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

[stevevw]

An example: Physics distinguishes time as being real by way of what a clock reads, with the basic unit of measurement referred to as 'a second'. The definition tests out well, provided one approaches that testing by using the scientific method.
Real time is thereby distinguished by seconds, read by observing a clock .. no beliefs required.

But its the definition that time works that way in the first place that takes belief. The testing only works out well because it conforms to the scientific measuring system. But the scientific measuring system is limited to only testing for what it previously assumes is the way time works. But that doesn't mean time actually works that way in reality.

 

[stevevw]

.. and yet every single word in that sentence carries a human defined meaning. If it didn't, I wouldn't have a clue about what you just said .. but somehow I do.
Every single word/phrase meaning in that sentence, contradicts the assertion/assumption of what you just wrote there, ie: 'some reality 'out there' exists beyond the human mind' even though every single one of those words/meanings obviously came from a human mind .. and not from 'beyond one' .. so how can that 'assumed reality exist beyond one', when it is generated by one, using the meanings conveyed by human language in that phrase???

Its a completely nonsensical assumption/claim .. Off with the fairies, it is!

Then are you saying that matter (particles and fields) is not real but some abstract idea made up by the mind.

 

[ChetSinger]

...Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith...

Hello, I'm with Dad on this.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:20:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.​

I think he's saying that observation of the natural world is enough to lead an open-minded person to God. Not to Jesus himself, but at least to Deism.

Almost 2,000 years later is that statement true? I think it is. And I think our ever-increasing knowledge of microbiology is an example of it. The more we learn about it, the more remote the possibility of life originating without God's will becomes.

 

[SelfSim]

But its the definition that time works that way in the first place that takes belief. The testing only works out well because it conforms to the scientific measuring system. But the scientific measuring system is limited to only testing for what it previously assumes is the way time works. But that doesn't mean time actually works that way in reality.

Nope .. unfortunately, you have all this backwards. The scientific method doesn't start out with any such assumptions. (See image below for the evidence behind that statement .. no assumptions are present in that definition).

The method works out well because it produces consistency with our perceptions. Time is a concept that comes part and parcel with our minds. Its us who perceive time .. (we don't see whales, apes, dogs monkeys, etc with wristwatches).

The notion that time exists as 'a something' independent from our minds, is just a belief. Where:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

The scientific method is practical in the sense it helps us to explore our own perceptions by making predictions we can understand and by setting our expectations by using our concept of 'what time is' (seconds perceived by observing a clock).

Philosophers will no doubt continue to confuse all of that, as they have done for centuries with little to zero progress.

 

[SelfSim]

I think he's saying that observation of the natural world is enough to lead an open-minded person to God. Not to Jesus himself, but at least to Deism.

More like the overwhelmingly awesome spectacle of nature fires up our abundantly evidenced predisposition for explaining things in the simplest way we know how .. aka: by way of beliefs.

Almost 2,000 years later is that statement true? I think it is. And I think our ever-increasing knowledge of microbiology is an example of it. The more we learn about it, the more remote the possibility of life originating without God's will becomes.

Which is yet another fine example of the abundantly evidenced observation I describe above.

 

[SelfSim]

Then are you saying that matter (particles and fields) is not real but some abstract idea made up by the mind.

No.

That statement depends entirely on what you mean by the term 'is real'. There are only two ways we know for coming up with a meaning for that term: (i) by way of beliefs or, (ii) by way of the scientific (objective) method.

Particles and fields are given their meanings by way of the scientific method/process. They test out well in theory and practice, when following that process. Because of the abundance of test results consistent with science's category of that type, (aka: 'objectively real'), particles and fields are then concluded as being objectively real.
No doubt this could well be in direct conflict with the other way of determining what's real (ie: the belief way).

 

[sjastro]

But its the definition that time works that way in the first place that takes belief. The testing only works out well because it conforms to the scientific measuring system. But the scientific measuring system is limited to only testing for what it previously assumes is the way time works. But that doesn't mean time actually works that way in reality.

