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

[Kylie]

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

God being all-knowing is one of the cornerstones of Christian faith.

The definition includes both

Definition of know | Dictionary.com

That doesn't mean you can switch from one to the other at your convenience...

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

Except that God knew that she would choose Vanilla. And according to Christians, God can't be wrong. And if she was predestined to choose vanilla, then there was no way that she'd be able to choose chocolate.

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

But if she is predestined to choose vanilla, she can't possibly choose chocolate.

Or are you suggesting that if a person is predestined to do something, they can do something else instead?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

So you're arguing in support of my position by pretending to support a contrary view and telling me I'm wrong? That's a new tactic I've not seen before.

I suspect, though, this is actually just another case of you not understanding.....

 

[Kylie]

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.

For a start, I think that if that did happen, it would be one possible future. I mean, is this future I see one in which I knew what was going to happen? Would I have seen myself running around claiming I had seen it? Or am I seeing the future that would have happened if I had not had this vision at all?

Now, let's say I saw my husband sitting down to watch a DVD on TV. Would I be able to run in and smash the TV with a hammer before he started watching? Could I grab the DVD out of his hands and snap it before he could start playing it? If I can, then I do not KNOW what is going to happen. All I have seen is one possible future, and it isn't set in stone. People are not predestined to do what I saw them do, since I was able to prevent them from doing those things. And I can predestination be altered?

But let's say I can't run out and break the TV, or snap the DVD. Then the events I saw are set in stone, and I can do nothing to alter them. My hands are tied, I have no say in the matter - I can only do what I saw myself do in the future. If I saw myself standing there while my husband put a DVD on, I MUST stand there, in the exact position, in the exact pose I saw myself in. I can't even choose to scratch an itch on my nose unless I saw it happen, and even then, I can only scratch it in EXACTLY the way I saw myself scratch in my vision.

So if the events MUST happen the way I saw in the vision, then there is no choice, no free will. Events are locked in place, they cannot be altered. I cannot choose to do something I did not see myself do in the vision.

But if I do have a choice, then I CAN change the events of the future, and thus the future is not predestined.

 

[Ken-1122]

So you're arguing in support of my position by pretending to support a contrary view and telling me I'm wrong? That's a new tactic I've not seen before.

I suspect, though, this is actually just another case of you not understanding.....

I think you are confusing me with Kylie, she is the one who was arguing against free will, not me. My disagreement with you was more about what it means to know something.

 

[Ken-1122]

God being all-knowing is one of the cornerstones of Christian faith.

Yeah; Christian FAITH! You’re making my point

That doesn't mean you can switch from one to the other at your convenience...

The scenario I provided applies to both definitions; no need to go back and forth.

Except that God knew that she would choose Vanilla. And according to Christians, God can't be wrong.

Yeah and according to my fan club, I can’t be wrong. What’s your point?

And if she was predestined to choose vanilla, then there was no way that she'd be able to choose chocolate.

Predestined! Where did that come from??? When did I say anything about predestined?

But if she is predestined to choose vanilla, she can't possibly choose chocolate.

Or are you suggesting that if a person is predestined to do something, they can do something else instead?

There you go with that predestined again. Is this an attempt to shift the goal posts or something?

 

[Ken-1122]

For a start, I think that if that did happen, it would be one possible future. I mean, is this future I see one in which I knew what was going to happen? Would I have seen myself running around claiming I had seen it? Or am I seeing the future that would have happened if I had not had this vision at all?

Now, let's say I saw my husband sitting down to watch a DVD on TV. Would I be able to run in and smash the TV with a hammer before he started watching? Could I grab the DVD out of his hands and snap it before he could start playing it? If I can, then I do not KNOW what is going to happen. All I have seen is one possible future, and it isn't set in stone. People are not predestined to do what I saw them do, since I was able to prevent them from doing those things. And I can predestination be altered?

But let's say I can't run out and break the TV, or snap the DVD. Then the events I saw are set in stone, and I can do nothing to alter them. My hands are tied, I have no say in the matter - I can only do what I saw myself do in the future. If I saw myself standing there while my husband put a DVD on, I MUST stand there, in the exact position, in the exact pose I saw myself in. I can't even choose to scratch an itch on my nose unless I saw it happen, and even then, I can only scratch it in EXACTLY the way I saw myself scratch in my vision.

So if the events MUST happen the way I saw in the vision, then there is no choice, no free will. Events are locked in place, they cannot be altered. I cannot choose to do something I did not see myself do in the vision.

But if I do have a choice, then I CAN change the events of the future, and thus the future is not predestined.

I think you responded to a different question than was asked. Ohj1n37 presented a scenario about you being a witness to future actions of other people, and asked concerning their ability to choose. You responded about a scenario where you witness your own actions of the future, and responded concerning your own ability to choose.

 

[Kylie]

I think you are confusing me with Kylie, she is the one who was arguing against free will, not me. My disagreement with you was more about what it means to know something.

I am not, nor have I ever been arguing against free will. Where did I ever post that there is no free will?

