Scientific Proof Of The Existence Of The Soul And God

[marcobiagini]

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:

 

(link deleted by Tormod - se below)

 

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 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 principles and equations, the laws of physics. However we know that mathematics 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 can exist only if there exists a conscious and intelligent God conceiving it . Some people object that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. This argument however does not stand, as we can easily understand with the following consideration: if the universe did not have an intrinsic mathematical structure, one couldn't explain how it is possible to described 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 describe 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 laws. The existence of these mathematical laws 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

[Tormod]

Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science.

 

I know a good joke when I see one.

 

Science has 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; so, materialism is incompatible with science.

 

Your paper is so loaded with assumptions that it hardly qualifies as a statement on what "science" is.

[Tormod]

Reading through this paper I find the following statement:

 

The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known. Never before in history, science has been able to explain the principles by which all biological processes are originated. This represents a true turn in history. All that physics will discover in the future will have nothing to do with the biological processes in our organism, or any other organism.

 

Then you say:

 

The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, and it can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility.

 

How can we have 100% proof of biological processes if we (according to you) don't know whether human beings are the result of evolution or not?

[Tormod]

I just realized that you posted this site before - a year ago, in fact - and did not follow up on the discussion there. So I'm closing this thread.