This is totally contradicted by history.
Up to the early 20th century space and time was considered to be absolute and Newtonian physics was remarkably successful for the applications of the time.

It was through a measurement that Newtonian physics started to unravel namely the speed of light was the same for all observers irrespective of whether the observers were in motion or not.
This was a contradiction of Newtonian or Galilean relativity.

This measurement resulted in our concepts of space and time, and reality to change as in special relativity space and time are not absolute.
Your GPS only works by taking into consideration GPS satellite clocks and clocks on Earth run at different rates, a reality most individuals probably find very difficult to grasp.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You are a rare bird indeed, that assumes nothing! It's not that I don't believe you mean that. You probably do. But nobody lacks for assumptions.

Your definitions may be definite, but they ignore common usage. In this post alone, even you use "nature" or "natural" in at least 3 ways, seen from the reader's pov. Either way, to claim to be only objective is, well —I'll leave it there.

"Natural" to most people is used several different ways. I don't see how applying YOUR definition to what I say, makes any sense. Why not the common definitions?

When I say God is not natural, I only mean that he does not fit within the usual meanings or uses of natural —I do NOT mean he has no nature. That is absurd. I am saying that God does not descend from natural causes. I am saying that he is not subject to the universe and its rules. I am saying that he is above and beyond, outside of, the universe, or universes, or worlds or whatever we normally refer to as nature.

Yes, I would go so far as to say an extremely rare bird, You are correct Mark Quayle. But so are all objectivists. When I say that I don't assume I mean that I don't assume that my concepts have meaning and truth. I start with four incontestable truths, i.e, the axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness and their corollary, the primacy of existence. It's not possible for me to be wrong about these. Any attempt to deny them would have to accept and use them. What does it mean to deny something? Deny what? meaning of What? There's the axiom of existence. And isn't denial a conscious activity? Do rocks, waterfalls, and stars deny things? Therefore the axiom of consiousness is implicit in denial. And if I were to deny the axioms as opposed to something else I'm making use of the axiom of identity. The primacy of existence is also implicit in denial. Denial of what by whom?

Every concept or idea I have is integrated with these four fundamental truths. That's what I mean when I say I don't hold assumptions if by assumption you mean that which is not validated.

I do not assume that there is a reality, I know it. I do not assume that consciousness requires something to be conscious of, I know it. I do not assume that identity and existence are one and the same, I know it. All Objectivists are strange birds in relation the rest of the world because we hold that reality is an absolute and reason is an absolute. That is very rare indeed. Objectivism leaves no stone unturned. We begin at the beginning with reality and our awareness of it and we proceed from there to identify what exists. This is rare. Name for me one other philosophy that does this. Certainly not Christianity.

I don't give a dingo's kidney about common uses. This is a philosophical issue and it stands at the root of knowledge and so we had better be precise with definitions. All philosophical frauds depend on vague or misused definitions. I define concepts in accordance with the rules of the objective theory of concepts. If you'd like to take that on, be my guest.

I see, so you have a special definition of nature when it comes to the god you believe in. That's a real red flag. Mark Quayle, where do you think we get the term natural? To what does it refer. To Quote Leonard Piekoff: "What is meant by “the supernatural”? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What, then, is “super-nature”? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential.

And he's right. We don't think of nature as one entity out of many. We think of it as all of the animals, all the trees, all the rocks, all the planets, all the stars, space, time, and everything else that we can perceive or infer. We can't, by logical inference, reach the supernatural. By inference from the natural, we can only reach more of the natural. To infer the supernatural only results in stolen concepts.

To say that something is not natural does not tell us what it is, only what it is not. It tells us that whatever it is it is not an entity, it doesn't interact with other entities, and it is not governed by law, including the law of identity which is the very first law of nature. If the law of identity doesn't apply to it then it is nothing in particular, i.e., it is nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God exists or it doesn't and either it has an identity or it doesn't. You don't get to say that it, by its nature, is not natural. That is a direct contradiction.

