Need help with this theory of Scientific proof for the existence of God/Intelligence

Before I post my theory, which I personally am leaning toward it being true, I want to disclude any thiest/athiest debates and keep this at a strict scientific, philosophic, and mature discussion. Besides that, personal opnions are cool.
_________
So athiestic scientists believe there is no God and in their view, all of existence today comes from the Big Bang and then evolution. Some even go as far as multi-verses to explain that our current Universe could have been born from another one. It's all devoid of a God according to them, point one.

Now going deeper into this according to these same athiestic scientists, everything is just a product of chaotic randomness.

So what I'm saying is that if we can create a virtual reality with chaotic randomness, then we can see if anything eventually comes to fruition, which is something I highly doubt personally. Of course we would have to speed up the virtual reality being that our current universe is zillions of years old, to get better common factors in the experiment.

Still, theoretically, I don't think we would get anything in the environment by just observing it. But I do think that if we try to directly have something come about by willing it as observers, then something would happen, and would prove that something (God?) is behind all of this existence willing it into where it is today.

I think this link that I'm about to post, is a piece of the puzzle to be able to scientifically prove the existence of God or intelligent creationism: www.redorbit.com...

The other part is the chaotic random virtual reailty environment.

Of course I may be missing or overlooking something in this theory, and so it's why I posted it here.

Of course I may be missing or overlooking something in this theory, and so it's why I posted it here.

Yeah, you're missing a big part of the picture.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

This is my opinion of this debate.

BTW, the Babel Fish is a fictional creature that when you stick it in your ear, it instantly translates every known language and feeds off your brainwaves. It also looks suspiciously like a Goldfish.

Oh yeah, that random number generator experiment was canned last year IIRC.

Originally posted by dominicus
Now going deeper into this according to these same athiestic scientists, everything is just a product of chaotic randomness.

...

Of course I may be missing or overlooking something in this theory, and so it's why I posted it here.

Yes, you are missing the fact that 'everything' is not the product of chaotic randomness. I don't know many atheists who think this is so.

If natural laws were replaced with chaotic randomness, I think the universe would be a tad different. Indeed, in a true random universe, there would be no place for science.

I would only add that if you intend to attempt to prove the existence of God you are first going to have to define God.

Ok,
Sardion, So first off the whole babelfish argument is void cause your using hitchhikers guide to the galaxy as a source. I said "let's keep this scientific," not fictional.
____

Yes, you are missing the fact that 'everything' is not the product of chaotic randomness. I don't know many atheists who think this is so.

Actually, after reading lot's of hawking's and bohm's books, I do believe they are saying that we are where we are today through randomness of billions of years that finally lead to the formation of everyting as it is today, including laws of nature/cosmos.

Your saying that there were rules behind the big bang????
______

going to have to define God.

Well forget about defining God because I don't want to put any religious spins on this theory/discussion. Let's just say superior inteliigence for the sake of the discussion.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by dominicus]

reply to post by sardion2000


The project is still active:

noosphere.princeton.edu...

yeah it's still up and running, but what I'm saying is that we would have to create a chaotic random virtual reality to see if anything such as a big bang comes about or any other similar intelligent structures or laws.

Originally posted by dominicus
Actually, after reading lot's of hawking's and bohm's books, I do believe they are saying that we are where we are today through randomness of billions of years that finally lead to the formation of everyting as it is today, including laws of nature/cosmos.

Your saying that there were rules behind the big bang???

We don't really know. And therefore to suggest it is all random is just specious. People are working on this stuff, and I think anyone who suggests they have the answers is talking from the nether-regions, or is being misinterpreted.

I do still wonder if you are conflating random with undirected, in the little god pushing planets around sense. It's not the same thing.

There are natural laws within this universe, they are not random. It is not random that:

2Na + 2H2O ---> 2NaOH + H2

Or that if I remove your amygdala you will have emotional deficits. That universes formed over time. That suns produce energy, which eventually die. etc etc.

And I think you start by implying that evolution is random. It is not. It is just undirected. It is not random that those that reproduce most successfully come to dominate a population of organisms.

In true chaotic randomness, there could be no science.

I think people who want proof on paper is avoiding what is in front of them, everything around them, has intelligent design, it all has come from somewhere, etc I could go on, whatever,

but the real question is! What is God!?

Please keep in mind that rules are a man made concept and are simply the observations of things that able to be detected by our senses. The universe doesn’t follow rules. It simply is what it is and we are a mere audience. There are things happening all around us that our senses do not even acknowledge... that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.....

When it comes to "our reality" we humans being only roughly 10K years as a technologically fruitful civilization have only explored and come to understand a meager single atom amongst an entire swimming pool of water.

We have so very far to go….


[edit on 5-10-2007 by Creedo]

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

but the real question is! What is God!?

A waste of time (serving something you are interpreting as god, is basically useless)

Originally posted by Creedo
Please keep in mind that rules are a man made concept and are simply the observations of things that able to be detected by our senses. The universe doesn’t follow rules. It simply is what it is and we are a mere audience.

