Scientific Proof Of The Existence Of The Soul (and God)

marcobiagini

In the following site:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
This analysis points out how the laws of physics prove that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial element. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain...” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
In the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions” you can find the answer to many typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.


Marco Biagini

Ph.D in Solid State Physics

Gurgle

Click me ye heretics

GuanYin

Wow, could I see a list of publications in peer reviewed journals and credentials including where and who you did your PhD with?

I would be interested in reading more of your work.

I must say I read the link you provided once and find several leaps of logic and poor assumptions.

Firstly and foremostly, I cannot see anything preceeding this comment

Hence, a non-physical element (the soul) must exist as the source of our consciousness and our psychical life.

That gives any suggestion, let alone proof that the specific source of consciousness is "a soul". At least not scientifically.

Furthermore your introduction into consciousness and concepts such as pleasure totally ignore biochemical reactions and the parallell with recreational drug use, which strange as it sounds has told us an awful lot about how the brain works and reward systems and association.

The development of the cerebral cortex and the genes governing it in primates compared to other animals is ignored and this is the primary phsyiological difference between us with intelligence/consciousness and "non-sentient" animals.

The electromagnetic fields you describe aren't cut and dry in ability, action or potential to our knowledge as anyone working in electronic evolutionary circuits will tell you.

I could probably spend hours picking holes in that passage from a scientific point of view if I re-read it a few times but I'm intereste din reading your other work before I bother.

stevenmu

That's a pretty bold claim you have there.

From a quick read, I can see that you have explained in a very elaborate way that science currently has no explanation for consciousness, or perhaps sentience is a better term. I fail to see how this leads you to the conclusion that there must be a soul to generate this effect ?

You refer to the fact that the laws of physics do not predict sensation or emotion as experienced by humans as opposed to animals and inanimate objects however it doesn't seem to have occured to you that the laws of physics are universally accepted as incomplete. You claim that no new theories can contradict the laws of physics however quantam theory contradicts Einsteins theories of relativity which were untill relativly recently accepted as physical laws. They had in turn contradicted Newtons laws which were the previously accepted laws. I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that once upon a time humanity considered the earth to be flat and to lie at the centre of the universe. By the way how can you claim that a human sensation of sight is in principle different to that of a dog, presumably you have no first hand experience ? Some animals possess extra senses on top of the ones we possess, such as echo-location in dolphins, does that imply they have a higher consciousness than we do ?

Personally I believe that in time science will discover the forces, energies and effects which create sentience. Currently biologists have discovered a way to measure the brain mass/complexity required to produce all the biological effects thought of as non-sentient, and they have developed a measurement, I can't remember exactly what it's called, the <something> quotient, which compares this to actual brain mass/complexity. Apes have an x quotient of between 1.7 and 2.5, dolphins are roughly 3.5 and humans are roughly 7. That seems to me to be the beginnings of a scientific theory in to consciousness.

FX Meister

So dogs and cats also have souls? Do they go to heaven too? Will I see my old pet Judy when I get there? Woopee!

stevenmu

FX Meister wrote:

So dogs and cats also have souls?

Sure, why not. Scientifically it's as likely as humans having them. If you take the OPs article into account then that's very likely.

FX Meister wrote:

Will I see my old pet Judy when I get there?

I'm afraid that depends on whether or not she was a good girl

Gurgle

FX Meister wrote:

Will I see my old pet Judy when I get there? Woopee!

Kinda depends on where you go too!

omnicorp

Let's not critiscise the poor fellow, ho Could be right, but then, he could be terribly wrong

stevenmu

Speaking for myself, I was only critical of his claim to have scientific proof of the existence of the soul when actually all he really had was a ramble about how science can't (currently) prove that there isn't a soul. I can't prove that you murdered Col. Mustard in the Living Room with the Candelstick, but that doesn't mean that you didn't It's pretty annoying when people try to use scientific terminology and flashy credentials to confuse people into thinking they must be right. From what I remember of his "proof" he seemed like he did actually understand what he was saying but drew a completly invalid conclusion from it all.

SkepticOne

Agree with stevenmu. Just because current science can't explain something doesn't allow you to draw arbitrary conclusions. He does argue, however, that physical theories can't explain sentience regardless of future developments, but even this (whether you agree or not with it) doesn't imply his conclusions.

But the argument that scientific explanations of sentience are impossible could be done in a much more direct manner. A lot of the scientific detail in the article is unnecessary, imo, to establish a fairly straightforward point.

Gurgle

SkepticOne wrote:

He does argue, however, that physical theories can't explain sentience regardless of future developments.

I'd imagine its related to some sort of critical neuron numbers equation.

It will probably be a case of sentience being scientifically defined for the first time based on studies of neuron densities / quantities.

Its never a good idea to write of future developments as impossible. Thats why they're called developments.

SkepticOne

I certainly wouldn't predict that science won't explain sentience, but there are good arguments to suggest that it can't be done in a satisfactory way. Even if it is the case, however, that science as it is currently understood will never properly explain sentience, this is simply a critique of science. It doesn't imply that sentience is not part of the normal natural everyday world.

omnicorp

SkepticOne wrote:

I certainly wouldn't predict that science won't explain sentience, but there are good arguments to suggest that it can't be done in a satisfactory way. Even if it is the case, however, that science as it is currently understood will never properly explain sentience, this is simply a critique of science. It doesn't imply that sentience is not part of the normal natural everyday world.

I think he's saying that Science CAN'T disprove the existence of God.

SkepticOne

omnicorp wrote:

I think he's saying that Science CAN'T disprove the existence of God.

Well, in his conclusion he writes:

"This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved."

He is making a much stronger statement than merely that science can't disprove the existance of God.

omnicorp

OK, but if they can't find out how the Brain works, does that mean that they KNOW something?
If I didn't know how a leg worked, couldn't I say that God made it work with a Soul?

SkepticOne

omnicorp wrote:

OK, but if they can't find out how the Brain works, does that mean that they KNOW something?
If I didn't know how a leg worked, couldn't I say that God made it work with a Soul?

I don't think it is a valid logical conclusion, but you are free to say it and believe it.

Rabies

FX Meister wrote:

So dogs and cats also have souls? Do they go to heaven too? Will I see my old pet Judy when I get there? Woopee!

Of course they go to heaven. Have you not seen the movie?

omnicorp

they might do, yet they might not.
If you need to have a soul to go to heaven and if the soul is free will, then the answer is that we don't know. Know one can say whether or not an animal has free will

Manach

The was an interesting book review in this month's Scienctifica America "The God Gene : How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes". The book's premise being that there is a specific set of genes hardwired into certain people to make more prone to beliefs without any corresponding evidence. It's an interesting theory but the reviewer summary was that it was too soon to speculate.

omnicorp

interesting, Science does come up with strange things like, judging a persons character by the shape of there head.
That was a science, of sorts, at one time