scientific evidence of God

It takes as much as it takes because the blame for unbelief must always lie with the unbeliever.

 

No, the scientific method is not being challenged at all. Campbell claims that he and his collaborators adhered to it in their investigations of other realities. What's inadequate is our narrow application of the scientific method within the confines of our perception of objective reality.

It may seem illogical because it does not conform to the entrenched scientific belief system that insists everything is based on objective reality. The majority of everything that seems solid to us is made up of empty space. That doesn't seem logical but it's true.

The bottom line is that the little picture of reality just doesn't cut it anymore.

Not ignored at all. What you just spelled out (observation etc.) is exactly what Campbell claims to have practiced.

Proof is not an issue; it’s too much of a stretch. What Campbell has presented is evidence of other realities. Among these realities there are signs of a master governing source: a combined programmer, program, and operating system. He doesn’t claim to have bumped into an entity in the form of the Big Kahuna, God.

Of course the universal laws within this reality do not support the existence of God, since they do not apply to a God who is outside of this reality. As you stated, a multiverse leaves open some possibilities.

Popular propaganda machines.

What calculations? They’re worthless for said purpose anyway, just another part of the rule-set assigned to our reality, in no way suitable for estimating God’s probability or improbability.

Yes, it seems unlikely that one great big boss does everything.

And somebody was able to cut and move blocks weighing several hundred tons. If humans did it, one current speculation is that the allowable power dial in this reality has since been turned down because such generosity allowed severely harmful abuse.

 

Hmmm,...
Not in my case.

Truth is Lord to me.
And it shows light into the Reality which is Almighty.

 

But still, YOU deny the Copenhagen Interpretation that "proves" a Creator, because it REQUIRES an Observer of the Big Bang transformation of Energy into Matter and Space/time.

 

Did you want it as much? If so how did did you measure want? What increments did you use? How hard did you try

 

You posted this..."What calculations? They’re worthless for said purpose anyway, just another part of the rule-set assigned to our reality, in no way suitable for estimating God’s probability or improbability."....end quote.

The fact you have even posted such ridiculousness makes it completely apparent to me talking to you about this topic is like trying to discus Calculus with a Chimp.

Except the Chimp is willing to learn.

AboveAlpha

 

Dave....do yourself a favor and stop referring to this because every time you do and a person like myself reads your post and see's just how ignorant you are to the idiocy of what you are saying....well...even I feel sorry for you.

AboveAlpha

 

Good post CD. I have to agree with you on this subject.

 

Why are you asking me, since you already seem to know for sure?

 

Well it's clear to anybody that if you don't have faith it's because you didn't want it. You covet other things and there is nothing wrong with that. Things like rational explanations, proof, evidence, so on. It doesn't make you a bad person. I think skeptics are valuable, they force us to see things from a more rational approach.

So I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Don't ever let any believer make you feel less worthy because you endeavor for a rational truth and not a spiritual one. I think you have me wrong. I am not trying to shame you, or say that I am superior because I believe in something greater, just that people that don't likely don't want to.

Are you suggesting that people are predispose genetically to believe? Because I had watched am episode of Through The Wormhole where they discussed that believers have different brain waves than non believers. I will look for it and see if I can find it. It was interesting.

 

On the contrary, as I've been saying, I did want god to be real. Youre right that I also want a logical explanation and/or evidence, but the two are not exclusive, nor does one necessarily diminish the other. All I've been saying all along is that wanting to believe does not always make you believe.

As to the predisposition, I'm not necessarily saying it's genetic, although i would not be at all surprised if there is an element of that. I expect though that personality, experience, upbringing etc play a bigger part in a persons predisposition to believe certsin things.

 

Well that is completely different. Wanting it to happen to you is a bit different than wanting faith putting in the work and effort to have it.

That is true, you can't simply want it, you have to learn how, open your mind to possibilities, be skeptical ask the tough questions don't settle for a mediocre answer, definitely don't sit in the pew and do what you're told like many organized religions ask of you. I had to learn a few languages, I had to stand up to the biggest religion in the world and say "you are wrong" yeah, simply wanting it isn't enough, but if you wanted it bad enough you would have sought it out. But you do have to seek.

