Totally OT: Quantum Mechanics proof for the existence of a Supreme Conciousness?

[Yigal Chripun]

Aarti_pl wrote:
>> "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe
>> was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude
>> of universes—a "multiverse". "
>>
>> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
>>
>>
>> I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of
>> the consequences which follow when choosing the second option.
>
> That's why finding God based only on science IMHO is not possible. As
> Yigal Chripun already mentioned science is based on set of assumptions
> which don't allow scientists to explore some of possible explanations.
> I don't think it is so bad for scientists, as you never knows before
> what you will find just beyond the corner: another physical law or God
> himself. But what is good for scientists is not necessary so good for
> human being. If scientists are missing something very important (as
> God :-) ), a lot of people can be misleaded by believing in scientists
> theories...
>
> Another drawback of these basic scientists assumptions is that they
> can lead scientists to accept  very strange and improbable theories as
> truth. So in some sense it cause scientists to accept theories which
> are more complicated than necessary, what is kind of paradox, taking
> Ockham's razor principle into account. In article mentioned above
> author noticed that universe seems to be precisely fine-tuned for
> humans to live, but it led author to conclusion that there are
> infinite number of different universes. In such a high level abstract,
> unverifiable thinking, the existence of God should be taken into
> consideration on the same level as such theories. The more: there IS
> some evidence of God's existence. And this IS fully scientific
> evidence. It's not evidence of kind which physicians and
> mathematicians would look for, as you can not reproduce in controlled
> environment your experiment to prove something. But it is evidence
> which will be gladly accepted by historicians. I mean here simplest
> evidence available: testimony of different people experiencing God in
> their life.
>
> If anyone wants to know my exact opinion on that matter you can
> contact me through my web page: www.zapytajmnie.com
>
> BR
> Marcin Kuszczak
> (aarti_pl)
science operates based on a set of axioms
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) which basically means that science
is limited in what it can deduce. what you imply with the word
"assumptions" is basically that if the assumption is wrong everything
derived from it would also be wrong, so all our knowledge is just a pile
of assumptions that can be wrong. that's different from using axioms as
your starting point. There are cases where a scientific theory is based
on an assumption but science tries very hard to minimize this as much as
possible and to remain with ideally no assumptions at all. that's what
ocham's razor is all about.

regarding god, it is true that science doesn't/shouldn't deal with the
question of god, as a belief system relies on people accepting it
_without_ any formal proof. if you provide such a proof that god exists
(or not) you make the answer a fact, and it stops being a belief.
that said (and without insulting anyone religion/faith/belief system),
my opinion is as follows:
1) the question of god cannot be answered by science so it's irrelevant
and my view of the world does not depend on its answer.
2) I can reason logically and show that logically god doesn't exist but
as i said, god isn't supposed to be logical or scientific so even if i
could prove that he/she/it didn't exist it's irrelevant to my view of
the world  as stated in (1).

if god is almighty and can do anything, he can create a rock no one can
lift, so he either cannot lift it or he can't create it, both ways show
a logical contradiction to the idea of an all powerful god.

--Yigal (just another atheist..)