Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE

  1. #1 SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5
    I think that faith cannot come only from logic, because to have faith in God means to trust and love God.
    I think however that 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.alice.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 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 conceiving 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 some specific mathematical equations . Someone claims that the present laws of physics cannot be considered exact because we do not have a unique theory unifying general relativity with electroweak and strong interactions. First of all, it must be stressed that it is not necessary at all that such theory must exist; God could have conceived the universe both according to a unified theory and according to some disjoined theories. Anyway, a well-known property of mathematical equations is the possibility to find approximate equations able to reproduce with great accuracy the results of the exact equation in a given range of values. This is the reason why classical mechanics (which represents the approximation) can replace quantum mechanics (which represents the exact theory) in the study of many macroscopic processes. So, independently from the fact that we choose to consider the present laws of physics as exact or approximate, the systematic accuracy of their predictions proves that the state of the universe is determined by specific mathematical equations. In fact, if natural processes were not determined by any mathematical equations, there would be no reason to expect to be able to predict the natural processes (neither a limited number of them), through some 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 since the laws of physics are intrinsecally abstract mathematical concepts, and when we ask them to describe which "natural principles" should really rule the universe and be represented by the equations of physics (for example the Schroedinger or the Dirac equations), they remain speachless. Their incapacity to describe concretely the laws of physics is a direct consequence of the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws of physics. Actually, they use the term "natural principles" (or equivalent expressions) but these are vague and completely indefinite concepts: they are not true concepts, but only empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. Besides, the objective result is that natural phenomena occur according to some specific mathematical equations; this result can be explained without any need to introduce vague and obscure concepts of "natural principles". The most simple and direct explanation is that nature is ruled by some specific mathematical equations. The "natural principles" are then a concept as empty and meaningless as superfluous. Someone claims that the equations of physics are not the cause of the natural processes, but they are only the result of our analysis of experimental data; in other words, they are only the way we have ordered and summarized, in a mathematical language, the observed processes. In this case, however, every new experimental data would require a new analysis and a revision of our equations. Such objection is then clearly denied by the predictive capability of the equations of physics: if the state of the universe was not really determined by any mathematical equations, no equations could allow us to predict sistematically the natural phenomena, while we know that the laws of physics sistematically give correct predictions. Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and we have never needed to change them. Since last century, we have observed a systematic confirmation of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials. It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics and the predictive power of such laws, without admitting that the state of the universe 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, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a personal God.


    Marco Biagini

    Ph.D in Solid State Physics.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Just because you have a Ph.D doesn't mean you are immune to the psychological effect of brainwashing.
    If something CAN happen it WILL happen. That statement throws your view out the window. If life CAN exist, it will eventually exist. If gravity can exist it will eventually exist.
    Think for an instant if you will, that you remove time from the equation. If something normally takes 1 billion years to get to, and you remove time from the equation, then that thing is inevitably going to happen. When you remove time however, it happens immediantly. You then add time back into the equation. If there is no conciousness to think of it's existence, then the universe will change immediantly.

    If that makes sense.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE 
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marcobiagini
    The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator.
    It does? Why? Because you say so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    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.
    Marco, I understand what you want to say. However, I think you must remember that, from a scientific viewpoint, consciousness is only a state of mind. You regain consciousness, for example, when your higher processes start working again. The brain itself works merely through the transfer of lectrons from neuron to neuron, stimulating chemicals which stimulate the feeling of emotion. What you consider the consciousness cannot be explained at all. Your brain works with association. If something happens, it triggers a memory or instance which allows the brain to react accordingly. Further, if you are considering something, your brain works again with association; you associate some prospects of a solution with good, while others with bad and then simply continue your association in such a way that you either eliminate the bad prospects, or accept the bad prospects and simply choose not to accept the solution.

    In order to explain your argument convincingly, first define exactly what consciousness is. your attempt is a good try but doesn't work.

    Secondly, the flaw with your reasoning is that you think it is the equations that determine the universe. Actually, it is not; equations merely allow us to express a physical instance in mathematical form and predict what will happen next. It is not the equations but the laws that determine the universe; that these laws can be expressed as mathematical statements is really not proof that mathematics determines the universe. It simply means that most of what we understand of the universe can be described using a human invention, namely, mathematics.

    So, your proof, as it were, cannot be accepted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5

    In order to explain your argument convincingly, first define exactly what consciousness is. your attempt is a good try but doesn't work.
    I do not think I should give a an exact definition of consciousness, sicne consciousness is what each person directly experiences in himself.
    Acyually consciousnes is a preliminary necesssary condition for every definition, because an unconscious being cannot define anything.


