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

[Mark Quayle]

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.

At perhaps the most basic, it marks a point in logical sequence --not necessarily a point in time. With First Cause, I tend to think it caused at both, its creation subject to both, but I can't prove it --meanwhile, I have to admit to the idea that God is above all that, and needn't fit our comprehensions of such things. Truth doesn't need our words, and logic doesn't need OUR thoughts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

No. I'm saying that theology fits First Cause theory. (And vice versa.)

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.

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

Forget what? Are you saying deny what so far has been reliable, and accept a mind open to such logic bending (to put it nicely) concepts like "chance" and "out of nowhere"? Or are you saying for the sake of following what the physicists are saying, to for the sake of argument put them out of reach? Either way, logic must prevail, or they have used the irrelevant to describe what they don't understand.

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.

If classic physics fails, though they used it to determine their new physics, how can their new physics be trusted? Btw, in case you didn't pick up on it, quantum physics smacks of Divine acts.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

I didn't mean to suggest that apes were fools, only deeply ignorant. And I quite agree that applies to you, me and every other member of homo sapiens, though I hesitate to say it applies quite as problematically to our primate cousins. (They haven't brought the biosphere to the brink of desolation!)

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 our intelligence, such as it is, comes from God, then the Bible makes it clear that as a repository of history, significant myth, moral guidance and spiritual evocation it is a valuable part of our cultural heritage, as are the writings of the Bhudda, the Upanishads, the Koran, etc. but it fails to demonstrate it is The Word. I understand you do not agree with that viewpoint.

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.

I don't reject the Bible. I reject your interpretation of its significance. Contemplation of of the origin of existence is way above my pay grade. Intellectual dishonesty, for me, would consist of pretending I was smart enough to think about such things in any meaningful way.

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").

I'm a simple person. My reason for saying I don't know is that I don't know. Alongside that I don't think I can know, nor do I think anyone on this planet, thus far knows, or can know. While this is disappointing, I lose very little sleep over it. I focus on those things that I can know, with a reasonable confidence level. I understand this is unsettling for some people.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn't mean to suggest that apes were fools, only deeply ignorant. And I quite agree that applies to you, me and every other member of homo sapiens, though I hesitate to say it applies quite as problematically to our primate cousins. (They haven't brought the biosphere to the brink of desolation!)

If our intelligence, such as it is, comes from God, then the Bible makes it clear that as a repository of history, significant myth, moral guidance and spiritual evocation it is a valuable part of our cultural heritage, as are the writings of the Bhudda, the Upanishads, the Koran, etc. but it fails to demonstrate it is The Word. I understand you do not agree with that viewpoint.

I don't reject the Bible. I reject your interpretation of its significance. Contemplation of of the origin of existence is way above my pay grade. Intellectual dishonesty, for me, would consist of pretending I was smart enough to think about such things in any meaningful way.

I'm a simple person. My reason for saying I don't know is that I don't know. Alongside that I don't think I can know, nor do I think anyone on this planet, thus far knows, or can know. While this is disappointing, I lose very little sleep over it. I focus on those things that I can know, with a reasonable confidence level. I understand this is unsettling for some people.

Lol, you sound a little proud of your ignorance! JK.

I think if you trust the physicists and cosmologists you are admitting we can go some ways into that direction. However, I agree, they have hardly embarked on the journey. Logic itself, though un-falsifiable, like math, has proven (or at least been assumed) to be dependable by those physicists and most people, even in our limited ability to use it. So far, cause-and-effect remains one of the logical laws we have not been able to escape. I am not saying God depends on our use of that precept, quite to the contrary! But to say we cannot know anything valid about the existence or nature of First Cause because it is beyond our ability to use that precept seems to me either laziness or fear. I say fear, because admitting to first cause implies submission.

 

[Tone]

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

Is veracity the same as reasonable?

 

[Ophiolite]

Lol, you sound a little proud of your ignorance! JK.

I'm certainly proud that I have a fair idea of my limits. I'm certainly proud that that I don't delude myself as to my skill set.

I think if you trust the physicists and cosmologists you are admitting we can go some ways into that direction. However, I agree, they have hardly embarked on the journey. Logic itself, though un-falsifiable, like math, has proven (or at least been assumed) to be dependable by those physicists and most people, even in our limited ability to use it. So far, cause-and-effect remains one of the logical laws we have not been able to escape. I am not saying God depends on our use of that precept, quite to the contrary! But to say we cannot know anything valid about the existence or nature of First Cause because it is beyond our ability to use that precept seems to me either laziness or fear.

Wow! I cannot say anything meaningful about the origin of existence, because I ain't smart enough.
I am, however, smart enough to know that those whose intellect is superior to mine hold strongly divergent views in these metaphysical issues. That tells me we aren't close to an answer yet. And that tells me, while the question is fascinating and might be the most important question we can ever ask, it is utterly pointless for me to ask it.

I say fear, because admitting to first cause implies submission.

You've left it perilously close to the closing date, but that certainly looks like the winner for my 2019 award for Non-Sequitur of the Year.

 

[46AND2]

At perhaps the most basic, it marks a point in logical sequence --not necessarily a point in time. With First Cause, I tend to think it caused at both, its creation subject to both, but I can't prove it --meanwhile, I have to admit to the idea that God is above all that, and needn't fit our comprehensions of such things. Truth doesn't need our words, and logic doesn't need OUR thoughts.

You can't have a logical sequence without time.

 

[46AND2]

Is veracity the same as reasonable?

With respect to its credibility in regard quantity or profoundness of belief, sure; people willing to die for a belief has no bearing on how reasonable that belief is. Things like the Heaven's Gate cult come immediately to mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can't have a logical sequence without time.

I disagree. Cause-and-effect is merely a logical sequence. Sequence only implies time to those who require it, those who are bound by it. God spoke and it was done. No indication of time passage. I easily admit that this whole time of creation evolving as predestined takes time, but that may as well be an envelope of activity made for the purpose of "instantaneously" (also a time reference, but then, I am bound) accomplishing what he spoke into being. We do not yet see the final result, but I think God does.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am, however, smart enough to know that those whose intellect is superior to mine hold strongly divergent views in these metaphysical issues. That tells me we aren't close to an answer yet. And that tells me, while the question is fascinating and might be the most important question we can ever ask, it is utterly pointless for me to ask it.

What about if that metaphysical deigns to speak to you in some meaningful way? Would you insist on your ignorance of its existence?

You've left it perilously close to the closing date, but that certainly looks like the winner for my 2019 award for Non-Sequitur of the Year.

(This you responded to my saying something concerning fear, because acceptance of first cause as fact implies submission.) I'm sure most would disagree with me. Yet I insist that first cause is no mere intellectual consideration. We often (usually?) try to keep it that, but if indeed First Cause With Intent (and so far I can't admit to any other, logically) exists, then we are under its authority. It is no disinterested third party.

Methinks you protesteth too much!

 

[46AND2]

I disagree. Cause-and-effect is merely a logical sequence. Sequence only implies time to those who require it, those who are bound by it. God spoke and it was done. No indication of time passage. I easily admit that this whole time of creation evolving as predestined takes time, but that may as well be an envelope of activity made for the purpose of "instantaneously" (also a time reference, but then, I am bound) accomplishing what he spoke into being. We do not yet see the final result, but I think God does.

Cause and effect requires the passage of time...to say that there is a being that is exempt from this is special pleading, not to mention logically irrational.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Cause and effect requires the passage of time...to say that there is a being that is exempt from this is special pleading, not to mention logically irrational.

No, not if itself (and I can't see how it could be otherwise) is the creator of time and logical sequence. I only claim he is exempt from our understanding of it. "He is not subject to it", let's say, to logic, does not mean he is not logical, nor that logic does not sooner or later lead to, or result in the fact of First Cause. I think I mean that as a reference to the fact that he is the creator of it -not it of him. He is logical, not because it makes sense or is useful to be logical, but logic is what it is, because he is logical.

I understand that paragraph poorly represents what I am trying to say, but please do not take one sentence or phrase out of it without including the rest of them. I mean them to go together, to help to explain each one.

It might be worth noting that I think God created out of his own nature. That is to say, that logic is his nature, so even sequence and time is his creation, and so also all the other natural principles by which this universe operates --efficiency, light, forces --even truth itself.

 

[46AND2]

No, not if itself (and I can't see how it could be otherwise) is the creator of time and logical sequence. I only claim he is exempt from our understanding of it. "He is not subject to it", let's say, to logic, does not mean he is not logical, nor that logic does not sooner or later lead to, or result in the fact of First Cause. I think I mean that as a reference to the fact that he is the creator of it -not it of him. He is logical, not because it makes sense or is useful to be logical, but logic is what it is, because he is logical.

I understand that paragraph poorly represents what I am trying to say, but please do not take one sentence or phrase out of it without including the rest of them. I mean them to go together, to help to explain each one.

It might be worth noting that I think God created out of his own nature. That is to say, that logic is his nature, so even sequence and time is his creation, and so also all the other natural principles by which this universe operates --efficiency, light, forces --even truth itself.

Einstein specifically said that an effect cannot be caused from an event not in its past. It's literally part of the definition of cause and effect. Whatever it is you are trying to promote about god, it is unrelated to cause and effect. It is absolutely special pleading, and as such is unreasonable as a conclusion to the "beginning" of everything.

 

[Strathos]

Einstein specifically said that an effect cannot be caused from an event not in its past. It's literally part of the definition of cause and effect. Whatever it is you are trying to promote about god, it is unrelated to cause and effect. It is absolutely special pleading, and as such is unreasonable as a conclusion to the "beginning" of everything.

