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

[46AND2]

Qauntum physics says otherwise

Still requires the passage of time.

 

[46AND2]

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?

It's a god of the gaps concept to attempt to explain that which we don't know. It is untestable, not falsifiable, is an a priori assumption, and can be adjusted on the fly as necessary in response to counterarguments because it is entirely speculative. It doesn't fit the definition of a hypothesis, let alone a viable theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

1. The metaphysical is not an entity. Perhaps, there is a personality embedded in it. There are arguments for and against that. However, everything that I have read is inadequate, providing fuel for a conversation in a bar, but not a foundation for a philosophy to which one could make a commitment.
2. No metaphysical entity has spoken to me in any manner, meaningful or otherwise, so your hypothetical is irrelevant.
3. the point is that no communication has come from this metaphysical entity and so I am obliged, in honesty, to insist that I am ignorant of it.

(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.

Thus your argument is entirely based upon:

• Your belief that there is a First Cause, though that belief is questionable.
• Your belief that that the First Cause embodies Intent, though that belief has no substantive, evidential support.
• Your belief that this hypothetical First Cause, imbued with (undemonstrated) Intent, not only remains, but has an interest in incompetent apes.

I could not, in good conscience, base my life on such a jumble of unsupported beliefs. I should feel good for you that you are comfortable and apparently satisfied by that position . . but I don't.

Methinks you protesteth too much!

I am not protesting. I see no need to do so. I am simply informing you that I find your arguments groundless, your conclusions precipitate, while I am comfortable in acknowledging my ignorance. You seem to prefer to confuse yours with knowledge.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fine. I like when believers in science admit freely that they basically do not know what they are talking about regarding the way the past was. After all, if one says he may be missing much of the facts and doesn't really know, any model of the past they came up with would be viewed as a half baked guess destined to change. Fine with me.

Meh; perhaps if you could muster a decent argument you wouldn't have to rely on such absurd misrepresentations and exaggerations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How the universe began? Every explanation I have come across assumes that there is something in existence prior to the formation of the universe.
The 'Nothing' is not nothing and so are not valid explanations.

Not sure what you mean by the 'Nothing' (a reference to Krauss's 'A Universe from Nothing'?), but there's nothing(!) in the physics of modern cosmology that requires the universe (or metaverse) to have a beginning or that prevents a universe of infinite spatial or temporal extent; and there are a number of such solutions within the frameworks of general relativity and quantum mechanics that might have led to the formation of the universe we inhabit, which have not been shown to be invalid.

On the other hand, there are also solutions within those frameworks that do not have an infinite temporal extent yet still have no beginning, such as the Hartle-Hawking 'No Boundary' model, where time changes towards the big bang so that it is finite but has no past boundary (by analogy, there is no 'north' beyond the North Pole). Similarly, there are solutions where the warping of spacetime results in time becoming a spatial direction towards the big bang, much as spatial directions become temporal inside a black hole.

Other solutions have a time-symmetric 'mirror' big bang, where entropy increases both forward and backward in time, giving an arrow of time from the big bang towards both what we see as the future and what we see as the past; hypothetical beings existing pre-big bang would see the big bang in their past, like us, but to them our future would be in the increasing past pre-big bang, and we would see their future the same way.

Why is the universe reasonable rather than random? I have not heard an explanation for this, so look forward to your account.

It's not clear that the universe is reasonable, fundamentally, if by 'reasonable' you mean non-random; under the right conditions (e.g. an entropic arrow of time), order and complexity can emerge from (chaotic) randomness. But in any case, The Weak Anthropic Principle trivially answers the question - if the universe was random at human scales, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Observers inevitably find themselves in a universe that can support the existence of observers. A 'bubble' or 'pocket' multiverse model (e.g. an inflationary multiverse), with its potentially infinite variation of spawned universes, would give some weight to the WAP.

For more examples and details, see 'From Eternity to Here' by Sean Carroll.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As you can see from the link under "misconceptions"
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state

There's an interesting correspondence (common on these forums) between this origin misconception and a common misconception of the theory of evolution - that it describes the origin of life.

