Easy proof for Inteligent Design

Hi AllI 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.

The answer to above argument is that without mind even the question, can't exist! This is a paradox that people usually fall in at this stage. When there is no mind, you can't ask any question let alone talking about necessary truths. Also '1' and '+' and '3' don't exist. The cube and balls are just a bunch of atoms gather somewhere. You can't in anyway define any kind of relation. Because even their shape is recognized and named by a mind. Their identity also created by a mind. That's why you can't do anything without the mind. Even now when me and you are asking the question, this is the mind that imagines the whole universe without anything except two things. It freely travels back and forth in time and understand the question and analysis it. With no mind, everything would be just a bunch of mass or energy randomly scattered. Any relationship between them or between fundamental forces have no meaning. Edited by MrQ, : summerize

Having no meaning doesn't necessary mean ceasing existence. I don't know how did you come up with that?! There can be scattered random forces and energy and matter. But all are have no meaning. The point is they have to be random and true random!

I gave cube and sphere example for people to understand the concept. But if you see I clearly mentioned random mass. I didn't say electrons or protons. That means even atomic structures can't exist as they are not random. As you said it yourself, we have structures. When you talk about structures then automatically the role of mind and necessary truths comes in. To avoid confusion, please focus on necessary truths rather than physics for the moment. Edited by MrQ, : spell

What's that got to do with the argument I made?! We are focusing on necessary truths and its relationship with mind. Why quantum mechanics should be involved here?!

Just saying that necessary truth is necessarily truth is not the answer. We have to analyze and see what this statement means. How can it be that something that its necessarily is endorsed and workout by a mind its existence is not dependent on it? Just give me one example that these truths can exist before mind! Their existence are with their recognition. You see these are not material things. They are abstract concept. Abstract concept doesn't have any meaning without the mind and can't exist. If you don't believe it just give me an example. Give a necessary truth that doesn't need mind and can be created from random physical substance.

May be you are mistaking two simple obvious facts. I agree that as soon as mind exists then automatically logical truth exist. But because these two are so close together you are mistaking one and forgetting the other. People say it is a horse and cart example. But may be we are mistaking the horse and the cart with each other! Remember these kind of mistakes have happened in the history a lot. For example the notion of time assume to be a constantly increasing at a constant rate at all times. Later on relativity showed that in fact speed of the light is the true constant and everything else is calculated based on that. Classic scientists and philosophers had an illusion of a time being constant. In fact it very much appears to be like that. Even people have difficulty to understand it after reading relativity. Mind and logical truth are like that. As logical truth is the direct result of mind, you don't see mind any more! Very much like light of sun which causes the moon not be seen. That doesn't mean moon goes away. What if the reality is that statement itself?! Through physics we increasingly become aware that information plays a fundamental role in the structure of universe. Per our experience, information is created by mind. If you don't have it then you will only have random noise. The truth is the statement itself! Like for example 1+1=2 does not require anything in material world to exist to be true. But everything in material world depends on it. So 1+1=2 is a higher reality and truth than the physical world and its existence is a requirement for physics. Please hold this bit now for a moment in your mind. Now lets move on out of physics. Now if statement 1+1=2 is by itself truth then it components also should exists before it. But the statement and its components can't be recognized or exist with no mind. Therefore mind is higher reality than the statement itself and that will the true source of reality. Now if you go from bottom up, you will see everything falls into its place.For the same reason I can't show a logical truth that is not truth with no mind as if mind doesn't exist then no statement exist then you can't evaluate a non-existent statement to be true or false. Even true and false doesn't exist! So a mind is absolute requirement for these abstract realities to exist.So I answered your question but you didn't! My question was assume that there is no mind and we have a random soup of energy and mass in existence. How can you create a 'necessary truth' from it?Edited by MrQ, : spell

Did I use word human is any my posts?! By mind I didn't mean human mind. Some sort of mind.Tell me how reality uses logic?!!! What is reality?! From where did you get this? Also particles are structures which are build up on logical truths. So without mind the only thing you are allowed to have is a soup of energy or mass in a random mess. As I said I don't care about humans. There is! Higher reality is a reality that its existence doesn't depend on lower one. Ofcourse! That's why I said assume!

Ok, may be you should define truth. Assume we have a universe with no mind in it. Now, how do you define truth in that universe? You don't realize that how you are contradicting yourself! How can a statement exists in a universe without mind to be able to evaluate it? Statement is an illusion. Is an abstract thing. You simply can't have it with no mind. Are you saying that an abstract concept can't be real?! Are you saying that what I write here is not real but it is just some voltage fluctuations on your screen?! I don't want to get into physics now. But it is far deeper than that. When you have a mind in existence then that mind creates an statement then it can evaluate its logical value. Your problem is that you think that reality is only in physical world and nothing else. But the very definition of logical truth is that they are real and they are timeless. Just look it up in the wikipedia if you don't believe me. Logical truth are real and they are more real than physical truth. And reality means?! Ah! You see! So you even agree that you need to have a mind to create the logical truth! Therefore, logical truth doesn't exist with no mind. Now you are forcing that mind to be outside that universe. Well I am saying the same thing! I am saying a mind existed before that universe unless you won't and can't have logical truth.But my logical answer would be if we assume that there is a universe that there is no mind in it. Logical truth doesn't have any meaning or definition in that universe. Logical truth is a mind created phenomena. This was a joke really! What is 'true'?!!

Excellent point! Now why should reality be able to be described by logic? In other words, can a type of reality be illogical?! Like can a reality exist that in it 1+1=3?

Ok let me ask you another way. What is reality behind 1+1=2?The problem of people here is that they are so deeply in logical positivism that they don't realize they are certain things that can be real but not created from mass or energy. Logical truths are exactly those. They are real not because reality exist. They are real because of themselves and the mind that created them. If you have absolutely absolutely nothing, still they exist and they are real. 1+1 is always 2.

Ok so simply you think that matter and energy created the logic. This is the same for all people debating here. You all simply think 'matter and energy' created the logic and mind just discovers it. That is understood.Now, tell me how? If that's the case why then if we remove 'matter and energy' still 1+1=2?!!

No! Otherwise you will have nothing! By nothing I mean 'mass and energy'

Ok we are making some good progress here! So you mean 'necessary truths' are not actually truth and they are created by human mind. Is that true? Are you saying that 1+1=2 don't need to be true unless we exist? You didn't clarify what do you mean by mind. Human mind or some general mind? Where exactly this mind is located?

That's exactly what I claimed at my first post. There is another possibility that is more close to your views. That is the mind is part of the matter. If you claim that logic was with matter at first and then we human discover it then that automatically means that the mind is within matter as we can't have logic without mind. In any case what I am claiming is that there has to be definitely a mind at the creation time of the universe and not just after 13billion years. Otherwise everything falls apart.