Is There Proof That God Exists?

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman
I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

If I were certain and had proof of a Creator who made us to see a holographic universe that appears as reality, then I would be a god. And you have no proof that you exist so you might answer yourself.

And I am not G-D...

 

[protonman]

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

Answer: YES and NO

You make me CERTAIN OF SOMETHING. Evidence of your continued nonsense about which a signed 8X10 signed glossy would be proof of your existence.

 

[protonman]

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman
Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

If I knew for certain that G-d existed then I would be god. He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.

 

[protonman]

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by netme
Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know! [/B]

?

 

[Rader]

evidence of design

Originally posted by Netme
What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

I know because of the following two words.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

There is a 0 percent statistical probablity that this universe could have come about or be sustained from moment to moment because of the above two words.

If anyone thinks they can understand that if one of the smallest changes or alterations in the formation of all things was altered or was not present, this universe and your existence would collapse into another void.

But you in your own self endowed wisdom may think that if there was a Creator you would just become somewhat smaller than you think of yourself.

Irreducible complexity means that anyone with any insight into the nature of things understands that there has to be a Creator.

Proof you ask?

Quote

Monsieur ... I did not believe in God; his existence has been disproved by Science. But in the concentration camp, I learned to believe in a Creator.

ATTRIBUTION: Jean-Paul Sartre

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"

Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

 

[protonman]

I want to summarize your argument so far. First off, you said I could not be certain that boiling water existed. Then you claimed that you talked with physicsts and used their testimony to establish that they admit they don't know what atoms, etc. really are. Then you claimed that you coulde be certain of somethings. One of which is that God 'keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.' Then finally you said 'If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.'

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.
The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

How do you define what exits?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

Onycho this question in my humble opinion can only be answered on a individual basis. Would the evidence of anthropic "fine tuning" tell you something? If you understood it to mean hitting the lottery with the same number 50 times in a row. If you were aware to a very fullest extent of its probable meaning, you might ask yourself. Why am I privleged to know this. You might ask yourself, what responsibility would one have, for knowing this? Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

You summarize my responses to your simpleton question as separate, unrelated or irrelevant entities. My responses were just examples of the obvious while you seem to think that there must be a simple answer to the unknown.

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

My response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.

Name calling and hateful anti-Semitism are examples of your reality and personality. You rely on your own senses to tell you that hot water exists or that my religious beliefs are somehow invalid as apposed to your superior illusions.

The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

I never said that I knew anything for certain. It was you who was so certain about boiling water being painful. You have no proof of existence other than your own inherent ability to know for certain that your own 'human senses' are valid.

How do you define what exits?

Definition: Existence is not a mystery unless you think it has a meaning.

Belief with evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Richard Radar

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

 

[Rader]

dichotomy or not

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Richard Rader

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If you mean by that, my way of explaining it, yes it is.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.


'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader [/B]

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho

Originally posted by Rader

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

It is the I that is aware, of which the "free will is invoked and the choice occurs. Why would the awareness of evidence nullify a "free will choice? How can "free will" be blind choices? The I is aware. The I makes the choice. I is aware of oneself, and is different from another self. The I is aware of oneself and the evidence of an event. The "isness" of the I, which is the soul of the man, is aware of the evidence and makes his "free will choice".

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes. [/B]

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

The other of "free will" is a choice, based on conscious awareness of the evidence at hand, to know the right or wrong choice.

Changing the parameters of knowing or not knowing change the outcome of the "free will choice" Only the I knows which is right or wrong.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

 

[protonman]

Let me refresh your memory.

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You:Answer: YES and NO

So you say that you can be certain of something here.

Laster you say...

YouMy response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

So up top you say that something can be known for certain and then later you say that nothing can be known for certain.

Based on what you have posted it has become clear to me that you really don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. Your posts are continuously contradicting yourself in your postings. Read mine there are none.

BTW, I had a hunch what your view was all along but now I understand it. You are making the classic mistake that anyone who accepts the idea of a creater would. Unfortunately for you I am not going to give it up right away.

 

[onycho]

Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.

How can you call me quoting your contraditions as opinion? You are the one who said them.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
[/i]

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

There is nothing in your last post that i disagree with, misinterpretation of the words, evidence, knowledge and I is what has made the appearance of a misunderstanding, to us. For a while i thought we had two totally different meanings.

It seems this exchange is a good example of what "free will" is.

You and I interprete what each has said and make a "free will" choice how to respond to it.. There can be two interpretations of the same meaning, only if that is the way we intrerprete it. This is where the understanding went wrong.
Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.

 

[WingZero]

i think god exists...

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by WingZero
i think god exists...

So what.

 

[Netme]

This thread is useless.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Netme
This thread is useless.