And finally, I agree with you that it would be absurd to say that gods do not have a nature because saying this would be self-incoherent. After all, to say God is this or that as opposed to something else is to ascribe a nature to it. It's equally absurd to say that something exists outside of the sum total of that which exists. The concept universe is the granddaddy of all concepts. It subsumes everything that exists now, everything that has existed, and everything that ever will exist. It comes from the Latin Uni meaning one and versus meaning turning. Universus means turning into one or a whole. This is another instance where we can't use words colloquially or as they are used commonly. We have to be clear and precise about what we mean when we use the concept universe.

That's all I can do for tonight. I have to start working at 4 AM.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I would go so far as to say an extremely rare bird, You are correct Mark Quayle. But so are all objectivists. When I say that I don't assume I mean that I don't assume that my concepts have meaning and truth. I start with four incontestable truths, i.e, the axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness and their corollary, the primacy of existence. It's not possible for me to be wrong about these. Any attempt to deny them would have to accept and use them. What does it mean to deny something? Deny what? meaning of What? There's the axiom of existence. And isn't denial a conscious activity? Do rocks, waterfalls, and stars deny things? Therefore the axiom of consiousness is implicit in denial. And if I were to deny the axioms as opposed to something else I'm making use of the axiom of identity. The primacy of existence is also implicit in denial. Denial of what by whom?

Every concept or idea I have is integrated with these four fundamental truths. That's what I mean when I say I don't hold assumptions if by assumption you mean that which is not validated.

I do not assume that there is a reality, I know it. I do not assume that consciousness requires something to be conscious of, I know it. I do not assume that identity and existence are one and the same, I know it. All Objectivists are strange birds in relation the rest of the world because we hold that reality is an absolute and reason is an absolute. That is very rare indeed. Objectivism leaves no stone unturned. We begin at the beginning with reality and our awareness of it and we proceed from there to identify what exists. This is rare. Name for me one other philosophy that does this. Certainly not Christianity.

I expect you mean that it is a principle you try to live by, to not assume. But you do assume. We all do. You aren't that special. None of us is entirely consistent in our thinking.

For example, I too hold that reality is an absolute, and that reason is an absolute. But you will say that some of my statements contradict that I hold to that.

I don't give a dingo's kidney about common uses. This is a philosophical issue and it stands at the root of knowledge and so we had better be precise with definitions. All philosophical frauds depend on vague or misused definitions. I define concepts in accordance with the rules of the objective theory of concepts. If you'd like to take that on, be my guest.

Yes, no doubt you do define concepts in accordance with the rules of the objective theory of concepts, but your practice does not always travel in lockstep with your definition. You are, after all, fallible.

I see, so you have a special definition of nature when it comes to the god you believe in. That's a real red flag. Mark Quayle, where do you think we get the term natural? To what does it refer. To Quote Leonard Piekoff: "What is meant by “the supernatural”? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What, then, is “super-nature”? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential.

And he's right. We don't think of nature as one entity out of many. We think of it as all of the animals, all the trees, all the rocks, all the planets, all the stars, space, time, and everything else that we can perceive or infer. We can't, by logical inference, reach the supernatural. By inference from the natural, we can only reach more of the natural. To infer the supernatural only results in stolen concepts.

To say that something is not natural does not tell us what it is, only what it is not. It tells us that whatever it is it is not an entity, it doesn't interact with other entities, and it is not governed by law, including the law of identity which is the very first law of nature. If the law of identity doesn't apply to it then it is nothing in particular, i.e., it is nothing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God exists or it doesn't and either it has an identity or it doesn't. You don't get to say that it, by its nature, is not natural. That is a direct contradiction.

Now, finally, we get down to it! Yay! Earlier, I agreed that reason and reality are absolute. And I still do. But they are not what I think of as original. They are themselves caused to be absolute. They proceed from first cause, which has no controlling external principles. They are what they are according to the nature of first cause, and not vice versa. If not, then THEY are first cause. You will no doubt object, that to be first cause is then an impersonal thing, while I claim it is possessing of personhood. And here is why I say Ayn Rand is, uh, mistaken. It is not one or the other, between primacy of consciousness and primacy of existence. Nor is it both: They are not mutually exclusive, but they don't quite integrate either —they are just conceptions of how we think. If there is a primacy, it is of first cause. But more on this below...

