Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button
Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login
Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Simple Questions For Alex...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mark on November 15, 2001 21:35:43 UTC

Do you know ALL possible arrangements of matter that can harbor consciousness? In other words do you know EXACTLY what can or can't be conscious based upon the particular type of matter that constitutes "its" 'body/brain'?

Do you know what the "laws of physics" were before there was ever created any "objects" (=matter/energy) upon which these "laws" are based? In other words, were there any mathematical relationships in nature (physical laws) before nature existed?

If "math" came prior to nature, and can give us a logical explanation for why there was a big-bang (creation of matter) in the first place... then upon what postulates was this "math system" derived? If there was no such "math blueprint" prior to the big-bang... then is it possible to "mathematically explain" (logically derive) how it could be that "nature created itself".

If there is a scientific explanation for everything... then surely you as a scientist can give a logical explanation as to how nature was created according to mathematical rules, when "mathematics" is supposedly a formal system based upon axioms (=assumptions) that had not yet existed prior to their own creation (by definition of the word "creation").

Is it possible that there are just some (even if VERY FEW) things out there that are simply not scientifically explainable?

How about this one... Please explain how it is that a formal system of logic can derive its very own foundation, and still remain self-consistent. Remember that it MUST remain self-consistent if it is to be given any validity in deriving "reality" or "truth" (afterall if it was inconsistent, then inherent self-contradictions would disallow it from being a theory of that which is possible, or in other words "real").

If it is impossible for "mathematics" to "scientifically explain" the origin of its own foundation... then is it not safe to say that "Postulate A" (The first "IF" in long chain of "IF-THEN"s), just happens to be one of those things that are not scientifically explainable?

Alex, you see how your strong religious beliefs (what you call "facts" and "science") hit a philosophical brick wall?

Now can you understand that people can't take you all that seriously when you say "there is a logical/scientific explanation for everything"? Can you see that based upon that false assumption... one cannot discredit the possibility of there being a "God" just because physics says other wise?

"Physics" can't even tell us whether or not "assumption A" really is true (or just mistakenly appears to be 'obvious'). Under these circumstances, I would be lead to say that YOU accept "physics" on faith because you cannot (and never will be able to) logically explain the existence of a foundation to mathematics. Therefore you cannot logically explain or discredit the existence of a higher power based upon your faith in "postulate A" (=chain of logic that derives physics). Your faith in physics is no more "right or wrong" than faith in God. You are under the illusion that it is you that knows the "ultimate truth" while it is the rest of us who are "primitively superstitious" and believe that perhaps WE ARE BOTH RIGHT in some ways...

Zeus doesn't throw thunder from clouds... but physics cannot, and never will give a mathematical explanation for the origin of a foundation for "math". Such an origin was either the result of creation... or creation was the result of that origin (math). Either way, they couldn't both have came "first", which begs the question of how the one that actually came first... DID! (??)

There can be no mathematical/scientific answer to at least one of two questions: "How was the universe created and where did it come from?" or "What is math and where did it come from?". One of the two must refer to the other; and so which ever one answers the other's question... cannot itself be answered (at least scientifically that is...).

Perhaps there is matter out there which can harbor consciousness that cannot be biologically explained. Perhaps this consciousness is capable of knowing its own existence and is also capable of knowing and enforcing "postulate A". Perhaps the reason that this being cannot be mathematically nor scientifically explained... was given above.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins