The scientific proof of the existence of the soul (and God)

[marcobiagini]

In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.

This analysis points out how Quantum Electrodynamics proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.

 

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

 

 

Marco Biagini

 

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

[Freethinker]

OK, I do not claim a PHD in Physics, But I DO know that...

 

"Every biological process is due only to the chemical reactions, which in their turn, are due only to the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons and the protons of the atoms forming our organism. " (From the site)

 

...ignores the strong and weak forces.

 

Perhaps you can supplement your PHD in physics by taking some basic physics courses? You might visit:

 

Elementary Physics Michigan State University

Strong, weak and Electromagnetic forces

http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/nuclear/forces.html

 

University of Tennessee

ASTRONOMY 161 LECTURES

The FundamentalForces of Nature

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/forces.html

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1988

The four forces

http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1988/illpres/four.html

 

If you can't even get basic physics correct, I see no reason to give you any further credibility.

[marcobiagini]

>>>...ignores the strong and weak forces.

 

Weak and srtong interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes: Please read my section enttled "Let's disover matter!" in my site to learn more about strong and weak interactions.

 

Marco

[Tormod]

"Weak and srtong interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes"

 

This is a rather extraordinary claim. Without the weak and strong interactions there would be no atoms, so there would be no biology.

 

The "Let's discover matter" section is a rather hypothetical discussion which actually concludes that there is no scientific way to prove what the "soul" is.

 

My interpretation of your dialogue is that a) there is no scientific evidence for a soul and B) by saying that science cannot prove the existence of a soul, the dialogue is non-scientific, because in essence it says "the scientific method cannot be applied".

 

So it may be a philosophical exercise but the point of it escapes me completely.

 

Tormod

[marcobiagini]

>>>Without the weak and strong interactions there would be no atoms, so there would be no biology.

 

There is no doubt that the strong nuclear interaction is necessary to keep nucleons together inside the nuclea, but since no nuclear reactions occur in biological processes, nuclear interactions play no role in chemical and biological processes. This is a well known scientific result.

 

>>>The "Let's discover matter" section is a rather hypothetical discussion which actually concludes that there is no scientific way to prove what the "soul" is.

 

But the point is that the laws of physics prove that the soul (defined as the cause of the existence of our consciousness) is an unphysical/unbiological element. This is the failure of materialism; science proves that consciousness is not originated by matter.

 

marco.

[geko]

Originally posted by: marcobiagini

>>> ....science proves that consciousness is not originated by matter.

 

 

That's a fantastic claim i think; can you post some source material please? ...cos it's a big err with me at the moment

[Freethinker]

Perhaps in the near future, we will have a REAL PHD. I won't expose his name should he decide to log in under a nic. He received his Doctorate in Genetics at the University of Ferrara in Italy and his PhD in Botany from the University of Connecticut. a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Tennessee. He has published 72 technical papers and two books on evolutionary biology. He has recently completed an edited book entitled The Evolution of Complex Phenotypes. has been awarded several times the Oak Ridge National Labs award for excellence in research and has won the prestigious Dobzhansky Prize from the Society for the Study of Evolution, of which he is now (a prominent member...).

 

I've known him for a while. When I saw the original post here, esp since marcobiagini seems to be from Italy, like my friend, I couldn;t help but let him know about it. Here is is first reply:

gosh, these people never cease to amaze me with the degree of nonsense they come up with!

 

I may drop into the discussion list, but I'm about to move house and lab to xxxxxxxxxx, so my mind is currently elsewhere... (I wonder, does that prove dualism? :-)

 

BTW, an excellent, serious, critique of the computational theory of mind is: Fodor, J. (2000). The Mind Doesn't Work That Way. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

 

If he joins us here I can assure you the discussion will change dramatically. As indicated above, he will absolutely destroy any claims against Evolution from Creationists. It's one of his favorite activities! :-)

[GAHD]

he will absolutely destroy any claims against Evolution from Creationists. It's one of his favorite activities!'

 

hmmm.... mine too.

I gotta talk with this man, and I must hear more of how he cust thease creationists to ribbons.

[rileyj]

your friend sounds educated more than most of us. however, better men than him have tried to disprove god and ailed. besides evolution is most likely the effect casued by god. you and your friend have no idea weather this is or is not a god.

[rileyj]

all you have is a theory. a theory based mainly on evolution being true. evolution is not the topic,it seems that it is your most valid point and the strongest evidence to you that god does not exists. i believe in evolution and god. i can see how both are possible. please try and come up with another reason besides this, its boring to only talk about evolution when there are other paths you can take

[GAHD]

LOL, his maby, I personally beleive there must be a higher order to the universe. At the sime time I scorn all beleif in Religion as it is merely a tool of controlling and placating the masses.

