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

[Ophiolite]

Well, at least kudos on leaving the conversation much quicker than Kylie et al, when you can't clarify your vague statement. I wanted to know "which" you were referring to by "In which case..." Your statement is useless without knowing quite what you are referring to.

The fact that the "free" in the term, "free will", is severely limited in scope within predestination, (among other things which demonstrate its limitations), it does not mean there is no real choice --even responsible choice.

I realise you think you are making sense, but I have found your posts to me largely unintelligible, the one above included. I draw your attention to the note in my signature that indicates that the responsibility for clarity lies largely with the writer not the reader. I've effectively left the conversation, since talking to a brick wall is a pointless exercise. You have to dismantle the wall from the inside if you want to change that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Scientific Proof Is A Myth - Forbes
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof
Where's the proof in science? There is none - The Conversation
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of
Theory - Oregon State University
What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove ..

Testing scientific ideas - Understanding Science
Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science. Any aspect of the natural world could be explained in many different ways.

The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
Testing Scientific Theories

Scientific Hypothesis vs Theory vs Law | Futurism
Testing Gravity with Gravitational Wave Source Counts

Please point me to the portion of any of the links provided that support your claim that "the foundation of science is to replace old truths". I am not disputing and, indeed, have long promoted the points that (a) science does not prove things, (b) testing is at the core of science. That is what your links appear to address. That is not the claim I am challenging.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How would you present a logical argument to prove this?

Without an arrow of time to differentiate between past & future, there is nothing to distinguish cause from effect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It’s an extension of the Minkowski diagram in my previous post.

Here is a simplified Minkowski diagram in a rest frame composed of a vertical t axis (expressed in units ct so it is dimensionally the same as the x axis) and a horizontal x or space axis.

For a photon travelling at c the world line or path in space time forms a 45⁰ angle with the t and x axis as it undergoes equal displacement in both time and space.
Note the line forms a part of the light cone in the Minkowski diagram.

An event is defined as having a position and time coordinate.
If two events occur on the x-axis then each event is only separated in space, there is no temporal displacement as each event occurs at t=0.
This has important consequences as there is no ordering of the events.

This is not a problem for particles travelling at velocities less than c where the world line forms an angle less than 45⁰ with the time axis.
This is because length contraction and time dilation causes the time and space axes to undergo rotation which is the geometrical version of the Lorentz transformations.

For each observer the degree of rotation depends on the velocity of the observer but if each observer travels at less than c they will always be in time like region where causality is not violated.

If the observers travel faster than light they fall in the space like region where causality is violated.
In this case it is possible to define events purely on the x-axis but as shown there is no temporal displacement or time ordering of events.

In the diagram in the time like shaded region event O definitely comes before event P, outside this region in the space like region one cannot tell if O comes before Q or Q comes before O.

From a physics rather than maths perspective what this is amounts to is that O and Q occur in such rapid “succession” that the time difference is less than the time needed for a light ray to traverse the spatial distance between the events.

So it is possible for an observer travelling faster than light to answer your question before it was even asked.

Sure, I understand that - it was late and I just couldn't see how it was relevant... but I guess it's just a play on cause & effect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Any words not mine already?

I can't parse that - perhaps you could rephrase the question.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Without an arrow of time to differentiate between past & future, there is nothing to distinguish cause from effect.

I don't see how one thing logically following another, as result from cause, necessarily implies time passage. For example, I have heard it said (while I disagree) that First Cause could have by definition existed only by the fact that it caused the resulting universe (s). Whether by big bang or by spoken word, or by whatever means, time passage doesn't seem to me to be necessary for First Cause to cause the first effect(s).

According to Hawking, as I remember, time began at the Big Bang, yet admittedly, something caused it; even if the cause was co-emergent (which to me is a ludicrous notion) with the event. the logical sequence is not time dependent.

 

[Michael]

I wouldn't call that predestination, since it doesn't lock the children into a set course of action.

It certainly limits their "choices" and "guides" their decision making process.

Yes it does.

Let's say a person is predestined to go overseas as an exchange student. The student MUST therefore hear about the exchange program, so that's another thing that must be predetermined. The student MUST carry out certain actions in order to be at the right place at the right time to find out about the exchange program. So there's more things that need to be predetermined. Because if any one of the things leading up to the student enrolling in the student exchange program doesn't happen, they can't get to their predetermined outcome.

In *this* day and age, all that would be required to find out about an exchange student opportunity is to "hear" about the existence of exchange students in general (we had several them in our high school), and simply initiate a Google search. The impetus might be a relative that lives overseas, an opportunity and circumstance that could be "predetermined" in the first place.

