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

[Kylie]

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".

So you are suggesting multiple causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

If a principle is fact "before" (I mean a logical "before", as demanded by cause-and-effect --not necessarily a time-"before") a supposed first cause, first cause is subject to it, and not the other way around. First Cause must CAUSE all things, including fact and principle, or it does not make sense to say it is first cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you are suggesting multiple causes?

I'm of course assuming multiple causes, as is self-evident. Almost all effects are also causes, even the motions of a butterfly cause effects. But I am positing there can be only ONE First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

(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.

Correct. Agreed.

 

[Yttrium]

If a principle is fact "before" (I mean a logical "before", as demanded by cause-and-effect --not necessarily a time-"before") a supposed first cause, first cause is subject to it, and not the other way around. First Cause must CAUSE all things, including fact and principle, or it does not make sense to say it is first cause.

Hrm. I'm not sure this is entirely the case, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. How does this lead one to conclude that the first cause is omniscient, or even sentient?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

My bad. I don't know how I have used "cause" incoherently, as you seem to imply, but:

Per Google:
"cause
/kôz/
noun 1.a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear

1. 
   Similar:
   
   source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point, seed"

Also per Google:
"First Cause
noun
PHILOSOPHY

1. a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause, identified with God."

I do not hold exactly to Google's definition of First Cause, unless by "all events" is implied "all effects", whether immediate or subsequent ("by proxy" so to speak). (To me all effects are not only subsequent but immediate to First Cause, but that is another discussion)..

As far as I know, the logical principle of Cause-and-Effect rules all considerations right back to First Cause. I have seen no reason to believe otherwise. If you can show me how it can be otherwise, we can discuss that, though I have already done so ad infinitum. Maybe you can show me where I went incoherent or even incogent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Assuming you mean by "reality", something we can put a handle on to carry around in our heads, I would agree (ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that there is such a thing as existence, that science isn't ready to explain yet). But that isn't reality. That is mere concept.

Any intellectually honest scientist, I think, would admit the viability of Uncaused First Cause as explanation for all subsequent effect --even all subsequent fact, if pressed on the question; ("Uncaused" there, meaning without antecedent fact or principle).

For my personal satisfaction, I agree, I "need" first cause, as an end to otherwise infinite regression. As I have said before, so far, nobody has shown me any viable alternative.

To me it makes more sense that First Cause would exist than that I should exist. Yet, here I am.

 

[Speedwell]

My bad. I don't know how I have used "cause" incoherently, as you seem to imply, but:

Per Google:
"cause
/kôz/
noun 1.a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear

1. 
   Similar:
   
   source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point, seed"

Also per Google:
"First Cause
noun
PHILOSOPHY

1. a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause, identified with God."

I do not hold exactly to Google's definition of First Cause, unless by "all events" is implied "all effects", whether immediate or subsequent ("by proxy" so to speak). (To me all effects are not only subsequent but immediate to First Cause, but that is another discussion)..

As far as I know, the logical principle of Cause-and-Effect rules all considerations right back to First Cause. I have seen no reason to believe otherwise. If you can show me how it can be otherwise, we can discuss that, though I have already done so ad infinitum. Maybe you can show me where I went incoherent or even incogent.

You haven't gone deep enough into it. If you are going to argue on the basis of classical metaphysics it's best to start with the originator of the discipline:

Aristotle on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Then, for a treat, have a look at Hume:

Hume, David: Causation | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Ken-1122]

For my personal satisfaction, I agree, I "need" first cause, as an end to otherwise infinite regression. As I have said before, so far, nobody has shown me any viable alternative.

I believe it was Post #1348 you were shown a viable alternative to your claims, you have yet to respond.

 

[Kylie]

I'm of course assuming multiple causes, as is self-evident. Almost all effects are also causes, even the motions of a butterfly cause effects. But I am positing there can be only ONE First Cause.

How did you eliminate multiple simultaneous causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

How did you eliminate multiple simultaneous causes?

I don't. All causes that happen at the same time are simultaneous.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I believe it was Post #1348 you were shown a viable alternative to your claims, you have yet to respond.

OK.

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

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

I'm not sure how that is a viable alternative, but to answer the question of that post:
In and of itself means its existence does not depend on anything else. No cause at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure how that is a viable alternative,

You were insisting the first cause had to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate etc; I was pointing out it was not necessary to be all of those things.

but to answer the question of that post:
In and of itself means its existence does not depend on anything else. No cause at all.

So you agree the first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You were insisting the first cause had to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate etc; I was pointing out it was not necessary to be all of those things.


So you agree the first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy?

Yes First Cause has to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate, among other things. Where do you get the idea I now agree first cause could be inanimate, like material or energy? If from discussing "in and of itself" I was only pointing out what existence "in and of itself" means; I am NOT saying first cause could be inanimate, nor that anything except first cause can exist in and of itself.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes First Cause has to be singular, conscious, intelligent, animate, among other things.

Why does it have to be all of those things?

 

[Kylie]

I don't. All causes that happen at the same time are simultaneous.

So you admit that maybe there was no first cause, but instead multiple simultaneous causes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you admit that maybe there was no first cause, but instead multiple simultaneous causes?

There ARE (present tense) multiple simultaneous causes. I never said there were multiple simultaneous FIRST causes. In fact I went out of my way to say there could not have been multiple First Causes.

And no, I do not admit that maybe there was no first cause. It makes more sense to me that First Cause would exist, than that I should exist.

Where do you get these questions from? Seems you are not really reading what I say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

- 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.

This is a mistake because it implies that the infinite past is a point in time from which you start. In an infinite temporal past extent, no time is privileged; between any two points in time there is always a finite amount of time and any point in time has an infinite past.

You need to think of it as a 4D Parmenidean block of spacetime rather than it somehow having a beginning. No matter how far you go back, there is an infinite time before that, and it is always a finite length of time earlier than your start point.

This is not to say our universe is like that; our concepts of past and future are the result of an entropic arrow of time - the past is the direction in which entropy decreases and the future the direction in which entropy increases. This makes it conceivable to have the arrow of time running in different directions at different times; for example, you could have a universe temporally balanced around whatever happened at the big bang - a point of extremely low entropy - so that entropy could have been decreasing 'prior' to the big bang and increasing (as we experience) after it. This would mean that the arrow of time prior to the big bang would be reversed from our perspective - for any creatures on that side of the big bang, the big bang would be in their entropic past just as it is for us... their future would stretch into what we'd call the past and vice-versa (although for both viewpoints, the past would become moot at the big bang).

 

[Halbhh]

Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.

That is NOT a reliable long term basis for faith!

It's like 99% of things, unsound in the long run -- since it's not itself putting Christ's commands to us into action:

24“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.

26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

There's a certainty, for you. Tell your father about this sure, 100% sure, certainty. Only those hearing and doing what Christ said are safe.

 

[Yttrium]

This is a mistake because it implies that the infinite past is a point in time from which you start.

No, in that case there is no start. It's an infinite sequence of events, and should therefore include an infinite subset of events that don't operate under our current understanding of spacetime.