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

[Don Clugston]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 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.

Life isn't that binary. There's very few things we can be certain about. In 
reality, we have varying degrees of confidence about everything. 'Fact' just 
means 'very high confidence'.

Recently, in the mathematical community, there has been discussion about what 
'proof' means (particularly with regard to computer-generated proofs). How can 
you be confident that there are no errors in your proof? (Oops, there was a bug 
in the gc -- Fermat's last theorem wasn't true after all).

Instead, the question is how convincing you find the evidence to be. And since 
science does aid our understanding of the world, it does provide some evidence 
both for and against the existence of God (or gods).

> 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.

That does indeed rule out certain categories of god, and says interesting things 
about what 'all powerful' can mean, but my guess is that such arguments haven't 
had any effect on the development of your views <g>. Curiously, it is an example 
of a contribution from logic towards theology! Historically, science has done a 
pretty decent job of rendering a fair number of religious world views untenable.

> --Yigal (just another atheist..)
-- Don (just another Christian..) Unfortunately, one of the few things we can be 
sure about is that
(at least) one of us is wrong.  Bummer.