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

[Ken-1122]

Knowledge of what I am about to do, by another party, is not a constraint upon my free will (if such exists). God choosing what I about to do (if he exists and has that power) is a constraint upon my free will. If he makes all my choice then I have no free will.

The presence or absence of my freewill are not in any way dependent upon the conditions of your scenario.

I agree! If God is in control of our choices, we have no freewill. However if God is in control of it all, it kinda makes it difficult to justify sending people to Hell when we are just doing what he controlled us to do.... but then that's probably another discussion

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree! If God is in control of our choices, we have no freewill. However if God is in control of it all, it kinda makes it difficult to justify sending people to Hell when we are just doing what he controlled us to do.... but then that's probably another discussion

"1 Corinthians 15 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
15 Now, brothers, I must remind you of the Good News which I proclaimed to you, and which you received, and on which you have taken your stand, 2 and by which you are being saved — provided you keep holding fast to the message I proclaimed to you. For if you don’t, your trust will have been in vain. 3 For among the first things I passed on to you was what I also received, namely this: the Messiah died for our sins, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; 4 and he was buried; and he was raised on the third day, in accordance with what the Tanakh says; 5 and he was seen by Kefa, then by the Twelve; 6 and afterwards he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at one time, the majority of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Later he was seen by Ya‘akov, then by all the emissaries; 8 and last of all he was seen by me, even though I was born at the wrong time. 9 For I am the least of all the emissaries, unfit to be called an emissary, because I persecuted the Messianic Community of God. 10 But by God’s grace I am what I am, and his grace towards me was not in vain; on the contrary, I have worked harder than all of them, although it was not I but the grace of God with me. 11 Anyhow, whether I or they, this is what we proclaim, and this is what you believed.

12 But if it has been proclaimed that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, how is it that some of you are saying there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then the Messiah has not been raised; 14 and if the Messiah has not been raised, then what we have proclaimed is in vain; also your trust is in vain; 15 furthermore, we are shown up as false witnesses for God in having testified that God raised up the Messiah, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either; 17 and if the Messiah has not been raised, your trust is useless, and you are still in your sins. 18 Also, if this is the case, those who died in union with the Messiah are lost. 19 If it is only for this life that we have put our hope in the Messiah, we are more pitiable than anyone."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not quite. I presented a scenario to answer a question about what it means to know something. You claimed I needed to provide more information;

Not quite. As I said, you asked a question which I answered. You then rejected my answer, to which I said the reason for my error was that you failed to provide all the required information to provide the correct answer. That's a fact, whether or not you knew your friend was going to choose one flavour over another. I never said you had to prove anything, I said you needed to support your claim that you "knew without a doubt".

I then provided a dictionary definition to show you that to know does not require I am capable of demonstrating I am right; I only need to be 100% convinced I am right

And that is irrelevant to the situation. I asked you to support your claim and provide ALL necessary information, not just the assertion that you were right.

You don't get to decide which definition of a word I am to understand unless you make that clear at the time. You failed to do so, so I understood you to mean "I had absolute knowledge". Welcome to the English language. You got it wrong again.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It's not applicable as I explicitly stated that it was a tablebase position.

You also explicitly stated that there are billions of possible outcomes.

 

[Strathos]

You also explicitly stated that there are billions of possible outcomes.

Billions of possible paths to the same outcome.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Billions of possible paths to the same outcome.

If white plays perfectly. If is a very powerful word. Think about what it means.

Also consider that you said no more than 549 moves. I bolded those words and asked you to explain them. You're just ignoring them. Take responsibility for your failing and learn from it.

 

[Ohj1n37]

I don't think GOD can actually be found by science.

You answered your question right there.

God did not create us to understand him with intellect. If he did the way to be saved would be prove and understand how God exists.

God created us to understand him through love. There's no greater love than one who dies for their friends. That's why he chose to die for us.

 

[SelfSim]

... God created us to understand him through love. There's no greater love than one who dies for their friends. That's why he chose to die for us.

