Top Ten (Failed) Proofs For God's Existence

I've given my thoughts on another thread (parallel universe?). I was relying on nonlocality and quantum entanglement to convey it to all of your posting sites. but since you ask specificallh here on this one:

Arthur Koestler once said:[SIZE=12pt]" the apparent absurdities of quantum physics . . . make the apparent absurdities of parapsychology a little less preposterous and more digestible". [/SIZE]I think the experiments by Goswami, Grinberg-Zillerbaum,Thaheld, Tait, Wackerman ,etc., provide confirmation of a genuine phenomenon of quantum consciousness non-locality--another example of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". So far, the results seem to be correlational, they fail most of the time, and when they work seems unpredictable. I hesitate to go off the deep end with Hindu metaphysics as an explanation, as Goswami seems to do. His view of reality is colored not only by his scientific background, but also the cultural influence of Hinduism and his "aha" moment resulting from an encounter with the mystic, Joel Morwood after a lecture by Krishnamurti[SIZE=12pt], where he came to realize that "in quantum nonlocality, transcendent heaven—the kingdom of God—is everywhere". But we do not see it. I'm reminded of my own moment of clarity influenced by the Gospel of Thomas saying 113: "The kingdom of the Father is everywhere around us and we do not see it." So I'm not knocking aha moments or metaphysics; just saying that continued caution is warranted.[/SIZE]

 

I'm judging Goswami not just on the information presented here but in the context of his other writings, especially The Self-Aware Universe and God is Not Dead.. He goes far beyond his level of expertise as a physicist, and gives us Brahman in quantum clothes. To me, the basic fallacy of his approach is to assume that the quantum phenomena described at the sub-atomic particle level apply equally at the atomic/macrocosmic level,

 

So YOU are an expert on quantum mechanics and the rest.

Please carry on.

 

Thanks for your permission. Richard Feyman said:"I think its safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics." That would include You, I and Goswami. I'm basing my judgment on the logical difficulties of moving from one level of analysis to another, Goswami's willingness to make sweeping generalizations that go well beyond those of other quantum physicists,and my natural skepticism when a Hindu physicist thinks that QM proves his religion's own view. Apparently physicist Victor Stenger agrees with me, as do theoretical physicist Lawrence Kraus and science historian Michael Shermer. As Shermer explains: "In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck’s constant (h). 'If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.' Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection."

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs2/Quantum%20Quackery.pdf

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/how-spot-quantum-quackery-6C10403763

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2005/01/quantum-quackery/

 

Thanks for the reading.

 

[SIZE=12pt]EVERY THING IN THIS UNIVERSE HAS A CREATOR: [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]If we deeply study this universe, we see that every thing culminates in a Creator. He is the ultimate and every thing is working under his guidance. If we look at different stages of human birth and growth, we see that as we go backward, we find we are moving towards weaker and weaker stage. Eventually we shall find that the growth starts from a clot of clinging substance. So human beings who themselves start from such a weak stage, how can they be their own creator. So it proves without any doubt that human beings are not their own creator. We see that if we start studying the birth process minutely, ultimately we will find ourselves at the limit of human knowledge. At that stage, all the worldly knowledges will reach their limit and will be totally exhausted about what had actually happened? So that is a stage where divine hand is working. Every scientist have to believe that all the processes of this universe ultimately reaches a point where their knowledge becomes inadequate or insufficient to describe them. Once somebody asked a bedouin that what proof does he has about the existence of God. He replied that if he saw excrement of a camel in the middle of a jungle, he could tell that a camel had passed through that jungle. Then after seeing so many different creatures in this universe, couldn't he tell that there is some creator of them? [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]Some atheists claim that this universe is in existence from ever and it will last for ever. If this universe is in existence from ever, then it must have infinite source of power and energy, but we see that no material thing is infinite in this universe. The temperature of Sun is falling down, even the earth is cooling off. All the sources of energy in this universe are being consumed up and exhausting. So the world is approaching to its end as was prophesied by all the religions. It proves that the universe came into being a finite time ago and it also has a definite end. We know from our whole life's experience, that if we consider any process, there are only two possibilities, that a process is either started by some human beings, or it might be a result of some other process. If we move back in this tree of processes which are a result of some other process, ultimately we shall come across a process, which could not be attributed to any other process. At that place, we are left with no other argument, except to believe that it was started by some Super being. We refer to that super being as 'GOD', some atheists call this Super Being by the name of 'nature'. Actually just giving a different name to this Super Being really does not make much difference, they believe in GOD, and all they need is just a little fine tuning.[/SIZE]

 

The Sun still has ~5 Billion year life span left, so the Sun "falling down" and "end approaching" is an extreme exaggeration on your part. There are Multiverse Theories where infinity enters the equations and new universes can continuously be born as well as theories that universe came from nothing, which has evidence in quantum fluctuations. I can understand how either of these may not necessarily be satisfactory to some, but they are at least as coherent as a "Super Being" or "God" which presumably just eternally exist and has it's own qualities and structure that don't need any explanation as to how it developed.