Just sayin'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you find validity in the idea of First Cause not being subject to principle as such, but the cause of principle --even if, as you seem here to suggest-- the law of cause-and-effect itself is a 3rd level effect? The words turn on themselves to say such a thing, yet I cannot get away from the notion that First Cause is not only logically necessary, but actually prevalent.

I agree that all principles turn on themselves if they are considered self-existent and if self-existence is the only meaning for "reality", which is another reason I say that First Cause is not merely principle.

A major problem with this cause-effect argument is that cause and effect is a concept that depends on an arrow of time, which is itself an emergent property. At the level of fundamental particles, interactions are reversible, so cause is indistinguishable from effect. The arrow of time, and so the cause and effect that we experience, emerges as a statistical effect of collections of particles with a low entropy boundary condition at the big bang; i.e. it's a question of statistical mechanics (aka thermodynamics).

At the scale of fundamental particles and the scale of the universe as a whole, cause and effect are not relevant considerations; the origins question for our own existence is the same as that of the arrow of time that produced complexity in our universe - the low entropy boundary condition. That can be explained if our universe was 'budded off' by a localised phase change in a pre-existing universe (e.g. as described by the inflationary model).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Qauntum physics says otherwise

Causal ambiguity is not retrocausality.

 

[pitabread]

You say that from an anthropomorphizing point of view.

Huh? I'm just quoting what you are writing which in turn is based on what is written in the Bible. And the God of the Bible is highly anthropomorphized.

What do we know about God speaking?

Absolutely nothing. Why even use the term "speaking" at all?

 

[Michael]

It's a god of the gaps concept to attempt to explain that which we don't know. It is untestable, not falsifiable, is an a priori assumption, and can be adjusted on the fly as necessary in response to counterarguments because it is entirely speculative. It doesn't fit the definition of a hypothesis, let alone a viable theory.

That same exact criticism applies to every "how did we get here" concept and every model of the universe by the way. The LCDM model is chalk full of such "concepts of the gaps".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Huh? I'm just quoting what you are writing which in turn is based on what is written in the Bible. And the God of the Bible is highly anthropomorphized.



Absolutely nothing. Why even use the term "speaking" at all?

Yes, I agree it seems so. Which is what some people seem to use to conclude that God is like us. Yet the Bible says it is not so. It is we who are made in HIS image, not the other way around.

I use the term, "speaking", because, according to Scripture, God spoke, when laying out the universe. You said that "speaking" implies time passage. I'm just saying that is not so, when it is God speaking. It may or may not have included time passage. I just see no reason it must.

 

[pitabread]

I use the term, "speaking", because, according to Scripture, God spoke, when laying out the universe. You said that "speaking" implies time passage. I'm just saying that is not so, when it is God speaking. It may or may not have included time passage. I just see no reason it must.

If the term as used in the Bible does not refer to actual "speaking" then why use that term in the first place?

All this discussion has really done is reinforce how adding God to the equation of the origin of the universe doesn't add anything useful in terms of explanation.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Any theology that has a creation story requires that the universe has a beginning and that something initiated the beginning of the universe. That is what I refer to when I say that theology is dependent on a first cause.

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.

It seems premature to entertain such the notion that a god or gods' direct intervention may be required to sustain our universe, given you also state we 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.

From where I am sitting, I feel that you are putting the cart several miles ahead of the horse in these discussions.

The discussion was about the first cause argument. As I already stated, there are zero inherent theological implications even if first cause was demonstrated to be a necessity for the origin of our universe. And the latter has not been demonstrated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A major problem with this cause-effect argument is that cause and effect is a concept that depends on an arrow of time, which is itself an emergent property. At the level of fundamental particles, interactions are reversible, so cause is indistinguishable from effect. The arrow of time, and so the cause and effect that we experience, emerges as a statistical effect of collections of particles with a low entropy boundary condition at the big bang; i.e. it a question of statistical mechanics (aka thermodynamics).