And finally, I agree with you that it would be absurd to say that gods do not have a nature because saying this would be self-incoherent. After all, to say God is this or that as opposed to something else is to ascribe a nature to it. It's equally absurd to say that something exists outside of the sum total of that which exists. The concept universe is the granddaddy of all concepts. It subsumes everything that exists now, everything that has existed, and everything that ever will exist. It comes from the Latin Uni meaning one and versus meaning turning. Universus means turning into one or a whole. This is another instance where we can't use words colloquially or as they are used commonly. We have to be clear and precise about what we mean when we use the concept universe.

I expect here you mean to refer to the common idea, "the omni". Very well; while I agree we need to refer to one or the other thing, the omni must either be defined as inclusive of first cause, or not inclusive of first cause. Take your pick. Either way, the omni is not a principle, but a mere concept, and of the human mind at that. It is a bucket to put thoughts into for the purpose of narrative. I expect you to think the omni is "subject to reality and reason". But precisely what would you mean by that? Is the omni subject to reality and reason, or does it include them?

One other person I am talking with, of whom Ayn Rand would say operates by primacy of consciousness, would say (and with good reason to say it) that reality and reason are our applications onto that which we conceive of. (I don't care; I'll end a sentence with a preposition if I want to

But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.

Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause. So we try to give primacy to existence, or to consciousness, as if either will do the job. We try to attribute absoluteness to reason and reality, as if they encompass and impersonalize their source for the sake of our mental dominion over fact.

 

[ChetSinger]

More like the overwhelmingly awesome spectacle of nature fires up our abundantly evidenced predisposition for explaining things in the simplest way we know how .. aka: by way of beliefs.
Which is yet another fine example of the abundantly evidenced observation I describe above.

In the case of microbiology, it's more than that. There are sound reasons we no longer believe in "spontaneous generation" like some early cultures did: we know enough about cellular mechanics, and mathematics, to know that new life doesn't arise from moldy books, or piles of rags, or carcasses. In fact, I'm unaware of anyone who claims to have seen it.

 

[Astrid]

Hello, I'm with Dad on this.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:20:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.​

I think he's saying that observation of the natural world is enough to lead an open-minded person to God. Not to Jesus himself, but at least to Deism.

Almost 2,000 years later is that statement true? I think it is. And I think our ever-increasing knowledge of microbiology is an example of it. The more we learn about it, the more remote the possibility of life originating without God's will becomes.

Nope

 

[SelfSim]

.. One other person I am talking with, of whom Ayn Rand would say operates by primacy of consciousness, would say (and with good reason to say it) that reality and reason are our applications onto that which we conceive of. (I don't care; I'll end a sentence with a preposition if I want to

But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.

So you choose a concept which is of no use whatesoever to humans, rather than simply disposing of your belief in the existence of a 'first cause'.
How humanly unproductive.

Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause.

Why bother then?
And given that reason and reality have been dispensed with, I suppose you can't answer even that question, then(?)

 

[SelfSim]

There are sound reasons we no longer believe in "spontaneous generation" like some early cultures did: we know enough about cellular mechanics, and mathematics, to know that new life doesn't arise from moldy books, or piles of rags, or carcasses.

And the way we acquired that knowledge you refer to there, was by distinguishing between 'reasoned beliefs', (like spontaneous generation), and the products of the 'reasoned objective process' (aka: Microbiology).

 

[The happy Objectivist]

ber: 410I expect you mean that it is a principle you try to live by, to not assume. But you do assume. We all do. You aren't that special. None of us is entirely consistent in our thinking.

No, I meant exactly what I said. Somethimes, when people can't do something themselves, they like to think that no one else can do it either, I.e., validate their ideas and integrate them. Your profile says that you are a reformed Christian. Are you perhaps a presuppositionalist?

Please point out to me what things I assume.