 

Would you please stop trying to surreptitiously teach the Quran.
everything you have posted thus far along these lines is merely paraphrasing the cosmology outlined in the Quran.

 

Respected sir, I just tried to convey my messege regarding the post, I have some relevant stuff si i posted it. I apologize if you herted from it.

 

I'm not hurt by it, but the ideas you put forth are essentially paraphrasing the Quran as well as simply being rather juvenile and lacking any scientific knowledge or credibility.

 

If we study deeply this universe ....

To study deeply is an excellent devotion . But I cannot understand how to study the universe . I do like
to wonder of my experiences ; the wondrous being rare and profound . Oh , like in nature , when I have
heard a bird speak as a man . And I attend to it because it has happened more than once . And my
memory of those experiences must be very careful because the events can be years apart .

Do my contemplations get any help from Holy Books or Science Books ?

And yet , feeling alone , I do feel I am helped . There is a love .

If all a Holy Book really says is 'There is a love' and if all a Science Book says is ' Wonder and discover' ,
I have studied deeply enough of these books .

 

belief isn't about proof. that's why its called belief.
but if what someone believes turns out to be real, what are the odds its anything at all like what they think they know about it?

what gets me is how many people THAT never seems to cross their mind.

 

What I believe, I know, here we go again, but I belienve that there being something big friendly and invisible, or lots of maybe not so big, but still friendly and invisible things, or both, does not in any way depend, on people pretending to know anything about them.

Too many christians, this isn't what they mean when they say god. Same for islamists, or even buddhist, though yah, I know, they don't say god anyway, but they have their books or sutras, and their only half as bad as christers or islamist, but still some have a problem with being the best or only way.

I can't claim to be an authority on what I believe there is no authority on, I realize that too.

Authority is principal not person, and doesn't come from hierarchy.
(logic, consideration and honesty are the final authority. Throw in innocence and detachment doesn't hurt either. And creating and exploring are where gratification hangs out at)

Can't say that there is or isn't any hierarchy, but condemning everything for not being part of one, if it isn't, makes no sense either.
(and that IS the big error of christianity and islam)

There are no armies of evil, but all armies are closer to the dark side then the good. That's just the way it is, and also sometimes they're needed.

But we don't need to look for and invent excuses to need them.

We can live in a world in which most people are reasonable. Most people want to be reasonable.
Mostly we need to stop convincing ourselves and looking for excuses to convince ourselves,
that we have any real need to not be.

 

The issue is enforcement. To many try to enforce there beliefs onto another to prove their point.

In the end all points become misconstrued because the initial reasoning is lost in the struggle.

The bases of all religions is the same. The interpretation of each belief is the issue and problem that each faith has.

How many varieties of Christianity or Islam is there? That right there should tell you that your belief isn't the issue, it is the interpretation that causes the conflict.

 

This is a platitude I come across far too often given how plainly wrong it is. What is the common basis of all religions?

 

Yes you are right in that it is a bland generic remark but my intention was not to bring it along as fact, just an opinion I have made.

What I mean is at the start of "religion", the true intention was to celebrate "God": love of friends and family:to fear only "God": etc etc.

Both Christianity and Islam have the basic same fundamentals in their belief. The later interpretation is what we see now.

This is not the interpretation of todays' misguided followers. Somewhere along the belief line, it became corrupt; where, I don't know Theology isn't my calling.

 

oddly enough, and believe it or not, the motivation is to try to get people to STOP beating each other over the head.
and if there is a god, or something like one, every religion was started by someone that same god chose to be channelled by.
and yes, that includes polytheistic religions and ones that don't mention a god at all.
(people get that wrong, because they look for excuses to get that wrong. that's what every fanaticism is, a making of excuses to get that wrong.)

 

The motivations of religions? Some of them, maybe. Others are all about obeying the wishes and whims of a Super Person. Some, like Christianity, are (sometimes) about stopping beating (some) people over the head because it is the wish of a prophet or god, and the value held in esteem here is the obediance to that prophet or god.

This is particularly fallacious. You are claiming that if there is a god, then therefore every single thing we could ever call a religion had to have been divinely inspired by that god?

It absolutely does not follow. There could be a real God, really real, and yet Islam can have exactly 0% to do with that god. Not even a little. This is a completely valid state of affairs.

Also, if god is real and is "being channeled" (whatever that means) by people, why is the message always so different and so, well, fucked up? Is god an amateur at this being god business?

I would hold such a cosmic entity to much higher standards of story telling and ethics, not to mention public relations!