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

[Lazarus Long]

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)

First cause is not logical at all it is special pleading to eliminate logic from the discussion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why does First Cause have to have authority over anything?

Because First Cause necessarily caused everything else, or it is not First Cause. If there is anything of itself existing from outside of First Cause, let's say some physical or logical principle, then First Cause is subject to that principle, or at the very least, co-generative with it, co-causing, and so not First Cause after all, being subject to the principle of their co-existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

First cause is not logical at all it is special pleading to eliminate logic from the discussion.

As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.

 

[Lazarus Long]

As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.

As a possibility then Magic is as likely, since science doesn't have the answer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a possibility then Magic is as likely, since science doesn't have the answer.

So far, as they claim, what was once considered magic has always turned out to be simply physics. In my pov, what we consider material or physical (as opposed to metaphysical) is no less miracle than the metaphysical, since it is all naturally caused by First Cause.

To me, it makes more sense to say that such things are "unusual to us".

 

[Lazarus Long]

So far, as they claim, what was once considered magic has always turned out to be simply physics. In my pov, what we consider material or physical (as opposed to metaphysical) is no less miracle than the metaphysical, since it is all naturally caused by First Cause.

To me, it makes more sense to say that such things are "unusual to us".

No! It really is Magic.

 

[SelfSim]

As a possibility it is entirely logical. The fact science doesn't have any other cogent candidates for the cause of existence itself should give you some doubts as to your statement. Most of scientific pursuit begins much the same way: Posit a conjecture, search it out.

Firstly scientific thinkers don't pose questions about 'existence itself' .. that's a philosophical question which has never yet been answered by any of history's notable philosophical thinkers.

Secondly, scientific 'pursuit' begins with an objective observation.

You have basic misconceptions about the scientific method. You are thus clearly not a scientific thinker .. nor is your 'First Cause' anything to do with science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because First Cause necessarily caused everything else, or it is not First Cause. If there is anything of itself existing from outside of First Cause, let's say some physical or logical principle, then First Cause is subject to that principle, or at the very least, co-generative with it, co-causing, and so not First Cause after all, being subject to the principle of their co-existence.

I didn't ask why your god must have authority over things, I asked why First Cause must have authority over anything. Your answer presupposes that the First Cause had a plan and is omniscient. That's nothing more than an assertion which you have not supported in any way.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

But first cause does not have to be Omniscient, conscious, or even animate, and it doesn’t have to be singular either; there could be multiple first causes; do you agree? If not, why not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But first cause does not have to be Omniscient, conscious, or even animate, and it doesn’t have to be singular either; there could be multiple first causes; do you agree? If not, why not?

From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:

First Cause can not be multiple, because then there would be principles in operation from outside of them, thus, whatever caused those principles would have to be First Cause.

First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause). 2/ Even if one wants to say inanimate First Cause is caused by chance, then they admit to cause from outside itself, (as though Chance could logically cause anything). 3/ Some have said inanimate First Cause could have made itself --what-- according to its programming? --But to say that even God made himself exist is logical nonsense. First Cause simply is. (Even existence "proceeds" from First Cause, and not the other way around). 4/ Some have said that inanimate First Cause could be co-emergent with its principles of operation and existence. While an intriguing thought, even then, the principle of co-emergence is external to its beginnings. (There are also, of course, the complications of just how the co-emergence works --same thing that makes Darwinian evolution hard to understand --just how did complex co-dependent systems work as incomplete? The worst complication, of course, is to show that Existence itself was co-emergent, if there had been no such thing "logically (as in cause-and-effect) before".) 5/ I only mention this because it is true --others have shown that there are many other problems to overcome to claim that First Cause may be inanimate. I am not well versed on all of them.

First Cause would have to be conscious, as animate, for the same reason it cannot be inanimate --if not conscious, it would be subject to principles from outside itself. If someone wants to be smart and say those complex principles and even operational creation itself could be produced from an unconscious (or even unintelligent) animate existence (some have even speculated the universe itself, or universe of universes could be this animate existence) with no reason to do so, they invoke chance accident, or true randomness as causes, which (again) are logically self-contradictory --not to mention that were Chance and Randomness to be real, they would present from outside this supposed unconscious First Cause.