    Secondly, the flaw with your reasoning is that you think it is the equations that determine the universe. Actually, it is not; equations merely allow us to express a physical instance in mathematical form and predict what will happen next. It is not the equations but the laws that determine the universe; that these laws can be expressed as mathematical statements is really not proof that mathematics determines the universe. It simply means that most of what we understand of the universe can be described using a human invention, namely, mathematics.
    I disagree. My point is the following: there is in principle no reason to expect that in a non-mathematically structured universe, events can be sistematically predicted through mathematical equations.

    In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
    suppose we analize experimental data. We can certainly find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. Then we perform new experiments, and the new data do not fit in our previous equations.
    So we need revise them. But when we perform new experiments, again the new data do not fit, and we have to revise again our equations.
    There is no reason to expect that a new experiment will give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite)

    But this is the opposite of what has occurred in science.
    The point is that the Quantum Mechanical equations were established studying a few simple systems; we have performed millions and millions of experiments on different systems, and no revisions of the equatons were necessary.

    I think that it is correct to say that, on the basis of our scientific data, there is zero probability that the universe can not be ruled by mathematical laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    The point is that the Quantum Mechanical equations were established studying a few simple systems; we have performed millions and millions of experiments on different systems, and no revisions of the equatons were necessary.
    Actually, no. Schrodinger's original wave function equation was non-relativistic; it had to be replaced by Dirac with a relativistic equation. quantum mechanics, further, only gives us the probability of an event happening; it does not actually determine the outcome of something.

    Even if we were to calculate the probabilities of an event happening, it does not mean that it is impossible. For example, it is possible at this very moment, that a TV set appears out of thin air. It is possible, but highly improbable. An odd concept, but one that quantum mechanics allows for.

    Ofd course no revisions were necessary; we aren't determining outcomes, simply probabilities of outcomes. It makes no sense then to say that quantum mechanics describes the universe.

    Acyually consciousnes is a preliminary necesssary condition for every definition, because an unconscious being cannot define anything.
    What does that have to do with anything? Surely an object can define itself.

    I disagree. My point is the following: there is in principle no reason to expect that in a non-mathematically structured universe, events can be sistematically predicted through mathematical equations.
    Mathematics, firstly, is a human invention that simply allows us to find the properties of certain systems. For example, using mathematics we can prove that the Pythagoras theorem. In essence, it is a tool that allows us to understand the properties of a system. The Pythagoras theorem is not mathematics itself; it is simply a property of a right triangle which can be described through mathematical expressions. This does not mean that the mathematical expressions themselves describe the hypotenuse; it is impossible to show that the mathematical equations themselves determine the Pythagoras theorem.

    After all, in order to prove the theorem, you have to take other systems. One prove involves a rigid construction of squares, while another involves squaring. what I am in essence trying to say is that mathematics is simply a tool that can be used to describe certain things; they are not necessarily the objects themselves.

    For example, we might have a universe where



    is false. We can have no mathematical explanation for why it is not equal to the mass multiplied the square of the speed of light; we can only write that energy of an object will not be equal to the prroduct of the above; we could spend the rest of our lives trying to find out why, but mathematics can never reveal why.

    From this example, you can see that we can only serve to use mathematics as a way to describe the properties of a system, and never say that mathematics is itself the system.

    In fact, if you are willing, I'd like to challenge you to prove mathematically that mathematics is the system itself. I don't mind if you don't want to, but I'd like to ask you to consider it at least. You will find the difficulties right there.

    I think that it is correct to say that, on the basis of our scientific data, there is zero probability that the universe can not be ruled by mathematical laws.
    You cannot. Why? Because science itself has needed revising several times for the hundreds of years it has been practised. The universe is ruled by physical laws, because if it was ruled by mathematical laws, then mathematics itself would explain certain properties of a system completely, and science would have become part of mathematics.

    I say so mainly because in order to prove a conjecture, you must show that logically it is correct, using previously accepted mathematical laws. But a law of physics can never be proven correct; a single experiment that goes against it invalidates it. If mathematics can prove a law of physics, then I take my hat off to you and accept what you say. However, the universe does not behave so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5
    Actually, no. Schrodinger's original wave function equation was non-relativistic; it had to be replaced by Dirac with a relativistic equation. quantum mechanics, further, only gives us the probability of an event happening; it does not actually determine the outcome of something.



