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

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

You haven't defended the assertion and special pleading I gave as an example when you asked me for one. Until you do so you do not get to move the goalposts. Can you defend the example I gave?

 

[Ken-1122]

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

A lack of human scientific mind does not prevent anything from existing by itself, it will only prevent observation via human scientific minds.

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?

My conversation is not with Aliens, it's with people familiar with the evolution of human language

 

[Lazarus Long]

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

Ignorance would surely result in the invention of a god to somehow defeat that ignorance.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

You can claim what you like, however that does not make you right. Contrary to your claim, the cosmological argument does not demonstrate logical necessity. I'm not sure if you are unaware of the various criticisms of it, or if you just choose to handwave them away. I suspect it's ignorance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ignorance would surely result in the invention of a god to somehow defeat that ignorance.

Certainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You haven't defended the assertion and special pleading I gave as an example when you asked me for one. Until you do so you do not get to move the goalposts. Can you defend the example I gave?

Kindly restate it for me? I have lost track of to whom I said what, or who butted in at what point.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Certainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.

You're claim OF A FIRST CAUSE is just something you need, nothing to do with reality

 

[Speedwell]

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?

No, it's not my posit. I haven't posited anything in this discussion. I was merely encouraging you to define and use "cause" in a coherent manner. It would make it easier to understand your argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

Certainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.

(Emphasis added.) This applies with especial strength to assertions that one has perceived a truth, but has no universally accessible evidence to support it. All that can then say with confidence of the assertion is that is an opinion that might, or might not, mirror some aspects of the truth.

 

[Yttrium]

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

I apologize for digging back a ways, but I was wondering if you could elaborate on this statement. Because as far as I can tell, it's a nonsensical assertion. You seem to be attempting some sort of logic here, but it falls flat.

 

[Yttrium]

I assume that cause and effect applies until demonstrated otherwise. This leads me to a first cause, although I make no assumptions about the nature of that first cause. Perhaps it's a cosmic foam, or God, or Azathoth, or Haruhi Suzumiya, or something we simply can't imagine.

What caused the first cause? Well, nothing. It's eternal. In that respect it would be weird and incomprehensible. On the other hand, the alternatives would also be weird and incomprehensible, so that's okay. For example...

- An infinite sequence of cause and effect. The obvious problem here is that with an infinite chain, we would never arrive at the present... unless at some point the sequence passes outside of what we conceive as spacetime, in some weird and incomprehensible way.

- A finite sequence of cause and effect in a loop. The events at the end of the universe cause the beginning of the universe, through some weird and incomprehensible means.

- At some point there was an effect that was not caused. It just kind of happened spontaneously, for weird and incomprehensible reasons.

Every explanation has something weird and incomprehensible attached to it, so logic fails us. There are fundamental aspects of the universe we're still missing, as fundamental as cause and effect. Until we identify those fundamental aspects (hopefully without going insane in the process), we can't apply a good sequence of logic to the question of how everything came about.

I certainly don't see how logic could lead one to the idea that a first cause would have to be omniscient. In fact, my first pass at logic on the situation led me to the conclusion that a first cause must be non-sentient, although I was working with the questionable assumption that consciousness itself must always be a sequence of cause and effect.

 

[SelfSim]

A lack of human scientific mind does not prevent anything from existing by itself, it will only prevent observation via human scientific minds.

It will also prevent any meaning of the word 'existence' (and therefore your belief that things would still 'exist'). Where do you think that word got its meaning?

My conversation is not with Aliens, it's with people familiar with the evolution of human language

.. Inconsistent relative to your claimed above position.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

'Physics' and 'logic' were invented by human minds. You appear to believe that they were sort of discovered floating around in space or something which itself, is only a belief you hold.

[QUOTE="Mark Quayle]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).[/quote]Causality is only a concept held in mind (this can be demonstrated). Its usage in science is tightly limited by its operational context and is not a universal 'given' (or a principle). In fact it breaks down in certain contexts.
You continually ignore this every time it has come up in this never-ending litany of yours.

