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

[Larniavc]

Has anyone ever gave their life to preserve mother goose?

Many non Christians have died for their religious beliefs.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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".

"Nothing" --hyperbole, perhaps. I meant, obviously, next to nothing by comparison to what all there is to know.

Is your attitude toward the so-called metaphysical that since you know nothing about it, you haven't any opinion concerning it?

 

[46AND2]

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.

Yes I did. It was at the very beginning of our conversation. Time didn't exist in the singularity. Cause and effect requires the passage of time.

If you want to argue that god magically poofed things into existence, that's fine. Just understand that it is a violation of cause and effect, not the coherent inception of it as you describe.

 

[Mark Quayle]

↑
mark: "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?

Simply the logical necessity that all other causes and effects, including their subsequent effects, corollaries, and interactions proceed from first cause, and cannot confine it.

We've already been through his personhood, singularness, and so on, and you remain unconvinced. I won't bother. here. I'm just trying to "show my work".

↑

mark: "Existence begs explanation."
What if there is no explanation? What then?

Do you mean what if no explanation is forthcoming? To abandon cause-and-effect is to abandon logic, as far as I have been able to tell, so far.

 

[46AND2]

What’s the CR on that mighty beast?

Not sure. But the CMC is like 12.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Minds far superior to mine have considered the question of Origin. They have devoted extensive time, discussion, investigation, debate, etc to setting questions and seeking answers. I have considered many of those answers and seen to them to be contradictory and inconclusive. Consequently I do not know (and do not see any grounds for thinking anyone yet knows) what origin lies beyond the "oldest detectable event", the Big Bang. Until new evidence arises, or a superior interpretation of existing evidence is presented, there is no point in a limited intellect such as mine considering the matter further.

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.

You may believe that. I find your grounds for so believing to be whimsical and lightweight.

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.

Please. Your attitude here is becoming tedious.

There are things I know. I'll stake my performance in the field where I am an expert against anyone on the planet. I've put in the ten thousand plus hours. Seen it; done it; got the T-shirt. I know how to do apply my expertise. But I also know that I am ignorant of the Origin of existence. That is not a bias; that is not a form of avoidance; that is carefully considered, well informed assessment of the situation, of my personal reality.

It would be to your advantage to accept that, else I'll start thinking your engaged in some kind of ineffectual projection.

 

[Michael]

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

Be that as it may, the same criticism pretty much applies to all cosmology models. "Eternal inflation did it" isn't any more or less falsifiable than "God did it" in terms of "cause".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes I did. It was at the very beginning of our conversation. Time didn't exist in the singularity. Cause and effect requires the passage of time.

If you want to argue that god magically poofed things into existence, that's fine. Just understand that it is a violation of cause and effect, not the coherent inception of it as you describe.

You've completely lost me here. Huh?

First Cause is not a violation of cause-and-effect. Cause-and-effect is, in fact, infinite regression (which is itself a logical violation) without first cause.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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'm simply using the accepted semantics of the term; cause and effect involves temporal precedence and succession - the cause precedes the effect and the effect follows and results from the cause. There may be some Humean debate about the philosophical meaning of causality, but its temporality is unquestioned.

You don't get to make up your own definition of cause and effect to suit your argument.

When you presuppose a creator God with supernatural power and effect, you're begging the question; confirmation bias then ensures that not only can 'god-did-it' be the answer to any and all unanswered questions, but that is taken as support for its existence - a vicious circle. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

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."

Beginning and end are temporal terms. We have concepts like cause and effect because we are bound by time and view events from a temporal perspective.

However, you can take an atemporal perspective of the universe and its worldlines as a 4D Parminidean 'block' where past and future are equally real (Special Relativity suggests this and has empirical support), but from such a perspective, concepts involving temporal sequence such as cause and effect are inapplicable; you can't have it both ways.

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.

It appears you didn't understand it.

Existence begs explanation.

Does God exist?

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

The Cheshire Cat is another fiction.

I'm quite happy to extend causality to the origin of the observable universe (although, as already mentioned, that requirement is debatable), and I've already mentioned some causal explanations that are consistent with what we know of the physics of this universe.