At the scale of fundamental particles and the scale of the universe as a whole, cause and effect are not relevant considerations; the origins question for our own existence is the same as that of the arrow of time that produced complexity in our universe - the low entropy boundary condition. That can be explained if our universe was 'budded off' by a localised phase change in a pre-existing universe (e.g. as described by the inflationary model).

I see we are getting nowhere. You insist on passage of time for cause-and-effect. I think God is a long ways past that. I can, perhaps, allow that for us to discuss cause-and-effect logically, we can only speak in terms of time passage, we being humans bound by time passage. "He has put eternity into the hearts of men, yet they cannot discern what he has done from the beginning to the end."

I read your little dissertation here referencing descriptions of quantum physics on origins --yet you don't even see you irrevocably must defer to cause-and-effect. This came from that. That made this happen. Existence begs explanation.

Perhaps the Cheshire Cat appears and disappears without explanation. That doesn't mean it is not caused.

 

[pitabread]

You insist on passage of time for cause-and-effect. I think God is a long ways past that.

Why? What method of validating what God is or isn't subject to do you have?

Existence begs explanation.

What if there is no explanation? What then?

 

[46AND2]

That same exact criticism applies to every "how did we get here" concept and every model of the universe by the way. The LCDM model is chalk full of such "concepts of the gaps".

I'm not the one claiming to know how it started.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's a god of the gaps concept to attempt to explain that which we don't know. It is untestable, not falsifiable, is an a priori assumption, and can be adjusted on the fly as necessary in response to counterarguments because it is entirely speculative. It doesn't fit the definition of a hypothesis, let alone a viable theory.

That's not the question. (It's a God of the gaps theory, regardless). You haven't shown how the assuming of the passage of time as necessary for Cause-and-effect makes any difference in the end.

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. The metaphysical is not an entity. Perhaps, there is a personality embedded in it. There are arguments for and against that. However, everything that I have read is inadequate, providing fuel for a conversation in a bar, but not a foundation for a philosophy to which one could make a commitment.
2. No metaphysical entity has spoken to me in any manner, meaningful or otherwise, so your hypothetical is irrelevant.
3. the point is that no communication has come from this metaphysical entity and so I am obliged, in honesty, to insist that I am ignorant of it.

Thus your argument is entirely based upon:

• Your belief that there is a First Cause, though that belief is questionable.
• Your belief that that the First Cause embodies Intent, though that belief has no substantive, evidential support.
• Your belief that this hypothetical First Cause, imbued with (undemonstrated) Intent, not only remains, but has an interest in incompetent apes.

I could not, in good conscience, base my life on such a jumble of unsupported beliefs. I should feel good for you that you are comfortable and apparently satisfied by that position . . but I don't.

I am not protesting. I see no need to do so. I am simply informing you that I find your arguments groundless, your conclusions precipitate, while I am comfortable in acknowledging my ignorance. You seem to prefer to confuse yours with knowledge.

I don't mean to insult you, but it sounds like you are saying, not only that because of your ignorance you are unable to consider it, or at least that you see no point in considering it, but that your ignorance invalidates the premise.

Meanwhile, the fact that the tenets of the "theory" of First Cause With Intent do fit, makes it rather compelling, at least to me. I remind you that many a scientific pursuit is undertaken on less grounds.

I will easily admit that I am biased in my assessments, even in my logic, by my love of my own thoughts. I wish more people would admit to that. I do try to avoid that, but I am not well trained in debate. I just see what seems to me to make sense or not to make sense. With you I see your constant need for "I don't know", as perhaps an avoidance of bias at best. Yet it shows your bias, I think.

I have no need to prove First Cause With Intent. I do wish I was better at describing, postulating, it. I also wish I was better at demonstrating the illogic of alternative ideas of absolute origins.

 

[Larniavc]

magic purple dragon-turtle chimera

What’s the CR on that mighty beast?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Logic suggests that if you know nothing about such things, claims and speculations about such things are entirely moot.

As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".