Litanies require words. Words convey meaning. You use words and they convey your meaning.
Where would your litany be without those human assigned meanings? What does that tell you about the basis of your 'First Cause' argument? Get real!

 

[SelfSim]

I assume that cause and effect applies until demonstrated otherwise.

.. and that assumption is false where the concept can be shown as not being evident in nature (eg: the real butterfly effect in models of nature).
It cannot be a universal principle in nature when this happens and in fact, it isn't.
The determinism being argued in this thread is rooted in philosophy (only) as it does not pose scientifically formed questions .. (hence the never ending-ness of Mark Quayle's word salad).

Every explanation has something weird and incomprehensible attached to it, so logic fails us. There are fundamental aspects of the universe we're still missing, as fundamental as cause and effect. Until we identify those fundamental aspects (hopefully without going insane in the process), we can't apply a good sequence of logic to the question of how everything came about.

(Surprise surprise) .. that may as well be because the universe might not actually work that way in the first place!?

I certainly don't see how logic could lead one to the idea that a first cause would have to be omniscient. In fact, my first pass at logic on the situation led me to the conclusion that a first cause must be non-sentient, although I was working with the questionable assumption that consciousness itself must always be a sequence of cause and effect.

Yet you seem to ignore the obvious .. that cause and effect (determinism) might actually be a product (a concept) of consciousness!

 

[sjastro]

I don't usually participate in philosophical discussions but the following video is where physics can turn into a such a discussion.
Ignoring the blatant commercialism at the end of the video, the video presents an example of an age old conundrum of whether "nature" is nothing more than a physics or mathematical model, or "nature" is being described by the physics and maths.

 

[Yttrium]

.. and that assumption is false where the concept can be shown as not being evident in nature (eg: the real butterfly effect in models of nature).
It cannot be a universal principle in nature when this happens and in fact, it isn't.

Is that so. Well, I'm not really familiar with what in particular you're talking about. I'll just point out that just because something isn't evident doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may simply be beyond our current ability to perceive.

(Surprise surprise) .. that may as well be because the universe might not actually work that way in the first place!?

It might not work... which way? You mean the cause and effect way?

Yet you seem to ignore the obvious .. that cause and effect (determinism) might actually be a product (a concept) of consciousness!

That possibility was kind of included in my "weird and incomprehensible". But thank you for pointing out a specific possibility.

 

[Ken-1122]

It will also prevent any meaning of the word 'existence' (and therefore your belief that things would still 'exist'). Where do you think that word got its meaning?

This conversation is not about the word "existence" it is about that which exist. Matter and energy exists regardless of whether there are humans around to analyze, study, or apply their subjective meaning to it..

 

[Kylie]

"Need"? It is the cause of fact.

And your proof of this is...?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And your proof of this is...?

If "fact" existed before a supposed "first cause", it is a principle from outside of that supposed "first cause"; therefore it is not first cause after all, but the principle of "fact" is first cause, unless something else caused the principle of "fact".

 

[Mark Quayle]

'Physics' and 'logic' were invented by human minds. You appear to believe that they were sort of discovered floating around in space or something which itself, is only a belief you hold.

[QUOTE="Mark Quayle]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).

Self sim says: Causality is only a concept held in mind (this can be demonstrated). Its usage in science is tightly limited by its operational context and is not a universal 'given' (or a principle). In fact it breaks down in certain contexts.
You continually ignore this every time it has come up in this never-ending litany of yours.

Self sim continues to say: Litanies require words. Words convey meaning. You use words and they convey your meaning.
Where would your litany be without those human assigned meanings? What does that tell you about the basis of your 'First Cause' argument? Get real![/QUOTE]

Now me (Mark): My litany is irrelevant to the facts. We do not invent fact. We see it, name it, study it, report on it, remark upon it, but we do not make it. (Some facts, of course, we can cause, but that's not what we are talking about here).

Also me (Mark): No. Physics and logic are words we put to existing principle. We no more caused them than we caused existence. Are you going to tell me that cause-and-effect was not in operation until we said so? .And no, actually, it does not break down. People want us to believe that it does --writers mostly-- but good scientists know better than to believe that the fact they don't know a cause means there is no cause.