• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,616
1,043
partinowherecular
✟135,408.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What a waste of time ... what a waste of a life!
Get a job and become useful. :cool:
Been there, done that. Not sure about the useful part tho.

Alas summer is over and cold weather has set in, so I have way too much free time on my hands. So unless I become bored with posting you people may be in for a long six months. "Ignore" might be a tempting alternative at this point.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Rather than continue to talk past each other, I'll try to change the question so that we can get a different perspective on the relationship between "A" and "B". (We're both fans of pondering the imponderable...right?)

"A" is the microscopic world of interacting quantum fields.
"B" is the macroscopic world of particles, forces, matter, and brains.

So here's the question. Are actions in the macroscopic world (us) responsible for changes in the microscopic world (the quantum fields), or are actions in the quantum fields responsible for the changes in us?

Which is it? Does our macroscopic world cause changes in the quantum fields, or is it the other way around?

If the former is true, that the macroscopic is responsible for changes in the microscopic then you actually have a case for the brain being responsible for consciousness. On the other hand, if the microscopic is responsible for changes in the macroscopic then it's actually the microscopic that's responsible for consciousness, and the perception that it's the brain that's the causal agent is simply an illusion, because it's those darn quantum fields that are the cause, and the brain is just a material projection of what's happening in the fields.

There is of course a third option, that there's an interaction between the two such that we're living in an observer created reality, arising out of a quantum reality, but not entirely subjugated to it. Whatever that means. (Of course that then leads to the whole chicken and the egg problem)

Here's to pondering the imponderable. :oldthumbsup:

No, that is not the question at all.

The question is, is consciousness created from the macroscopic world of particles, forces, matter, and brains, or is it created from quantum fields?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,044
2,232
✟209,035.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Hardly. More like "don't suffer fools gladly".
The kind of ignore I responded to, was within quotes and capitalised.
The context there was postings here on the CFs board site.
I take that as meaning the 'Ignore' function/list the system software provides .. never used it .. too wimpy.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Been there, done that. Not sure about the useful part tho.

Alas summer is over and cold weather has set in, so I have way too much free time on my hands. So unless I become bored with posting you people may be in for a long six months. "Ignore" might be a tempting alternative at this point.
It's super nice weather here by the shore of the South China Sea.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,716
4,651
✟344,406.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
As a matter of interest does your media report on the South and East China seas being geopolitical flashpoints as Australian warships along with other foreign vessels are frequently harassed by Chinese fighter planes, ships and submarines.
Why China's challenges to Australian ships in the South and East China Seas are likely to continue
No flashes going on here.

Google Image Result for https://www.hkgreeters.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Middle-Island-Expensive-Homes.jpg

You migbt like to look at the South China morning post.

And China daily.

Taiwan also has online English language news.

And Singapore has the straits times.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,715
1,671
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟315,318.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
'Material and immaterial phenomena' are both demonstrably concepts of the mind. Try conceiving of either independently from your mind. You will not succeed.
Yes that's what I have been saying, that all with have is 'Mind' so any ideas about reality including the so called scientific method are concepts of the Mind. It supposes that there is something real beyond the Mind being matter which we cannot verify because we cannot get outside our Minds.

So Mind is fundamental to everything and therefore our 1st hand experience (consciousness) is all we have to go from and is fundamental to understanding reality.

Exactly the same applies for: 'consciouness as an emergent property' of a brain, as well as the notion of 'a reality outside of the brain'. They are all mind concepts, which we currently know due to abundant testing, where it can be shown, consistently, that an active healthy mind is present (and conscious).
I agree once again. Therefore the idea of something outside the brain like material matter is a Mind concept and not actually a material thing.
There is *zip* evidence for any of those concepts existing independently from a mind/brain.
Yes I agree. That is why Mind is the fundamental reality, its all we can possibly know. The subject (Mind) is at the center just as many of the pioneers of QP claimed.

'Non material'
is still a mind concept .. (which you appear to have overlooked).
Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.

Your algebra of models is simply wrong because your model of 'material/non-material' assumes, without evidence, that things like 'empty space' (or 'the non material') exist somehow, (magically), independently of the minds which conceive of those models,
No I am not saying that. I am saying that its actually science that claims there's something like empty space (vacuum) beyond our Mind. I am saying that all we have is Mind and Mind is not a material thing.
in spite of the abundancy of objective evidence supporting the mind dependency of them.
I am not sure what you mean by the "mind dependency of them". On what the concepts of the material
and empty space. If so I think its the other way around. The concepts of the
'the material and empty space' and dependent of the Mind.

