Strong evidence of the existence of god?

Question

I know I have already asked this question in this format but they have been deleted I think it is a good question.
Observation plays a role in the first and fourth steps of the scientific
method. I think it is fair to say that consciosness must said to be a part of observation as it is the the starting and ending point of scientific observation.

(My belief)
god is primary/orginal consiousness as for further explaination I think we should as a whole be dedicated to finding that out.
The reason I believe this is as follows

1900>The Planck constant (denoted h) is a physical constant that is used to describe the sizes of quanta. It plays a central role in the theory of quantum mechanics.
1905-1915>The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, usually understood to state that every particle is described by its wavefunction, which dictates the probability for it to be found in any location following a measurement. Each measurement causes a change in the state of the particle, known as wavefunction collapse.
1925-1930>The Uncertainty Principle is now understood not so much as a consequence of trade-offs inherent in the measurement process, but rather as a property of quantum states, corresponding to the statistical properties of measurement in quantum mechanics.
1935>In quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox is a thought experiment which challenged long-held ideas about the relation between the observed values of physical quantities and the values that can be accounted for by a physical theory. "EPR" stands for Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who introduced the thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.
The EPR experiment yields a dichotomy. Either
The result of a measurement performed on one part A of a quantum system has a non-local effect on the physical reality of another distant part B, in the sense that quantum mechanics can predict outcomes of some measurements carried out at B; or...
Quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense that some element of physical reality corresponding to B cannot be accounted for by quantum mechanics (that is, some extra variable is needed to account for it.)
1964>Bell's theorem is the most famous legacy of the late physicist John S. Bell. It is famous for showing that the predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) are not intuitive, and touches upon fundamental philosophical issues that relate to modern physics. Bell's theorem states:
“ No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. ”
1978>Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment proposed by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978 (Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited by A.R. Marlow, Academic Press). Wheeler proposes a variation of the famous Double-slit experiment of quantum physics, one in which the detector screen can be removed at the last moment, according to a "delayed choice" of the observer, i.e. a choice made after the presumed photon would have cleared the midstream barrier containing two parallel slits. Behind the screen are two tightly focused telescopes, each one aimed to observe its own slit, and it is claimed that seeing a flash of light through one telescope or the other would detect by which path the photon traveled. According to the results of the double slit experiment, if we know which slit the photon goes through, we change the outcome of the experiment and the behavior of the photon. If we know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as a particle. If we do not know which slit it goes through, the photon will behave as if it were a wave. This wave-particle duality of photons (and in fact all quantum particles) is one of the fundamental mysteries of quantum mechanics.
1982-2007>Bell test experiments serve to investigate the validity of the entanglement effect in quantum mechanics by using some kind of Bell inequality. John Bell published the first inequality of this kind in his paper "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox". Bell's Theorem states that a Bell inequality must be obeyed under any local hidden variable theory but can in certain circumstances be violated under quantum mechanics. The term "Bell inequality" can mean any one of a number of inequalities — in practice, in real experiments, the CHSH or CH74 inequality, not the original one derived by John Bell. It places restrictions on the statistical results of experiments on sets of particles that have taken part in an interaction and then separated. A Bell test experiment is one designed to test whether or not the real world obeys a Bell inequality. Such experiments fall into two classes, depending on whether the analysers used have one or two output channels.(see also aspect experiment)
(my belief)
Today all of this reveals the importance of consciousness and how it relates to "physical reality" Which exists as only a probable non-local timeless state prior to observation, further to say that "physical reality" can or does exist prior to human observation necessitates a primary or original consciousness to make the observation/state collapse. Deeper still, the consciousness must be said to have a non-quantum/physical quality or you will reach infinite descent which is not possible in a quanta/physical reality as quanta are finite therefore at the end of the chain of physical obsevation there must exist a nonquantum quality to the nature of concsiousness for the obseveration of physical reality. So it is logical to either dismiss classical assumptions about empirical knowledge and a need to accept the non-quantum and primary consciousness aspects that are required of physical reality both prior to and existent after the evolution of other forms of consciousenss and also that physical reality is
dependent upon and to some extent determined by the primary/original and our own individal/self consciousness. We should shift to a a paradign that allows to explore the full of reality and not just the physical aspects of reality.

Answer 1

I like this version better. In order for you to assert the statement: All-Physical Reality is a non-local timeless state. Two things have to be true, actually two-sub-statements of your assertion.

