Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Physics Used to Prove God

  1. Dec 4, 2004 #1
    Let me first say I am not sure where to place this, but I thought General Physics was alright but feel free to move it where it should go.

    I was hoping that someone would critique his argument ...

    I refuse to believe that his research results in what he says it does.

    thx -
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2004 #2

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That link doesn't work (perhaps you pasted it incorrectly?), so we can't check out his argument, though I'm sure it's a doozie. :rolleyes:

    In any case, I'll move this to Gen Philosophy.
  4. Dec 5, 2004 #3
    An interesting concept he has, but since the site is apparently inoppurable at the time we cant really discus it :frown:
  5. Dec 5, 2004 #4
  6. Dec 5, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Wow, this guy seems to have almost no idea what he's talking about.

    That's a bit like saying because electrical impulses are responsible for the movements of our legs, that washing machines should be able to run, so electrical impulses can't be responsible for the movement of our legs. Geez. This guy is completely ignoring the relevance of organization of particles and the resulting emergent traits of groups of particles. Washing machines and televisions perform different functions not because they're made of different particles, but because the particles they are made of are arranged differently.

    The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that no two particles of half-integer spin within a single atom can have the same quantum numbers. What the heck is this guy talking about?

    He might very well be right about this, but he certainly has no way to be as sure as he seems to think he is. If it was that cut and dry that consciousness is contracausal, then we wouldn't have much of a debate, would we?

    It might be pointed out that QED is the closest thing we currently have to a "first-principle" theory and that even the rest of physics is ultimately derived from it. If we discover the TOE, then that will become the only "first-principle" theory. There is no reason here to assign any heightened importance to all of physics.

    I would like to see the law of physics that states consciousness cannot possibly be generated from successions of chemical reactions. He again seems to be denying that any emergent properties exist, which clearly is not true.

    Well, unless he uncovered the TOE and neglected to tell, this simply isn't true.

    Well now Mister, you couldn't generate language, gender, culture, the final scores of college football games, and a score of other things that without question have a physical origin. The fact that he thinks this is somehow of significance is laughable.
  7. Dec 6, 2004 #6
    Hahaha thank you for your analysis
  8. Dec 6, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Excellent work. It seems I do not need to add anything here, which is just as well, since I have little time to spare for PF for the moment.
  9. Dec 6, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I found a little snippet from a book last night that is particularly relevant to this topic:

    • The fundamental principle is deadly simply, but at the same time almost endlessly versatile. Increased complexity will essentially be a matter of adding components of the same basic type; the neurons in a flatworm and the neurons in a human brain work on the same fundamental principles. From which it does not follow, however, that the capacities of the human brain are essentially just those of a densely packed conglomeration of flatworm ganglia. The marvelous thing about electrical circuits is that adding components is not merely a matter of enlarging the system, but sometimes means changing the systems's capacities in novel and remarkable ways. In particular, the evolutionary step that interposes neurons between sensory neurons and motor neurons is revolutionary: it permits the building-in of a basic world-representation, and it can provide for increasingly fancy updating of that world-representation through learning. As the interneuron pool proliferates under evolutionary pressure for more competitive sensorimotor coordination, the innate world-representation improves and the dimensions of plasticitiy ramify.

    Neurophilosophy, Patricia Smith Churchland
  10. Dec 6, 2004 #9
    There can be no doubt that consciousness is widespread throughout 'all' living things. Just what level of consciousness exists within the brain of a Dolphin for instance?..the brain size and construction are very similar to Human brain make-up. Just what a Dolphin make's of say..the Physics Forum I do not know :rolleyes:

    I have seen documented evidence of Dolphins being video taped live, and their images sent to an underwater Television monitor. The Dolphins appeared to recocnize each other upon the monitor( monitor was below water at one end of the pool, and camera was one the surface at the other). The Dolphins actually took it in turns to go and look into the camera, whilst the rest of them watched TV!

    I do not foresee the day just yet, that Dolphins start ordering TV dinners!

    I think conscious awareness is ill defined. Soul awareness can be attributted to the self through 'ego' and there is evidence that one's ego can invoke an higher opinion of worth, above others?

    I am not saying that 'souls' do not exist, there is lots of evidence, that lots of people subscribe to this line of thought, it exists in the mind of those who prefer certain answers to certain questions?
  11. Dec 6, 2004 #10
    This was a reply from the other site
  12. Dec 7, 2004 #11

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Argument from Consciousness

    This argument for god, often referred to as the "Argument from Consciousness", is nothing new. It's a variant of the argument from ignorance (science can't explain X, thus god).

    Here's an article dismantling it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ac.html
  13. Dec 7, 2004 #12
    Of course Science and Scientists are vunerable to conjecture?..take String theory and apply the question:Do Strings exist? o:) ...one can imagine scientists turning to God or a Monkey for such an answer! :biggrin:

    I told a group of Postgrads, who were at my Uni for lectures by Ed Witten this in the mid nineties :wink:
  14. Dec 8, 2004 #13
    This guy should never have been awarded a PhD. loseyourname pretty much covered and when you get down to it, he's steeped in bad science, and has forgotten the basics of scientific thought. And i mean the basics like:

    1)If you don't know the answer, then you just don't know it. Thats ok.
    2)Just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean any answer can be substituted in its place.
  15. Dec 8, 2004 #14
    No proof

    There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel

    Just reading that made me not want to read the rest. The guy is not PROVING anything, he simply states a bunch of untrue statements and adds scientific terms to them to made them seem like proofs :mad:
  16. Dec 9, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In addition to the critiques already mentioned here, we can add a more philosophical critique. The author does not seem to appreciate the problem of other minds.

    I can be sure that I am conscious, but my certainty ends there. I make a reasonable assumption that other humans are conscious, but no matter how reasonable, this is still an assumption; I cannot leap into other people's minds and verify that they are conscious as well. I can also make an an assumption that a television is not conscious, but no matter how apparently reasonable, this too is an assumption. For all I know, a television very well might have some sort of consciousness; I certainly have no resources to definitively say one way or the other, and so must rely on my highly biased vantage point as a human being to try to make what appears to be a reasonable assumption. But the author takes such an assertion to be true and, crucially, subsequently uses it for the purpose of a reductio ab absurdum to demonstrate his premise that something like electrons cannot be responsible for consciousness. Essentially, his argument relies on the notion that we can already be certain what physical systems are and are not conscious, which is certainly not the case.
  17. Dec 9, 2004 #16
    But, does it really matter if something is "conscious" or not?

    Does consciousness even exist? Sure, we think and we KNOW that we think so we give it a name "consciousness"

    But it just might be an illusion caused by our complex brains....that's what I believe anyway

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook