PDA

View Full Version : Scientific proof of the existence of the soul and God



marcobiagini
28-02-2005, 08:42 PM
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.virgilio.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 either ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or 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 who conceives 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 specific 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, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the state of the universe was not really determined by some mathematical equations, one couldn't explain how it is possible to predict so precisely all mechanical, electrical, magnetic, chemical and biological phenomena only by the same system of mathematical equations. Since one century, we observe a systematic confirmations of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials. Consider that it is possible to invent infinite different mathematical equations, which wouldn't be able to predict the processes we observe in nature. It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics without admitting that the state of the universe (what the phylosopher Kant called "noumenal" or "thing-in-themselves" reality) 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.

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

Rincewind
28-02-2005, 09:01 PM
Marco,

you seem to be saying that consciousness is a prerequisite for physics. However, the position of physics in the scheme of things is to uncover the workings of the universe, particularly why matter behaves the way it does. But I don't see that matter only behaves the way it does because we are able to conceptualise the equations. There is no reason to think matter would not behave like matter just because the equations of physics were not conceptualised.

At best all you have done is redefined God as the "Laws" of Physics (our knowledge of which will always be imperfect and incomplete).

antichrist
28-02-2005, 09:08 PM
Isn's this version known as "God of the Gaps", you know the type of gaps I mean. Who has let this idiot out of the madhouse? (me I mean)

Cat
28-02-2005, 09:14 PM
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.virgilio.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 either ordinary geometrical properties (since matter is placed in the space) or 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 who conceives 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 specific 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, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the state of the universe was not really determined by some mathematical equations, one couldn't explain how it is possible to predict so precisely all mechanical, electrical, magnetic, chemical and biological phenomena only by the same system of mathematical equations. Since one century, we observe a systematic confirmations of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials. Consider that it is possible to invent infinite different mathematical equations, which wouldn't be able to predict the processes we observe in nature. It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics without admitting that the state of the universe (what the phylosopher Kant called "noumenal" or "thing-in-themselves" reality) 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.

Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

Sorry Marc but this is the most unadulterated tangled garbage I have ever heard in my life. I respect everyone's right to faith, but not to parade it as some quasi-scientific truth. Are you trolling the air-waves? Is this some post-modernist attempt to confuse the world into submission? Is your name an anagram? What's your game, Marco?

antichrist
28-02-2005, 09:20 PM
Now listen David, just because you have a nice easy Anglo Saxon name you are picking on my fellow wog Marco. Listen mate, Marco happens to be good friends with Jeff Fenech so treat him nicely or else.

It is a good Italian name, Coxxie will tell you that. He may even make you spaghetti if you treat him nicely, gelato and gelati.

Rincewind
28-02-2005, 09:30 PM
Now listen David, just because you have a nice easy Anglo Saxon name you are picking on my fellow wog Marco. Listen mate, Marco happens to be good friends with Jeff Fenech so treat him nicely or else.

It is a good Italian name, Coxxie will tell you that. He may even make you spaghetti if you treat him nicely, gelato and gelati.

According to my research Marco was at the University of Modena (Italy) in 1996. I can't find to much after that date in the literature so he may have migrated anywhere since then. But I suspect (going on his web site domain) he is probably still in Italy somewhere.

Cat
28-02-2005, 09:54 PM
Now listen David, just because you have a nice easy Anglo Saxon name you are picking on my fellow wog Marco. Listen mate, Marco happens to be good friends with Jeff Fenech so treat him nicely or else.

It is a good Italian name, Coxxie will tell you that. He may even make you spaghetti if you treat him nicely, gelato and gelati.


Who the hell are you calling Anglo Saxon? I'm 100% Celtic pedigree! Skip, change my name to Dai Bando at once!

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 05:11 PM
Dr(?) Biagini may have a PhD in physics but like many writing this kind of waffle he's a dunce in philosophy. (Perhaps he could name his university and thesis title, it seems to be a very common name.)

The word "consciousness" amuses me, many people use it without making any attempt to define it or explain what it adds to the explanative picture.

Biagini trips over himself, like many do in this line of thinking, when he refers to consciousness "existing". This is simply a category error; consciousness is a property and not necessarily a thing. Properties do not exist, they describe things that exist. Therefore Biagini's argument based on consciousness being a thing existing outside the system is a nonsense.

His "God proof" also suffers from the same kind of platonic-form type mistakes.


Sorry Marc but this is the most unadulterated tangled garbage I have ever heard in my life. I respect everyone's right to faith, but not to parade it as some quasi-scientific truth. Are you trolling the air-waves? Is this some post-modernist attempt to confuse the world into submission? Is your name an anagram? What's your game, Marco?

There is hope for you yet.

Rincewind
01-03-2005, 05:25 PM
Dr(?) Biagini may have a PhD in physics but like many writing this kind of waffle he's a dunce in philosophy. (Perhaps he could name his university and thesis title, it seems to be a very common name.)

He appears to have been working at the University of Modena. Have a look at Physical Review B and associated Letters journal. There are a string of papers throughout the early 90s attributed to a M Biagini, solely and in collaberation. However, he no longer seems to be at that Uni nor could I find anything published since about 1996. So I assume Marco has been engaged in non-research activities off campus since that time.

I'd be interested if his existence of God thesis has been published in a scholarly journal but could find no reference on his website.

Cat
01-03-2005, 09:57 PM
I'd be interested if his existence of God thesis has been published in a scholarly journal but could find no reference on his website.


Have you tried Social Text?

antichrist
01-03-2005, 10:21 PM
AFter making that comment yesterday re "God of the Gaps" I realised that it was inappropritae.

Rincewind
01-03-2005, 11:08 PM
Have you tried Social Text?

I think you missed a word in my sentence. Please read again. Here is a hint, it starts with an 's'.

But just to humour you I did a search. No Biagini has published an article in Social Text. (At least from 1979 to 2004).

pax
02-03-2005, 08:51 AM
It's just spam (as well as happening to be bullshit). Marco won't be back to argue his case (he has posted the same hit and run message on other forums).

Rincewind
02-03-2005, 09:13 AM
It's just spam (as well as happening to be bullshit). Marco won't be back to argue his case (he has posted the same hit and run message on other forums).

I didn't know he had spammed to other forums but I strongly suspect you are right.

Thread locked.