A key point in most religion is that 'god' wants to protect you etc... which is about as much nonsence as you caring about one specific bactirial cell in your digestive tract.

[cnfsdnlostinside]

I must disagree that the original site proves the existance of a soul. The way in which systems of organisms interact is incredible, and the more complex the organisim becomes, the more delicate the balance becomes between each of the systems. Perhaps the 'sensations and emotions' that seem to be expressed by some organisms (like humans) is correlated with the interactions of the nervous system and a seemingly endless array of stimuli. As far as we know, humans have a relativly complex body and intricate nervous system. Our brain is relativly developed, and not exactly like any other organism. These emotions etc. that we experiance could be nothing but a series of chemical/biological reactions that affect the entire system.

I do not see how animals are just "biological robot(s), feeling nothing at all," or how humans are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, as there are many animals that too, have relativly complex and developed (nervous) systems. Any animal may become frieghtened from a sudden sound or movemnet; we humans become scared, and we may scream or hide, but most definitly addrenilane (sorry for the spelling errors) is released in prepatation for fight or flight. The same is true for horses and even rats.

Certain animals are gregarious, and when secluded for long eriods of time, become nervous, depressed, or a number of other emotions. This can be seen in humans (childeren and/or lonely introverted people especially), horses (they may develop a habit of chewing on things when left a lone for long bperiods of time), and dogs. I'm sure those who have pets (esp. dogs) have at some point in time needed to leave for an extended period of time. My own dog chews the fur off of her forelegs when she's left in a Kennel for a week or so.

From what i have gathered of previous statements, if there are emotions and senstations etc, then there is a consiousness, therefore there is a soul, and the existance of a soul undoubtedly means the existance of a god. I do not see the nessecary connection between the consiousness and a soul, and i do not see how science can conclude that there is a soul, and that the things we experience as we do and not similarly experianced by other living organisms.

 

 

it is entirly possible that i have completly lost myself somewhere in here, so some sort of constructive responce would be appreciated. :xx: :hihi: :rant:

[Drakon1323]

After reading that article, from my viewpoint, i must logically conclude

(in not so many words)

 

everything is made of atoms

cells are complex arangements of atoms

we are made up of cells

we have a consciousness

the laws of physics backup what we have figured out and proven true

we have not figured out consciousness

physics do not apply

we know that we have consciousness

we must assume that any arrangement of atoms or at least cells must have consciousness

 

we have no viewpoint or information prooving otherwise.

 

by the laws of physics we cannot conclude that there is a god

we have not figured out the idea of god

physics do not apply

[sanctus]

Welcome to the forum cnfsdnlostinside.

 

Yes, it actually seem to me that you lost yourself somewhere inside, because first you describe how animals and humans have sensations and emotions. Starting from there you say that having sensations and emotions implies (I don't see why) consciousness what implies (I don't see even more how) existence of a soul and that eventually this implies the existence of a god (this implication is the only one I might understand).

In the paragraphe just after you say that you don't see any connection between consciousness and soul, so it seems to me you contradict yourself.

[beccareb]

I understand that scientists do not, as of yet, understand why we are conscious. What I don't understand is how this (supposedly logically) proves that we have a soul and that there is a God.

[infamous]

Untill we can talk to the animals "Dr. Doolittle" I don't see how we can prove they have a conscience awareness, even though I do personally believe that the animal kingdom does have this ability to some degree. I'm not prepared to show any evidence, but it seems however logical to assume so because they react to external circumstances in much the same way that we humans do. I think the big difference between us and the animal kingdom is perhaps the abstract sense of a future. I'm not certain about this, but to think in terms of the future seems exclusive to human behavoir.

[hefner]

I agree pretty much with the skeptics' posts heretofore. The brain is complex enough to encompass nearly any abstract concept and embrace it, or owe allegiances to it, eg. "society" and "manners" etcetera ad nauseum, all of which adds to what we handily simplify to the word 'consciousness' -- so it doesn't denote that there's a soul or a god. And if there is a god, it's definitely not with a capital-G. The Special Theory of Relativity tells us that nothing can permeate through space at any more than a crawl, so there can be no universal supreme being, as his messages and fiats could not be effectively transmitted from "on high" to Earth. If then you retort with the typical, "God's above all that science; He can do anything", I might point out that despite all that supernatural ability, God can't even show His face.

 

Ah, but I have a righteous answer indeed: there can be local demigods, haunting entities, quasi-potent spirits living on the cutting edge of darkness, but no "The Almighty". The localization of variability that we know as quantum dynamics might so facilitate such. :hihi: