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

[Belk]

.. and its a terrible example because this never happens in the real world.
<Snip>

I'm fairly certain butterflys flap their wing's in the real world.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm fairly certain butterflys flap their wing's in the real world.

The problem is not so much that the butterfly image is not considered a metaphor, (which may still have been Kylie's original intent?), it is that the difference between a metaphor and a statement about how reality works is simply not being recognized or acknowledged here. This is a widespread issue that goes way beyond the butterfly effect: the need to make complex physical and mathematical concepts broadly understandable creates a need for the use of metaphor .. and that's fine, but the same sources presenting those metaphors should take pains not to fall into the error of taking their own metaphors seriously (nor should we).

There are good metaphors, and bad ones. A bad one is one that suggests a certain kind of language is meaningful in physics, when it isn't. Indeed, the entire notion of 'determinism' in physics is also a metaphor, it is a metaphor taken from mathematics. Sometimes it is a good metaphor, other times it is a lousy one. In the case of butterflies determining weather, it is a lousy one .. and we'd do better to draw attention to the failure of the metaphor, than we do by repeating it over and over, everywhere you see reference to chaotic phenomena.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Subjective to God and therefore not objective.


Okay; so you define "mechanical fact" as anything that is inanimate; got it. So how do you know something that is as you call "mechanical fact" can't have an eternal existence?

How is subjective to God not therefore perfect truth, and therefore not objective to us, since we can't see that far? How is objective any different than subjective when it comes to God's pov? Is it because objective necessarily mean from outside himself? If it does, then yes you are correct.

If by "eternal existence" you mean it may be a created thing, but eternally existing from the moment of its creation onward, then I say mechanical fact may well have eternal existence, should God have made such a thing. But of course then it would not be First Cause. If by "eternal existence" you mean having no beginning and no end, (not just a time dependent thing, either, but perhaps rather a logical cause-and-effect thing, independent of time), not being caused, you depend one of two things: 1. It just happened by chance to simply be. 2. It caused itself. == Well, (1) doesn't make sense not only because if it was caused by chance it would not be first cause, but because by definition chance cannot determine or cause anything. (2) doesn't make sense because to cause itself it would first have to exist in order to cause at all. (3) isn't really worth dealing with, but here it is --the idea of it being co-emergent with its causal principles --that is the same illogic as being self-caused. It is still operating according to principles of co-emergence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most certainly, your god and every other god is the creation of primitive humans. It's time to deal with reality and abandon fearful superstition.

Is First Cause a fearful superstition?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seem to be missing my point that the butterfly wing flaps are just an example of the kind of small change that can later result in drastic change.

Now, can we actually start discussions about how even the slightest change caused by me seeing the future can drastically change that future so it happens very differently to the future I saw? Or would you prefer to continue quibbling over minutiae?

quibbling is fun, lol.

I think it is pretty arguable whether you can change the future. I think you can only cause the future. The tragedy (or comedy, if you think like I do) of MacBeth is a pretty cool look at the matter, the story of a man who goes about trying to cause what he has been told by the fates would happen.

My favorite example of someone trying to change the future is of Satan doing all he can to disrupt and forestall God's plan, knowing (but apparently blinding himself to the fact) that he cannot do anything God has not already planned for him to do. Now THAT'S got to be frustrating!

If God has set in place for someone to go back to the past to do whatever they do, then that too is "set in stone" anyway, and in any case, they still are only causing the future.

My brother wrote a story once about a situation where God "reset" time, but unlike in the movies where the protagonist, (and perhaps other time traveling antagonists), is (are) the only one(s) privy to the fact that it happened, in which after the dust settled, nobody knew it had happened, but God. I like that, but see no reason for it, since God cannot make mistakes.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Is First Cause a fearful superstition?

As a place holder for a god, yes.

 

[Lazarus Long]

God cannot make mistakes.

Take a look at The Fall and The Flood.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Take a look at The Fall and The Flood.

How are those mistakes? You think God didn't plan it that way?

The fall was indeed his plan. Without it, we would be mere intelligent animals, skippety do-da day-ing our way through existence.

"It repented him" that he had made them. Yes, I can cite other examples of his emotions concerning sin. If he was human we would say he was psychotic, making something that he knew he would destroy. But, this life is not for this life; he is not like us. It was all for the purpose of showing his justice and power to the objects of his mercy.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a place holder for a god, yes.

First Cause is not just "a god". That would have to be THE God. If you could show me how first cause is not the God of Christianity (notice, I did not say the God that Christianity should consider God) then I would say that Christians have deceived themselves.

My point is that the True God, the One and Only God, does not depend on man for actually identification and definition. I try to go as pure as I can with it --First Cause.

 

[Kylie]

quibbling is fun, lol.

It's also a waste of my time, and if that's all you're going to do, then you can do it by yourself because I've got better things to do.

My favorite example of someone trying to change the future is of Satan doing all he can to disrupt and forestall God's plan, knowing (but apparently blinding himself to the fact) that he cannot do anything God has not already planned for him to do. Now THAT'S got to be frustrating!

