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

[Bungle_Bear]

It seems that you haven't been properly interpreting anything I've said. I'm not a Calvinist who believes in double predestination for every single soul if that's what you're implying.

I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you what I've seen in your posts. All of your posts until now have argued that there are things in the future which we cannot avoid and every choice we make leads us inexorably to that point. At times (your chess analogy) that future point has actually been multiple possible points, but you failed to accept that or clarify what you actually understood. You have at no point said that you believe some choices are ours to make, you have only said that whatever choices we make they all lead to a given point, the implication being that every choice is part of a predestined path and therefore we have no free will. And now you have said that you believe some choices are ours to make, which would put you in line with what I've been saying to you the whole time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, I get you, and good point, and well made.

So how did we get sidetracked? I expect it was because of the scientific possibility that First Cause is in fact a viable theory, however unable science is to pursue the matter. It is perhaps more in the realm of Philosophy to logically reason the existence of First Cause, and corollary implications, yet, so far, they do fit within the findings of science.

I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that was my original point --I don't remember.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you what I've seen in your posts. All of your posts until now have argued that there are things in the future which we cannot avoid and every choice we make leads us inexorably to that point. At times (your chess analogy) that future point has actually been multiple possible points, but you failed to accept that or clarify what you actually understood. You have at no point said that you believe some choices are ours to make, you have only said that whatever choices we make they all lead to a given point, the implication being that every choice is part of a predestined path and therefore we have no free will. And now you have said that you believe some choices are ours to make, which would put you in line with what I've been saying to you the whole time.

You seem to apply inferences to what he has said that were not necessarily implied. Hardly anybody, unless by hyperbole for the sake of making a point, will say we do not choose. They will indeed say we have no free will, but that is another matter. Is this in line with what you were saying?

Maybe I'm butting in where I don't belong, and if so, I am sorry.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ok, I get you, and good point, and well made.

So how did we get sidetracked? I expect it was because of the scientific possibility that First Cause is in fact a viable theory, however unable science is to pursue the matter. It is perhaps more in the realm of Philosophy to logically reason the existence of First Cause, and corollary implications, yet, so far, they do fit within the findings of science.

I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that was my original point --

Nah, we got sidetracked because you claimed God makes all choices while at the same time we make those choices for ourselves. First Cause was never really part of your argument.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nah, we got sidetracked because you claimed God makes all choices while at the same time we make those choices for ourselves. First Cause was never really part of your argument.

I think I began with Kylie. You came into the thread somewhere down the line.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think I began with Kylie. You came into the thread somewhere down the line.

And.....? It doesn't alter the fact that the sidetrack began with your bizarre duality claim.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you what I've seen in your posts. All of your posts until now have argued that there are things in the future which we cannot avoid and every choice we make leads us inexorably to that point. At times (your chess analogy) that future point has actually been multiple possible points, but you failed to accept that or clarify what you actually understood. You have at no point said that you believe some choices are ours to make, you have only said that whatever choices we make they all lead to a given point, the implication being that every choice is part of a predestined path and therefore we have no free will. And now you have said that you believe some choices are ours to make, which would put you in line with what I've been saying to you the whole time.

You can make choices, but certain things are inevitable. Even atheists have to admit this.

 

[SelfSim]

So how did we get sidetracked? I expect it was because of the scientific possibility that First Cause is in fact a viable theory, however unable science is to pursue the matter.

Any 'possibility' you envisage, does not come from science.
Science (eg: Physics) never provides the cause to anything.

If you cannot specify the question in the form that say, Physics answers, then you cannot use physics on that question .. it simply has nothing at all to say about it.

It is perhaps more in the realm of Philosophy to logically reason the existence of First Cause, and corollary implications, yet, so far, they do fit within the findings of science.

I am yet to see a philosopher that understands science.
Philosophers using science's findings are almost always misinterpreting the science.
When it doesn't fit the philosophy, definitions, (not science's operational ones), get tweaked in an attempt to fit the science.

 

[SelfSim]

You can make choices, but certain things are inevitable.

'The predictions verify the specified initial conditions' .. that statement is fundamentally dissimilar to the claim of: 'certain things are inevitable'.