I'm not sure his son had any choice in that matter though ..(?)

 

[Ken-1122]

Not quite. As I said, you asked a question which I answered. You then rejected my answer, to which I said the reason for my error was that you failed to provide all the required information to provide the correct answer. That's a fact, whether or not you knew your friend was going to choose one flavour over another. I never said you had to prove anything, I said you needed to support your claim that you "knew without a doubt".

And what if I don’t? What if I refuse to support my claim that I was convinced beyond any shadow of doubt? Does this mean I am not allowed to believe what I said I believe? I don’t think so. My argument stands.

And that is irrelevant to the situation. I asked you to support your claim and provide ALL necessary information, not just the assertion that you were right.

When I said I knew, I was describing my thoughts and what I believed at the time. Unless you know more than I know what is going on inside of my head (which you don’t) you are in no position to question anything I say concerning my thoughts or what I believe to be true.

You don't get to decide which definition of a word I am to understand unless you make that clear at the time. You failed to do so, so I understood you to mean "I had absolute knowledge". Welcome to the English language. You got it wrong again.

I provided a dictionary definition of the word to provide clarity so you will know how I was using the word when I applied it to myself.

 

[Ohj1n37]

I'm not sure his son had any choice in that matter though ..(?)

Jesus is God dude. I and the father are one, Jesus said it himself.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I provided a dictionary definition of the word to provide clarity so you will know how I was using the word when I applied it to myself.

Post hoc definition doesn't count. If you'd wanted me to use a specific definition you should have said so at the start, not 4 posts later when I called you on it.

 

[Kylie]

How does God being all knowing change things?

Because he can't be wrong. From his perspective, it's like watching a movie. God knows what I will do, just the same way that when I watch Jurassic Park, I know for a fact that the lawyer is going to run from the car and hide on the toilet. The lawyer can't choose to do something else the next time I watch the movie.

So because God claims he is all knowing, that changes everything? I could make the same claim myself! If I were to make such a claim myself, does that take away your freewill?

There's a big difference between claiming to be all knowing, and actually being all knowing.

If you look up the definition of "know" that I provided, you will see that knowing has nothing to do with being accurate; it is all about how certain you are of your accuracy.

Know means "to be aware of a thing." It does not mean, "to be really convinced of something."

No, I was right because I was aware of the type of Ice Cream she likes and dislikes.

You seem to be missing my point. There was nothing stopping her from choosing chocolate at least in theory.

I mean, I could choose to repeatedly bang my head against the wall. The chances of me making that choice are very low, as I don't generally like pain, but there is nothing stopping me in principle from doing it.

How does her being convinced God knows everything influence her decision?

What are you talking about?

I never said that her opinion of God played any part of it. And I never said anything about her choice being influenced. Quite the opposite, my position is that if God knows what she will chose, the decision was never hers to make!

 

[Ken-1122]

Post hoc definition doesn't count.

What is a "Post hoc definition?

If you'd wanted me to use a specific definition you should have said so at the start, not 4 posts later when I called you on it.

The definition I provided is the only definition I know of. What other definitions are there?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is a "Post hoc definition?

Post hoc = after the fact.

The definition I provided is the only definition I know of. What other definitions are there?

I gave you the most commonly accepted understanding for the scenario provided just 2 posts back and you responded directly to that definition. Please pay attention.

FYI, as you don't seem to recognise words can have multiple meanings, allow me to educate you. "know" is also a transitive verb meaning "to have knowledge". Thus, when somebody states "I know without a doubt" the usually accepted meaning is "I have knowledge which leaves no room for doubt" i.e. "I have the knowledge to be certain that there can be no other possibility". It's far more emphatic than your claim of "I think it's the case".

I pointed out that you omitted to outline what that particular knowledge was, and you now claim you don't have to provide it, but that's only because you don't understand the words you used.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because he can't be wrong.

And how do you know he can’t be wrong? Faith. The same faith someone (in theory) could have concerning me.

There's a big difference between claiming to be all knowing, and actually being all knowing.

Concerning God there are only claims of him being all knowing.

Know means "to be aware of a thing." It does not mean, "to be really convinced of something."

The definition includes both

Definition of know | Dictionary.com

You seem to be missing my point. There was nothing stopping her from choosing chocolate at least in theory.

I agree! Even if God knew she would choose vanilla, there was nothing stopping her from choosing chocolate.

What are you talking about?

I never said that her opinion of God played any part of it. And I never said anything about her choice being influenced. Quite the opposite, my position is that if God knows what she will chose, the decision was never hers to make!

If nothing impede or influences her; if she is able to make this decision on her own accord, by definition it is free will.

Definition of freewill | Dictionary.com

 

[Ohj1n37]

my position is that if God knows what she will chose, the decision was never hers to make!

Hi, I was just replying to the original post when I saw this. I don't mean to interject, but I wonder what you're opinion is on this.

For philosophical purposes let's say you somehow were able to see the next five minutes into the future and in those five minutes you saw "choices" that people in those five minutes would choose.

Within the five minute time span do those people not have the capability to choose or is it that you just know what they were going to choose before they made their choice?

I don't believe knowing what someone is going to choose is forcing their choice, it simply means that you already knew what they were going to choose before they made it.

Now you could make the argument that well if God knew I would make bad decisions why did he not protect me from myself. My reply to that is have you asked him?

In my experiences I have observed God does not force himself onto people... well other than very rare occasions in the Bible. Matter of fact I believe that is probably the purpose of the life we live right now. You might want to look up the parable of the wheat and the tares. I believe God is seeing who wants to be with him and who doesn't. He is allowing us to freely choose.

What better way to see what people really think of you if they don't even know you're there?

And of course the Bible tells us, that if you seek God with all your heart you will find him.

That's my two cents. Not sure what you are looking for, but I hope I gave you some food for thought.

 

[Ken-1122]

when somebody states "I know without a doubt" the usually accepted meaning is "I have knowledge which leaves no room for doubt"

And how is this different than what I said? I said I was 100% certain due to my knowledge of this person. That means there was no room for doubt in my mind.

i.e. "I have the knowledge to be certain that there can be no other possibility". It's far more emphatic than your claim of "I think it's the case"..

If you take my claim of being 100% certain, to mean “I think it’s the case” you need to improve on your word comprehension skills

 

[Tinker Grey]

Jesus is God dude.

Nah.

I and the father are one, Jesus said it himself.

Said a writer who wasn't there.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And how is this different than what I said? I said I was 100% certain due to my knowledge of this person. That means there was no room for doubt in my mind.

The difference, as I pointed out, is the possession of knowledge rather than simply having an understanding.

If you take my claim of being 100% certain, to mean “I think it’s the case” you need to improve on your word comprehension skills

No, the error is in your understanding. There is a difference between possessing knowledge and having an understanding of something.

But let's move on from this. As I pointed out earlier, you are also making the mistake of saying your friend's refusal to accept an alternate flavour of icecream is the same as the restaurant only offering one flavour. Please think about that properly before responding.

The question was "did she have a choice"? The answer is yes, the restaurant offered a choice - unless, of course, you want to provide missing information Your friend's refusal to accept one option does not mean the option was not available.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is a difference between possessing knowledge and having an understanding of something.

I had both.

But let's move on from this. As I pointed out earlier, you are also making the mistake of saying your friend's refusal to accept an alternate flavour of icecream is the same as the restaurant only offering one flavour. Please think about that properly before responding.

Which post number did I say this?

The question was "did she have a choice"? The answer is yes, the restaurant offered a choice - unless, of course, you want to provide missing information Your friend's refusal to accept one option does not mean the option was not available.

That's my point! Whether it was God who had prior knowledge of her choice or myself, she still had a choice, thus freewill