I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

nicely put :spliff

 

Excellent post ,S.R. I agree with a lot of what you say, but would take issue with your reference to "lies", which implies deliberate falsehood. That's harsh, and probably untrue.

 

OK---I am going to add my 2 cents worth----but there are 63 pages in this thread, and I have a headache, so I apologize if I am repeating a point that was already said, or if I am rehashing things that have already been resolved.

The original point of the thread is something to the effect that consciousness could not arise without a god. But look at the mechanics of what we understand to be our perception of consciousness: Life is merely the result of electrochemical reactions in an organic cellular structure that has evolved over time. That part of life we label as consciousness involves the organic structure that we call neurons, and the electric sparks that travel along them, which over the course of our lives have evolved various pathways that record in structural form our memories knowledge and so forth.

A part of that structure is inherited and therefore is formed based on the coding that evolution built into the strands of DNA within these cells---starting from the very first cell that appeared out of the primal soup of amino acids and other requirements for life. This inherited structure would include various survival mechanisms that are meant to create an urge to strive to live. Such a complex inducement is not needed in lower life forms, but was neccessary for higher life forms to continue to seek life, for higher levels of consciousness would naturally question the meaning of life whether consciously or unconsciously. Therefore religion, spirituality, god, even such things as the Near Death Experience, would all be survival mechanisms programmed into our minds by evolution. Their purpose is to inspire the will to live.

Now how would this inital spark of life (i.e. electrochemical reaction) first occur? Well, how would a base metal in an acidic solution spontaneously induce electric current. It simply takes an electron on one atom to move to another knocking an electron to the next---there is no need for magic, just the right conditions. Besides the voltage required for life is very small. The organic structure simply has to evolve to keep the required nutrients flowing to sustain the electrochemical reactions.

Death occurs when there is a blockage of the required nutrients---oxygen, and other certain elements---when the nutrients are cut off through natural or unnatural means (such as murder, fatal accident, etc), the electrochemical reactions cease and the organic structure dies.

In this way there is no requirement for god to induce life----just billions and billions of years in the proper planetary environments, to create the right strucutre where the electrochemical reactions can sustainably occur .

So the argment of this thread is flawed. For science to come up with the answer of whether or not god exists, traditional science does not work. We are getting clues in the area of quantum physics. Here we find paradoxes and questions that hint to a universe that is more than just cold dead matter---but nothing conclusive yet.

This is the line of thought that pushed me forward to search out the existence of god. Religion could offer no more than 'belief' which requires an existential leap of faith. But based on the above argument that is not good enough.

How do we know god, or the Great Spirit, or whatever you want to call the ultimate divine essence exists-----only through personal experience---and for me and many of us, simple miracles, and synchronicities are not enough. I searched and searched.

Today, I know there is more than just cold dead space. I don't have to believe---I know. To achieve that, I had to leave the realm of the institutions (religion). On my path, I encountered numerous synchronicities, but still thought they were products of my own imagination, or simply coincidences, or what have you. How I came about to know this answer, if I shared with you, you would probably not believe it. I would not believe it if someone else told me. We each have our own path, and if this issue is significant enough to you, and you search hard enough, you may find the same 'proof' for you. But it may not be proof to anyone else.

If this is not an issue to you, than it won't matter anyway---you've got your path, and a belief in god may not be neccessary for your path and well being.

Some others of you who feel very strongly about defending your belief in god, may probably be trying to repress your own doubts in your beliefs in god----I would say to you, if you really want to face that doubt, and prove to yourself once and for all that there is a god (or not a god)----then take that argument I have given above and run with it. And search. And if you don't find the answers in your religon, look elsewhere, look within yourself. Let yor path lead you to where your answer lies.

 

hey mountain valley guy i just wanted to say that i totally agree with ya! im taking a chemistry class right now and i just think its fascinating how organic compounds can be created from inorganic compounds, its just chemical reactions, and if you understand it, you can see how organisms are a composite of complex chemical reactions. we can explain how our body works, and how we came to be without any magic, or gods or whatever you believe.

 

Yes, it IS quite a mystery how time and hydrogen create consciousness. I doubt the mechanics of this phenomenon explains everything.

Peace and Love

 

yeah that first post is just loaded with errors from the very beginning.


obviously the first one is the fallacy of false dilemma:

this is a fallacy because the author is suggesting that these are the only two options for life to exist, when in fact there are many other ways life could have come to be what it is today. for example, like i said before non-organic compounds creating organic compounds.