First Cause must logically be omniscient or it is subject to facts from outside itself, (even if it caused those facts far down the chain of cause-and-effect, but did not consider the logical extrapolation of cause-and-effect past a certain point, it is still a fact "returning to it unknown", so to speak), therefore not First Cause after all, since First Cause cannot be subject to facts from outside itself. First Cause is the ONLY totally sovereign, un-caused, independent, source of all other things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No! It really is Magic.

lol

 

[Speedwell]

(There are also, of course, the complications of just how the co-emergence works --same thing that makes Darwinian evolution hard to understand --just how did complex co-dependent systems work as incomplete?

Off-topic side note: this is not a mystery for evolutionary biologists, so it makes a poor example in this context.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Off-topic side note: this is not a mystery for evolutionary biologists, so it makes a poor example in this context.

Mystery, perhaps not. Complex, yes. Very complex. (Hard to shave this one with Ockham's Razor)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:

First Cause can not be multiple, because then there would be principles in operation from outside of them, thus, whatever caused those principles would have to be First Cause.

First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause). 2/ Even if one wants to say inanimate First Cause is caused by chance, then they admit to cause from outside itself, (as though Chance could logically cause anything). 3/ Some have said inanimate First Cause could have made itself --what-- according to its programming? --But to say that even God made himself exist is logical nonsense. First Cause simply is. (Even existence "proceeds" from First Cause, and not the other way around). 4/ Some have said that inanimate First Cause could be co-emergent with its principles of operation and existence. While an intriguing thought, even then, the principle of co-emergence is external to its beginnings. (There are also, of course, the complications of just how the co-emergence works --same thing that makes Darwinian evolution hard to understand --just how did complex co-dependent systems work as incomplete? The worst complication, of course, is to show that Existence itself was co-emergent, if there had been no such thing "logically (as in cause-and-effect) before".) 5/ I only mention this because it is true --others have shown that there are many other problems to overcome to claim that First Cause may be inanimate. I am not well versed on all of them.

First Cause would have to be conscious, as animate, for the same reason it cannot be inanimate --if not conscious, it would be subject to principles from outside itself. If someone wants to be smart and say those complex principles and even operational creation itself could be produced from an unconscious (or even unintelligent) animate existence (some have even speculated the universe itself, or universe of universes could be this animate existence) with no reason to do so, they invoke chance accident, or true randomness as causes, which (again) are logically self-contradictory --not to mention that were Chance and Randomness to be real, they would present from outside this supposed unconscious First Cause.

First Cause must logically be omniscient or it is subject to facts from outside itself, (even if it caused those facts far down the chain of cause-and-effect, but did not consider the logical extrapolation of cause-and-effect past a certain point, it is still a fact "returning to it unknown", so to speak), therefore not First Cause after all, since First Cause cannot be subject to facts from outside itself. First Cause is the ONLY totally sovereign, un-caused, independent, source of all other things.

Lots of words which convey nothing more than assertions and special pleading. Really not convincing at all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lots of words which convey nothing more than assertions and special pleading. Really not convincing at all.

For example....?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

For example....?

"First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause)."

Are animate things not governed by those same principles?

 

[Ken-1122]

From First Cause proceed all other things. Therefore:

First Cause can not be multiple, because then there would be principles in operation from outside of them, thus, whatever caused those principles would have to be First Cause.

If the first cause were matter and energy, what are these principles outside of material and energy operating from outside of them?

First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause).

If material and energy were the inanimate first cause, what are these principles outside of material and energy that is governing it?

Let’s answer these questions first then we can get to the rest later

 

[Mark Quayle]

If the first cause were matter and energy, what are these principles outside of material and energy operating from outside of them?


If material and energy were the inanimate first cause, what are these principles outside of material and energy that is governing it?

Let’s answer these questions first then we can get to the rest later

Are there no principles determining their form and effect? The way they operate? How did they come to be --you want to say they "just are"? If they "just are" then how do they have any characteristics? Your thinking falls apart there. Something made them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"First Cause would have to be animate because 1/ inanimate (mechanical fact) is governed by principles from outside itself (therefore not First Cause)."

Are animate things not governed by those same principles?

Not animate First Cause, no. It is not of the same order of all (or any) subsequent effects; the difference is as stark as eternal vs temporal.

First Cause is necessarily the cause of principle and fact.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are there no principles determining their form and effect? The way they operate?

No.

How did they come to be

"Came to be" implies a beginning. If something always existed, by definition it never came to be.

--you want to say they "just are"? If they "just are" then how do they have any characteristics?

Different types of energy and materials acting upon each other; each with an eternal existence and in a constant state of motion.