For example, I too hold that reality is an absolute, and that reason is an absolute. But you will say that some of my statements contradict that I hold to that.

Not if you begin with a consciousness that created its own objects, you don't. And yes I will point out any contradiction that I see in your statements and I expect you to do the same for mine.

Yes, no doubt you do define concepts in accordance with the rules of the objective theory of concepts, but your practice does not always travel in lockstep with your definition. You are, after all, fallible.

You are welcomed and invited to point out my inconsistencies but please provide examples and explain how my practices are inconsistent with the Objective Theory of Concepts, don't just make assertions.

Now, finally, we get down to it! Yay! Earlier, I agreed that reason and reality are absolute. And I still do. But they are not what I think of as original. They are themselves caused to be absolute. They proceed from first cause, which has no controlling external principles. They are what they are according to the nature of first cause, and not vice versa. If not, then THEY are first cause. You will no doubt object, that to be first cause is then an impersonal thing, while I claim it is possessing of personhood. And here is why I say Ayn Rand is, uh, mistaken. It is not one or the other, between primacy of consciousness and primacy of existence. Nor is it both: They are not mutually exclusive, but they don't quite integrate either —they are just conceptions of how we think. If there is a primacy, it is of first cause. But more on this below...

You claim that you hold reality as an absolute and then turn around and say that it is dependent on something else. That's a contradiction.

I expect here you mean to refer to the common idea, "the omni". Very well; while I agree we need to refer to one or the other thing, the omni must either be defined as inclusive of first cause, or not inclusive of first cause. Take your pick. Either way, the omni is not a principle, but a mere concept, and of the human mind at that. It is a bucket to put thoughts into for the purpose of narrative. I expect you to think the omni is "subject to reality and reason". But precisely what would you mean by that? Is the omni subject to reality and reason, or does it include them?

No, I'm referring to the universe, which is the sum total of what exists and therefore has no cause.

One other person I am talking with, of whom Ayn Rand would say operates by primacy of consciousness, would say (and with good reason to say it) that reality and reason are our applications onto that which we conceive of. (I don't care; I'll end a sentence with a preposition if I want to

She would say that reality is what it is independent of our consciousness, of any consciousness. That's the primacy of existence.

But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.

Again, if it is not subject to reason then it doesn't exist because reason is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists.

Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause. So we try to give primacy to existence, or to consciousness, as if either will do the job. We try to attribute absoluteness to reason and reality, as if they encompass and impersonalize their source for the sake of our mental dominion over fact.

We don't *give* primacy to existence, we simply recognize the fact that it is primary. If we don't "give" primacy to existence then it doesn't change the fact that existence is primary, and if existence is primary, then it is uncaused.

If one tries to explain existence by pointing to something that exists, then one has not explained existence.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So you choose a concept which is of no use whatesoever to humans, rather than simply disposing of your belief in the existence of a 'first cause'.
How humanly unproductive.

Why bother then?
And given that reason and reality have been dispensed with, I suppose you can't answer even that question, then(?)

Very nicely put.

 

[Mark Quayle]

MQ: But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.

So you choose a concept which is of no use whatesoever to humans, rather than simply disposing of your belief in the existence of a 'first cause'.
How humanly unproductive.

Clever man.

How is that of no use whatsoever to humans? The confidence in first cause is immensely freeing to me.

MQ: Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause.

Why bother then?
And given that reason and reality have been dispensed with, I suppose you can't answer even that question, then(?)

I didn't say we are incapable of any conception. Why bother? I guess I should ask you, since mankind is not fully capable of understanding all of the universe macro and micro, why bother with science?

The whole point here is that first cause, even theoretical first cause, is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms of principles and reasoning, no matter how sure we are of them. If they are real, or true, they come from first cause, or it is not first cause. Simple. Do you have some cohesive reasoning to show that I am dispensing of reason and reality here? Or do you simply see no point in believing there is first cause?

 

[Kylie]

Clever man.

How is that of no use whatsoever to humans? The confidence in first cause is immensely freeing to me.