Then don't read it. It was good until onycho decided he didn't want to face the fact that what he was saying made no sense all along. Then in his usual style said something ridiculous to which replied quite logically. I am still waiting for him to respond.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

...Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.

There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

2) Your free-will to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by WingZero

i think god exists...

G-d exists therefore you can think...

 

[Rader]

Intellegent Design

Originally posted by onycho
There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

Agreed, both make decisions one moral the other not.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

This sort of "free will" observed in two split experiments.

2) Your "free will" to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

This is only observed in the human species.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

Yes but just let me reiterate my past statement that for the same moral decision, there can be two different choices, using the same bases for the decision. 9/11 Those terrorists crashed those planes for the same reason we would not, believing in a G-d.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

Fine, i have no evidence and you say you do not. Let's find out if there is.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

Yes Bell¨s Theory has made a case no one has explained yet. There is also another enigma, not yet explained, how complex biochemical systems came into being. It seems to me there may be a link and that is where i want to lead this discussion now. Intellegent Design. We should set some rules to go by first.
01-Cause of Intellegent design is not deterministic, we should leave a Creator out of this for the moment.


"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.

Fine, Do you want to set any other rule or parameter before we start?

 

[protonman]

onycho,

At least admit you lost. Ignoring me is so cowardly.

 

[phoenixthoth]

the intellectualization of what cannot be grasped by the intellect is impossible.

if there were a way to grasp what the intellect could not grasp, would you grasp it?

what if the truth were 180 opposite what you think it is, and what if there is 'fine print' involved, would you still grasp it?

can one imagine the unimaginable?

nothing is the key to the universe and fools know nothing.

can you be at one with nothing?

i have made love to faith and we slept afterwards. i woke up in the morning to a corpse. yet i danced and drank with doubt all night and found her a virgin in the morning. doubt makes a perfect mistress but a nagging wife. "white is white" is the lash of the master and "white is black" is the watchword of the slave. the master takes no heed.

 

[marco]

The scientific proof of the existence of the soul (and of God)

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini,

Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

 

[nightlight]

Originally posted by marco
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain[/color]

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini,

Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

Well, welcome to the particle zoo. It appears that our local zoo is not the only place that we give names to animals. Now is it, that a Zebra is a Zebra and a electon a electron only because someone was there first? So what's more real the Zebra or the particle?

 

[Dawn183]

Whats the proof that god exists

This is an extremely interesting subject and one that can raise many varied views. There are so many religions and they each have their own god or is it the same one but with different rules and if so why are there so many differences in the various religions?
However in my search for wanting to know what life is about and if there is a god why so many bad things seem to happen, I have come across a set of books that seem to be able to answer such questions. They are termed the Seth Material and they provide an understanding that goes way beyond the religions. The Material is backed up by some of the latest findings in Quantum Physics.
There is an excellent website that explains more about this amazing piece of work.
To view it log on to www.sethworx.com
It certainly helps to explain why there are so many answers to this question!

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.
Marco Biagini,
Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

Dr. Biagnini you state:

Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon, of which we have then a full experiemntal evidence (indeed, it represents the foundations of every other experimental observation, since if we were not conscious, we could observe no phenomena); the pjenomenon "consciousness" deserves then to be analysed from a scientific viewpoint.

You make certain assumptions about consciousness and its ability to be observed and/or measured.

What makes you think that our consciousness observes any phenomena whatsoever?

The concept of 'consciousness' is not understood or able to be defined by any construct that we can imagine. How is it therefore able to be analysed from any scientific viewpoint?

Do we only assume our reality exists as our senses perceives it?

Einstein said that particles (matter) are only condensed energy. What do you imagine that this energy really consists of or is derived from? Is energy a particle, a wave or something that is only perceivable from our point of view in this dimension of ours?

My assumption is that all of our solid reality, including that which we consider to be real because of our senses is nothing more or less than an illusion. An illusion within a giant hologram in a timeless dimension with no substance or measurable dimensions.

 

[marco]

Originally posted by nightlight
Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain[/color]

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

Thank you very much for this information!
I had no idea that netscape had some problems with my site.
I have dplicate all files with a file extension .html, so if you have netscape, you can now try the followin address:

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html


Please let me know if there are still any problems.

Marco

 

[marco]

Originally posted by Rader
Well, welcome to the particle zoo. It appears that our local zoo is not the only place that we give names to animals. Now is it, that a Zebra is a Zebra and a electon a electron only because someone was there first? So what's more real the Zebra or the particle?

The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more. Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

I have explained this in details in my site.


Marco

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more.

Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron. The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names. Now how can it be that a Zebra stays a Zebra all his life and the particle which he is made of change there states and names?

Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra.

Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

Yes it is i agree, but particles do not exist so matter can not either, so what rapidly moves.

I have explained this in details in my site.

The description on yöur site of explicit orders, i can not agrue with but the underlying impicit order that trully may define "reality" is just "Is", why things are the way they are is "not known.

By the way welcome to PF. Chow
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam


Marco

 

[marco]

I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

Marco.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by marco

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.Marco.

Marco the fact is that you don't need to believe in particles to think with your conscious mind that you have billions upon billions of observations which prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that particles and mass exist as proved by scientific theory.

What is real and what is assumed to exist may be quite different things. There is no way that anyone can prove that particles don't exist or have mass and spin but conversly observations made by conscious awareness may be deceiving.

1) Where does conscioussness arise from?

2) Where is consciousness before the birth of a child or after one's death?

3) What number of scientific observations does it take to prove that particles exist or that particles born in a 'big bang' can become conscious?

Take a look at the Scientific American site detailing an alternative to your senses proving the existence of matter and existence in this universe.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Tell me if you consider this article has any valid basis or change to your theories.





3

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by marco
I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

Yes and i agree, there is now over 100 particles that we know, not only there names, but mass, charge, spin and angular momentum. Do we know anything about why they have the mass, charge, spin and angular momentum that they do? Do we know why they can appear and disappear and transform into other particles. What we know is there is a lot of particles, that have qualities, that is not known why they have them.

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

What is the scientific bases of the particle? Not sure science can prove anything, although it does give a exellent conceptial world view of objective reality. Science gives the same evidence for Zebras as it does for particles, everything "Is" of the same thing.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You can apply that to particles also. A particle is a particle, particle or wave or a wave and it just might be something, that is not even any of those. Do you know of Bells Theorum?

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

There are no exact measurements of a physical reality. Thats just the point, a objective reality just might be non-existent.
We have the EPR experiment and Bells Theorum, that demonstates that the world is stranger than what it appears, to the informed.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.
Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.



Marco.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Radar

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

 

[marco]

>>>Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.
Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.



Marco

 

[marco]

>>>>How do you know particles exist?

As I have already explained, I have billions and billions of scientific data confirming the existence of particles and confirming the fact that all macroscopic objects are only sets of particles. This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof. On the other hand, to deny the existence of particles is equivalent to deny all modern science, to get out of science and get into the kingdom of arbitrary opinions and phylosophical speculations. My approach is strictly scientific and I limit myself to analyse the logical implications of modern science.

>>>How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat Earth society during their time here?

Because now we have billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations of the laws of physics. Nothing like that existed in the flat Earth society. It makes no sense to compare our science with the science of the flat-earth society. Quantum Electrodynamics represents a definitive turn in history, because it reveals the principles determining every molecular, chemical and biological process.

Marco

 

[phoenixthoth]

if someone could put a magnet around your head and make you think you were looking at a scientific journal or the billions and billions of data (how long did it take to analyze that, i wonder), does that mean that your evidence is all for naught?

your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

 

[marco]

>>>>your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Marco.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i object

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary...

This is an objectice fact.

do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable. i would say safer to claim that your science claims are as objective as currently possible.

either way, dicussion of proof is important for this topic. indeed, what would constitute proof of God? what would constitute sufficient evidence and a proof? what arbitrary conventions shall we adopt? these things need to be established. other than that, we seem to be off the subject, imo.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Marco

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

Who is that collective 'we' who only now in this time and place understand or can confirm all things by the THEORY of Quantum Electrodynamics? Is it possible that billions upon billions of data derived from experimentation equal the sum total of all knowledge?

Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.

How high of an energy is sufficient to render particulate matter (condensed energy) conscious? What if the answer to these questions you are seeking is actually a very simple set of logical rules instead of creating larger and more powerful accelerators which smash particles into more finite particles which in the end proves that sub-atomic particles can be made even smaller. Do you think that accelerators can be made powerful enough to simulate the original big-bang energy released from nothingness?

Can the mind of man comprehend the real nature of consciousness?

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Actually there is more evidence that the formation of even the smallest particle or larger combinations of things are in fact based on irreducible complexity. In other words, nothing can be possible if one component of anything is not exactly necessary for the next part of the total. If one part is flawed or absent, nothing is formed and that applies to the universe itself. There is no cogent reason that this place of ours should be anything more than amorphous entropy.

You imply that the existence of consciousness in humans are an unphysical or unbiological component. What if consciousness is nothing more than an attribute of 'free will.' This attribute arising from the same place that all the energy of the big-bang derived.

It is probable that humans with all their billions upon billions of facts and data, ingenuity and Quantum Electrodynamics will never be able to understand the nature of consciousness.

 

[marco]

>>>>do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable.

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.


Marco.