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

[Mark Quayle]

You agree that First Cause is not necessary, then return to arguing that First Cause is required.

Try listening to yourself next time you accuse others of being illogical. See if you can spot the fault that everyone else can see.

No. I was showing the only ways I know of that one can conceive of Inanimate First Cause being a possibillity. Then showing that none of them are in the end logical.

 

[Ken-1122]

Unless God is First Cause. Then, if he says it, it is true.

First cause has nothing to do with truth.

Unless God is First Cause. First Cause is not subject to principles or facts from outside himself.

Facts are, regardless of who you are. Anyone who says 1+1=3 is wrong, even if the first cause says it is right.

He is the "inventor" (Cause) of them. Also, if he is First Cause, what he says is fact

First cause is about starting things, it has nothing to do with being wrong, right, accurate, or inaccurate.

Agreed! and that was my point. Some will claim that inanimate first cause can exist by mere chance, but that is illogical, as you have shown.

No, you spoke of an eternal existence, and you were very clear to mention no beginning and no end. Then you turn around and say it was caused by chance! Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself here?

I asked how is objective any different from subjective when it is from God's pov.

Yes; the same difference when it comes to MY pov.

You did notice, I hope, that your dictionary did not claim that truth has authority above God's opinions.

It doesn’t claim truth has authority above MY opinion either; what’s your point?

God, (First Cause), does not have mere opinions like we do. He always knows and is always right. If he sees something subjectively, it is to us objective truth, (whether we see it or not).

If you are going to believe God is right, how do you know? If God says “X” is right even though it appears wrong to you, but due to your likelihood of error, you assume God is right, and you are wrong, how do you know you are really wrong? Yeah; I know his book says he is always right, but anybody can write a book claiming they are right; that doesn’t mean they are! IOW what method do you employ to verify God is right when it appears he is wrong?

 

[Kylie]

You asked.

Satan CAN only because he only ever WILLS to do so. Just as God planned all along.

Or are you going to say that First Causes is the victim of circumstance?

So God planned for Satan to want to be evil?

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No. I was showing the only ways I know of that one can conceive of Inanimate First Cause being a possibillity. Then showing that none of them are in the end logical.

If First Cause is not required (which you agreed), what does it matter if you cannot conceive of any logical possibilities for a First Cause?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If First Cause is not required (which you agreed), what does it matter if you cannot conceive of any logical possibilities for a First Cause?

Show where I conceded that First Cause is not necessary, please. You seem to excel at taking me wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So God planned for Satan to want to be evil?

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Do you not know what logical implications are produced by the fact of First Cause? EVERYTHING is caused, except First Cause. Therefore, everything proceeds directly or indirectly from First Cause. And being omnipotent, and omniscient, it is impossible First Cause would not know something would happen. Yet, First Cause created anyway --thus, intent.

What sounds ridiculous to me is that First Cause would leave some things to chance or to sovereign "free will", as spontaneously separate from the law of Cause-and-effect. There is logically no such thing, as such a sort of "free will".

 

[Kylie]

Do you not know what logical implications are produced by the fact of First Cause? EVERYTHING is caused, except First Cause. Therefore, everything proceeds directly or indirectly from First Cause. And being omnipotent, and omniscient, it is impossible First Cause would not know something would happen. Yet, First Cause created anyway --thus, intent.

What sounds ridiculous to me is that First Cause would leave some things to chance or to sovereign "free will", as spontaneously separate from the law of Cause-and-effect. There is logically no such thing, as such a sort of "free will".

I can cause something without planning for every single thing that that thing ever does. I can cause music to be played, but that doesn't mean I intended for the guy listening to propose to his girlfriend because my music moved him emotionally.

You have not shown that a hypothetical first cause must mean every single event is intended.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Show where I conceded that First Cause is not necessary, please. You seem to excel at taking me wrong.

Oh, for goodness sake. It was the post I first responded to. Is this going to be another case of you wanting to blame others for your abysmal communications skills?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I can cause something without planning for every single thing that that thing ever does. I can cause music to be played, but that doesn't mean I intended for the guy listening to propose to his girlfriend because my music moved him emotionally.

You have not shown that a hypothetical first cause must mean every single event is intended.

You are not First Cause.

First Cause is necessarily aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect, since he is intelligent being. (There can be no inanimate first cause). It is not like he is a little bit intelligent either. Seems like you are only thinking as far as you WANT to go.

 

[Lazarus Long]

You are not First Cause.

First Cause is necessarily aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect, since he is intelligent being. (There can be no inanimate first cause). It is not like he is a little bit intelligent either. Seems like you are only thinking as far as you WANT to go.

First cause, like every other god, is the creation of man.

 

[Kylie]

You are not First Cause.

First Cause is necessarily aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect, since he is intelligent being. (There can be no inanimate first cause). It is not like he is a little bit intelligent either. Seems like you are only thinking as far as you WANT to go.

Seems like you are resorting to special pleading...

 

[Speedwell]

You are not First Cause.

First Cause is necessarily aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect, since he is intelligent being. (There can be no inanimate first cause). It is not like he is a little bit intelligent either. Seems like you are only thinking as far as you WANT to go.

You're going a little bit too fast for us, I'm afraid. It's a big leap from the "first cause" of the cosmological argument to your Bible God.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are not First Cause.

First Cause is necessarily aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect, since he is intelligent being. (There can be no inanimate first cause). It is not like he is a little bit intelligent either. Seems like you are only thinking as far as you WANT to go.

So because you say it, that makes it so? No. If you are going to make such a claim, you need to back it up with something other than your word. You need to explain WHY first cause has to be intelligent and has to be aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect; otherwise you will not be taken seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

@SelfSim I asked you why you rejected chaos theory. Note that I asked for your scientific reasoning

What is your scientific reasoning for this rejection.

You responded with what I call waffle and what you acknowledge was not scientific. If that really is the best you can do on a discussion sub-forum focused on science then you are wasting your time writing such posts and I am wasting my time reading them.

 

[SelfSim]

@SelfSim I asked you why you rejected chaos theory.

Your question barely merits a response because it assumes a false assumption. I do not 'reject chaos theory'.
Go back and re-read what I have already said in this thread to clear up your misconceptions.

Seeing as this is a massive diversion from the topic of this thread, I suggest you post any better conceived questions on the Butterfly Effect thread here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So because you say it, that makes it so? No. If you are going to make such a claim, you need to back it up with something other than your word. You need to explain WHY first cause has to be intelligent and has to be aware of all consequences in the chain of cause-and-effect; otherwise you will not be taken seriously.

My apologies, I was in a hurry and only meant to point out that you and the maker are completely different --so your use of a hypothetical concerning yourself is irrelevant to as to what the creator would do.

As for First Cause being necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're going a little bit too fast for us, I'm afraid. It's a big leap from the "first cause" of the cosmological argument to your Bible God.

I didn't mean to prove God was First Cause. I will copy here my response to Ken, who also objected to a related logical leap I made:

My apologies, I was in a hurry and only meant to point out that you and the maker are completely different --so your use of a hypothetical concerning yourself is irrelevant to as to what the creator would do.

As for First Cause being necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Seems like you are resorting to special pleading...

First Cause is necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

First Cause is necessarily omniscient --if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.

Why does First Cause have to have authority over anything?

 

[Mark Quayle]

First cause, like every other god, is the creation of man.

If one wants to posit a reason for existence, First Cause, and that, with intent, is the only logical (even scientifically possible) candidate.

(There are a few other suppositions out there, but they aren't exactly cogent)