Hi All
I have seen many religious guys in these forums use all kinds of just or unjust reasons to prove that evolution is not true. I don't really understand their logic. It seems that this is the new form of idol worshiping where the religion itself becomes the idol instead of true God. This is despite the fact that we expect religious people to behave more reasonably and more justly than other non-religious person. At least this is what they claim and the current situation in the forums prove that they are far from it. If you are religious you are bound to be just and investigate the situation carefully without any prejudice and bias.
On the other hand, non-religious people also seem to be lost. They are claiming that they don't believe in any religion but in fact they are more dogmatic than religious guys as they adapt a total positivist approach with skepticism to everything from ground up. They truly represent a new kind of religious extremism that is called atheism!
I think on the overall if everybody try to be in the middle ground both religious and non-religious people can learn from each other. Dogmatism is not good under any flag.
Following is a logical proof that I think will prove a conscious originator. Remember this is not a proof for God of religious people!
1- In philosophy we have a concept which is called 'necessary truth'. 'Necessary truths' are true in all possible worlds in all times. One basic example is 1+1=2 or ~(~A)= A (two negatives will give you positive effect)
2- Assumption is that physical world can't create the concept of 'necessary truth' but these are only abstract ideas that exists only in a conscious mind. For example assume that there is absolutely nothing in the universe except one cube and one ball. They by themselves have no meaning. But if I ask you 'how many things do exist?' you would say 2. In this case you factored out dissimilarities of the two things and then count each and summed them and gave the answer. If I ask you 'how many cubes do exists?' you would answer one. In this case you recognize dissimilarities and selected the right object for your calculations. If there is no mind, there is no calculation and no abstract concept. Just simple existence of two things.
3- Abstract concepts doesn't need physical reality to exist. In other word, in the previous example assume that in reality we don't even have the cube or the ball available. I can ask you to imagine one cube and one ball and do your summation based on them. So physical reality is not needed to work out any abstract concept including 'necessary truths'
4- Law of physics are based on mathematics and mathematics is based on logic and 'necessary truths'. In other words, laws of physics can't exists unless 'logic' exist before it.
If you consider all above statements we have following:
Laws of physics depend on mathematics which depends on logic which in turn depends on necessary truths and abstract concepts which depends on a conscious mind.
Therefore, for laws of physics to exist, we need to have a continuous mind in existence before it.
Now all atheist agree that there should be at least a single originator or uncaused cause. This uncaused cause happen to be there and there is no reason for its existence. Only they assume that uncaused cause is a simple form of matter or energy with no conscious and no plans or goals. Their reasoning is that having a God would be far more complex than any existence and it should have a cause.
The fact is that there is no proof for 'conscious mind' to be complex. In fact we don't know still what consciousness is. But based on the above proof. Mind should be simple so it can exist before anything else.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add some more blank lines.
™ Version 4.2