But the argument you propose (for a creator God) involves the fallacy of special pleading; it comes across as a contrived catch-all 'explanation', a label with no explanatory power, about which people can literally give chapter and verse when it suits them, yet also claim it's mysterious and unknowable.

To me, a good explanation gives a greater understanding of the phenomenon it is supposed to explain, an understanding which can potentially be used to make and test predictions about that phenomenon, tie the phenomenon into our existing body of knowledge through common fundamentals, and help unify our understanding of other phenomena. Preferably, it should also be parsimonious (Occam's Razor), and if it coheres with (doesn't contradict) what we already know, so much the better.

An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it purports to answer, especially if those questions are unanswerable, explains nothing.

If you disagree with those general criteria for a good explanation, please explain why; if you agree with them, let me ask you a question I've asked of others who say God is a good explanation - how does it satisfy those criteria better than the non-explanation, "It's magic!"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many non Christians have died for their religious beliefs.

And many atheists have died for not having religious beliefs...

 

[pitabread]

An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it purports to answer, especially if those questions are unanswerable, explains nothing.

This is why I feel the appeal of invoking God as a first cause is more about theological validation than anything else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is your attitude toward the so-called metaphysical that since you know nothing about it, you haven't any opinion concerning it?

It depends what you mean by the 'so-called metaphysical'. I'm reasonably familiar with metaphysics.

If you mean the supernatural, my opinion is that it's a conceptual Band-Aid that gives a spurious sense of meaning and certainty for people who have difficulty with uncertainty and not knowing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is why I feel the appeal of invoking God as a first cause is more about theological validation than anything else.

Quite; different cultures have different origin stories. I was rather taken by the Epicurian origin story (as told by Lucretius). They had a very logical, almost scientific view of an atomist universe (justified by casual observation rather than experiment), surprisingly close to the modern classical view.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree that the terminology begins to fall apart, beginning with time sequence. As far as I can go back though, though delicately held, Logical sequence need not be time-dependent but cause-dependent. God need not operate like we do, to be logical.

I don't find perpetual cause to be any more reasonable than infinite regression, itself (if not possessing of intent and intelligence) being mere mechanical fact. If it is possessing of intent and intelligence, then it is God, except for one small problem --so far we see beginnings in cosmology, not perpetual cause.

If, though, by perpetual cause you only mean that God keeps on causing, to me it is reasonable to say that sans time, it makes no difference to God whether he spoke it into existence or is continually causing it.

I guess it depends on who's looking. Science doesn't see beginnings. It only sees that point beyond which it is unable to see.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm simply using the accepted semantics of the term; cause and effect involves temporal precedence and succession - the cause precedes the effect and the effect follows and results from the cause. There may be some Humean debate about the philosophical meaning of causality, but its temporality is unquestioned.

You don't get to make up your own definition of cause and effect to suit your argument.

When you presuppose a creator God with supernatural power and effect, you're begging the question; confirmation bias then ensures that not only can 'god-did-it' be the answer to any and all unanswered questions, but that is taken as support for its existence - a vicious circle. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

Beginning and end are temporal terms. We have concepts like cause and effect because we are bound by time and view events from a temporal perspective.

However, you can take an atemporal perspective of the universe and its worldlines as a 4D Parminidean 'block' where past and future are equally real (Special Relativity suggests this and has empirical support), but from such a perspective, concepts involving temporal sequence such as cause and effect are inapplicable; you can't have it both ways.

It appears you didn't understand it.

Does God exist?

The Cheshire Cat is another fiction.

I'm quite happy to extend causality to the origin of the observable universe (although, as already mentioned, that requirement is debatable), and I've already mentioned some causal explanations that are consistent with what we know of the physics of this universe.

But the argument you propose (for a creator God) involves the fallacy of special pleading; it comes across as a contrived catch-all 'explanation', a label with no explanatory power, about which people can literally give chapter and verse when it suits them, yet also claim it's mysterious and unknowable.

To me, a good explanation gives a greater understanding of the phenomenon it is supposed to explain, an understanding which can potentially be used to make and test predictions about that phenomenon, tie the phenomenon into our existing body of knowledge through common fundamentals, and help unify our understanding of other phenomena. Preferably, it should also be parsimonious (Occam's Razor), and if it coheres with (doesn't contradict) what we already know, so much the better.

