Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 98 by Razorsedge]

You are consciousness inhabiting a body.

But if I am shot in the head and declared medically deceased, my consciousness also vanishes. No one will ever hear from me again. "I" will have no influence on any event happening in the known universe, ever again ("I" being my consciousness, presumably, in your view). You can postulate that this isn't the case, that somehow my consciousness moves on to inhabit something else, but this has never been observed to happen at any level with any human or other animal, and there is no justification from a physical standpoint within all known science to expect such a thing to happen. There is simply no reason to accept this kind of scenario as valid any more than belief that a séance can result in communication with the dead.

I understand that many people believe consciousness is some special "thing" that is spiritual in nature, or exists as something not produced by the functioning of a complex brain. But what justification is there to accept that this is the case? It has never been demonstrated or validated and is only a claim without evidence. Questioning what constitutes evidence, and its interpretation, is the easy way out. If consciousness where something more than an emergent property of the brain there should be ways to test this and reveal at least some small pieces of evidence to support the idea. But I know of not a single example where a (confirmed) dead person has subsequently influenced, in any way whatsoever, any activity or event beyond their instant of death.

[mgb]

But if I am shot in the head and declared medically deceased, my consciousness also vanishes. No one will ever hear from me again. "I" will have no influence on any event happening in the known universe, ever again

How do you know this? You have never been fatally shot in the head. Some people are aware of the spirits of people who have passed on - I know, I know, 'deluded'. No need to remind me...


We don't go through life like calculating machines having to figure out everything mechanically. The mind does not work like that. We have an immediate way of knowing the world around us and reacting to it because our minds are conscious on a level beyond the physical senses. Through consciousness, knowledge can enter the mind directly. If we were just physical brains calculating everything everyday life would be hilarious. We'd all be behaving like Spock - to put it charitably.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 100 by mgb]

How do you know this? You have never been fatally shot in the head.

I haven't, but many other people have been, or have been killed via other means. And never once has there been a documented case of such a person continuing beyond the point of death, either in some physical way or any spiritual or nonphysical way that can be tested or observed in some way.

Through consciousness, knowledge can enter the mind directly.

What does this mean? The brain is a very complex organ with very complicated and (at present) poorly understood interactions between neurons, memory elements, etc. This complicated system is capable of creating consciousness, thought, etc. via these interactions, and of course receive sensory inputs via the 5 senses and use those to formulate responses (physical and mental).

I understand that "knowledge can enter the mind" through the senses (eg. hearing and seeing things being taught, and memorizing certain aspects, interpreting others to form understanding, etc.). But are you suggesting that knowledge can enter the brain via some other method that does not involved the 5 senses receiving inputs, and then the brain functioning normally to assemble and interpret this information, or formulate new ideas from it? That is, that there is some other method by which humans gain knowledge? How does that work?

[mgb]

Also science hasn't yet verified that mind is a property of the brain. But what it has verified with complete certainty, is that there is absolutely no evidence (or need) whatsoever to speculate otherwise.

Who are scientists to say people don't need to think otherwise? As for evidence; I have explained this. 'Evidence for' is concerned with how people assess the evidence around them. Some people look at the world and are convinced that there is evidence for God and spiritual reality. Some people draw different conclusions. Some people look at the world and reality and see 'evidence for' design. Some disagree. You are saying that what the evidence is for can only be interpreted in your terms and other people's terms don't count. That is nonsense. Some people say reality seems to be designed because it is designed; very often things are what they seem to be. Like the man said "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar." Materialists try to get around this argument by proposing the most preposterous and unlikely theories about the world that people can't accept because they go against our sense of how the world really is.

This is not an argument against science it is an argument against scientific speculation, theory. Sometimes theories are just wrong. Like phlogiston. You are saying there is no need to think differently because science has answered correctly. But that is just not true. Granted, science has got many things right but it has not answered or explained many things convincingly. You really need to admit that there are things that science does not know. And you have no right to pretend scientists know things they don't know and only speculate about.

Many theories (explanations) in science have been verified to be true.

That does not mean everything scientists believe is true. In science only what is proved is understood to be true. Theory is not explanation. Theory is about what may be the case or what people believe to be the case.

The brain is a very complex organ with very complicated and (at present) poorly understood interactions between neurons, memory elements, etc. This complicated system is capable of creating consciousness, thought, etc. via these interactions, and of course receive sensory inputs via the 5 senses and use those to formulate responses (physical and mental).

