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

[Bungle_Bear]

Not animate First Cause, no. It is not of the same order of all (or any) subsequent effects; the difference is as stark as eternal vs temporal.

First Cause is necessarily the cause of principle and fact.

So you rely on assertion and special pleading to support your previous assertions and special pleading. That's exactly what I said you were doing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you rely on assertion and special pleading to support your previous assertions and special pleading. That's exactly what I said you were doing.

Ok, let's take one of my assertions and talk about it: "First Cause is necessarily the cause of principle and fact." Can you show why that is mere assertion or special pleading? Does not the term "first cause" logically imply that all other things are subsequent effects? Or can you show me why not, or demonstrate that the so-far-scientifically-adhered-to principle of cause-and-effect does not take us to first cause, in the chain of causation? Or can you defeat the prevalence of the principle of Cause-and-effect?

 

[SelfSim]

Are there no principles determining their form and effect? The way they operate? How did they come to be

Simple .. 'form', their 'characteristics' and 'how they operate' define the principles (not the other way around).

They come 'to be' because we can objectively test such things and they consistently and repeatedly reveal themselves to us .. therefore we say those things exist (or come 'to be') and can be described by those principles (contextually and provisionally).

Nothing needs to be 'governed' ...

--you want to say they "just are"? If they "just are" then how do they have any characteristics? Your thinking falls apart there. Something made them.

Not if you follow scientific reasoning (as per what I outlined above) .. which has no need 'for things which made them'.
The principles acquire their 'truth' because we have already established their outcomes as being 'true' via observation .. and not the other way around.

Completely back-to-front, you have it!

 

[Mark Quayle]

No.

"Came to be" implies a beginning. If something always existed, by definition it never came to be.


Different types of energy and materials acting upon each other; each with an eternal existence and in a constant state of motion.

Yet somehow possessed of form and function, what, by accident? by mere existence?

You see, Animated (i.e. With Intent) First Cause can indeed be "its own boss". But mere Mechanical Fact must comply with form and function. It did not (because it can not) even determine its own form and function, yet you want to insist it "just is"?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet somehow possessed of form and function, what, by accident? by mere existence?

Form and function is a part of material and energy; not something that was somehow attached to it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simple .. 'form', their 'characteristics' and 'how they operate' define the principles (not the other way around).

They come 'to be' because we can objectively test such things and they consistently and repeatedly reveal themselves to us .. therefore we say those things exist (or come 'to be') and can be described by those principles (contextually and provisionally).

Nothing needs to be 'governed' ...

Not if you follow scientific reasoning (as per what I outlined above) .. which has no need 'for things which made them'.
The principles acquire their 'truth' because we have already established their outcomes as being 'true' via observation .. and not the other way around.

Completely back-to-front, you have it!

No, you are claiming self-existence is the same as self-creation, (whether you realize you have done that or not). You can define the principles as seen from the fact of how they operate, but the operation does not CAUSE the principles. The principles do govern the operation of this mechanical fact.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Form and function is a part of material and energy; not something that was somehow attached to it.

No doubt. Yet you fail to show how those do not answer to principle, nor how this supposed self-existent mechanical fact can even exist in and of itself, by itself. To claim that mechanical fact is self-existent, is to claim that mechanical fact is self-caused, which is a logical fail.

With animate, conscious, hyper-intelligent, self-aware First Cause, self-existence need not imply self-causation.

 

[Ken-1122]

No doubt. Yet you fail to show how those do not answer to principle, nor how this supposed self-existent mechanical fact can even exist in and of itself, by itself.

You are asking me how could rocks exist by themselves? Really? What could possibly prevent material and energy from existing by itself?

To claim that mechanical fact is self-existent, is to claim that mechanical fact is self-caused, which is a logical fail.

“Eternal existing” is not the same as “self caused”.

 

[SelfSim]

No, you are claiming self-existence is the same as self-creation, (whether you realize you have done that or not). You can define the principles as seen from the fact of how they operate, but the operation does not CAUSE the principles. The principles do govern the operation of this mechanical fact.

No they don't .. I cite the huge historical record of how those principles were developed by scientists .. and the fact that those very same principles changed over that historical record is also evidence that we devised them.
You, on the other hand provide exactly zip evidence .. we only have your word and a case of special pleading in support of your claim.

 

[SelfSim]

You are asking me how could rocks exist by themselves? Really? What could possibly prevent material and energy from existing by itself?

Perhaps a lack of a human scientific mind to observe them in the first place .. and thence describe them in consistently testable ways?

“Eternal existing” is not the same as “self caused”.