Rules are an interpretation of what is happening around us but that doesn't mean they aren't valid !
Rules wouldn't be rules if we wouldn't be able to properly check and define them, would they?

The universe does indeed have rules my friend.

edit: clarification

[edit on 5-10-2007 by koenw]

Originally posted by koenw
Rules are an interpretation of what is happening around us but that doesn't mean they aren't valid !
Rules wouldn't be rules if we wouldn't be able to properly check and define them, would they?

The universe does indeed have rules my friend.

True... but this is only based on our point of observation. What of the infinite possibilities of other forces/factors/phenomenon that may very well play a huge role in how things behave that we cannot even detect? This proves that the rules are already incorrect before they are even deemed rules. Why? Because we can never know everything that is. And without knowing everything we cannot put a stamp on something listing its rules.

Bottom line is.. the rules we place on things are nothing more than our best guess based on our senses.

But to get back on topic....

God IMHO is nothing more than our best guess at a logical explanation for everything we don’t know... The questions are endless... always will be I guess..

Is God a singular rewarding and punishing conscious entity?

Is God life as we know it?

Is God just pure non-conscious energy?

Is God the collective will of consciousness?

Is God the Universe?

No…. I don’t think so… I think God is whatever we personally want God to be… nothing more.

melatonin,
I get what your saying. The Big Bang theorists are also saying that the Big Bang itself complies to "that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle."

So basically, in order for our universe to exist, big bang, & evolution, they have to follow certain laws, that were their in the 1st place. So in reality there is no randomness in our Universe, but something is behind these laws and behind the Big Bang.

THeoretically then, we can create a random virtual reality environment with said laws in place and observe what happens.

If nothing happens then we are missing something in the over all picture, and perhaps by us willing anything while observing and something does happen, then again it can prove the existence of some form of intelligence.

Originally posted by dominicus
So athiestic scientists believe there is no God and in their view, all of existence today comes from the Big Bang and then evolution. Some even go as far as multi-verses to explain that our current Universe could have been born from another one. It's all devoid of a God according to them, point one.

Well, there are scientists who do not believe in God, and others who do. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they aren't able to have faith in something as well. Scientists generally conduct research in an environment devoid of faith because that's not the playing field in science. We discover tangible things based on what we have observed to be true. Faith is the polar opposite of science. It doesn't make either one any more right (or wrong) than the other. Apples and oranges.

Originally posted by dominicus
Now going deeper into this according to these same athiestic scientists, everything is just a product of chaotic randomness.

That's not really true either. You don't get laws of nature by randomness. But, for science, math is generally the equivelant of God. If the math is there, then it may as well be true.

Originally posted by dominicus
So what I'm saying is that if we can create a virtual reality with chaotic randomness, then we can see if anything eventually comes to fruition, which is something I highly doubt personally.

You don't need a virtual reality interface to conduct this experiment. You just need a computer based on the fundamental laws of quantum physics and you'll get the most random (chaotic) results possible. Virtual reality or not, nothing would come to fruition. Random events may generate the first step of life, but it would be quickly demolished by another random event. The program would have to take into account laws we've not yet discovered, or things we don't yet understand. I think then you would find that order is an inevitable occurence in an otherwise random environment. So, you could deduce that from the very first moment, things were coming to order.

Originally posted by dominicus
But I do think that if we try to directly have something come about by willing it as observers, then something would happen, and would prove that something (God?) is behind all of this existence willing it into where it is today.

Well, if your definition of God is "something," then your theory is definitely correct.

Originally posted by dominicus
I think this link that I'm about to post, is a piece of the puzzle to be able to scientifically prove the existence of God or intelligent creationism: www.redorbit.com...

Thanks for the link. I don't like the way it is written, however, because it makes these key observations seem less relevant when they're downplayed in the Weekly World News type way.

I've written a good number of pieces regarding consciousness, the true nature of reality, etc. The Global Consciousness Project has observed that random events tend to become less random not only when someone is consciously trying to influence it, but also when large numbers of people are in the same state of mind.

The amount we can influence these REG's is significant only statistically. We have no idea what it is we're observing; we just know that what we're seeing is difficult to explain.

I personally believe the REG experiments have shown that humanity does have a consciousness that extends beyond the body, and interacts with the physical reality on a quantum scale. I think it will not only prove that there is a common consciousness, an energy upon which we draw our spiritual sustenance, but that the mind is the reality, the physical is the illusion. It's not so hard to imagine that your consciousness can interact with reality when you realize your reality is a product of your consciousness.

With quick regard to the big bang theory, it's horribly flawed. It doesn't make sense, it just fits into what we believe to be true today. We could find tomorrow that as mass continues to fly apart throughout the universe, back holes collect all of that energy. These black holes may be found to be in massive universe-wide orbits. Maybe the big bang occured when the final two black holes collided. That makes sense to me.

Originally posted by dominicus
So basically, in order for our universe to exist, big bang, & evolution, they have to follow certain laws, that were their in the 1st place. So in reality there is no randomness in our Universe, but something is behind these laws and behind the Big Bang.

Depends how you view this stuff. I think much of what appears random would be predictable if we knew all about a system. Even a coin toss could be predicted of we could know all about the forces, trajectories etc.