You say "is capable of creating consciousness" as if this is established scientific fact. But I have been at pains to point out that there is a difference between what 'is' demonstrably true and what is just a theory. That is part of the confusion with science; people don't discriminate between what is scientific fact and what is an article of faith: it is an article of faith that the brain produces consciousness. And no matter how many people vehemently believe this is true it won't be true until it is proved. And it is not proved. There are many things that scientists say and people think they are true because a scientist said it.

But are you suggesting that knowledge can enter the brain via some other method that does not involved the 5 senses receiving inputs, and then the brain functioning normally to assemble and interpret this information, or formulate new ideas from it? That is, that there is some other method by which humans gain knowledge? How does that work?

I am saying that the mind is conscious beyond the five senses. Knowledge can, through the mind's awareness, enter the mind directly. The mind can know by direct experience that bypasses the five senses. The mind can see.

The five senses are only a physical imitation of consciousness. They are the means by which the mind experiences physical reality. The mind needs these additional senses if it is to partake fully in the physical world. The physical world is like a physical 'virtual reality' that the mind needs to evolve. Just like a trainee pilot in a simulator as a preparation for real flying.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 102 by mgb]

But I have been at pains to point out that there is a difference between what 'is' demonstrably true and what is just a theory.

The "just a theory" phrase is often thrown out by nonscientists to suggest that something is only a guess or hypothesis. A "theory" in science means that a hypothesis that has been put forth has realized enough observational and experimental evidence to support it that it becomes a formal theory. It is as close to fact as it gets in science. A theory, in science, is not the same as a hypothesis.

That is part of the confusion with science; people don't discriminate between what is scientific fact and what is an article of faith.

They do if something has transitioned from the hypothesis phase to the theory phase. If it is still in hypothesis phase then it hasn't been shown to be correct, but when it reaches theory stage then it can be assumed that sufficient evidence and support for the hypothesis has been accumulated to believe that it is no longer "an article of faith" or a guess, but essentially proven. You are talking as if people just believe all things science produces with nothing more than blind faith.

it is an article of faith that the brain produces consciousness

No ... it is the observation that nothing without a brain exhibits consciousness. This strongly suggests that the two are correlated. But as you say this correlation, alone, does not prove that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However this can be combined with the giant body of research into how the brain works in humans, how brains developed from simple ganglia to simple brains, to more complex brains and the capabilities of those animals, all the way to human brains and our capabilities in terms of intelligence. This massive amount of information, cumulatively, suggests that consciousness is indeed an emergent property of the brain. No other hypothesis has anywhere near as much evidence, or makes as much practical, common sense (ie. from a parsimony or Occam's razor argument, which is not proof of anything but not incompatible with consciousness being emergent).

I am saying that the mind is conscious beyond the five senses. Knowledge can, through the mind's awareness, enter the mind directly. The mind can know by direct experience that bypasses the five senses. The mind can see.

And to this I could respond with your same criteria:

"And no matter how many people vehemently believe this is true it won't be true until it is proved. And it is not proved. There are many things that scientists say and people think they are true because a scientist said it."

You've made a statement, but not offered any support for it other than that you said it (replace the word scientist with mgb). I would argue that the experimental support for consciousness being an emergent property of the brain is orders of magnitude greater than any other hypothesis put forth to date. Am I wrong?

[Divine Insight]

Who are scientists to say people don't need to think otherwise?

Scientists aren't concerned with what people think. They can see that there are no valid reasons to postulate that the a mind is anything other than the result of brain activity. Other people's opinions are totally irrelevant.

As for evidence; I have explained this. 'Evidence for' is concerned with how people assess the evidence around them.

In the sciences you need to justify your conclusions. It's not open to mere opinions that have no rational basis.

Some people look at the world and are convinced that there is evidence for God and spiritual reality.

But they haven't been able to make a credible compelling case for this. All of their arguments fail miserably. And can be shown to be inadequate.

Some people draw different conclusions. Some people look at the world and reality and see 'evidence for' design.

And those arguments have failed. Oh sure, religious preachers are able to convince naive people that there are good reasons to think that things have been purposefully designed. But the scientists have already demonstrated why that isn't true.

So scientists are basing their conclusions on facts, while the theists keep beating on irrational superstitious conclusions.

Some disagree. You are saying that what the evidence is for can only be interpreted in your terms and other people's terms don't count. That is nonsense. Some people say reality seems to be designed because it is designed; very often things are what they seem to be. Like the man said "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar." Materialists try to get around this argument by proposing the most preposterous and unlikely theories about the world that people can't accept because they go against our sense of how the world really is.