An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it purports to answer, especially if those questions are unanswerable, explains nothing.

If you disagree with those general criteria for a good explanation, please explain why; if you agree with them, let me ask you a question I've asked of others who say God is a good explanation - how does it satisfy those criteria better than the non-explanation, "It's magic!"?

I give you credit for being able to argue more cogently (much more cogently) than I. The old dead guys were amazing, who could make a cogent sentence 300 words long, without a word processor, and without losing the interest of the reader --I wish I could do that, but I get going on a thought and get distracted and end up with a jagged line of thought. Probably more than any other I've read on the forums I frequent, I am accused of proffering a "word salad". I'm sorry I don't do better, and it's distressing that it isn't getting better as I get older.

I want to thank you, perhaps more than any other I have talked to here the last few day, for your patience, effort and time invested, thoughtfulness and kindness in discussing these things with me.

Nevertheless, this only means that I cannot well describe or defend what I mean; but, sadly, I can't prove to you my problem is only in my descriptions, or my defense. But yes, I do not expect you to acquiesce any point I have not shown.

I understand that I am unable to wholly separate my logic from my biases, but I will try to avoid depending on bias as I am able.

I prefer to refer, in discussions with you, at least, to this "Creator God" as First Cause. The fact that I consider God to necessarily be first cause is, I hope, irrelevant as to the rationality of considering first cause. I am sorry if out of laziness I have strayed from that, perhaps usually when referring to the (what I consider) necessary intent of first cause.


Anyhow, a few comments: You say, "An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it purports to answer, especially if those questions are unanswerable, explains nothing." --I'm not sure that's true. Certainly Quantum Physics as we know it raises more questions than it answers, (that is, unless you want to combine them all into the catchall, "HOW?"), since we hardly know where to begin asking the questions or what words to put to them.

I don't know if I lack the intelligence to see what you have shown, but I have not seen you posit any other possible explanations for existence --only to mention other avenues of study that exist. Of course, my saying that doesn't render them invalid.

You say: "If you disagree with those general criteria for a good explanation, please explain why; if you agree with them, let me ask you a question I've asked of others who say God is a good explanation - how does it satisfy those criteria better than the non-explanation, "It's magic!"?"
--To which I say: "To avoid using the the term "God", as I said I would do, I will say First Cause, but the explanation, "It's magic!" doesn't do the job because magic requires no intent, no direction, and possibly implies the rule of chance, which is illogical nonsense. To me also, it seems to only send one down the road of infinite regression --another logical fail.

The Cheshire cat reference was only an attempt at humor, derived from your handle and from the claim of some that quantum particles are observed causelessly blinking in and out of existence.

I hope I am not fooling myself to say that the special pleading for First Cause With Intent, is only after a long look at all the other alternatives semi-cogently presented to me so far. Perhaps it is special pleading, but if it is, I find it still more compelling than many other beloved premises of current scientific pursuits. But perhaps that is my bias. I do have a habit of appreciating my own thoughts more than they merit.

When a person sees a gap, as we all do (I think) concerning absolute beginnings, we consider different probable explanations --gap fillers. These may be mathematical explanations, or other lines of reasoning, full of other smaller gaps themselves, perhaps, but assumed for the purpose of the structure that seems necessary to reach each gap filler. Then we "test" not only to see if our line of reasoning fits, but whether other lesser gap fillers can reach the same main thesis. I see this going on all the time. It seems to be the main pursuit of the scientific tradition --all the way down from modern cosmology to the original periodic table. Yet we still don't know what Gravity is, nor what the smallest observable particle is composed of at its most basic level.

We only end up with Structure, it seems to me, not Filler. But structure is good, don't get me wrong. Yet I can't help but think that at some point we will see what was wrong with the periodic table --not just in depth of knowledge, but a presumption we did not realize right up to present day. And yes, that may be a flight of fancy of mine. But then, after all, Quantum physics has turned more than one presumption on its head.

 

[dad]

The fundamental assumption that underpins science is the idea of an objective universe.