 

[sjastro]

Does not the direction of travel play into the question? As reality would have it, the fact he answered your question before you asked is irrelevant, since you would not get the answer until it arrived, nor would the question get to him until after you asked it.

It has been explained in this post.
Travelling faster than the speed of light makes all events simultaneous and not time ordered making it impossible to determine what came first the question or the answer.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It appears to me you aren't very well reading what I wrote, or that what seem to you to be logical implications from the terminology do not work logically.

I read what you wrote and it's nonsense. You keep repeating the same nonsense despite multiple posts where the faults of it have been made very clear.

Let me try again. If you are presented with a choice of APPARENT options, is it not still choice?

No, it's not .

I asked you before, and you didn't answer. Was Henry Ford offering his punters a choice with his "any color as long as it is black"? There's no difference between what you are saying God offers and what Henry Ford offered.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lol, ok, I can't keep the argument in the terms with which I began. Happy? But the reason I can't is pretty simple --I can't seem to get my terms to fit your terms.

My point has not changed, nor has the logic behind why it is true. Predestination of absolutely everything, and Real, Responsible Choice are both possible at the same time.

No. Predestination of everything absolutely and by definition precludes choice. You don't get to redefine terms and claim reality is not real just because you want to.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes, I know that is how it is usually argued, but not usually so from the Reformed POV. There is no need to say some things are predestined but other things are not. In fact, the logical implication of saying that is either that some people are intrinsically better than others, (i.e. not even better because God made them better) or that absolute CHANCE has some sort of ability to determine. Both are bunk.

I may have mistaken what you said, or who I was talking to, but: If all choices are not equally probable, as you and Kylie now both admit, how can any but the one be chosen? "There is a 100% chance that what will happen will happen".

I "keep saying this" --what is the "this" you are referring to?

Again, I AM NOT saying that God makes the choice FOR us. He makes his, we make ours. Ours is dependent on his, yes, and ours, I say for the sake of clarity, is a choice of options apparent to us, but the final choice will indeed be what he decides we will make.

To put it in hard terms: God has decided absolutely everything that will happen. We see apparent options available from which to choose. God uses influences to cause us to make the choices we do from those apparent options. The fact is, only one of those is actual, (as can be seen retrospectively by the fact it has been done, and the others have not).

So, in your own words, you have said yet again that God makes a choice and we MUST choose the same thing. Why? Because there is no real choice, just a semblance of choice.

Give it up, you keep contradicting yourself and demonstrating the errors of your own argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't see how one thing logically following another, as result from cause, necessarily implies time passage.

By definition, cause precedes effect .

According to Hawking, as I remember, time began at the Big Bang, yet admittedly, something caused it; even if the cause was co-emergent (which to me is a ludicrous notion) with the event. the logical sequence is not time dependent.

Hawking, and other cosmologists, have or had interests in a variety of hypotheses; his most interesting idea was that as you go back in time towards the big bang, the (mathematically) imaginary component of time becomes increasingly dominant, until time becomes entirely space-like (or something along those lines), so that there is no beginning to time at the big bang.

But there is no problem with time starting at the big bang, if you mean the entropic arrow of time. An event occurred that established an arrow of time, i.e. there was a low entropy initial boundary condition at the big bang (or inflation, depending on your preferred model). Consensus opinion among cosmologists seems to be that it is likely that the big bang was only the initial event in our 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, a consequence of prior events in a 'parent' metaverse (but they would say that, wouldn't they?).

As for logical and temporal sequences, I can see how a logical sequence can be atemporal, but when we talk about what happens in the universe, we're talking about events, points in spacetime, not logical statements - and points in spacetime are inherently temporal.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Consensus opinion among cosmologists seems to be that it is likely that the big bang was only the initial event in our 'bubble' or 'pocket' universe, a consequence of prior events in a 'parent' metaverse (but they would say that, wouldn't they?).

Lol, yeah, I hear ya. Ok, I think now I understand better where you are coming from about cause-and-effect being necessarily time dependent. I was considering all of fact, irrespective of time, whether metaverse or "prior" or whatever, though I agree, within this universe, I think it is all time respective.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, in your own words, you have said yet again that God makes a choice and we MUST choose the same thing. Why? Because there is no real choice, just a semblance of choice.

Give it up, you keep contradicting yourself and demonstrating the errors of your own argument.

Does it help to say that God chose a path for us to take, and that we always choose to take that path --i.e. that God chose to cause us to choose what we did?

While we are having fun with this, you have failed again to show how you can choose a path that is not the one that turns out to be the only one. It simply does not happen, as far as we know. (There are theorists that like to suppose that every path is chosen, producing an alternate universe or something for each path, but that cannot be demonstrated.)