 

You are right Varuna---but therein lies the doubt----does it or does it not explain everything? Afterall, in 'primitive' (i.e. laboratory) experiments to recreate the early atmosphere of earth, amino acids were found to appear naturally given a bit of time.

If we ever do find the answer scientifically, it will probably be in the field of quantum physics----but until then----religion offers no more than a leap of faith, while science lacks empirical proof.

 

agreed

you should look up G, M, or string theory, quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory

I am not claiming be a physicist but I understand the concepts enough to null and void your argument.

that is my dissenting opinion.

 

Ok-----I just looked at Yeal's profile-----and he's 15. So, while not retracting my posts on this thread, I do want to commend him on a well thought out line of reasoning. There are even some scientists that take this line of reasoning further, and have written books on the matter.

It was never good enough for me, and as I stated, I needed to find out in a way that left no room for doubt. But each person has their own path---and I certainly don't want to discourage him on his.

 

OP, you are an idiot.
that said, 63 pages. Forget about it

 

or perhaps something else happened? Perhaps there is not a super natural force? We don't know anything yet. Many scientists say that the big bang could part of a cycle that goes on for ever, its not effected by time, time is only existent in our universe. you will ask, well it must have started some time. No. Humans cant understand Infinity. Its the same thing with god, where did he come from. Right, he was there for ever.

I believe in god, but my point is we don't know anything yet, so don't jump to conclusions, thousands of people have said the same thing as you.

 

These assertions that you serve up in such a confident, matter of fact manner are nothing but speculation. There is no empirical support for them at all.

 

Not gonna read through all 64 pages but they did an experiment back in the 50s to see if they could get life to form spontaneously. They did this by creating the early conditions of earth in an enclosed space and after a few weeks of letting it sit, they ended up with amino acids and other organic matter. Not life but the building blocks of life.

 

Right. "They" are Urey and Miller, and their discovery in 1952 is considered less impressive and supportive of the theory of abiogenesis today than it was back then. Without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known proteins can't be produced, and our current theories of the earth's early atmospehre are a lot different today than they were then. The "primordial soup" seems far too dilute to bring the right chemicals together at the right time. Also, the linking together of amino acids to form peptide chains runs into problems with the second law of thermodynamics, and the hypothesized energy sources, UV and lightning, if uncontrolled, would be disruptive of the process. The chances of hitting the right amino acid sequence having the chemical properties necessary for life would be superastronomical.

 

Ok---I admit the word 'merely,' is an overstatement----what I really should have said was something like, "for all we know," or "as far as empirical evidence shows us..."

But what do you have an issue with as speculation? I know that the term evolution is controversial. For most scientist's, the theory of evolution is how we understand the way all life forms got to this point in development. I know there are many others who do not buy into the theory, but even recently numerous points of empirical evidence have come out in favor of evolution. For example, scientists have tracked the diverging evolution of several parent species on two different islands. I have yet to see an argument that holds real weight against the empirical evidence we do have of evolution. Though I will say it is a theory and it is not perfect. But this is how we 'understand' it-----which is the word I used.


Electrochemical reactions are an integral part of life---especially consciousness. When the electrical activitiy of the brain stops, as far as we understand, you are dead. It is because of electrical activity that we know that life lasts longer than clinical medicine dictates as time of death. But when it stops---your physical body is dead. I am not saying that your spirit is dead, but from a scientific perspective, as we 'understand' it, you are dead.

Even plant forms generate minute electrical currents. This is how scientists have studied both plants and humans with lie detectors----which measures the changes in the minute electrical currents on the surface of the skin or the plant.

As modern science understands it, our memories are made up of the neural pathways that exist in the brain. We understand it this way, because of such experiments as applying a small electric current to different parts of the brain and having the patient relate his thoughts and emotions (again this induces electrochemical reactions). There are all kinds of experiments in this area, including measuring the electrical activity of the brain itself to map the brain. When there is a problem with the spark that travels between neurons and their receptors, then we can experience all kinds of things from being high, hallucinating, schizophrenia, and other fun or horrible things. That is how we understand it scientifically. (In fact I believe that memories continue with us after death---but I could only present that as a speculation, that is not how science understands it).

The bit about cellular structures? That is 7th grade biology.

So tell me, what part of that is speculation without empirical evidence? We can take apart another paragraph of mine if you like. But what do you see as not verifiable by empirical evidence?