Thanks for admitting that. Creation was nothing like that.

In that framework, we certainly can derive and test models of the universe's past.

No. You can use circular reasoning by first assuming that all things conform to fishbowl standards.Then you can interpret all you see accordingly. Be my guest, you are welcome to your beliefs.

However since you appear to reject the idea of an object universe, then all bets are off.

I reject the idea of people pretending to know when they certainly do not. If time did not exist, for example, in the far universe, you would have no way to know.

Though in past discussions (no pun intended), you do not appear to have an epistemological basis.

You are suggesting people need one of those?

 

[dad]

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

I was addressing your vague comments. Remember? 'scientific explanations are always open to revision or falsification'

 

[SelfSim]

The fundamental assumption that underpins science is the idea of an objective universe.

Thanks for admitting that. Creation was nothing like that.

.. and neither does science require such a superfluous 'assumption' (ie: 'an objective universe'). In fact asserting that it does, is a complete mischaracterization of science as a belief system, especially when such assumptions require that they also be 'true'.

A classic example of why we don't do that in science can be taken from the London cholera outbreak of 1854, where people who made assumptions about cholera got nowhere, whereas Dr. Snow got away from assumptions and did the hard legwork of actually investigating evidence for what the cause was. He interviewed victims, as well as people who escaped the disease, to piece together an account of what was going on that was pretty much free of assumptions about how cholera should work. (They had no idea disease could be carried in water, they assumed it had to be airborne).

In that framework, we certainly can derive and test models of the universe's past.

No. You can use circular reasoning by first assuming that all things conform to fishbowl standards.Then you can interpret all you see accordingly. Be my guest, you are welcome to your beliefs.

This must be a record .. putting aside his well-known nonsensical meaning of the term 'fishbowl', I agree with dad on this .. (but only on the point he is making in his above response).

And my prior response, gives an example of exactly why science specifically doesn't do this.

Folk on this thread need to recognise that logical arguments, (presented frequently thus far in this thread), follow a fundamentally different process to the scientific process. Science requires no prerequisite assumptions about the nature of the universe. In fact, when scientists refer to 'the universe', they are referring to a testable model ... and not an assumption about the truth of what it is!
Science only makes use of operational definitions which have already, themselves, been thoroughly tested. There is no way I can test for the truth of an objective universe .. therefore this is not an operational definition and science could not use it. It would be ejected from the process as being an untestable belief.

 

[Larniavc]

And many atheists have died for not having religious beliefs...

And many bothans died to bring us this information.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I want to thank you, perhaps more than any other I have talked to here the last few day, for your patience, effort and time invested, thoughtfulness and kindness in discussing these things with me.

You're very welcome.

You say, "An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it purports to answer, especially if those questions are unanswerable, explains nothing." --I'm not sure that's true. Certainly Quantum Physics as we know it raises more questions than it answers, (that is, unless you want to combine them all into the catchall, "HOW?"), since we hardly know where to begin asking the questions or what words to put to them.

Unless you specify the relevant quantum physics phenomenon and the proposed explanation, I can't really comment specifically; but you may have misinterpreted the point, which refers to the explanation alone, rather than the phenomena or entities invoked in explaining (though an understanding of the phenomena and entities involved can obviously help).

For example, if you asked me how an internal combustion engine worked and I said 'gas' or 'fire', you would rightly say that was no explanation - you'd want to know how gas or fire caused the engine to work. All you'd need to know to understand how an internal combustion engine works is that gas can make fire and fire can heat air in closed cylinders causing it to expand, pushing pistons that rotate a crankshaft that transfers torque to an output shaft, and so-on. Of course, there are always more possible questions to ask - how gas is flammable and how combustion occurs, why air expands when heated, how the piston is sealed, etc., are secondary explanations - a minimal explanation gives a basic understanding of the operation of the machine.

A meaningful primary explanation must be in terms of what you already know or understand (e.g. air, heat, pistons, crankshaft, torque).

If you had a basic understanding of physics and engineering, i.e. you understood the relevant secondary explanations, and you had a description or example of an internal combustion engine, you could figure out how it works for yourself.