All the meaning contained in your sentence there, can be traced to having come from the evolution of human language ... Otherwise, how else could anyone possibly understand the meaning of what you just said there in your sentences? Would aliens understand what you meant there?
The 'self' in 'self caused', is a pretty big hint that it came from us humans.
(I predict Mr Quayle will come out fightin' like a true believer on that point though .. )

 

[Lazarus Long]

Ok, let's take one of my assertions and talk about it: "First Cause is necessarily the cause of principle and fact." Can you show why that is mere assertion or special pleading? Does not the term "first cause" logically imply that all other things are subsequent effects? Or can you show me why not, or demonstrate that the so-far-scientifically-adhered-to principle of cause-and-effect does not take us to first cause, in the chain of causation? Or can you defeat the prevalence of the principle of Cause-and-effect?

Cause and Effect takes us to infinite regress, that's why you invent the special pleading Non Caused.

 

[Kylie]

First Cause is necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.

And why does a first cause need authority over facts?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok, let's take one of my assertions and talk about it: "First Cause is necessarily the cause of principle and fact." Can you show why that is mere assertion or special pleading? Does not the term "first cause" logically imply that all other things are subsequent effects? Or can you show me why not, or demonstrate that the so-far-scientifically-adhered-to principle of cause-and-effect does not take us to first cause, in the chain of causation? Or can you defeat the prevalence of the principle of Cause-and-effect?

I didn't criticise that claim, so stop moving goalposts. Try defending the assertion I criticised. You've had 2 opportunities so far and failed dismissally.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I didn't criticise that claim, so stop moving goalposts. Try defending the assertion I criticised. You've had 2 opportunities so far and failed dismissally.

You said I used assertion and special pleading to support assertion and special pleading, no? It sounds to me there that you are calling the one post I used to support the previous post assertion and special pleading. Therefore the post I asked about is also what you called assertion and special pleading.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And why does a first cause need authority over facts?

"Need"? It is the cause of fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet somehow possessed of form and function, what, by accident? by mere existence?

You see, Animated (i.e. With Intent) First Cause can indeed be "its own boss". But mere Mechanical Fact must comply with form and function. It did not (because it can not) even determine its own form and function, yet you want to insist it "just is"?

I am not aware that you have previously dealt with those two kinds of causes separately in any orderly way. Maybe you should back up and do it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Cause and Effect takes us to infinite regress, that's why you invent the special pleading Non Caused.

That seems reasonable for you to say. I don't deny that ignorance of any other choice seems to lead me to what you are calling special pleading, and perhaps it is. I have heard many protests against using the God of the Gaps. But since it is the only reasonable option that has so far presented, I'm thinking it is a very good one. I can so far find nothing wrong with it. I wanted to hear what you guys think is wrong with it.

To me it is logically necessary, if I am to show how existence itself, is. The fact a logical fallacy prohibits a claim from being logically proven doesn't invalidate the claim. It only invalidates the proof. All of science so far works that way. Nothing has been proven, in the end. The problem with science, concerning first cause, is that science "lacks the tools" to assess first cause. But science can admit the reasonability of the posit, while it cannot do so with infinite regress; it can even admit to the logical necessity of first cause, if one is to need immediate answers for absolute origins.

I don't claim to prove First Cause. I do claim its logical necessity to explain existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not aware that you have previously dealt with those two kinds of causes separately in any orderly way. Maybe you should back up and do it.

I have been responding to many at once. Forgive me if I haven't taken the time to copy and paste all the posts in a sequential tree, to be able to see to whom I said what.

Meanwhile, mechanical fact, i.e. inanimate first cause, is your (unless you butted in on someone else's) posit. Can you back it up with more than mere assertion?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No they don't .. I cite the huge historical record of how those principles were developed by scientists .. and the fact that those very same principles changed over that historical record is also evidence that we devised them.
You, on the other hand provide exactly zip evidence .. we only have your word and a case of special pleading in support of your claim.

You talk about facts as if they don't exist unless they are witnessed to have existed. The news doesn't happen if nobody reports it? The operational principles within existence and physics and logic simply do what they do --they need nobody to first develop them.

I agree that the descriptions of principles have changed. So what? The principles have not changed. (Cause-and-effect can be witnessed but so far has not been defeated. All effects are caused. First Cause can therefore not be an effect. Call that special pleading --I don't mind).

And First Cause causes even those principles, since it is the cause of existence itself, or it is not first cause.

I will happily admit to special pleading and God of the Gaps and so on; the fact I see no other reasonable alternative to infinite regress does not prove there is none. I simply see none. Nor have I heard of any. Even quantum mechanics admits to cause, though that cause be unknown.

 

[Ken-1122]

..