    The fact that the Schroidenger equation was not relativistic is irrilevant.
    As I explained in my first post " Anyway, a well-known property of mathematical equations is the possibility to find approximate equations able to reproduce with great accuracy the results of the exact equation in a given range of values".
    So the existence of approximate solutions is a direct consiquence of the existence of exact mathematical solutions.
    But most importantly, you have missed the point: during all history, the equations of physics have been revised only a few times, in spite of billions and billions of new experimental results.

    The fact that quantum mechanics gives probability distributions is again irrilevant; in fat we have in principle infinite possible probability distributions, and we find that experiemntal data sistematically confirm in every experiment, the predicted probability distributions.




    Even if we were to calculate the probabilities of an event happening, it does not mean that it is impossible. For example, it is possible at this very moment, that a TV set appears out of thin air. It is possible, but highly improbable. An odd concept, but one that quantum mechanics allows for.

    This consideration have nothing to do with my arguments; I think you shoud read my previous posts more carefully.



    Ofd course no revisions were necessary; we aren't determining outcomes, simply probabilities of outcomes. It makes no sense then to say that quantum mechanics describes the universe.
    False again. There are infinite possible probability distributions and so revisions shuold have been necessary if the universe were not really ruled by our equations.
    You mentioned before the passage from unrelativistic to relativistic quantum mechanics; if you use the nonrelativistic equations you find wrong results for the probability distributions in certain ranges of energy; this because the nonrelativistic equations are approximations of the relativistic ones, and they can be used only in certain ranges of energy.

    It does make sense to say that quantum mechanics not only describes but also predicts the state of the universe; this is done through the calculation of specific probability distributions.The fact itself that you can read this message is a direct consequence of the fact that our equations correctly predict the behavior of matter, since our computers are designed using the equations of physics.



    Mathematics, firstly, is a human invention that simply allows us to find the properties of certain systems.
    If mathematics was only a human invention, we couldn't be able to predict sistematically the behavior of the universe using mathematical equations.
    My point is that mathematics existed in the mind of God also before the existence of man.

    As I said, I think that it is correct to say that, on the basis of our scientific data, there is zero probability that the universe can not be ruled by mathematical laws.

    Your objections to my previous arguments are not valid, so my argumets still stand.
    I cannot explain my arguments better than I did.
    I can only suggest you to read them more carefully.

    Maybe at this point we may only agree to disagree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    The fact that the Schroidenger equation was not relativistic is irrilevant.
    As I explained in my first post " Anyway, a well-known property of mathematical equations is the possibility to find approximate equations able to reproduce with great accuracy the results of the exact equation in a given range of values".
    I have no issue with what you say. However, you have not yet given me absolute proof that the universe is built by mathematical rules and we are not constraining our rules of mathematics in such a way that they give definite preictions.

    Just because an equation can answer a quesiton doesn't mean the equation is the answer itself. It is merely a method to find the answer. Newton's Law of Gravitation simply allows me to find the answer; it does not mean that the answer is determined by the equation, as can be seen when general relativity superseded Newtonian dynamics.

    In fact, Newton reminds me of a simple way to show why the universe is not ruled by mathematical expressions. I am sure you have heard of the problem of trying to figure out how gravity causes the orbit of three masses to change.

    The problem is impossible to solve completely; we can never get an exact answer; it is simply an approximation. If the Universe was ruled completely by mathematical laws, then ought it not to have frozen rigid when it encounters such a problem? If the Universe behaved as you said, then the way the orbits of the planets are determined should be impossible to create, as it would have caused a contradiction, and mathematics cannot allow contradictions to exist.

    This is direct evidence of what you say is false. However, I am quite willing to listen to your arguments.

    But most importantly, you have missed the point: during all history, the equations of physics have been revised only a few times, in spite of billions and billions of new experimental results.
    Have you then so easily forgotten the triumph of Copernicus' heliocentric model over Ptolemy and Artistotle's geocentric theory, which necessitated a revision of the equations previously used? Or Kepler's Laws, which Newton used to create fundamental equations of the world? Or general relativity, which caused previous Newtonian equations to change? Or quantum mechanics, which caused the most amazing changes in equations?

    True, there have been few changes; but the changes themselves are enormous.