The former is scientific .. the latter, is not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You can make choices, but certain things are inevitable. Even atheists have to admit this.

I've said that from the very start. You have been arguing against that position.

 

[Strathos]

I've said that from the very start. You have been arguing against that position.

No, I have not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, I have not.

So why have you disagreed every time I have made that point?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And.....? It doesn't alter the fact that the sidetrack began with your bizarre duality claim.

In other words (and no, I don't have the post that began it), it could have been Kylie, not me, that began it. But that hardly matters, lol, here we are sidetracked again.

Harrumph! Bizzare duality claim, indeed! I don't even know what you are referring to with that.

 

[Strathos]

So why have you disagreed every time I have made that point?

You seemed to be arguing that any type of predestined event negates free will.

 

[Belk]

You can make choices, but certain things are inevitable. Even atheists have to admit this.

Only death and taxes as far as I am aware.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?

"For what it is worth", there have been scientists, religious members outside Christianity, non-believers,
who while seeking the truth, and continue seeking the truth,
TRIED TO PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.


Guess what happened!

God's Promise was FULFILLED! (remember what God's Promise is to everyone who seeks the truth and keeps seeking the truth ? )

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You seemed to be arguing that any type of predestined event negates free will.

In every post I made it very clear that I see freewill being possible except where those choices are precluded by predestination. I even went as far as to give examples of such. It was your posts that implied freewill was negated by predestined events. For example.

 

[Kylie]

Except that wasn't my point. I was trying to explain the mechanism of how it works, even though I already know you don't believe in it.

So what exactly is your point then, if you have to invoke fantasy to make your point?

The laws of physics say you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore since you can't hop over to Alpha Centauri and back in an afternoon, you have no free will?

My inability to travel faster than light does not force me into a particular course of action. There are still plenty of choices I can make. What's with this all-or-nothing attitude? Surely you realise it's a strawman?

 

[Kylie]

So you assert. But you are left with the same question you haven't answered. Using your example, if you choose to drive the short way because you have weighed the pros and cons, how is it any different if God decided which way you are to go, and set up those pros and cons?

The difference is that in one case, I am the one making the choice, and in the other case the choice is being made by someone who is NOT

By saying that you decided what you did because you weighed the pros and cons, you admit to causes. If God caused those causes, how is it any different --how are you still not choosing?

Because if someone other than me makes the choice, I am not the one who is choosing.

Honestly, this is a simple concept. Surely you understand it.

You want to appear to be able to choose the long way, and so it may appear to you, but in fact, you did not. You cannot prove that you could have. Yet you did choose. As it turns out, I'm not going to say you didn't have a choice. I probably shouldn't say you couldn't have, except that this one fact keep rearing its ugly head, that only one choice ends up happening.

So you're are saying that because I can't travel by multiple routes simultaneously, I don't have a choice?

REALLY?

It really isn't complicated. Your causes may be complicated, but God can handle that, if he is God. But the facts in the end remain, that God can choose which way you drive, and so, as it turns out, you weighed the pros and cons and chose what God chose for you.

If God choose it, then I didn't, even if he made the same choice I would have made.

Let me ask you a question...

Let's say you come over to my place for dinner. I have to decide what I'm going to cook, and the final two options are steak and salad, or a plate of dog poo. I choose to make the steak and salad because I figure you don't want to eat the dog poo.

Would you claim that you had to choose between steak and dog poo? Yes or no? And why or why not?

 

[Kylie]

I did not say the choice was not made by you. Of course you made the choice! So did God.

No I didn't. If God decided what I would do, i am locked out of that decision making process.

In the last post I answered you admitted to causes outside of yourself. Now you say it was only you. You drove the shorter route because you weighed the pros and cons, no? You said so. You want to insist you could have gone the long way, (and sometimes you might do so, because you weighed the pros and cons and decided to go the long way), but your influences CAUSED your choices (note the word you used, "because").

If there is something outside myself that means I am locked into one specific course of action, then it can not be because of a choice I make. For me to make a choice, I need several possible outcomes, and you've just said that I have none.

I never said there can't be any outside influences. But such influences do not lock me into a specific course of action.