I should also have mentioned that a consequence of having to provide a deeper understanding of particular phenomena means that an 'explanation' that can 'explain' anything doesn't explain particular phenomena. For example, saying that particles, forces, and fields explain everything, is not an explanation for how an internal combustion engine works - it's not even a secondary explanation.

You should be able to see now why "God-did-it" is not an explanation as it stands. It fails on all criteria.

In quantum mechanics, we have a precise mathematical formalism that enables us to calculate, with extreme precision, the probability of seeing a particular outcome of a quantum measurement or observation. We don't claim to have a physical explanation of what the mathematics means (although there are various interpretations), so the formalism is a mathematical explanation for quantum observations.

I don't know if I lack the intelligence to see what you have shown, but I have not seen you posit any other possible explanations for existence --only to mention other avenues of study that exist. Of course, my saying that doesn't render them invalid.

I've mentioned possible histories of our universe, consistent with known physics - temporally infinite histories, mirror time histories, and finite-but-unbounded-in-time histories. They're currently untestable, but they're possible explanations.

"To avoid using the the term "God", as I said I would do, I will say First Cause, but the explanation, "It's magic!" doesn't do the job because magic requires no intent, no direction, and possibly implies the rule of chance, which is illogical nonsense. To me also, it seems to only send one down the road of infinite regression --another logical fail.

A 'first cause', per se, is just an initial event; so, unless the capitalisation confers some additional meaning, it also has no intent and no direction - assuming it's necessary at all.

I don't know what you mean by the 'rule of chance' being illogical nonsense, or why it results in infinite regression, and why that's a Bad Thing - you'll have to explain that.

I'd also like you to explain why you think intent and direction is relevant - what, exactly, requires intent and direction? intent to do what, and what needs direction?

And you still didn't answer the question asked - how does it (God) satisfy those criteria better than the non-explanation, "It's magic!"?

Those criteria are commonly used for assessing explanations - if you prefer, how does it satisfy those criteria at all ?

The Cheshire cat reference was only an attempt at humor, derived from your handle and from the claim of some that quantum particles are observed causelessly blinking in and out of existence.

'Virtual particles' are just an analogy for below threshold quantum field excitations.

I hope I am not fooling myself to say that the special pleading for First Cause With Intent, is only after a long look at all the other alternatives semi-cogently presented to me so far. Perhaps it is special pleading, but if it is, I find it still more compelling than many other beloved premises of current scientific pursuits. But perhaps that is my bias. I do have a habit of appreciating my own thoughts more than they merit.

Special pleading is a fallacy, so an argument that uses it is, by definition, mistaken (whether the point at issue is true or false). If you're happy to knowingly hold with an irrational/illogical argument, that's your prerogative, but if so, rational argument and critical thinking are no longer relevant, so I'll stop.

When a person sees a gap, as we all do (I think) concerning absolute beginnings, we consider different probable explanations --gap fillers ... Yet we still don't know what Gravity is, nor what the smallest observable particle is composed of at its most basic level.

Inevitably, unless reality has infinite levels of scale, there will be unexplained fundamental 'stuff', out of which everything else is made, and which it makes no sense to ask of what it's made. The same applies to existence in general - ultimately, it's a brute fact.

But on the topic of unexplained existence, you previously said, "Existence begs explanation." I then asked you if God exists. You didn't respond.

You can see why I asked the question - if existence begs explanation and God exists, then God begs explanation. If you insist that everything that exists must have an explanation, then either God must have an explanation or you're special pleading again.

Alternatively, 'begging explanation' may be a wistful aspiration that acknowledges that not everything necessarily has an explanation; in which case, the universe (or multiverse/metaverse) itself may not have an explanation, making a First Cause redundant.

We only end up with Structure, it seems to me, not Filler. But structure is good, don't get me wrong. Yet I can't help but think that at some point we will see what was wrong with the periodic table --not just in depth of knowledge, but a presumption we did not realize right up to present day. And yes, that may be a flight of fancy of mine. But then, after all, Quantum physics has turned more than one presumption on its head.

I don't know what you mean by this - we know the layout of the periodic table is a compromise, but in what sense is it 'wrong'?