All the data I have seen on it really comes from adult brains (*)(*)(*)(*) are set in their beliefs. There is no telling why the brain waves are different.

 

Yes, that was your response to the Copenahgen Interpretation before, when i irst explained it to you.

You simply ignore the very reason other interpretations, like Multi-verses, arose... exactly because of this Big bang implication for a required observer.

ALL you have is to deny Copenhagen, and dismiss that "proof" by saying the crap you come back with.

There IS no way around the requirement:
The first waves of energy,... (and that was what they were),... all required that their Functions be Collapsed by an Observer who had to have EXISTED prior to the Big Bang and the Cosmos.

 

Yes, what you say is correct,... but...

But you deny the evidence of the Copenhagen Interpretation simply because you probably do not understand it, and fail to believe in Reality as the God of the old Testament while the son is Truth in the New Testament.

What you said was if this idea made biblical sense, everyone ought believe in this definition of a God, but you do not anyway.

 

Great,...
I was losing faith in the science knowledge of these people here who can not follow the Copenhagen Interpretation well enough to see what in the end it means about a "Creator."

Here is what CI says:

1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the 'collapse of the wave function'.

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could 'travel as a wave but arrive as a particle'

3) According to the theory, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....
Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum mechanics.htm.

 

Your previous comment regarding the necessity of there being an observer for any event sums it up rather nicely.

 

When physicists ask the question, 'how does a particle 'know' something'? they are of course using the term loosely. What they are really asking is 'what are the forces acting upon the particle that we have not detected? What interactions are taking place that we have not detected?'

That is the problem. Something is going on at a level that we are completely unaware of. However, the idea of probability waves as an explanation is nothing more than an attempt to describe what is observed in the quantum world by the Copenhagen Interpretation, and is of course a purely
theoretical concept.

 

Exactly how would that work? The whole collapse thing.

 

Who observed the observer? Or how did the observer collapse into the observer. Else the observer wouldn't exist.

 

The decoherence of the wavefunction happens when a measurement is made. Many people who discuss quantum physics take this to mean an observation by a conscious being, but that may not necessarily be the case. And even if it is the case, there is no requirement that the observer be external to the system, or that the observer exists at the time of the event being observed. It is therefore entirely plausible that, even if you are correct and a conscious observer is required, humans would fit the bill just fine. (A hypothesis called the "Participatory Anthropic Principle")

Absolutely nothing about CI, or even in the whole of physics, even hints at this ludicrous notion.

How would you go about "observing something that doesn't exist"? The whole idea is actually insane, in the most literal sense of the word possible.

As an aside, by the way, do you ascribe to the notion that god is all-knowing? Because that would be a violation of the Heisenberg principle, and disqualify god as a valid observer. Even if that problem could be overcome somehow, it would also mean that everything already has an observer, so everything would already be collapsed and we wouldn't even be able to know about quantum uncertainty because there would be none. Unless of course you are one of those kind who states that rules don't apply to god, in which case you might as well just throw your hands in the air declaring that it just all happened by magic.

 

Read and learn like everyone else has to do. Then draw your own conclusions.

 

I have. It doesn't work in the prescribed manner being discussed here. But thanks.

 

That is NOT the correct meaning or interpretation.

Observation immediately will determine VALUE AND FUNCTION of a Quantum Particle/Wave Form.

Observation IS NOT NECESSARY for the existence of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms!!!

Now....MULTIPLE MEMBERS have been TRYING to tell you that you do not understand anything you are talking about as far as this issue is concerned so if I were you I would spend a little time READING AND LEARNING at least the VERY BASICS about Quantum Mechanics.

PLEASE do this as every time you post this....and you have posted this over and over again even though MANY MEMBERS who have a great deal more of an education in such sciences than you.....have TRIED to explain that you are making yourself look SILLY by posting about this.....you just can't seem to take a hint and keep posting.