Thus all we have is our Mind and consciousness to know and understand what reality is. That means rather than create ideas about a reality outside our Mind which includes the assumption that 'Mind is the physical brain' we need to look within and how our experiences reveal the world and who we are in the world.

argument is the circular one because its based on an assumed 'true' posit (eg: that things like 'empty space' or 'the immaterial' exist independently of the minds which conceive of those models), whereas the objective evidence supporting all concepts being mind dependent, is merely where the test evidence takes us (with no need for any logically 'true' imperatives, such as the ones you've based your argument upon). This is how scientifically formed arguments differ, in a big way, from purely logic based arguments.
OK you've lost me a bit. I not arguing that there is a true empty space out there. That is what science does. It assumes there is such a things as 'Matter' outside the brain. It assumes the a billiard ball schema for reality outside the Mind.

If Mind equals 'Matter' and Matter is a concept of the Mind then this is a circular argument of science. Its also a metaphysical one because its actually proposing that there is such a thing as 'Matter' outside the Mind which cannot be verified as we cannot get outside our Mind to test this.

Rather I am saying that all we have is Mind and we stop at that. Mind makes reality. That is not circular but treats reality as it is 'Mind'.

Word salad, I'm afraid.
I think it spells our exactly what I am saying which is that we cannot get rid of Mind (the conscious subjects mind) from anything we do including creating concepts about material reality and measuring them. This can be summed up with the following article.

Materialism conflates the need to posit something outside our personal minds with having to posit something outside mind as a category. All three observations can be made sense of if we postulate a" field of mentation beyond our personal psyches. As such, there is indeed a world out there, beyond us, which we all inhabit; but this world is mental, just as we are intrinsically mental agents. Seeing things this way completely circumvents the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ as we no longer need to bridge the impassable gap between mind and non-mind, quality and quantity: everything is now mental, qualitative, perception consisting solely in a modulation of one (personal) set of qualities by another (transpersonal) set of qualities. We know this isn’t a problem because it happens every day: our own thoughts and emotions, despite being qualitatively different, modulate one another all the time.

Finally, materialism is arguably incoherent. As we have seen, matter is a theoretical abstraction in and of mind. So when materialists try to reduce mind to matter, they are effectively trying to reduce mind to one of mind’s own conceptual creations.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-materialism-is-a-dead-end-bernardo-kastrup-auid-1271

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,314
16,093
55
USA
✟404,587.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.

"Mind" is very clearly the product of brains.
Brains run on neuron-neuron connections.
Neuron interactions run on neurotransmitters.
Neurotransmitters function through chemistry.
Chemistry is built on molecular bonds.
Molecular bonds are the product of quantum mechanical Interations between electrons and protons.
Protons are composite particles made of quarks and gluons.
Electrons, quarks, and gluons are quantized excitations of fundamental fields. As is all matter.

Minds are material in origin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,044
2,232
✟209,035.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
stevevw said:
Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.
Minds are very capable of generating physical force and changing whatever you mean by the word 'reality' there .. Not bad for something that is supposedly 'a non physical force' (.. whatever that means .. more word salad there methinks .. ie: any without meaning?).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,044
2,232
✟209,035.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
"Mind" is very clearly the product of brains.
Brains run on neuron-neuron connections.
Neuron interactions run on neurotransmitters.
Neurotransmitters function through chemistry.
Chemistry is built on molecular bonds.
Molecular bonds are the product of quantum mechanical Interations between electrons and protons.
Protons are composite particles made of quarks and gluons.
Electrons, quarks, and gluons are quantized excitations of fundamental fields. As is all matter.

Minds are material in origin.
But "Mind" is religion, or woo woo.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,440
8,832
52
✟377,950.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It's super nice weather here by the shore of the South China Sea.
It's Autumn windy, here. Not cold (13C), but the clouds are very fast, today.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,314
16,093
55
USA
✟404,587.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But "Mind" is religion, or woo woo.

"soul" is what you describe. Mind is a well studied phenomenon in psychology. (In fact psychology is the study of the mind.)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Escape Velocity!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,353
11,336
56
Space Mountain!
✟1,341,869.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That uppercase Mind is what I meant

Personally, I think it's an overstep for either Skeptics or Christians to posit too firmly either way...

To cite an uppercase "Mind" concept as a form of complete "woo woo" doesn't quite cut the rational mustard, Estrid. But like the rest of us, you're free to mind your own opinion. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,053
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Personally, I think it's an overstep for either Skeptics or Christians to posit too firmly either way...

To cite an uppercase "Mind" concept as a form of complete "woo woo" doesn't quite cut the rational mustard, Estrid. But like the rest of us, you're free to mind your own opinion. :cool:
Your reading ability is what doesn't.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.