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

[Bungle_Bear]

Nobody manipulates chance --not even God. There is no such thing as chance: chance is only a "placeholder for 'I don't know.'" (Voltaire). I am not God-- nor can I, like him, be absolutely sure what my child will choose. I only gave the example to show that two can make the one choice.

You didn't give an example of how this works. I think you're possibly being very disingenuous with how you perceive choice. If you give your child a choice between eating cookies or dog mess, I'd say you haven't really left them a choice. So please, give an example so we can see how you think this can work.

God can choose, and predestine, and know absolutely that what he chose will happen, because God is First Cause, all other causes are effects.

If everything is predestined, by definition we have no choice. There can be an appearance of choice, but it's just an illusion.

One always chooses the option available to them that they want to (And don't start arguing that point. In the end it is true, what they choose is what seems best to them at the moment. Even if the decision was careless, flippant, or nearly equal with other options, it is still what one wants to decide, that they decide.

And....? I have no idea what point this is supposed to be making.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You didn't give an example of how this works. I think you're possibly being very disingenuous with how you perceive choice. If you give your child a choice between eating cookies or dog mess, I'd say you haven't really left them a choice. So please, give an example so we can see how you think this can work.

I only showed that I can choose to bring about my child's choice, and even have something to do with causing it, yet my child also chose. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, it's not confusing, unless you insist that all choices are equally likely to be chosen, as your example aptly demonstrates the very opposite.

If one thing is chosen over another, why? --if they were equally possible. Chance?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I only showed that I can choose to bring about my child's choice, and even have something to do with causing it, yet my child also chose. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, it's not confusing, unless you insist that all choices are equally likely to be chosen, as your example aptly demonstrates the very opposite.

You didn't show anything, you asserted it. When I asked for an example, all you're giving me is another assertion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I am saying that I make the choice freely, without being forced to pick a particular option. I'm not saying the choice is uncaused, I'm saying I'm the one making the determination.

That statement isn't much different from what I believe, except while admitting to cause, it ignores the causes.

What you consider implications, however, is much different from what I do. You ignore the causes, that are logically necessary causes. Again --if there are causes, and a live intelligent causer of causes, that does not deny that the chooser chooses.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You didn't show anything, you asserted it. When I asked for an example, all you're giving me is another assertion.

lol, am I seeing you assert something with that post? Nothing's wrong with an assertion, at that without evidence, if we are still in the midst of defining terms while arguing the application or use of these terms. We all do that. I gave an example of what I was talking about; I demonstrated that God can decide and cause the decision of the creature.

Now, I expect we can launch into the realm of responsibility.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I gave an example of what I was talking about; I demonstrated that God can decide and cause the decision of the creature.

You have not given any example of you making a choice for your child to do the wrong thing, and you have not demonstrated anything. The statement "I can make a choice for my child" is not an example. An example would be "my child was trying to choose between apple and mango. I gave him cookies." Of course, that doesn't demonstrate you making a choice which your child then makes for himself, but it should give you an idea of what is expected as "an example".

 

[Strathos]

Yoo apparently missed the point is that if things are predestined, then we are also just actors performing a script that we have no say in.

Also, I'm not sure how you figure that fictional movie logic has any bearing on the way the real world works.

It's called an analogy.

As you said, "Way to totally miss the point."

Perhaps you need to go back and read my response in the context of your posts, not as a standalone post. Your argument is pretty much what you just accused me of, but I pointed out that with predestination some choices are yours to make and some aren't. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the two. I even gave specific examples of a choices you can make and choices you can't.

And I'm saying that that's always true, as long as your abilities are limited by any number of factors, whether you believe in predestination or not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have not given any example of you making a choice for your child to do the wrong thing, and you have not demonstrated anything. The statement "I can make a choice for my child" is not an example. An example would be "my child was trying to choose between apple and mango. I gave him cookies." Of course, that doesn't demonstrate you making a choice which your child then makes for himself, but it should give you an idea of what is expected as "an example".

wow. So, saying, "I can decide to set things up so that my child will decide to do something wrong, so that I can teach him a lesson" isn't good enough? Does saying, "I arranged for my child Johnny to steal cookies from the cookie jar from the pantry of the residence at 143 Maple Avenue of Brighton, Missouri on the 25th of May, 2002, knowing that if I let him think he is alone he would do so, and so indeed he did decide to do so." add any more validity to the point?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's called an analogy.



And I'm saying that that's always true, as long as your abilities are limited by any number of factors, whether you believe in predestination or not.

No, you miss the point completely. I am saying there are some choices which you can make. You don't seem to recognise that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

wow. So, saying, "I can decide to set things up so that my child will decide to do something wrong, so that I can teach him a lesson" isn't good enough?

Since it's not an example, no it isn't good enough.

Does saying, "I arranged for my child Johnny to steal cookies from the cookie jar from the pantry of the residence at 143 Maple Avenue of Brighton, Missouri on the 25th of May, 2002, knowing that if I let him think he is alone he would do so, and so indeed he did decide to do so." add any more validity to the point?

Not much. You haven't said how you arranged all of this in such a way as to guarantee the cookies would be stolen (you made the choice) while still leaving the choice to Johnny.

 

[Michael]

Yes, I am limited in what I can do. I can't choose to float up into the sky, for example. I can't choose to turn into a bird.

But being limited by gravity is NOT the same thing as being predestined.