As I define God, that is to say, First Cause, even if First Cause is mere mechanical fact (which I deny) or is a being with will, intelligence and purpose, it seems to me reasonable that it has caused absolutely everything, either by beginning things how it did, or by continuing things as they continue, or (this one is what I think) both. Either way, everything that happens is the result of something else all the way back to First Cause. Therefore, choice also is the result of First Cause. And since only one choice ends up being made, I think it is reasonable to say it was not only caused, but was caused from the beginning.

My descriptions may not satisfy your understandings, so you see contradictions; I do not.

Say you do not choose, or that you do, it makes no difference in the end. Only one choice can be made, since that law of cause-and-effect is never broken, whether the options perceived are actual (not just perceived) or not. I think it is a bit of gall to say that one "could have" chosen differently. For sure, there are many times one "should have" chosen differently, from the options apparently open to them, and that demonstrates their responsibility, which many Christians (and others) tell me is negated under predestination.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. Predestination of everything absolutely and by definition precludes choice. You don't get to redefine terms and claim reality is not real just because you want to.

Well, good, then. You CAN demonstrate just how it works, even though you invoke some ethereal law I don't know about that, since CHANCE has no ability, that you have absolute free will to choose whatever options are available to you. You can, perhaps, at least cite to me some example to show that it does happen sometimes, that more than one choice was brought to fruition in that very decision or something?

It never happens. Only one thing happens. Only the one choice with each decision was made. You have not shown me an actual difference between apparent and real options.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I read what you wrote and it's nonsense. You keep repeating the same nonsense despite multiple posts where the faults of it have been made very clear.


No, it's not .

I asked you before, and you didn't answer. Was Henry Ford offering his punters a choice with his "any color as long as it is black"? There's no difference between what you are saying God offers and what Henry Ford offered.

I admit I do have a problem seeing how the Henry Ford question was relevant; I left it alone as such. If Henry Ford had offered seven different colors, but actually only had black available, because somehow he knew that everyone would choose black, it would be a little more a reasonable comparison. But then Henry Ford would need to work circumstances in which they would inevitably choose black --something not many can do!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

While we are having fun with this, you have failed again to show how you can choose a path that is not the one that turns out to be the only one. It simply does not happen, as far as we know. (There are theorists that like to suppose that every path is chosen, producing an alternate universe or something for each path, but that cannot be demonstrated.)

Why are you asking me to explain an impossibility that I do not claim? You're the one making impossible claims (that a "choice" of one option is actually a choice).

Only one choice can be made,

And there's you just asserting complete predestination again. Free will says that where a choice must be made we may end up following one path, but a different choice would lead down a different path. If only one option is available, there is no choice and there is no free will. Read that 100 times and see if you can understand what it means, because so far you have shown a complete lack of understanding.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I admit I do have a problem seeing how the Henry Ford question was relevant; I left it alone as such. If Henry Ford had offered seven different colors, but actually only had black available, because somehow he knew that everyone would choose black, it would be a little more a reasonable comparison. But then Henry Ford would need to work circumstances in which they would inevitably choose black --something not many can do!

The fact you cannot see there is no difference between Henry Ford's "choice" of a single colour and God's "choice" of a single option says a lot about your grasp of a very simple concept.

Which of these is the odd one out:
1. Any colour you want as long as it's black.
2. Any fruit you want as long as it's apple.
3. Any number you want as long as it's 7.
4. Any decision you want as long as it's the decision I already made.

Let me answer that for you - it's number 4. They're all examples of exactly the same lack of choice, but you claim 4 is special because... well, I cannot explain why it is any different, and neither can you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well, good, then. You CAN demonstrate just how it works, even though you invoke some ethereal law I don't know about that, since CHANCE has no ability, that you have absolute free will to choose whatever options are available to you. You can, perhaps, at least cite to me some example to show that it does happen sometimes, that more than one choice was brought to fruition in that very decision or something?

Why do I have to demonstrate something I have not claimed? You really are a long way out of your depth, aren't you? We are talking about your claims, so let's deal with those.

It never happens. Only one thing happens. Only the one choice with each decision was made. You have not shown me an actual difference between apparent and real options.

And now it appears that you do not grasp the difference between possibility and actuality. You're presenting nothing more than an argument for 100% predestination, but pretending it includes free will. Yet at every turn, you contradict yourself by claiming there is no free will but you do not understand that is what you are saying. It's amazing to watch such mental gymnastics.

 

[Kylie]

God is not like me. I can influence and even leave options. But when God does it, it is no experiment. What he plans will indeed come to pass.

So now he's not influencing, he's planning!

God plans for me to do X, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it! There goes my choice, huh?