Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:03 am

Materialism and atheism are incompatible with the scientific view of the universe.
Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element.
Such element, being unphysical, can be identified as the soul.

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics;
I would like to invite you in the site:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

where I analyse in detail the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
Basically, science has proved that the so-called emergent properties are nothing but either ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or arbitrary classifications of some successions of elementary physical processes; in other words, they are only abstract concepts used to describe in an approximated way the real processes.
Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any concepts or classifications, the materialist attempts to explain consciousness as an emergent property
are absolutely inconsistent from a logical point of view.
No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.

The problem of the existence of the soul is strictly connected to the one of God's existence, as I explain in the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions”, where you can find the answer to many other typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.

An independent argument to prove directly the existence of God is the following.
Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics; the universe cannot exist independently from such equations, which determine the events and the properties of such events (including the probability for the event to occur, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics). However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person who conceives such a concept. Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to specific mathematical equations. Some people object that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. Someone else claims that math is only the language used to describe the universe. This objections however do not stand, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the state of the universe was not really determined by some mathematical equations, one couldn't explain how it is possible to predict so precisely all mechanical, electrical, magnetic, chemical and biological phenomena only by the same system of mathematical equations. Since one century, we observe a systematic confirmations of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials. Consider that it is possible to invent infinite different mathematical equations, which wouldn't be able to predict the processes we observe in nature. It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics without admitting that the state of the universe (what the phylosopher Kant called "noumenal" or "thing-in-themselves" reality) must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical equations. The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator. Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science.

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

Joel Freeman · Post by **Joel Freeman** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:26 am

Wow, that is some really awesome stuff. I'm about halfway through it and I've learned a ton. It refutes many claims I have heard from athiests about emotions and out souls.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:44 am

Sounds interesting Marco - nice to have an actual like-minded scientist around. If I can spare some time I'll definately peruse the writtings that you've already put together.

It sounds like your well-versed with quantum mechanics. I have a pretty good grasp of classical physics and relativity, but the waters really get murky when it comes to quantum physics. One problem I have with quantum physics is that it predicts the potential for multiple, parrallel universes, doesn't it? And there's the notion that each choice 'creates' an alternate universe where the other alternative becomes reality. Both of those concepts ring problematic for me, because I cannot accept that there may be two of me - as an individual designed to love and live in relationship with God, I feel that my spiritual existance must be predicated upon uniqueness and individuality. I'd like to hear your input on the matter.

Preach · Post by **Preach** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:24 pm

I see this is your first post, Marco. Welcome to the board. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:25 pm

Woooooooooooooooooow. Nice work.

Can't get the site to load for me so I'll see what I can do bout that.

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:12 am

Felgar wrote: One problem I have with quantum physics is that it predicts the potential for multiple, parrallel universes, doesn't it? And there's the notion that each choice 'creates' an alternate universe where the other alternative becomes reality. Both of those concepts ring problematic for me, because I cannot accept that there may be two of me - as an individual designed to love and live in relationship with God, I feel that my spiritual existance must be predicated upon uniqueness and individuality. I'd like to hear your input on the matter.

By no means quantum mechanics predicts the existence of multiple universes. There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics establishing that a choice must create an alternative universe. This is only a higly speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics; besides there is no experimental evidence of the existence of any other universes, so such hypotehsis has no scientific basis.

marco

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:16 am

marcobiagini wrote:By no means quantum mechanics predicts the existence of multiple universes. There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics establishing that a choice must create an alternative universe. This is only a higly speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics; besides there is no experimental evidence of the existence of any other universes, so such hypotehsis has no scientific basis.

Really? Cuz I had thought that thought that some particles move in unpredictable ways (when they really shouldn't be moving), and one explanation for those unexplained movements was that they are actually interacting with particles from another dimension. I recall a billiard table being used as an example. Did I just misinterpret the entire program?

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:14 am

[quote="Felgar]Really? Cuz I had thought that thought that some particles move in unpredictable ways (when they really shouldn't be moving), and one explanation for those unexplained movements was that they are actually interacting with particles from another dimension. I recall a billiard table being used as an example. Did I just misinterpret the entire program?[/quote]

Yes, I can assure you that no interection with other dimensions is present in quantum mechanics.

Marco

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:55 am

marcobiagini wrote:Yes, I can assure you that no interection with other dimensions is present in quantum mechanics.

Q3 on this page http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#splitsh specifically deals with different QT interpretations. To which do you ascribe? I assume Copenhagen, but if that's the case, how do you respond to Q31?

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:39 am

Felgar wrote:
marcobiagini wrote:Yes, I can assure you that no interection with other dimensions is present in quantum mechanics.
Q3 on this page http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#splitsh specifically deals with different QT interpretations. To which do you ascribe? I assume Copenhagen, but if that's the case, how do you respond to Q31?