Qauntum physics says otherwise

 

[pitabread]

No. I'm saying that theology fits First Cause theory. (And vice versa.)

While there is a dependence on certain theological beliefs to have a first cause, the reverse isn't necessarily true. In fact, even if one was able to demonstrate that there were a first cause that constituted an intelligent being of some kind, at best that potentially supports some form of deism. But theistic beliefs beyond that, not so much.

Forget what? Are you saying deny what so far has been reliable, and accept a mind open to such logic bending (to put it nicely) concepts like "chance" and "out of nowhere"? Or are you saying for the sake of following what the physicists are saying, to for the sake of argument put them out of reach? Either way, logic must prevail, or they have used the irrelevant to describe what they don't understand.

I think I accidentally chopped off part of that post during editing.

At any rate, I was getting at that one needs to set aside a classical, Newtonian physics era view of the universe if one wishes to explore its origins.

That's why I again suggest delving into the world of quantum mechanics. Just leave preconceptions behind as there are things in quantum mechanics that defy normal convention.

If classic physics fails, though they used it to determine their new physics, how can their new physics be trusted?

We already know there are limits to classical physics. This is one of the reasons there is continued research and continuous formulations of new theories, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics. Heck, physicists still haven't come up with a unified theory of gravity.

Insofar as what can be trusted, it comes down to what can be tested and confirmed (via prediction and then empirical evidence thereof).

A prime example of this is the Higgs boson (Higgs boson - Wikipedia). It's an elementary particle that was theorized to exist back in the 60's. It wasn't until 2012 that its existence was confirmed using a particle collider.

Btw, in case you didn't pick up on it, quantum physics smacks of Divine acts.

[citation needed]

 

[pitabread]

Sequence only implies time to those who require it, those who are bound by it. God spoke and it was done. No indication of time passage.

I find it odd how the acts of God are anthropomorphized, yet at the same time argued to be exempt from the same.

The very act of speaking implies an occurrence of an event over time, yet you're claiming that is not the case. That's a contradiction.

 

[SelfSim]

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

I am unclear as to how one reconciles this against an Agnostic standpoint where an Agnostic might be defined as a person who believes that the issue of God's existence, (whether they believe or disbelieve), is not knowable as a fact.

If an assumed 'objective universe' is replaced with an assumed 'God', in what you've said above, what's the difference .. particularly when the 'objective universe' is only assumed in order to attain some kind of meaning? .. A search for meaning has somehow become the justification for assuming an 'objective universe'?

Whoa .. that sounds like a religion to me!?

'Objectivity' only calls for agreement amongst like thinking minds on the results of some observation .. in this case they would be scientifically thinking minds. Surely that's all that's required as an operational standard for comparison purposes? Ie: its the same method/standard as is used for defining a 'gram' (or a Kilogram).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Einstein specifically said that an effect cannot be caused from an event not in its past. It's literally part of the definition of cause and effect. Whatever it is you are trying to promote about god, it is unrelated to cause and effect. It is absolutely special pleading, and as such is unreasonable as a conclusion to the "beginning" of everything.

Ok, so let's suppose for the sake of argument that the beginning of everything was the absolute beginning of time. If Einstein and Hawking were right, time began at the Big Bang, no? So let's assume time began with the beginning, the cause of the Big Bang. How does this change First Cause With Intent as a viable theory?

 

[Mark Quayle]

While there is a dependence on certain theological beliefs to have a first cause, the reverse isn't necessarily true. In fact, even if one was able to demonstrate that there were a first cause that constituted an intelligent being of some kind, at best that potentially supports some form of deism. But theistic beliefs beyond that, not so much.

I don't know what you mean by "dependence on certain theological beliefs", then. I think it is altogether reasonable to come up with a conclusion of First Cause --even First Cause With Intent, without realizing that one has come up with a theology.

Deism denies that God interjects or controls from within time, but only began it all, no doubt with the "seeds" of cause and effect that caused differentiation and speciation. I think a long sound look at First Cause also produces the philosophy mentioned by Paul to the Athenians concerning their "unknown God", who "‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring'." (Acts 17)

It seems altogether reasonable that his very will upholds all creation; he may even provide of his essence the smallest particle of matter or energy by which all things are composed. We really know nothing yet about such things. This is what, to me, defeats Deism. To him, who sees the end from the beginning, it makes no difference whether it was 15 billion years or instantaneous. The principle shows itself again in that his foresight is the same as forecausing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I find it odd how the acts of God are anthropomorphized, yet at the same time argued to be exempt from the same.

The very act of speaking implies an occurrence of an event over time, yet you're claiming that is not the case. That's a contradiction.

You say that from an anthropomorphizing point of view. What do we know about God speaking?