If Satan can't do anything that God has not already planned for him, then whenever Satan does something evil and causes hardships and suffering, and tempts Jesus and all of that, it MUST be because God planned for him to do that!

So, Satan does the stuff that God planned for him to do, Satan is incapable of doing anything differently, and yet Satan's the one who gets the blame and punishment, and the one who planned for it to happen all along get worshipped and thought of as great?

That's seriously messed up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's also a waste of my time, and if that's all you're going to do, then you can do it by yourself because I've got better things to do.



If Satan can't do anything that God has not already planned for him, then whenever Satan does something evil and causes hardships and suffering, and tempts Jesus and all of that, it MUST be because God planned for him to do that!

So, Satan does the stuff that God planned for him to do, Satan is incapable of doing anything differently, and yet Satan's the one who gets the blame and punishment, and the one who planned for it to happen all along get worshipped and thought of as great?

That's seriously messed up.

Like us, Satan WILLS to do what is wrong. The fact is is predestined does not change the fact that he WANTS to oppose God, and sets himself God with every thought and intention.

 

[Kylie]

Like us, Satan WILLS to do what is wrong. The fact is is predestined does not change the fact that he WANTS to oppose God, and sets himself God with every thought and intention.

Are we gonna start with this again?

If God has made a plan and Satan can only do what God has planned, Satan is not in charge of his own actions.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Like us, Satan WILLS to do what is wrong. The fact is is predestined does not change the fact that he WANTS to oppose God, and sets himself God with every thought and intention.

Except that satan is a fictional character.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are we gonna start with this again?

If God has made a plan and Satan can only do what God has planned, Satan is not in charge of his own actions.

You asked.

Satan CAN only because he only ever WILLS to do so. Just as God planned all along.

Or are you going to say that First Causes is the victim of circumstance?

 

[Ken-1122]

How is subjective to God not therefore perfect truth, and therefore not objective to us, since we can't see that far?

Truth is not defined as “in accordance to whatever God says”, just because God says it doesn’t make it true.
Truth - Wikipedia

How is objective any different than subjective when it comes to God's pov?

By definition; Objective is that which is based on fact, not beliefs.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

IOW (hypothetically speaking) If God said 1+1=3, God would be wrong. If God said you do not exit, God would be as wrong as if you or I said it;. Objective is regardless of what you, I, or even God says.

If by "eternal existence" you mean having no beginning and no end, (not just a time dependent thing, either, but perhaps rather a logical cause-and-effect thing, independent of time),

Yes! That is what I mean.

not being caused, you depend one of two things: 1. It just happened by chance to simply be.

What happened by chance?

2. It caused itself.

No! Go back to #1; what happened by chance?

== Well, (1) doesn't make sense not only because if it was caused by chance it would not be first cause,

Didn’t we just agree #1 was having no beginning or end? That means it was not caused by anything not even chance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Except that satan is a fictional character.

Sure. Unless he is real.

Nevertheless, the propositional logic works, that IF First Cause is real, and Satan is real, and Satan always purposes to oppose First Cause, Satan does so as caused to do so. (Unless you can show me somehow that Cause-and-Effect is not always the operative principle in all effects, i.e. that not all effects descend logically from First Cause. Or do you know of something besides First Cause that is not an effect.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Truth is not defined as “in accordance to whatever God says”, just because God says it doesn’t make it true.
Truth - Wikipedia

Unless God is First Cause. Then, if he says it, it is true.

By definition; Objective is that which is based on fact, not beliefs.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

IOW (hypothetically speaking) If God said 1+1=3, God would be wrong. If God said you do not exit, God would be as wrong as if you or I said it;. Objective is regardless of what you, I, or even God says.

Unless God is First Cause. First Cause is not subject to principles or facts from outside himself. He is the "inventor" (Cause) of them. Also, if he is First Cause, what he says is fact --he would have not reason to say things that are false or illogical. He may well say things that seem illogical to US, but we know very little.

What happened by chance?

This inanimate "First Cause" you propose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Didn’t we just agree #1 was having no beginning or end? That means it was not caused by anything not even chance.

Agreed! and that was my point. Some will claim that inanimate first cause can exist by mere chance, but that is illogical, as you have shown.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By definition; Objective is that which is based on fact, not beliefs.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

IOW (hypothetically speaking) If God said 1+1=3, God would be wrong. If God said you do not exit, God would be as wrong as if you or I said it;. Objective is regardless of what you, I, or even God says.

I asked how is objective any different from subjective when it is from God's pov. You did notice, I hope, that your dictionary did not claim that truth has authority above God's opinions. God, (First Cause), does not have mere opinions like we do. He always knows and is always right. If he sees something subjectively, it is to us objective truth, (whether we see it or not).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Agreed! and that was my point. Some will claim that inanimate first cause can exist by mere chance, but that is illogical, as you have shown.

You agree that First Cause is not necessary, then return to arguing that First Cause is required.

Try listening to yourself next time you accuse others of being illogical. See if you can spot the fault that everyone else can see.