1)Some-things of the class, 'physcial-reality' are a non-local timeless state.

2)None of the things of the class, 'physical-reality' are in a local-timeless state.

If these two-sub-statements are true then you can assert absolutely with reason:

All things of the class, 'physcial-reality' are a non-local timeless state.

See SophiaSeeker's response to an enquiry of the existence of Absolutes and how I solve this using Lewis Carroll's Logic. : And a much more tangible example you can perform at home, yes, in reality even:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071215092131AAXl30j

Answer 2

I have already answered this question in this format but it's has also been deleted.
It is a good question and could be answered in many ways.

Just looking around at the Q's and A's in R&S will point out the difficulty there is here.

I could play with words, I could quote many things, I could try to convince you of the Existence or Non Existence of an Omnipresence the creator of all things.
That would be easy! but long and unfruitful.

So I will just ask you a couple of question which may help you to find the answer you seek in your self for it is an endless task to understand the mind of all others.

Q,1 How would you describe the concept of God out the thoughts of any particular theory as the God, what would you say are the requirements for the job.

Q, 2 Setting aside the man god argument and thinking back to the moment before the first moment can you say with all honesty than that you know what was the first action which cause the reaction which caused the Big bang.
(Remember we can only go back to the moment after time began, we can not see the before!)

The problem is not do you believe in god it is do you believe in the generally described human concept of God)

What is a God?
Look at who people in the past and other cultures have thought about this!

The word used for unknown forces was and is often associated with the concept of God.

So if we say that God is just a word for the Unknown force which is responsible for the creation of all then in a way we can say God exists.
How you choose to dress the word is another question

Thanks, it was an interesting thought Experiment.

I hope that my answer is not offensive in anyway.

Have a happy partying and making merry day.

FTWR

Answer 3

The Copenhagen interpretation is under serious challenge and Einstein was biased because he could not go beyond the concept of deistic ultimate control.

Dissolve the box and the question ceases to vex. It becomes an open-ended adventure of exploration rather than a search for proof to justify transference and denial.

Answer 4

First I have since made a copy of that in my yahoo email and composed it to myself and sent it to myself so it would not be lost forever. Because that has happened to me before.


Okay in general I agree with the premise. But I think just by science leaving open the door for discussion already allows for your answer to be legitimate. Science does not close doors. Science breeds understanding which can only unlock and open them up.

Answer 5

You are erroneously presuming that consciousness is the end point of energy construction. Known universal energy construction progresses through levels of complexity, from let's say pre-photonic > photonic > particle > atomic > molecular > organic molecular > life > consciousness. Your error is consciousness-centrically presuming that the progression ends with consciousness level of complexity and therefore, a creator is consciousness and can be perceived through consciousness. There are more levels of complexity observable in reality that ensue the energy construction of consciousness. By objectively analyzing the similar mechanics with which energy ascends from all levels of complexity to the next level of complexity and extrapolating with those common mechanics onward from the level of consciousness, one can perceive the next objective level of energy and beyond, perhaps not comprehending those levels, but at least perceiving the general outline along which energy strives to evolve beyond consciousness. By objectively analyzing the entire course of energy rather than confining the exploration within consciousness-centrality and subjecting ourselves to the self-serving passion of consciousness divining itself, we may perceive more of what might be considered God. But, to presume to be able to prove the existence of a God through consciousness as a consciousness is as silly as inorganic matter presuming to have chromosomes.

Answer 6

There are many who do not need evidence for the existence of God and there are many who claim to have found a personal interactive relationship with God; they are called Christians for one class of people. Who am I to disagree with them? Those of the class who call themselves Christian also believe in the adage "Seek and ye shall find (God), knock and the door shall be opened (to the kingdom of God).

You seem to be seeking in earnest so I assume you will find God but wonder if you will be able to convince any who don't seek of that? Story of my life!

Good luck in your quest, good mental health, peace and Love!

Answer 7

Thomas Aquinas wrote many(philosophy) books trying to prove the existance of god, & is considered 1 of the greatest philosopher. How is it you think a few borrowed pages from science is going to be morelikely to convince people then what Aquinas did?
Personally I am suspicious of all people trying to 'sell' me on god.

Answer 8

It's amazing how much time and energy Faith can save, but Science is good for the soul.

Good luck!

Answer 9

The God of the gaps. Insert God here.

Answer 10

wow very interesting and seems like you have studied this and have the facts so i commend you for all your studying and getting the facts as you know them out..Thanks for sharing