This is a failed argument. Evolution explains precisely how everything we see around us has naturally evolved.

Are their religions that cannot be refuted by the truth of evolution? Yes. But Christianity and all of the Abrahamic religions are not among them. The only regions that are still viable are religions that embrace and recognize that everything in this world evolved to be the way it is via natural processes.

Can science refute a religion that says that some God created the universe at the Big Bang to evolve naturally to become what it is today. No it cannot. But that's not the Abrahamic picture of a God.

This is not an argument against science it is an argument against scientific speculation, theory. Sometimes theories are just wrong. Like phlogiston. You are saying there is no need to think differently because science has answered correctly. But that is just not true. Granted, science has got many things right but it has not answered or explained many things convincingly. You really need to admit that there are things that science does not know. And you have no right to pretend scientists know things they don't know and only speculate about.

They aren't speculating when they simply point out that there is no need to speculate that there needs to be a non-material spiritual mind that operates a brain via remote control. There is simply too much evidence against that proposal.

This proposal that a human brain is just a remotely controlled biological computer that some non-physical spirit is remotely controlling is, quite frankly, absurd. Yet that is precisely what you are proposing. Without any good reason or evidence. You're only motivation to propose necessarily stems from your desire to believe that an ancient religious mythology might be true. A mythology that itself is filled with extreme self-contradictions and extreme absurdities. The particular religion that you support describes a jealous God who necessarily has personally character trait flaws far worse than what we could consider to be criminal if a human behaved the same way.

So not only are you arguing absurd speculations for how a brain might work but you are basing those absurd speculations on an even more absurd religious theology.

Many theories (explanations) in science have been verified to be true.

That does not mean everything scientists believe is true. In science only what is proved is understood to be true. Theory is not explanation. Theory is about what may be the case or what people believe to be the case.

Evolution is not a "theory". Yes, we do have "theory of evolution". But that theory is simply an explanation of how evolution works. As it turns out, that explanation is indeed correct and have been verified to be correct. Therefore not only is evolution true, but the theory of evolution also happens to be verified.

An so the development of a brain has been explained. The idea that we should now need to introduce an idea of a non-material spirit that is remote controlling the brain is simply superfluous.

Also, how would you then explain how animals operate? According to your "spiritual speculation" there would need to be a non-material spiritual ghost that remotely controls your dog, or cat, or any another animal.

Your "spiritual speculation" becomes unnecessarily complex, not unlike Ptolemy's epicycles to try to explain an earth-centered universe.

You'd even need to have non-material spiritual ghosts remotely controlling bees and mosquitoes, etc. Otherwise how could you explain how their brains work?

Your arguments are simply not compelling in the least. They are clearly being made for one purpose and one purpose only - to try to support an indefensible ancient self-contradictory theology that has a jealous God behaving as immorally and unwisely as an unruly rebellion obsolescent.

You don't even have a theology worth defending.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 102 by mgb]

After your diatribe against science and evidence I am astonished to see you make this fantastic, unsupported claim:

I am saying that the mind is conscious beyond the five senses. Knowledge can, through the mind's awareness, enter the mind directly. The mind can know by direct experience that bypasses the five senses. The mind can see.

Perhaps you have the observations and evidence to verify this inventive notion, or was it dimply plucked out of the ether. It's one thing to refuse to acknowledge scientific explanations of phenomena, but it is another thing entirely to simply invent alternatives that have no supporting framework or structure.

[mgb]

Scientists aren't concerned with what people think. They can see that there are no valid reasons to postulate that the a mind is anything other than the result of brain activity. Other people's opinions are totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant? That is scientism. You seem to think that science is the only way to knowledge and I have shown you that it is not.

In the sciences you need to justify your conclusions. It's not open to mere opinions that have no rational basis.

I am not criticizing science I am saying that hypothesis are hypothesis, theories are theories and they remain so until they are proved. Two people can look at scientific evidence and come to different conclusions. This is normal, even in scientific circles.
Until something is proved, different hypothesis can have equal standing.

But they haven't been able to make a credible compelling case for this. All of their arguments fail miserably. And can be shown to be inadequate.

They don't fail 'miserably'. Theistic arguments are coherent. I'm not talking about any specific theology I am talking about evidence for God, in general. Just because they don't convince you doesn't mean they are wrong. You are not the final arbiter of these things.

And those arguments have failed. Oh sure, religious preachers are able to convince naive people that there are good reasons to think that things have been purposefully designed. But the scientists have already demonstrated why that isn't true.

Demonstrated? You must be joking.

