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

[Kylie]

If that is what you choose to believe, ok.

You seem incapable of supporting your assertions.

 

[Ken-1122]

If it was not predetermined, then how could I have a vision of it? How can I see something which does not exist?

You can’t! That’s why the question is phrased as a hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if you were able to see where your actions would lead if you continued your current path, it would not be predetermined because you would still have the option to choose differently and alter your future.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seem incapable of supporting your assertions.

Lolol. Ok. However you want to see it.

 

[Ken-1122]

So you are left without First Cause? That leaves 1. no cause, or Chance or 2. Infinite regression of causes --both are logical nonsense.

Just because God is not an option does not mean there can be no first cause.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if you were able to see where your actions would lead if you continued your current path, it would not be predetermined because you would still have the option to choose differently and alter your future.

That's an assertion and a non sequitur. Good work!

 

[SelfSim]

Are you asking me if I ever decide to do something for no reason, or if I choose to do something for no reason?

Can you answer both of those respective questions then?

 

[Kylie]

You can’t! That’s why the question is phrased as a hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if you were able to see where your actions would lead if you continued your current path, it would not be predetermined because you would still have the option to choose differently and alter your future.

So you create a hypothetical which is built on your prefered answer of things not being set in stone in order to show that in your hypothetical things aren't set in stone?

In the hypothetical, if the events I saw were not set in stone, there was no reason for me to have seen them that way, as I could have seen them an infinite number of different ways. Why would I have seen them that particular way? In any case, if I could change them, then there is no predestination and I have free choice.

If I could NOT change them, then I have no free choice, because I would be incapable of choosing to do something different.

And thus we return to my argument all along - we can not have predestination AND free choice at the same time!

 

[Kylie]

Lolol. Ok. However you want to see it.

Prove me wrong by supporting them then.

 

[Kylie]

Can you answer both of those respective questions then?

Does "Because I just felt like it" count as a valid reason?

 

[Ken-1122]

So you create a hypothetical which is built on your prefered answer of things not being set in stone in order to show that in your hypothetical things aren't set in stone?

Not quite. Somebody else presented the hypothetical of you witnessing future events of other people, asking if your witnessing takes away their freewill, and you responded with you witnessing YOUR future events. I pointed out the difference between your response and the actual question; and that's how we got where we are now.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's an assertion and a non sequitur. Good work!

If you disagree with what I said, just point out your disagreement

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you disagree with what I said, just point out your disagreement

I did. You just responded to that post

 

[SelfSim]

How can you demonstrate free will? I've never heard of anyone being able to demonstrate free will.

Fair enough .. Good question.

Free will is a concept, as is deterministic and random. If they can be expressed in testable ways, then I would think they would be demonstrable.

If I can connect a "self-causing" act with a kind of agency that, itself, could be called neither deterministic nor random, (eg: maybe a mind?), I think we may then have something to talk about .. Until there is evidence for that, free will, as the term is normally applied, is neither compatible with determinism nor incompatible with it ... instead I think it must be viewed as unconnected with it and irrelevant to it, because thus far, it has not been expressed in terms where the physical notion of cause and effect (involving information and prediction) is directly applicable.

 

[Kylie]

Not quite. Somebody else presented the hypothetical of you witnessing future events of other people, asking if your witnessing takes away their freewill, and you responded with you witnessing YOUR future events. I pointed out the difference between your response and the actual question; and that's how we got where we are now.

The two are inextricably linked.

If I saw the actions of people in Hawaii that would take place one hour into the future, I could take some action to make sure that those events did not happen. If I saw them sending their children off to school, I could call them, pretend to be a school faculty member and claim that the school is closed due to a gas leak.

If I saw the events of tomorrow where a person will jump to their death of the Golden Gate bridge, I could jump on a plane and be there to stop them from jumping.

It doesn't even need to be that clear cut. You ever heard of the butterfly effect? A butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing and a month later you get rain instead of sunshine in Central Park New York, just because the flapping wings changed the air currents so slightly, and this change lead to a different weather system in a different part of the world. So I could change what happens to the people I saw by something as simple as coughing.

 

[SelfSim]

Does "Because I just felt like it" count as a valid reason?

I think it might(?), ie: "Because .. <reasons>"

If the answer had been 'no reason' then I think a free will choice may have then been distinguished from a decision for a reason like 'I felt like it'(?)

 

[Kylie]

I think it might(?), ie: "Because .. <reasons>"

If the answer had been 'no reason' then I think a free will choice may have then been distinguished from a decision for a reason like 'I felt like it'(?)

What if there was no reason to explain why I felt like it?

 

[Ken-1122]

The two are inextricably linked.

If I saw the actions of people in Hawaii that would take place one hour into the future, I could take some action to make sure that those events did not happen. If I saw them sending their children off to school, I could call them, pretend to be a school faculty member and claim that the school is closed due to a gas leak.

If I saw the events of tomorrow where a person will jump to their death of the Golden Gate bridge, I could jump on a plane and be there to stop them from jumping.

It doesn't even need to be that clear cut. You ever heard of the butterfly effect? A butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing and a month later you get rain instead of sunshine in Central Park New York, just because the flapping wings changed the air currents so slightly, and this change lead to a different weather system in a different part of the world. So I could change what happens to the people I saw by something as simple as coughing.

True. Now answer the question; if you simply observed those things without interfering, is your knowledge of their future actions taking away their freewill?

 

[Kylie]

True. Now answer the question; if you simply observed those things without interfering, is your knowledge of their future actions taking away their freewill?

I don't the question can be answered. It strikes me ass essentially time travel. If I go to the future and watch what someone does, then return to the present, can I actually return to my original timeline? Or when I return, does it create an alternate timeline? That's the only way I think it could work. I've spoken before about the idea that every single possible choice that can be made IS made, and thus me getting information about the future like that can't be shown with certainty to be from the future that this version of me experiences until it actually happens, and when that happens, the events are in the past and thus set in stone.
Time travel is rife with paradoxes.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't the question can be answered. It strikes me ass essentially time travel. If I go to the future and watch what someone does, then return to the present, can I actually return to my original timeline? Or when I return, does it create an alternate timeline? That's the only way I think it could work. I've spoken before about the idea that every single possible choice that can be made IS made, and thus me getting information about the future like that can't be shown with certainty to be from the future that this version of me experiences until it actually happens, and when that happens, the events are in the past and thus set in stone.
Time travel is rife with paradoxes.

The question is not about time travel, the question asks does having knowledge of the future take away freewill.

 

[Kylie]

The question is not about time travel, the question asks does having knowledge of the future take away freewill.

Which involves information travelling to the present from the future. How is that not time travel? Information is travelling back in time.