    The fact that quantum mechanics gives probability distributions is again irrilevant; in fat we have in principle infinite possible probability distributions, and we find that experiemntal data sistematically confirm in every experiment, the predicted probability distributions.
    No, it is not irrelevant; that quantum theory can only predict the most likely possibility and not completely determine the outcome of an experiment is a blow to your idea, as it implies that there is a more fundamental theory than quantum mechanics which determines the outcome of an experiment, which we have yet to know; yet the measurement problem denies our ever knowing what it is.

    In fact, as to the measurement problem, can you give me a mathematical explanation or indeed expression for it? If you can, please tell me; however, I am quite sure you will not find one.

    This consideration have nothing to do with my arguments; I think you shoud read my previous posts more carefully.
    In fact it is; mathematics itself cannot determine that the TV should appear, it merely says that its possible this can happen. That is yet another direct contradiction of what you say: if the world is governed by mathematics, then surely mathematics should explain the world. Yet it does not do so, but tells us what might happen, instead of letting us know how.

    False again. There are infinite possible probability distributions and so revisions shuold have been necessary if the universe were not really ruled by our equations.
    You mentioned before the passage from unrelativistic to relativistic quantum mechanics; if you use the nonrelativistic equations you find wrong results for the probability distributions in certain ranges of energy; this because the nonrelativistic equations are approximations of the relativistic ones, and they can be used only in certain ranges of energy.
    Here you are wrong. Schrodinger originally wrote a relativistically sound equation, which he abondoned because it didn't give results in agreement with measurement. The non-relativistic equation worked, certainly, but failed to include particle properties that were discovered afterwards. Through pure luck Dirac discovered a wave equation which both explained these particle properties and simulateneously made it relativistically sound, thanks to the use of the Clifford algebra he applied.

    This once more is something you must note, because mathematics cannot have contradictions in it. The relativistic equation failed, but the non-relativistic one worked, failing only to describe some particle properties. The particle properties were equally explained by a new relativistic equation.

    The equation which worked had to change. Another blow to your idea, as if the Universe was ruled by mathematical laws, the non-relativistic equation would have failed completely, as mathematics cannot have a contradiction.

    It does make sense to say that quantum mechanics not only describes but also predicts the state of the universe; this is done through the calculation of specific probability distributions.The fact itself that you can read this message is a direct consequence of the fact that our equations correctly predict the behavior of matter, since our computers are designed using the equations of physics.
    Specific probability distributions of what? Gases? Hot air? Vacuums?
    Our computers are certainly designed so, but bear in mind that quantum mechanics only says the photon will strike the screen at a likely spot, not that it will definitely hit the spot. It might hit somewhere else, but fade away a second later.

    If mathematics was only a human invention, we couldn't be able to predict sistematically the behavior of the universe using mathematical equations.
    My point is that mathematics existed in the mind of God also before the existence of man.
    Why not? If mathematics weren't a human invention, then it would explain why the quanta. or indeed why the universe, exists. Since it doesn't, I think I can say with confidence that it is a human invention.

    However, I must mention that creatures certainly know how to count, but they are incapable of understanding, say, geometry. Mathematics the discipline and much of what we know today about mathematics is indeed a human invention.

    As I said, I think that it is correct to say that, on the basis of our scientific data, there is zero probability that the universe can not be ruled by mathematical laws.
    Prove it. Scientific results do not guarantee conclusive proof; resutls might change at a moment's notice. You cannot definitely prove that mathematical equations cannot change for the experimental evidence. Therefore, you cannot conclude that there is zero probability of the universe being ruled by mathematical laws.

    Your objections to my previous arguments are not valid, so my argumets still stand.
    How so? You have not readily managed to defeat my arguments.

    I cannot explain my arguments better than I did.
    Then come up with some new ones that help solidify your position. It's not that hard.

    I can only suggest you to read them more carefully.
    Which I have done, twice, thank you very much.

    Maybe at this point we may only agree to disagree.
    In which case, you consider this a matter of opinion, while I do not.
    I do not think I can agree to disagree. I must, in fact, disagree to disagree. :wink:
    Just joking. But this debate is still not over, my friend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    If he had a phd I'm sure he'd understand that it's actually impossible to 'prove' any scientific idea. I wonder if he understands that the purpose of a PhD is to teach you how to critically think and present ideas. I cast doubt on his higher learning.




    Maybe at this point we may only agree to disagree.
    Way to get countered by a 14 year old and then look for a way to weasel out of it so you don't continue to have your ass handed to you.

