

This is particularly important to my thinking, because it seems to me logical, therefore, that God could speak his final creation into ["instantaneous"] being, yet we simply do not see it that way since we are subject to this temporal existence, and have to "go through" it. This is the first thing I tell people when they ask me, "Since God is omnipotent, why not just do the final result, instead of going through all this pain to accomplish it?"

To my thinking, this is how much of a vapor this temporal existence is, compared to the hard reality from which God operates.

 

[Strathos]

It was presented as an analogy for predestination. I have shown that it is no such thing.

By misinterpreting it and adding factors that weren't originally part of the analogy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But that's not the same thing.

Influencing and leaving options is NOT predeterminism.

God is not like me. I can influence and even leave options. But when God does it, it is no experiment. What he plans will indeed come to pass.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Does not the direction of travel play into the question? As reality would have it, the fact he answered your question before you asked is irrelevant, since you would not get the answer until it arrived, nor would the question get to him until after you asked it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I have no doubt it seems plain to you. Yet you only restate your view, not the facts.

"Open to me" is another vague phrase. The fact you only ever make the one choice each time shows that only it was "open to you", if I want to say so, vague as it is. Or I could say the opposite, since you obviously did have choice. You are saying nothing.

I expect that you would deny that you depend on mere chance since you would claim "open to you" does not mean that all choices were equal --that is, that all choices held equal attraction to you. You have admitted to cause, so how could a different choice have ever happened?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

By misinterpreting it and adding factors that weren't originally part of the analogy.

I assume you are accusing me of misinterpreting things. Here's your original post:

This is a chess position that has been mathematically proven to be a forced win for white, in at most 549 moves.

There are millions, billions, probably even more different ways it could play out, but they all end the same with perfect play by white - black is checkmated.

Just because the ending is already known doesn't mean that black couldn't choose to do any number of different things in order to get there.

Please show how I have misinterpreted or added anything to the scenario.

I'm not interested in you defending the faulty conclusion your analysis leads to ("they all end the same....the ending is already known"), I am only interested in how you think I have misinterpreted or added to the scenario as presented. Please pay particular attention to the parts I have bolded.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Well, at least kudos on leaving the conversation much quicker than Kylie et al, when you can't clarify your vague statement. I wanted to know "which" you were referring to by "In which case..." Your statement is useless without knowing quite what you are referring to.

The fact that the "free" in the term, "free will", is severely limited in scope within predestination, (among other things which demonstrate its limitations), it does not mean there is no real choice --even responsible choice.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God is not like me. I can influence and even leave options. But when God does it, it is no experiment. What he plans will indeed come to pass.

Simple yes/no question: if God makes a choice for you, can you make a different choice for yourself?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The fact that the "free" in the term, "free will", is severely limited in scope within predestination, (among other things which demonstrate its limitations), it does not mean there is no real choice --even responsible choice.

Rejecting the accepted definitions of "free will" and "predestination" without providing alternative definitions does not win you any points. Continual assertion of illogical claims does not win you any points, either.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?


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.

You start off with the notion that God made your choice for you. Well, I don't say that. I say God made HIS choice concerning the same thing that you will also choose (for example, in the Predestination / Free Will debate, usually the subject revolves around salvation-- i.e. if God chose you and determined to save you, you will also choose to be saved). You seem to think it logical that "choice" necessarily implies the possibility of making a different choice. The fact that options present themselves to you before choosing does not imply that they could all equally likely be chosen. The fact is, you will chose the one you want to choose most, (if only for that moment) --that is, you will make the choice that influences you the most.

In fact, the level of CHOICE we humans make is hardly useful on the same level as what God chooses. I could have taken a completely different tack and shown a mathematical set called "God's plan", and put "Your choice" as a tiny subset within it. Since God, to my mind at least, is First Cause, it makes sense to me that Deism (where God only started things rolling) is bunk, and instead that he is intrinsically involved in all existence and fact, not only upholding but causing.

I do not say that God left you the possibility of making a different choice. Where do you get that? Kylie uses the phrase, "up to you", which pretty well defines what I mean by "choice", though she thinks it necessarily implies all options are indeed available rather than merely appearing to be available. I tell her that the choice is "up to you" regardless of the inequality of options, only in that they appear to be equally possible, and so you choose only the most apparently favorable. To me, that is entirely logical, though perhaps someone can show me how the options are actually available-- so far it has only been asserted, not demonstrated to me.

The only thing that ever happens, as far as can be scientifically demonstrated, is whatever happens. How can you be sure there are other actual possibilities?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simple yes/no question: if God makes a choice for you, can you make a different choice for yourself?

Again, you like the word "for" in "makes the choice for you". Define please.

Maybe it would help to say it is two different choices, God makes his choice, you make yours. Yours is dependent on his. Does that help?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Rejecting the accepted definitions of "free will" and "predestination" without providing alternative definitions does not win you any points. Continual assertion of illogical claims does not win you any points, either.

I could do like some Calvinists and say that only God has Free Will. It is true, according to one definition (or use) of the word, "free".

I say we have free will only as a concession to the fact that indeed we do have real, responsible, choice. Meanwhile, "predestination" goes a lot farther than people normally apply it.

To go with the "accepted definitions" would imply "accepted beliefs" such as the idea that they cannot co-exist, which to me is bunk.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You start off with the notion that God made your choice for you. Well, I don't say that. I say God made HIS choice concerning the same thing that you will also choose (for example, in the Predestination / Free Will debate, usually the subject revolves around salvation-- i.e. if God chose you and determined to save you, you will also choose to be saved).

The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.

You seem to think it logical that "choice" necessarily implies the possibility of making a different choice. The fact that options present themselves to you before choosing does not imply that they could all equally likely be chosen. The fact is, you will chose the one you want to choose most, (if only for that moment) --that is, you will make the choice that influences you the most.

Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.

In fact, the level of CHOICE we humans make is hardly useful on the same level as what God chooses. I could have taken a completely different tack and shown a mathematical set called "God's plan", and put "Your choice" as a tiny subset within it. Since God, to my mind at least, is First Cause, it makes sense to me that Deism (where God only started things rolling) is bunk, and instead that he is intrinsically involved in all existence and fact, not only upholding but causing.

You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.

I do not say that God left you the possibility of making a different choice. Where do you get that? Kylie uses the phrase, "up to you", which pretty well defines what I mean by "choice", though she thinks it necessarily implies all options are indeed available rather than merely appearing to be available. I tell her that the choice is "up to you" regardless of the inequality of options, only in that they appear to be equally possible, and so you choose only the most apparently favorable. To me, that is entirely logical, though perhaps someone can show me how the options are actually available-- so far it has only been asserted, not demonstrated to me.

You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Maybe it would help to say it is two different choices, God makes his choice, you make yours. Yours is dependent on his. Does that help?

If it's different choices, then God has not made the same choice. You just can't keep a straight argument, can you? And it still avoids your impossible claim that, if God chooses something and I must do it, I have free will in not being able to choose any other option.

Do you think Henry Ford was giving punters a choice with his line "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.

Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.


You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.


You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.

It appears to me you aren't very well reading what I wrote, or that what seem to you to be logical implications from the terminology do not work logically.

Let me try again. If you are presented with a choice of APPARENT options, is it not still choice?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it's different choices, then God has not made the same choice. You just can't keep a straight argument, can you? And it still avoids your impossible claim that, if God chooses something and I must do it, I have free will in not being able to choose any other option.

Do you think Henry Ford was giving punters a choice with his line "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black"?

Lol, ok, I can't keep the argument in the terms with which I began. Happy? But the reason I can't is pretty simple --I can't seem to get my terms to fit your terms.

My point has not changed, nor has the logic behind why it is true. Predestination of absolutely everything, and Real, Responsible Choice are both possible at the same time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The point here is that this position usually indicates that only certain things are predestined. It allows some choices to remain subject to free will. That is not the position you have adopted whereby God makes all choices, therefore every action is predestined and free will is non-existent.

Where have I ever said all choices must be equally probable? That's a nonsensical strawman.


You keep saying this, but NEVER explain how God can make a choice for you while still leaving you a choice to make - it is a logical impossibility. You just assert it again and again but cannot support the claim. It's nonsense, it's illogical, it's impossible.


You contradict yourself. If there are options available, then God has not made my choice for me. The choice is still mine to make, no matter what the likelihood of me choosing one option over another.

Yes, I know that is how it is usually argued, but not usually so from the Reformed POV. There is no need to say some things are predestined but other things are not. In fact, the logical implication of saying that is either that some people are intrinsically better than others, (i.e. not even better because God made them better) or that absolute CHANCE has some sort of ability to determine. Both are bunk.

I may have mistaken what you said, or who I was talking to, but: If all choices are not equally probable, as you and Kylie now both admit, how can any but the one be chosen? "There is a 100% chance that what will happen will happen".

I "keep saying this" --what is the "this" you are referring to?

Again, I AM NOT saying that God makes the choice FOR us. He makes his, we make ours. Ours is dependent on his, yes, and ours, I say for the sake of clarity, is a choice of options apparent to us, but the final choice will indeed be what he decides we will make.

To put it in hard terms: God has decided absolutely everything that will happen. We see apparent options available from which to choose. God uses influences to cause us to make the choices we do from those apparent options. The fact is, only one of those is actual, (as can be seen retrospectively by the fact it has been done, and the others have not).