Related to this, I think Bohm is one of the quantum physicists who suggests that 'hidden' variables will show quantum mechanics to also be deterministic.

But if we take something like evolution, even if we could predict the exact number and type of mutations before organisms reproduce, they would most likely still be random to the needs of an organism.

THeoretically then, we can create a random virtual reality environment with said laws in place and observe what happens.

Theoretically, I think so. We would need to have a good understanding of what we would be modelling, but with enough computer power, why not.

The issue is that it's hard enough to model the climate system of this planet, nevermind the formation of a universe in the minute detail to observe evolution etc. We can model the basic processes of evolution, which clearly show that evolutionary mechanisms readily allow complexity to develop from simplicity.

If nothing happens then we are missing something in the over all picture, and perhaps by us willing anything while observing and something does happen, then again it can prove the existence of some form of intelligence.

More likely that the model would be insufficient. I don't think such modelling would be able to support the existence of a supernatural force behind the universe. Unless we knew for certain that the model was all but perfect.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Creedo

True... but this is only based on our point of observation. What of the infinite possibilities of other forces/factors/phenomenon that may very well play a huge role in how things behave that we cannot even detect? This proves that the rules are already incorrect before they are even deemed rules. Why? Because we can never know everything that is. And without knowing everything we cannot put a stamp on something listing its rules.

Bottom line is.. the rules we place on things are nothing more than our best guess based on our senses.

Granted, there probably are alot of unknown factors (probably more than we could ever imagine) but the fact of the matter is that we are in some cases able to predict the outcome of certain experiments, meaning that the unknown factors are probably constant and do not (greatly) alter the outcome of the experiment itself.

fe:
If I drop a glass, I know for a fact that the glass is going to fall towards the earth (seeing as it would be probably be the largest mass in its vicinity). Plus depending on the speed, the glass has a good chance that it would break on impact.

see... rules. I was able to predict an outcome of an expiriment without actually performing it. All I used were the _known_ laws (rules) of physics.


Koen

What is god? how do we prove it exists, or doesnt?

You do us a disservice by ignoring the babelfish comment, if you read it and think about it you will realise that its more than just twaddle.

The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy is a great source for this debate, dont discount it.

Now, the original idea of gods are an idea. Why does a rock fall down? Why do we grow larger? why is the sky blue? what is a cloud?

The existence of a belief in gods is a rationalisation of the natural and unnatural world. 'God' or 'gods' are a scientific theory concerning themselves with how things happen.

You will notice that the evolution of the god principle hasnt evolved much in a long time.

Many ancient civilisations, such as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Babylonians, believed that the world was separated into existence. That all was one chaotic mass and a god then seperated the water, the land, the sky, etc.

This was a scientific theory, one where an outside presence creates life by separating chaos.

You will notice that this theory still holds today in the big bang, with a few changes because of Humanities greater knowledge of the universe.

Chaos, becomes the big bang. A certain mass which holds all rules, all laws, all elements.

The outside element, changes to natural laws such as gravity, and a cataclysmic event, a large explosion. Chaos is separated by natural laws ("god") which shapes the world and the universe.

now, to the babelfish.

Thank you Sardion2000 for bringing this up

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

The nonexistence of a 'god' entity. The reliance on faith to create a god.

"Without faith i am nothing"

The Anthropomorphised "god" doesnt exist in reality, but he does exist because we can rationalise how. The Natural laws of the universe, are interpreted as 'gods will' and the only reason god exists is because we believe it to be so.

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"

This is about your "chaotic randomness" idea.

If all the universe was based upon chaotic randomness, then it wouldnt exist in any real form.

The universe exists because it is chaotic randomness, being restricted and shaped by natural laws such as gravity. Elements mix together and form larger elements, or compounds, etc.

In conclusion, "God" is the rationalisation of man. Man creates god as the catalyst of the universes separation. "God" is the believed collective name of all natural rules and orders, which gives the universe its flow. "God" still exists because of faith, because "Without faith i am nothing". He is what connects all the natural laws together.

I am an atheist, this is what ive cobbled together from my studies, i hope i helped.





[edit on 5-10-2007 by Octavius Maximus]

So since there are observable laws of nature, including ones that the Big bang had to rely on, the implies that those laws pre-existed the big bang theory. If that's the case, wouldn't it prove that an intelligent being/design is behind these laws that presupposed the big bang??? (Theoretically speaking)

I'm asking this with the notion that there is no randomness, or perhaps that there is randomness but that it is subject to these laws.

Also, going further with what The Cyfre said as far as our consciousness extending beyond ourselves and having direct impact on reality at a subatomic/atomic level, the double slit experiment also proves that, besides the redorbit link provided in my first post that started this thread.

So what I'm observing from my perspective of all this, is that there has to be some kind of intelligence at the beginning of any of these orginal creations such as the creation of the laws that govern the Universe(s), radomness, evoultion, and so forth. Just like us observing matter influences matter, what-ever intelligence put everything on it's course orginally also influences matter through observing it but on a grnder scale.