I have absolutely NO DESIRE to purposely make any member look foolish so...PLEASE....do a bit or reading.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

YOU TOO!!!!!!

DO SOME READING AND LEARN BEFORE YOU POST ABOUT SOMETHING YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EDUCATION OR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Trev....they simply don't understand what they are posting.

I on occasion do some post graduate work at a world renown Massachusetts Higher Learning Institute where I was an Assistant Professor years ago.

This work is specific to Multiversal Theory and SPECIFICALLY.....how the existence of a Multiversal System explains all the quirks of Quantum Mechanics.

I have a Theory that is my own and it has been published and I believe that when we look at a few things going on at the Quantum Level it lends credence to the existence of a Multiversal System and Multiversal Theory is NOT M-Theory or the Many Worlds Theory as my Theory not only incorporates Infinite Divergent Universal Sates of our Universal System but as well Multiversal Theory has INFINITE NUMBERS OF BASELINE UNIVERSAL GROUPS of which our Universe is but one Universe of Infinite Divergent Universal Sates within ONE OF INFINITE IN NUMBER BASELINE UNIVERSAL GROUPINGS.

If you don't understand any bit of what I am stating please PM me and I will explain it in depth.

Now when we look at the Hadrons and look at the Quarks within all Protons and Neutrons these Quarks exists NUMERICALLY at and in between a Minimum an Maximum.

And as these Quarks change in number between this numerical minimum and maximum THEY BLINK IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE!!! But they NEVER exceed that numerical maximum or numerical minimum within those Hadrons.

WHY? WHERE ARE THEY GOING!!?? WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM!!!???

HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO DO THIS!!????????? AND WHY!!????????????????????

I think I have figured this out.

I believe...and I have run this by some of the absolute best in this field......that PROBABILITY.....is determining whether a Hadron has Quarks numerically at a minimum or maximum or in between.

From what I have so far come to understand there exists in a Multiverse an infinite number of you and me and lets say YOU are driving to work the same way you always do and a kid kicks a ball into the street and runs after it causing a traffic accident which results in YOU taking another route to work where you stop on your way to get coffee at a place you have never before been because you normally don't drive that way to work and the girl who serves you coffee is interested in you and eventually you both get married and have kids.

NOW.....what is the exact determining factor that drives all this?

Well...there could be many but in this case we will say that just before the kid is about to kick the ball is that exact point where there exists a beginning point for a REALITY BRANCH to occur off your Baseline Reality.

The reason you met that girl and married her was because you had to drive a different route and the reason that happened was because of the accident which only occurred because the kid ran into the road after the ball so depending upon whether the kid get's in a good or bad kick determines this specific LIFE BASELINE REALITY as is described here.

The kid could kick the ball perfect or perhaps the kids Dog barked distracting him and he kicks it into the garage or perhaps because another kid the day before laughed at him and said he kicks like a girl causes the kid to kick the ball too hard resulting in the ball going across the street and the kid running after it and then the accident which brings you to the coffee shop to meet your future wife?

What I believe is happening is based upon PROBABILITY.....those Quarks are filling the Hardons in all effected matter and energy...ie YOU and all the cars and the kid when he kicks the ball across the street and within your future wife and all matter and energy existing in such a cascade reaction at or close to Maximum if it is a High Probability.

If it is a LOW PROBABILITY....that being that a SOCCER COACH of Manchester United just happens to be passing by at the time the kid kicks the ball and if by chance the kid gets in the best kick of his life which results in that coach seeing that kick as he drives by and stopping to talk to the kids parents and then helping the kid to become a Multi-Millionaire eventually and playing for Manchester United....although such a thing is Highly Improbable it is NOT impossible thus a very tiny number of Hardons will have above minimum numbers of Quarks.

If it was some Elementary School Coach the numbers of Quarks would be more toward the middle.

If no coach was passing by that Reality and any matter or energy that could associate with it would have Hadrons with Quarks at Minimum.

Understand?

AboveAlpha

 

So you have read and learned and that reading and learning does not work for you? wow.