This does not mean that it is the truth---but this is what empirical evidence from the objectivistic perspective of science tells us. This is how we 'understand' it based on nothing more than the measurable evidence. Please tell me if I am missing something.

So ignoring, for this discussion, quantum physics and the questions it raises (but there is still no proof of god there yet)----you either have to make that existential leap of faith, or find that bit of unexplainable yet undeniable proof that god is here (but this is very subjective, and it could only be for you, because who else would believe it?), or conclude that god does not exist----that is my real point.

I have found that bit of proof for me. What about you? And if you still see something that is specifically without empirical evidence, and is speculation, please point it out.

 

I have an issue with the whole thing as speculation. Your theory is, to borrow your phrase, an "existential leap of faith". The more scientists study the origins of life and consciousness, the less confident they are that the materialistic interpretations put forward in the fifties are valid. According to Sam Harris,a leading atheist with a PhD in neuroscience, science does not understand the phenomenon of consciousness and has no basis for assuming it results from "neurons firing". As for the origins of life, the problems with current materialist models of that are fully explored by physicist Paul Davies in The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life. I have no problem with Darwin at all, but to get the show started presupposes life, the origins of which are increasingly difficult to explain by current scientific theories. Why, by the way, do we want to ignore quantum physics? I certainly don't have "unexplainable yet undeniable proof that god is here", but my leap of faith is as valid as yours, and more people believe it--not that that makes any difference. There is no proof either way; only faith and specualtion.

 

I see your point. (touche)

And I do know that the answer does not lie in merely these quantifiable organic mechanics. At one time we believed this was the answer, for that is as far as the empirical evidence takes us, and so far speculation lies beyond that. Perhaps I was drastic to leave the argument to only that which we have empirical evidence of, leaving out the questions, and speculation. This is why I referred to ignoring quantum physics.

In other words I reduced everything down to the purely objectivistic empirical elements. Granted it is dated. But it is still the basis of our understanding in terms of how we treat patients, and so forth. And there has been much advancement in science since the 50's that has built upon and validated these elements. This does not mean that it is the end-all answer. But that is why I used the word 'understand' because, frankly, we still don't understand consciousness (but that wouldn't have helped me make my point). But these dated understandings still guide mainstream science.

If we add in quantum physics, other theoretical realms of science, and the fact that science is still lost in determining exactly what life is, then I agree with you. But the empirical proof is not yet there. And Yeal used the word, 'proof.' Hence my argument.

But amazing strides are occuring in these more theoretical sciences---the empirical developments of quantum physics are mind blowing. Many many scientists believe in god because of the answers science can't solve. These issues that you raise are the same type of issues that scientists raise in the books that I referred to in the post commending Yeal on his train of thought.

But in the end, the theorietical concepts were not good enough for me, because what if that speculation is wrong, what if it all boils down to only that which we have empirical evidence of. If we don't understand consciousness, and the empirical model is incomplete, that still does not guarantee a god----there may still be that emperiacally quantifiable piece to the puzzle we have yet to find.

Therefore I could not accept a leap of faith. I kept searching and questioning until I was given the answer. I know there is a God.

And maybe one day Quantum physics will stumble upon that. Maybe that is the key to the unified theory----but until then...

Another point I was trying to make but did not clearly state is this: to go through this process of self-discovery is like a death-rebirth experience. A baptism of the mind. To destroy your beliefs and rebuild them----if you take that path, you may find that you don't believe, or you may find that you truly believe. Either way, it is very liberating. The death-rebirth experience is also a very integral part of the spiritual or religious initiation (if you will). But in our modern times of linear thought and logical thinking, the traditional symbolic death-rebirth that touches our unconscious may no longer be so significant. Therefore that death-rebirth of belief on the intellectual level that I propose here to anyone willing to try.

Very good points though---Okiefreak! I commend you and thank you.

 

Let me also add this for yeal-----

as an animist, I believe you are right in your assessment. But there is no way we can prove that. And in this physical realm, without the proof, all of that is speclation.

 

i didnt read all these responses, but you are associating 'life' with consciousness. consciousness is the result of biological processes. consciousness is the thing that makes you think 'I have life'. you didnt prove anything

 

Sorry, but you are mistaking the mechanism for the mystery. You are ignoring the deeper question if you think that a biological process is a complete explanation for the very existence of consciousness. "How" is not an answer to the question of "what" and "why" consciousness is.