This is a failed argument. Evolution explains precisely how everything we see around us has naturally evolved.

It doesn't. The theory of evolution is largely hypothesis and is full of cavernous holes. This does not mean evolution does not happen - it does - but the theory is woefully incomplete and has many technical problems. Even scientists don't agree among themselves as to how the theory could work. It is a long long way from 'explaining precisely' how 'everything' works: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1551

This proposal that a human brain is just a remotely controlled biological computer that some non-physical spirit is remotely controlling is, quite frankly, absurd. Yet that is precisely what you are proposing. Without any good reason or evidence.

There are plenty coherent arguments to support what I say. They may not convince you but you cannot say there is no 'good reason' or supporting evidence.

Evolution is not a "theory". Yes, we do have "theory of evolution". But that theory is simply an explanation of how evolution works. As it turns out, that explanation is indeed correct and have been verified to be correct. Therefore not only is evolution true, but the theory of evolution also happens to be verified.

The theory is correct in that it states species evolve. It is also correct in its basic description of Natural Selection but it is far from 'explaining' many things and is beset with technical problems.

Also, how would you then explain how animals operate? According to your "spiritual speculation" there would need to be a non-material spiritual ghost that remotely controls your dog, or cat, or any another animal.

Yes. But it is not 'remote control'. Biological creatures are the means spiritual beings have of experiencing physical reality.

After your diatribe against science and evidence I am astonished to see you make this fantastic, unsupported claim:

Where is my diatribe against science? I have been reading science since I was a young teenager and I know the difference between scientific fact and theory, between hypothesis and speculation, between scientism and science fiction. Science is one thing, the philosophy that grows out of it is another. What science is and what science means, in broader terms, are not the same thing.

[Divine Insight]

Irrelevant? That is scientism. You seem to think that science is the only way to knowledge and I have shown you that it is not.

You have not show me that science is not the only way to knowledge. Science is knowledge that can be known from observation and experience. You have not shown that any knowledge can be had that is divorced from observation or experience.

Science is all we have. There is no other path to knowledge.

In the sciences you need to justify your conclusions. It's not open to mere opinions that have no rational basis.

I am not criticizing science I am saying that hypothesis are hypothesis, theories are theories and they remain so until they are proved. Two people can look at scientific evidence and come to different conclusions. This is normal, even in scientific circles.
Until something is proved, different hypothesis can have equal standing.

That's fine. But there is no other rational conclusion to be had concerning that mind arises from brain. To suggest that it "might not" is not a conclusion. To the contrary it's wild uncalled for speculation that has no basis in anything meaningful.

But they haven't been able to make a credible compelling case for this. All of their arguments fail miserably. And can be shown to be inadequate.

They don't fail 'miserably'. Theistic arguments are coherent. I'm not talking about any specific theology I am talking about evidence for God, in general. Just because they don't convince you doesn't mean they are wrong. You are not the final arbiter of these things.

This has nothing to do with me. Theistic arguments are not coherent. You can hardly proclaim that there is an invisible non-material mind that is remotely controlling physical brains in humans and call that wild speculation 'coherent'. It's not.

It's certainly not a coherent explanation of what's going on because you have no explanation for how a supposedly non-material mind could exist or be conscious. So you have nothing coherent at all. I could have never been born and your position would still be incoherent.

And those arguments have failed. Oh sure, religious preachers are able to convince naive people that there are good reasons to think that things have been purposefully designed. But the scientists have already demonstrated why that isn't true.

Demonstrated? You must be joking.

They have demonstrated how everything can evolve from the natural properties of the constituents of this universe without any outside intervention. Apparently you need to be in denial of this in order to continue your argument.

This is a failed argument. Evolution explains precisely how everything we see around us has naturally evolved.

It doesn't. The theory of evolution is largely hypothesis and is full of cavernous holes. This does not mean evolution does not happen - it does - but the theory is woefully incomplete and has many technical problems. Even scientists don't agree among themselves as to how the theory could work. It is a long long way from 'explaining precisely' how 'everything' works: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1551

These amount to nothing more than "God of the Gaps" arguments. Sure, scientists still have a lot of details to work out, but that hardly supports the need for a magical intervening God who has to reach into the universe in order to push things around to violate the natural laws of physics.

Not only this, but think of what this would mean for your theology. You would need to propose a God who wanted to design a universe that could sustain life, but had failed to do so to the point where he needs to reach into the universe physical and violate his very own laws of physics in order to make things happen. This also create extreme theological problems because if this were the case then your God would be 100% personally responsible for every genetic defect. So this argument doesn't work for theists.

