Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:04 pm

August wrote:How do you define truth? How do you know that scientific truth is absolute, so it applies to everyone everywhere?

Truth is quite simply, truth. It is not internal, it is not dependant on beliefs or knowledge, it simply IS. Example: The Earth is round - this has always been true, despite the fact that at one time no one knew it or believed it.

Note that I never referred to "scientific truth" as there is no such thing. There is only one truth. Where science comes in, is learning what that truth is. Scientific evidence, or scientific proof, is used to learn and demonstrate what that truth is. It is necessarily objective in that scientific evidence is not internalized, but is both observable and repeatable.

At any rate, why do you ask?

August · Post by **August** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:05 pm

Felgar, check your pm.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:37 am

By certainty I did mean scientific, or 'provable', certainty. This does not necessarily mean scientific understanding. For example, we all view gravity with equal certainty (with a few exceptions perhaps), but no one really understands how it works. Faith-based certainty is based on belief without objective truth. In terms of the depth of conviction, there may be no difference between the two. By definition, faith is belief without a purely rational basis; belief without objective proof.

The ideas of scientific proof and objectivity, of course, take us into a whole new realm of discussion. However, when I hear a scientist say that 'science has proven that...', I take it to mean that a number of independent and scientifically valid studies have been done, all of which support the hypothesis which is under investigation, and none of which refute the hypothesis. In addition, the community of scientists who are most qualified to understand the research have reached a consensus regarding the validity of the hypothesis. This does not mean that the hypothesis is in fact true; it only means that a scientific body capable of examining the data believe that the hypothesis is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and than no relevant evidence refutes the hypothesis. Anyone who has tried to follow medically accepted dietary guidelines knows that this consensus can change.

My original statement that I don't how science could ever prove that God exists was based on this view of science and its mechanisms for reaching conclusions. My statement about a crisis-of-faith being at the source of many of these proofs was based on a pattern I have seen in several capable scientists, who abandon even the most basic tenets of science to reach some conclusion which positively asserts the existence of God. A person of this capability who reaches a conclusion through obviously flawed means does so for just one reason: they *really* want to reach the conclusion. This is lack of faith.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:39 am

BTW, Felgar--I agree with your notion of absolute truth. Truth is the endpoint of all scientific inquiry; an ideal which is never fully achieved. Hence, science is always a work in progress.

j316 · Post by **j316** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:04 pm

I would respond to Felgar with the hypothesis that all proof is inherently subjective, scientific or spiritual

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:37 pm

j316 wrote:I would respond to Felgar with the hypothesis that all proof is inherently subjective, scientific or spiritual

Hypothetically perhaps, but not in reality. Why don't you stand under a crane as I lift a piano above your head. Since sience hasn't objectively proven that gravity works, there's no reason to think that the piano will fall on you when I let it go...

I think you see the point. Gravity is not subjective at all - the fact that matter attracts other matter with this force is proven, according to any reasonable benchmark.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:23 pm

What is accepted as proof is inherently subjective, but I would make a distinction between spiritual proofs and scientific proofs: Acceptance of the former will be strongly dependent on philosophic beliefs; acceptance of the latter will be more evenly distributed across all populations. If one polled people regarding the virgin birth, I think you would find almost no acceptance among non-Christians; if one asked people to jump off a cliff, and took unwillingness to do so as acceptance that gravity exists, I suspect the numbers would be more evenly distributed across all religions and belief systems.

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:02 am

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 theory is considered scientifically proved when there is a wide, consistent and systematic experimental support. For example, no scientists would question the fact that the sun has a mass larger than the earth. Does this mean that we have an absolute logical proof for it? No, we haven't, but we have such a wide and consistent number of experimental data supporting such a view, that it is unreasonable to question it.

My point is that we have an even larger number of systematic and consistent experimental data supporting the idea that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations. It is then unreasonable to question this view; I think it would be less unreasonable to question that the sun has a larger mass than the earth.
We have then a scientific proof of God's existence.
Atheism is in fact incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God.

I hope this may clarify my position,

Best regards,

marco

PS. I would add that the cristian faith is much more than the belief in the existence of a personal God. The christian faith consists essentially in love and trust in the God of Jesus Christ and in His goodness and love. This is much more than simply believing in the existence of an intellient Creator.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:28 am

I agree 100% with your post Marco.

Alien · Post by **Alien** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:42 am

Marco,

Sorry, I don't understand you.

If the status of the universe could be determined by exact mathematical laws, everything would be deterministic.
This is because we could apply these mathematical laws at each status of the universe, ie at any time and over time.

But it has been demonstrated that the universe is highly indeterministic. I mean, there is no analytical law that is able to entirely describe the evolution of the universe.

Future is unpredictable.

Therefore, these exact mathematical laws do not exist.

Therefore, these mathematical laws cannot be used to demonstrate God existence.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:29 pm

Quantum Physics.

The universe is random at the smallest level, scientists can only predict probabilities of any given particle having any given property.

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

Alien wrote:
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 to predict correctly the processes occuring inside your computer.

Both the equations of quantum mechanics and the time evolution of the wave function are rigorously deterministic.
The only non-deterministic event is the collapsing of the wave function, which occurs only when the system is observed.
The observer is BEYOND the laws of physics, he trascends the laws of physics, because the collapse of the wave function represents a violation of the equations of quantum mechanics.
Since man is certainly a potential observer, according to quantum mechanics, man must have a trascendent nature.

Unfortunately this argument cannot be understood by those who do not know quantum mechanics, so I prefer to use simpler arguments, understandable by anybody (of course, anybody who wants to understand).

marco

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:54 am

marcobiagini wrote:
Alien wrote:
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 to predict correctly the processes occuring inside your computer.

Both the equations of quantum mechanics and the time evolution of the wave function are rigorously deterministic.
The only non-deterministic event is the collapsing of the wave function, which occurs only when the system is observed.
The observer is BEYOND the laws of physics, he trascends the laws of physics, because the collapse of the wave function represents a violation of the equations of quantum mechanics.
Since man is certainly a potential observer, according to quantum mechanics, man must have a trascendent nature.

Unfortunately this argument cannot be understood by those who do not know quantum mechanics, so I prefer to use simpler arguments, understandable by anybody (of course, anybody who wants to understand).

marco

Wow, you just destroyed science. You're declaring that one observer is somehow better than every other observer in the universe. You're saying that if ONE person observes a particle it's wave function will collapse, that's funny because you're singling out one person as the cause of the wave function collapse. That simply doesn't work, humans aren't special in physics because that is simply not good science. Obviously you do not understand quantum physics enough to know what exactly goes on in it's processes.

Perhaps you'd like to explain Heisenburg's uncertainty principle and how it effectively bars us from ever determining anything in the universe? Of course you can't because it's been proven by experimentation. The universe is NOT deterministic. It is IMPOSSIBLE for physics to predict events in the future even if they had EVERY SINGLE VARIABLE. This is how the universe works, this is how God made the universe work. Get. Over. It.

marcobiagini · Post by **marcobiagini** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:05 am

Dan wrote:
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

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:21 am

marcobiagini wrote:
Dan wrote:
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

Of course, you fail to refute the fact that you're comitting scientific fallacy by placing humans above the rest of the universe. Keep going with your pretentious elitism, you're not exactly as knowledgeable as some of the members of this board.