I don't believe in absolute predestination either, but it would seem that a lot of my own life was definitely not determined by me personally. My freedom of choice is not 'absolute'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Since it's not an example, no it isn't good enough.

Not much. You haven't said how you arranged all of this in such a way as to guarantee the cookies would be stolen (you made the choice) while still leaving the choice to Johnny.

I already told you I can't guarantee it. I'm not God. However, I can decide it.

 

[Michael]

Eve is always referred to as a real woman. Adam as a real man. Throughout the Bible.

In terms of "science", that would tend to nicely correspond to mitochondrial "Eve" and the father of her children. I'm quite sure they were real.

A Living Person that told us He would send His spirit to help get His words and life correct.

Um, except there are dozens of "sects" in Christianity, so apparently there's still some ambiguity.

Jesus also confirmed the OT was very true. Moses even chatted with Him on a mountain and was not rebuked for having written Genesis. The Bible makes it plain His words are alive and from God.

Yet that still doesn't explain why your "interpretation" is more valid than the entire Catholic sect.

Let's look at that. Did you not just deny that Eve was a real woman created in the garden from Adam's bone by God a few posts ago? Be clear. We do have the sons of Adam listed, so it is not like the time when He lived is some great mystery. You apparently do not believe in Adam and Eve.

Actually, I absolutely *do* believe that we come from a common female (and male) ancestor because there is scientific evidence to support it which is found in the fact that we all share a common female ancestor.

You keep citing Jesus as the source of Spirit and life, which still doesn't explain what makes your interpretation of a *book* (not in red letters) any better than anyone else's interpretation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I already told you I can't guarantee it. I'm not God. However, I can decide it.

If you can't guarantee it you have not made the choice. I suspect you are make false equivalence between high probability and certainty. By all means, you can influence the probability of one action being selected over another, but that is not the same as actually making a choice. To make a choice the selection must be 100% certain. In which case you have not left poor Johnny with a choice to make.

So, do you want to concede the point and move on, or just continue to assert that logic and probability have no part to play in making choices in which case the discussion is over?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you can't guarantee it you have not made the choice. I suspect you are make false equivalence between high probability and certainty. By all means, you can influence the probability of one action being selected over another, but that is not the same as actually making a choice. To make a choice the selection must be 100% certain. In which case you have not left poor Johnny with a choice to make.

So, do you want to concede the point and move on, or just continue to assert that logic and probability have no part to play in decision making in which case the discussion is over?

In spite of your arrogance, I may decide what I please --my ability to bring about the effect I wished for is another matter.

I have pointed out that if you are equally likely to decide one thing as to decide another, you are depending on chance to make the decision you make. Then I showed how Chance doesn't have any ability to determine anything, so that your notion that choice is not choice if it is predetermined is illogical. Even if I am wrong, and it is not illogical to suppose that Chance can determine, you are still depending on chance to determine, so that if one choice is equally as likely as the other, it is still determined by more than just you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have pointed out that if you are equally likely to decide one thing as to decide another, you are depending on chance to make the decision you make. Then I showed how Chance doesn't have any ability to determine anything, so that your notion that choice is not choice if it is predetermined is illogical.

You assert a lot of things but you fail to support your assertions. You deny reality and you appear to rely on false equivalence. It's not convincing.

Even if I am wrong, and it is not illogical to suppose that Chance can determine, you are still depending on chance to determine, so that if one choice is equally as likely as the other, it is still determined by more than just you.

You're just reasserting a previous assertion. Where's your support?

 

[Kylie]

I only demonstrated that two can choose for the one choice to be made. I am not God; of course I can't make my child do all that. Nor am I claiming God makes all our choices "for us". He doesn't --but he does make the choices, and causes the choices.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say you aren't claiming that God makes choices on our behalf, then you say he does.

Let me spell it out once again - if God is the one doing the choosing, then we are not choosing, and thus it is not our choice.

I remind you, logically, if you "could have" chosen otherwise, that is to say, if all choices were equally possible, then you are relying on chance to make the difference.

That's just wrong.

I choose not to drive the long way to work because there is no gain for me to do that. It does not mean I am incapable of driving to work via that route. The reason I don't go that way is because I weight up the pros and cons and I choose which route to take. I don't know where you get the crazy idea that if our choices aren't predestined then they're down to random chance.

 

[Kylie]

That statement isn't much different from what I believe, except while admitting to cause, it ignores the causes.

What you consider implications, however, is much different from what I do. You ignore the causes, that are logically necessary causes. Again --if there are causes, and a live intelligent causer of causes, that does not deny that the chooser chooses.

I'm not ignoring the cause. The cause of my choices is ME.

And me only.

That's why I say it is MY choice, because I am the one doing the choosing. If the choice was NOT being made by me, then it's not my choice.

 

[Kylie]

It's called an analogy.

And you have failed to show that it applies to the real world.

And I'm saying that that's always true, as long as your abilities are limited by any number of factors, whether you believe in predestination or not.

No one is saying that there aren't things that limit what we can choose. We are saying that if our hand is forced for any reason whatsoever, even if we aren't aware of it, then it's not our choice.

 

[Kylie]

I don't believe in absolute predestination either, but it would seem that a lot of my own life was definitely not determined by me personally. My freedom of choice is not 'absolute'.

And no one is saying that others can't influence our lives or even force our hand sometimes.

All we are saying is that when our hands are forced, it's not our choice.