Also, we're you previously arguing that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. Now you are arguing that it's not and that some supernatural God needs to consciously reach into the universe and push things around in violation of the natural laws in order to get things done the way he wants them to be. So your arguments are self-contradictory.

Finally, scientific ignorance of precisely how every detail works is not evidence for supernatural intervention. It's only evidence that science hasn't yet explained every minute detail of every possible process. That's not sufficient reason to jump to a conclusion that supernatural intervention must then be required.

Actually if supernatural intervention is required for any step in these natural processes, science WILL eventually discover this. So if you think that's going to be the answer, just sit back and wait for science to discover that truth. In the meantime proclaiming that this will happen is premature.

This proposal that a human brain is just a remotely controlled biological computer that some non-physical spirit is remotely controlling is, quite frankly, absurd. Yet that is precisely what you are proposing. Without any good reason or evidence.

There are plenty coherent arguments to support what I say. They may not convince you but you cannot say there is no 'good reason' or supporting evidence.

But I can say that you have not provided any coherent arguments. Let's not forget, this isn't about me at all. Apparently you can't convince the entire scientific community save for perhaps a few "scientists" who are themselves religiously biased. But let's face the truth here. Even those religiously-biased scientists aren't able to convince the scientific community as a whole.

So this has nothing to do with me or my opinions. I could have never been born and everything I'm saying here would still be true.

Evolution is not a "theory". Yes, we do have "theory of evolution". But that theory is simply an explanation of how evolution works. As it turns out, that explanation is indeed correct and have been verified to be correct. Therefore not only is evolution true, but the theory of evolution also happens to be verified.

The theory is correct in that it states species evolve. It is also correct in its basic description of Natural Selection but it is far from 'explaining' many things and is beset with technical problems.

It's not beset with technical problems. There are simply many minute details that have not yet been fully explain. Just because they haven't yet been fully explained does not mean that they are "technical problems".

And again, a process of evolution that requires the conscious intervention of a supernatural entity introduces extreme "technical problems" into any theology.

This would require two major problems with any theology.

1. The God would instantly need to be less than omnipotent or omniscient since he would have designed a universe that cannot do on its own what he originally wanted it to do so that he would then later need to fight against his own universe by intervening manually in the process at extreme molecular levels.

2. And now since it has been established that God's personal manual manipulation is required for these detailed molecular arrangement and binding of molecules, then every genetic defect would need to be God's doing. Either by error in his own works, or (God forbid) and intentional act of malice on the part of God himself.

So these kind of arguments that our universe needs to be guided by supernatural intervention on the genetic or molecular level actually lead to extremely problematic theologies that require that their supernatural God is either inept, or malicious.

So these types of theological arguments don't hold water.

The only theological arguments that could stand would be arguments of Eastern Mystical religions and 'Deism" where a Creator God created a universe that does indeed evolve on its own without the need for any further intervention.

But those types of theologies would actually embrace evolution, not try to renounce it.

Also, how would you then explain how animals operate? According to your "spiritual speculation" there would need to be a non-material spiritual ghost that remotely controls your dog, or cat, or any another animal.

Yes. But it is not 'remote control'. Biological creatures are the means spiritual beings have of experiencing physical reality.

But it would still be 'remote control'. Unless you are saying that the physical brain is capable of making all its own choices and decisions. But if that's the case then where is there any need to postulate a non-physical mind? You'd already have everything required right there in the physical brain.

After your diatribe against science and evidence I am astonished to see you make this fantastic, unsupported claim:

Where is my diatribe against science? I have been reading science since I was a young teenager and I know the difference between scientific fact and theory, between hypothesis and speculation, between scientism and science fiction. Science is one thing, the philosophy that grows out of it is another. What science is and what science means, in broader terms, are not the same thing.

But you seem to be unable to recognize the problems associated with your own theological speculations.

As I have already pointed out, you'd need to have a creator who was incapable of creating a universe that can automatically do what he wanted. So you need to propose a limited creator who is quite limited in what he can create.

And then on top of this, since you require that your creator must necessarily reach into the universe and guide molecules and genetics manually, you're then instantly stuck with a God who either makes a lot of mistakes, or does bad things on purpose and is therefore malicious in his designs. Every genetic defect would then be this God's personal doing.

You don't seem to be considering the flaws in your own theological model of this intervening God.

[Divine Insight]

@mgb,

What do you call this mgb?



Should we call this an accident of nature?

Or is this the intentional work of an intervening God who purposefully manipulates genes on a molecular level?