The Copenhagen interpretation is logically consistent and there is no real problems with the Copenhagen interpretation; the objections given in Q31 can be easily answered as follows:

Q31 (1) The collapse is an instantaneous process across an extended region ("non-local") which is non-relativistic.

Answer: the collapse of the wave function is a trascendent event, because it involves consciousness, which is a trascendent reality. The theory of relativity can be applied only to the physical reality; it simply makes no sense to try to apply the theory of relativity to the psychical reality.

Q31 (2) The idea of an observer having an effect on microphysics is repugnant to reductionism and smacks of a return to pre-scientific notions of vitalism.

Answer: this is only an arbitrary opinion; the Copenhaen interpretation is repugnant to all materialists, because it is incompatible with materialism.

Even if the Copenhagen interpretation is logically consistent, it is not my personal view of quantum mechanics.
I believe in fact that the universe is ONLY a mathematical theory, existing in the mind of God. The collapse of the wave function is simply a part of this mathematical theory.
We are immersed in God's thoughts; to give an idea of what I mean, think about our dreams. When we dream, everyhing seems real, but it is nothing but the product of our unconscious imagination; we are immersed in our dream.
Of course our dreams are confused, because they are the product of our finite mind. The universe is instead created by the infinite intelligence of God, and it is then a perfect rational "dream".
In other words, the only existing substance is the psychical substance (God and our individual psyches), while the universe is not an existing substance, but it is only a rational "dream", created by the mind of God and projected into our minds; the moment of projection is represented by the collapse of the wave function.
This projection is the REAL event; on the contrary, the collapse of the wave function is NOT a real event, but it is the only the part of the theory of the universe which describes the projection of the dream "universe" into our mind.

Marco

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:44 am

Interesting comments Marco; thanks for taking the time to reply.

I'll be sure to check through the link you posted...

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:26 am

Hi Marco—welcome to the boards.

I'm not sure I've ever really considered idealism in a serious manner. I think there was a time I was tossing up a similar idea, and I don't exactly remember why I dismissed it, but I think it had to do with the realisation of some implications of such a view that I would be disagreeable to. Would you consider yourself a philosophical idealist, or?

To get straight to some problems I see with such a view (even though it seems apparent in your words that you realise some problems with pure idealism anyway)... if we are only apart of God's "dream" then it is hard to see how we have free will, experience things, and recognise stuff. If we were just apart of God's dream, then we wouldn't really be a creature separate from God who experiences and make decisions. Yet we do appear to be such a creature, therefore we appear to transcend and not be apart of God's dream. To give an analogy. I may dream of people, yet those people aren't necessarily real. I might dream of someone laughing, but I think it safe to say that the person laughing in my dream isn't "really" someone experiencing laughter. Instead my mind only projects an image of someone laughing based on my experiences of seeing people laugh. So working backwards, if we "are" a person who experiences laughter (and other things), then we really do exist. Therefore, while we may be within a dream, we ourselves have to be separate from and transcend such a dream to really exist. Up to here you seem to agree with me seeing as you do write, "the only existing substance is the psychical substance (God and our individual psyches)." So you do believe we are separate from God's "dream."

But if we ourselves are created separate from God's dream, then what reason is there to assume that the world around us is not actually something created separate from God's mind also? On the other hand, if our world around us is apart of God's dream or mind, then perhaps something along the lines of pantheism is true, that is, "God" is the universe. Have you considered such implications, and/or have any thoughts? Is there any particular reason you believe we are immersed in God's thoughts?

Kurieuo.

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:23 pm

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Marco ....Would you consider yourself a philosophical idealist, or?

Hi Kurieuo,

I do not consider myself a phylosopher at all. I am simply a person with a scientific view of the universe.

Kurieuo wrote: So you do believe we are separate from God's "dream."

Absolutely.

Kurieuo wrote: But if we ourselves are created separate from God's dream, then what reason is there to assume that the world around us is not actually something created separate from God's mind also?

The reason is that science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by abstract mathematical equations; so the universe cannot exist independently from these equations, and in their turn, these equations, being only abtract concepts, cannot exist independently from a thinking mind. Hence the universe cannot exist by itself, separate from God; it can exist only as a thought in an intelligent mind.

Marco

August · Post by **August** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:30 pm

Kurieo,

if we are only apart of God's "dream" then it is hard to see how we have free will, experience things, and recognise stuff. If we were just apart of God's dream, then we wouldn't really be a creature separate from God who experiences and make decisions.

Do you then believe that man has unrestricted free will?

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:15 pm

August wrote:Kurieo,

if we are only apart of God's "dream" then it is hard to see how we have free will, experience things, and recognise stuff. If we were just apart of God's dream, then we wouldn't really be a creature separate from God who experiences and make decisions.
Do you then believe that man has unrestricted free will?

No, I don't believe we have unrestricted free will. My point was only that idealism leaves us with no entities external from God who can make decisions or who really exist.

Kurieuo.