My argument is and always has been that free will is impossible when things are predestined. The two ideas are mutually incompatible.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah; Christian FAITH! You’re making my point

You realise I'm an atheist, right?

The God example is only there as a mechanism to explain how, when we know for a fact that a particular thing is going to happen, then there is no free will.

The scenario I provided applies to both definitions; no need to go back and forth.

No it does not.

One definition is to be sure about something, the other is to be aware of something. A person can be 100% sure about something but still not know it. Conviction is not the same thing as knowledge.

Yeah and according to my fan club, I can’t be wrong. What’s your point?

Like I said, I am just using the concept of God to provide a mechanism to show that if something is known 100% for sure is definitely going to happen, then there can be no free will.

Predestined! Where did that come from??? When did I say anything about predestined?

All that talk about knowing for a fact...

There you go with that predestined again. Is this an attempt to shift the goal posts or something?

Have you not been paying attention to what my position is?

 

[Kylie]

I think you responded to a different question than was asked. Ohj1n37 presented a scenario about you being a witness to future actions of other people, and asked concerning their ability to choose. You responded about a scenario where you witness your own actions of the future, and responded concerning your own ability to choose.

Why should seeing my own future be any different than seeing someone else's future? I mean, the question was basically asking, "If you knew what was going to happen in the future, could those events be changed?" I don't see how it makes any difference if I am involved with those events or not.

My question asking whether or not I could do something to try to alter those future events was valid.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nm

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My disagreement with you was more about what it means to know something.

When I said "yes, your friend had a choice" why did you contradict me? And why have you continued to contradict me each time I reaffirmed that position?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why should seeing my own future be any different than seeing someone else's future? I mean, the question was basically asking, "If you knew what was going to happen in the future, could those events be changed?" I don't see how it makes any difference if I am involved with those events or not.

My question asking whether or not I could do something to try to alter those future events was valid.

If you knew your own future, you would be able to change it, which means you don't know your own future.

 

[Ken-1122]

When I said "yes, your friend had a choice" why did you contradict me? And why have you continued to contradict me each time I reaffirmed that position?

On post #1080 the first reply you claimed I did not know without a doubt when I was very clear that I did.
The second reply I said my probability of being wrong was the same as God’s probability of being wrong. IOW I never said she didn’t have a choice.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The second reply I said my probability of being wrong was the same as God’s probability of being wrong. IOW I never said she didn’t have a choice.

My reply directly quoted your question "In your view, did she have a choice?" I answered "yes" and included a short list of possible choices. You specifically said "No" to that reply. That's not agreeing with my statement that she had a choice, it is very clearly disagreeing with it. After that, you turned it into a discussion of what "know" means.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am not offering you more than black. That's the whole point.

In all instances there is a single option being offered. That's a really obvious fact and you refuse to accept it.

So now you're driven to a choice, but not forced? For goodness sake, you can't help but trip yourself up because you're talking nonsense!

I don't call it force, because of the baggage that comes with the term. You can call it that, if you wish, I don't really care. The truth is, you can't intellectually honestly deny it is caused, yet is still choice. You are presented with options, regardless whether only one will happen or not. But as it turns out, which you can't deny, only one happens --the one you chose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Please, define predestination for us. Let's see how it allows for choice.

Did you not think there were options? Did you not choose from among them?

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, it is possible for me to think I am making a choice even if I have no choice.

If I jump out of a plan, I will fall. Does that mean I am choosing to go downwards? No. The fact I am falling does not mean I chose to go down, since I have no choice at all in the matter. I am going to go down no matter what I choose.

You had the choice of jumping out of the plane, or not jumping. What does falling have to do with whether you chose or not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope!

If God has planned for me to choose that door, then I am NOT choosing it.

The instant God plans it, the probability of that door rises to 100% and the probability of all other doors falls to 0%. Since I no longer have multiple options, it ceases to be a choice. Remember, choices require several options, each with a non-zero probability. That condition is no longer being met, therefore it is no longer a choice on my part.



No. Me thinking that it is a choice does not make it a choice.



No, you did not choose. Your course of action was locked into place as soon as God made the plan. You had zero say in the matter.

Ok, so how does the question of whether God caused it, or inanimate First Cause caused it make any difference? It was predetermined, going to happen exactly as it did, either way.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't call it force, because of the baggage that comes with the term. You can call it that, if you wish, I don't really care. The truth is, you can't intellectually honestly deny it is caused, yet is still choice.

The intellectual dishonesty on display is not mine

You are presented with options, regardless whether only one will happen or not. But as it turns out, which you can't deny, only one happens --the one you chose.

You're now confusing the final choice made with the options presented. Of course only one option will ultimately be chosen. The part you are unable to grasp is that, until you have chosen that final option, all other options must be available. If I present you with only one option, you will select it, but you will not choose it. For you to choose you must have more than one option available, and they must actually be available, not just appear to be available.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Did you not think there were options? Did you not choose from among them?

That is not a definition. If you're so sure of your position, why can't you provide a definition as requested? Why the avoidance?

I'll ask again - please define predestination for us so we can see where it allows for free will.