Yeah, but what do you actually use it for?

Just to feel good? The fact that it makes you feel good does not mean it is valid. There are people who get that feeling from drugs, doesn't mean that drugs are good.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The whole point here is that first cause, even theoretical first cause, is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms of principles and reasoning, no matter how sure we are of them. If they are real, or true, they come from first cause, or it is not first cause. Simple. Do you have some cohesive reasoning to show that I am dispensing of reason and reality here? Or do you simply see no point in believing there is first cause?

I hope you don't mind, Selfsim, if I respond to this even though it was addressed to you.

Mark, one can say this about anything one imagines and who could gainsay them. I could say this about the great Gom Gom, the first cause, and great determiner of all, which I just made up on the spot. I can say just as easily that the great Gom Gom is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms or principle and reasoning. This is called the fallacy of self-exclusion. How can anyone refute my statement given that the great Gom Gom is outside the wheelhouse of logic and reason? It also has a nature but is not natural and it is infinite but also finite since the great Gom Gom is a he as opposed to a she. It is all-powerful but also limited in power, by its nature which is not natural. No argument can defeat it for it is the source of logic and argumentation.

I can defeat it:

That which is indistinguishable from that which is imaginary is in fact imaginary.

That which is imaginary is not real and does not actually exist.

The Great Gom Gom is indistinguishable from that which is imaginary.

Therefore the Great Gom Gom is not real and does not actually exist

Let's cut to the chase. By what means are you aware of this thing you call the first cause?

You can't perceive it directly or there would be no need to prove it.

You can't infer it because you said it is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms of principles and reasoning, no matter how sure we are of them.

What's left? Imagination. Q.E.D

 

[SelfSim]

MQ: But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.

Clever man.

...

How is that of no use whatsoever to humans? The confidence in first cause is immensely freeing to me.

Re underlined bit: I'm sure it is .. as according to what you said, the posited concept, and anything inferred or deduced from it, need not be constrained by reason or reality. (Namely because that's how logic works .. ie: by drawing equivalences with the 'truth' of its going-in posits).

The anchors of reason and reality have been expelled by the supposed truth of the original posit (ie: 'is not subject to reason or reality').

MQ: Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause.
I guess I should ask you, since mankind is not fully capable of understanding all of the universe macro and micro, why bother with science?

Science embraces reason and then gives reality its meaning .. but you just booted reason and reality as constraints with your posit.

The whole point here is that first cause, even theoretical first cause, is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms of principles and reasoning, no matter how sure we are of them. If they are real, or true, they come from first cause, or it is not first cause. Simple.

That's your problem you just created for yourself to deal with .. and not science's/logic's .. I wish you the best of luck.

Do you have some cohesive reasoning to show that I am dispensing of reason and reality here?

See above.

Or do you simply see no point in believing there is first cause?

Yes .. beliefs tend to carry forward and admit an abundance of beliefs.

 

[Astrid]

MQ: But mostly, I mention this as a way to show the difference between first cause and everything else, and the primacy of first cause. It is not subject to reason or reality. It defines reason and reality. Really! Or it is not first cause.



Clever man.

How is that of no use whatsoever to humans? The confidence in first cause is immensely freeing to me.

MQ: Humans (nor any other creature) are capable of fully mentally conceiving first cause.



I didn't say we are incapable of any conception. Why bother? I guess I should ask you, since mankind is not fully capable of understanding all of the universe macro and micro, why bother with science?

The whole point here is that first cause, even theoretical first cause, is not subject to our concepts, nor our notions and terms of principles and reasoning, no matter how sure we are of them. If they are real, or true, they come from first cause, or it is not first cause. Simple. Do you have some cohesive reasoning to show that I am dispensing of reason and reality here? Or do you simply see no point in believing there is first cause?

Assuming the six day / 6000 year ago creation by
an uncaused and unknowable first cause has plenty
of use for the facile minded. Frees them from mental
effort.

The effect of such intellectual laziness is evident all over
these forums, including in the op asking for scientific proof,
unaware that science never does proof.