Evidence for God from Science

Marco: “The point is that consciousness trascends (sic) the laws of physics, because such laws do not account for the existence of consciousness;” This reasoning, if applied historically, would conclude that most of chemistry is unphysical, since prior to quantum mechanics, no one could “account f...

First, no law of science “does not allow” consciousness. Nothing in science states that consciousness is unphysical. As I have already said, it is a logical analisys of our scientific knowledges that proves the unphysical nature of consciousness; in fact no successions of elementary physical proce...

Marco, your argument says that the existence of mathematical laws ruling the universe is a proof of the existence of an intelligent creator. My objection is twofold. 1. The presence of chaos in the deterministic laws of the universe looks like a sort of imperfection. No, it isn't. Chaos represent o...

If you answerw yes, then I go on with my basic question to Marco (and to anyone): How can you demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator only on the basis of physical laws that contain chaotic behaviour? Dear Alien, why should the presence of a chaotic behavior invalidate my argument for G...

Our incapacity to predict the evolution of a system might actually be intrinsic to the system! This is exactly the difference between what said Laplace and what said Poincaré. Consider a "deterministic" system, completely described by differential equations. You can assign EXACT numerical...

Dear Alien, I have never said that "the real systems can be divided into two categories: deterministic and chaotic", as you have wrote. I have simply given the classical definition of chaotic systems. The point is that in classical physics, the universe is IN PRINCIPLE predictable; our inc...

Dear Alien,

I find no logics in your last post. Please read my definition of choaotic system and think about it more carefully. I agree with Felgar's answer to your post.

Marco

Dear Marco, my point about unpredictability of the future does not necessarily apply only to quantum mechanics. I am talking about macroscopical events like, for example, the chaotic motion. It has been demonstrated that even knowing all initial conditions of the state variables of a given system d...

Obviously you do not understand quantum physics enough to know what exactly goes on in it's processes. I am a physicist and I perfectly understand quantum mechanics. It is you who do not understand quantum mechanics. Since I cannot keep here a course on quantum mechanics, I'll stop here. Marco

Future is unpredictable. Dear Alien, if future were not predictable, you would not be able to read this message with your computer. In fact your computer was design by means of the laws of physics, and the fact that your computer works is a direct consequence of the capacity of the laws of physics ...

After reading these last messages, I think many here have misunderstood my meaning. The fundamental point is the difference between a scientific proof and an absolute logical proof. Science never provides absolute logical proofs, even if I personally find scientific proofs absolutelly convincing. A ...

Dear John,

I think that your arguments are totally inconsistent.
This discussion is getting too repetitive, so I'll stop here, unless some new valid arguments is raised.

Best regards,

Marco

I can account for our predictive capability simply by arguing that some of us are astute observers of nature and its patterns, and we are able to successfully generalize our observations. Systematic agreement would also be expected in this case as well I do not need to posit that my equations--or a...

I think you actually pointed out that QED does describe only a limited part of nature, since it does not describe gravity or nuclear forces. This is totally irrilevant; in fact there is no reason to expect that electromagnetic interactions must be the only interaction existing in nature; gravity an...

In mathematics, there are an infinite number of equations, only a small subset of which accurately describe nature. And among those which do, they describe only a limited part of nature. You are totally wrong. The equations of Quantum Electrodynamics explain all mechanical, electric, magnetic, chem...