    Why would you spout off all this crap about a proof for God and then back down so easily? Terrible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Way to get countered by a 14 year old and then look for a way to weasel out of it so you don't continue to have your ass handed to you.
    Lol, mormoopid, this has got to be the best line I've ever seen! :-D

    No offense, Marco.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5
    In fact, Newton reminds me of a simple way to show why the universe is not ruled by mathematical expressions. I am sure you have heard of the problem of trying to figure out how gravity causes the orbit of three masses to change.

    The problem is impossible to solve completely; we can never get an exact answer; it is simply an approximation. If the Universe was ruled completely by mathematical laws, then ought it not to have frozen rigid when it encounters such a problem? If the Universe behaved as you said, then the way the orbits of the planets are determined should be impossible to create, as it would have caused a contradiction, and mathematics cannot allow contradictions to exist.

    This is direct evidence of what you say is false. However, I am quite willing to listen to your arguments.

    From what you write I can understadn you know very little about mahematics and physics.
    Let me explain to you that for most differential equations we are not able to find exact analitical solutions. This does not mean tha the exact solutions do not exist; acually it is mahematically proved that the exact solutions do exist, but we are not able to calculate them.
    The point is that the equations of physics are the differential equations, and not their solutions. So also in the case of the three body problem, we know the exact laws of physics (the differential equations) and the fact we cannot calculate the exact solutions is totally irrilevant.





    Have you then so easily forgotten the triumph of Copernicus' heliocentric model over Ptolemy and Artistotle's geocentric theory, which necessitated a revision of the equations previously used? Or Kepler's Laws, which Newton used to create fundamental equations of the world? Or general relativity, which caused previous Newtonian equations to change? Or quantum mechanics, which caused the most amazing changes in equations?

    True, there have been few changes; but the changes themselves are enormous.

    Yor comment is again irrilevant; As I told you, snce the discovery of quantum mehanics, billions and billions of new experients have confermed the equations of physics.


    As I said you ave raised no valid arguments and my arguments still stand.
    I see no reason to answer again, because I should repeat what I wrote previously, and this is no use.


    Best regards

    Marco
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    From what you write I can understadn you know very little about mahematics and physics.
    Let me explain to you that for most differential equations we are not able to find exact analitical solutions. This does not mean tha the exact solutions do not exist; acually it is mahematically proved that the exact solutions do exist, but we are not able to calculate them.
    The point is that the equations of physics are the differential equations, and not their solutions. So also in the case of the three body problem, we know the exact laws of physics (the differential equations) and the fact we cannot calculate the exact solutions is totally irrilevant.
    Let me assure you I understand quite a lot about physics and mathematics.
    You are wrong about being unable to find exact solutions to most differential equation; for most linear equations, this can be accomplished with ease, whereas nonlinear differential equations have to take the case itself and solve for the case. I would like to ask you to give me the source for the proof for the exact solutions, so I can see it for myself.
    That nonlinear differential equations have to be taken case by case directly implies that there must be special solutions for each different case; in the Newtonian three body problem, no exact solution has yet been found and to my knowledge no proof of what you say exists.
    Also, if we cannot calculate it, it holds correct for the universe to not be able to calculate it likewise. If not, then what makes the universe different? What is so special about objects that they understand mathematics intuitively while minds, which must, according to you, be ruled by equations, not be able to understand the very things that rule them? It's like saying God exits and you can never understand him: you'll never progress anywhere with that answer.

    Yor comment is again irrilevant; As I told you, snce the discovery of quantum mehanics, billions and billions of new experients have confermed the equations of physics.
    That would be the standard model, not quantum mechanics. I have a half a mind to comment on this surprising lack of knowledge on your part, but I usually refrain from making personal comments.

    Furthermore, you cannot simply dismiss something as irrelevant unless you can answer it successfully. You have shied away from defending your position by simply dismissing what to some must represent a fundamental attack on your theory. So far no theory which describes what will exactly happen has yet been found; quantum mechanics only describes probabilities and possibilities, not exactly what must happen. According to quantum mechanics, it is possible for a person to appear out of thin air thanks to the random combintion of prticles, but it doesnt rule it out completely. It doesn't give definite answers; simply enables us to say what might happen.

    If the universe were ruled by equations, then particles themselves would only be able to calculate what might happen, or where they might be if they know their own velocity, which leads to an odd conclusion: even the change in particles speeds or energies cannot be determined at all, simply redered likely. In such a case, there would be infinite confusion among particles, and nothing tho determines what will happen, nothing to destroy all the other possibilities and render one possibility correct.

    Mathematics, as I have said, is only a tool to describe the universe, invented by humans. It is not the universe itself; the universe could have been completely different, or the quanta might not exist, but there is no mathematical reason why either of these things could have been so, or why our universe is like this. If mathematics could explain, down to the last detail, everything about our universe, I would accept what you say. Yet it does not, and we can only use it based on what we think is happening. We must first observe the universe, and then work out the formulas in order for us to predict what might happen. sometimes they may be wrong, and must be replaced.

    I would advise you to answer my questions instead of dismissing them or not replying at all. For example, why did the non-relativistic Shcrodinger formula work originally? How can the universe find out what happens if we can't find it ourselves?

    As I said you ave raised no valid arguments and my arguments still stand.
    Another way of simply dismissing my very simple questions which you could at least have the decency to reply to with a clear answer, instead of outright dismissal. What you are doing is not in the spirit of discussion; it resembles more the actions of someone who ardently believes in something but refuses to clarify or even try and sort out the contradictions. Iam truly disgusted by what you are doing.

    I see no reason to answer again, because I should repeat what I wrote previously, and this is no use.
    This comes to me as no surprise. I understand you would like to do something else other than discuss your own ideas with whom you consider a stupid, belligerent fourteen-year-old with no grasp whatsoever of the subtleties of physics and the innate delicate nature of mathematics. I have no qualms whatsoever with you for trying to avoid doing this; merely wonder why you do not wish to discuss your own ideas. Please bear with my own failings and my own stupidity that prevents me from grasping what you say; I am asking merely that you clarify your position enough for both of us to conduct a healthy discussion of the merits or drawbcks of your idea. I fail to understand why you do not see this.

    However, please do as you wish. You have agreed to disagree with me, and I have done likewise. Good luck with the rest of your life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by marcobiagini

    My name is Marco Biagini and I am a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics

    Marco Biagini

    Ph.D in Solid State Physics.
    See #24. http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

    It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics and the predictive power of such laws, without admitting that the state of the universe 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, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a personal God.
    From what I can glean from your gibberish, you appear to be stating that reality is fantasy and fantasy is reality, and based on that logic you've jumped to the conclusion that a god did it,and that a non-belief in that god means one is just too stupid to comprehend it all.

    Politics is in your future, boy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Gyd
    Gyd is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    73
    I believe in G-d too. :-D
    But only us Jews will get to
    see him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by Gyd
    I believe in G-d too. :-D
    But only us Jews will get to
    see him.
    Okay you need to shut the fuck up right now. Why don't you try contributing something to the discussion?

    Cool, you believe in God. That's neat. However, I really am not going to side idley by and let you say that only Jews can see him. I may be atheist, but I will maintain til the day that I die that you are just as incapable of knowing that only Jews will see God as everyone else is until you die.

    Your comment, I found, to be elitist and bigotrous. You're already a terrible poster from what I have seen, maybe you should try to make friends instead of informing everyone of your opinion that Jews are better?

    P.S. Nothing happens when you die anyways
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    So, as a humanist, former Hells Angel[IQ 155, according to MENSA[ I know,makes me a retard on this site,but I DO try],
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    As probably the only former Hells Angel on this site[YES, the barbarians really ARE at the gates,,,

    He will not thank me for this,but Liongold..... :wink:

    If it gives you ANY sustenance,l was at school with Mervyn King
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    If it gives you ANY sustenance,l was at school with Mervyn King
    There is a blank look on my face at this very moment. I've never heard of Mervyn King; then again, I've never lived in the US, so understanding US cultural phenomenons is a little out of my league.

    He will not thank me for this,but Liongold.....
    Thank you. There! See? All you had to do was provoke me into doing it. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If it gives you ANY sustenance,l was at school with Mervyn King
    There is a blank look on my face at this very moment. I've never heard of Mervyn King; then again, I've never lived in the US, so understanding US cultural phenomenons is a little out of my league.

    He will not thank me for this,but Liongold.....
    Thank you. There! See? All you had to do was provoke me into doing it. :wink:
    Mervyn King is currently the Governor of the Bank of England. I used to tell people that you could guess who paid more attention in maths lessons. Given how the economy looks right now, I'm not so sure...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    Given how the economy looks right now, I'm not so sure...
    Well, if it is any consolation, the trouble with the economy didn't start with the Bank of England, nor did it originate in any way with him.
    Reply With Quote  
     


Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts