Proof of God

[pocaracas]

Krauss has with him, the benefit of measurements corroborating that "quantum vacuum" actually does what he suggests.

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE “ENERGY.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE ENERG” that a quantum mechanical physical system may have;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its “LOWEST”-ENERGY STATE;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

1. LOWEST ≠ ZERO
2. What is the ORIGIN of that “LOWEST-ENERGY”?

I don't know.
Neither do you.
Speculating that some conscious entity did anything that sparked our universe is just that: speculation.
It's useless, it's stupid, it's a non-answer.
Go sell it somewhere else.

You have a god.... that does nothing, except hide behind the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge.
How do you expect me to accept your version over the Krauss'?

The trend of coining speculative hypotheses turn out to be popular in the last 100 years say, after Einstein has proposed his famous theories. Krauss is a newborn in this speculative business.

However, my point is that people like you cling to these speculative hypotheses because you see what you intend to see and your intention is “No God”. In hope that these speculative theories may somehow disprove the existence of God, you support speculative ideas of people like Krauss and Dawkins who use them as real facts against God. In doing so you totally underestimate the real scientific facts. For instance there is no one scientist whether theist or atheist, whose mind do not get boggled by looking at the universal constants.

How curious... and I was just talking about the speculation on the theists part...
At least, scientists know it's speculation.

Harris Wrote:
I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Pocaracas Wrote:
Because Krauss wanted you to stir people like you with that word.

What do you think is Krauss confident on the idea of multiverse?

Why don't we ask him?

---

---

At the heart of the matter, it seems to me that the brain is just a mechanistic organ - the mind generated therein is also mechanistic...
It's just that it's such a complex beast that we cannot hope to comprehend it without the proper tools... and, as of today, we do not possess such tools.
So, charlatans and mystics will go on convincing people that there's some great mind that requires no brain, so we can calm our own awareness of mortality.

It is an amazing fact that nearly all atheists blindly follow the idea that mind is the function of brain but not a single person knows how brain actually function.

Can you (atheist trust science) believe that “the complex beast” is the product of blind, unguided, process and “new complex beasts” are appearing in the world in millions every day, randomly, by chance, and without any governing laws. It is a total balderdash and absolute nonsense.

yeah... keep using those words... go on...

When you realize how a brain can come about through natural evolution, you'll know that yes, the complex beast can be a product of blind, unguided process. And it doesn't mean that fully functioning brains pop out of existence "randomly, by chance and without any governing laws". They still require a host, an animal, bred naturally.

If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.

“That means feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage … and … sleeping” are not responsible to keep you alive rather it is life responsible for your feeding, breathing, etc.

If life is responsible for all your activities then what life in fact is?

That was my original question.

Life is those activities.

A human is typically considered dead when he is brain-dead.
And brain death occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to keep working for about 5 minutes.
Without oxygen, the information that is carried through the synapses stops.
Simultaneously, the immune system stops working, so bacteria begin their relentless task of surviving by eating away at the human's fleshy bits.... and the body deteriorates.

The popular view is at the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds. Brain accumulate ischemic injury faster than any other organ. Full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare. Brain injury is therefore the chief limiting factor for recovery from clinical death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death

If all that is correct, then what do you say about the cases like David Binks who came back to life after being dead for 70 minutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...times.html

See how scientists are now inclined to think about life after death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...study.html

Daily mail? really? Anyway, I doubt his pulse was really out... could be very weak and imperceptible... the story is unclear on how it was determined that his heart was stopped.
If the hospital staff was trying to resuscitate the man after one hour, then they knew something that's not on that news story.
Sounds a lot like misdiagnosis, to me.

As for the telegraph... NDEs? really?
The N stands for "Near", so no dying is present there. No after-life... just this one.

Have you tried a dictionary?
pleasure: enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight.
sadness: affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful
delight: a high degree of pleasure or enjoyment; joy; rapture
Sense: a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body
What you want to say is that the actual sensations of those and other events are impossible to put into words, except through the usage of the words which have been made up purposefully for describing them.
e.g: yellow is the color of most of this smiley:

Natural human body is merely a physical tool for human perception. Devices that can simulate the functions of natural organs can perfectly substitute those organs in today’s scientific world. This is because faculties of hearing, sight, smelling, taste, touch, feelings of pleasure and pain, understanding, and emotions transcend the limits of fleshy human organs.

That is the reason people may be willing to ascribe entities such as computer’s and robot’s mental capacities such as “belief” or “knowledge,” but without flesh, people are reluctant to ascribe them capacities for pleasure or pain and for this reason people intuitively think of minds and flesh as distinct entities.

Maybe they won't be that reluctant within a few decades...

---

---

Harris Wrote:
Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

Pocaracas Wrote:
What? photons?
Why do photons exist, where do they come from? what are they made of?

Notwithstanding the uncanny nature of Quantum theory, scientists do know fundamental properties of photons. Unlike Gravitational Force, photons are the known agents of a cause that prompt an effect in any experiment that involves photons.

Have you heard of the Higgs Boson?

Harris Wrote:
So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

Pocaracas Wrote:
Science may, one day... it tries.
Religion knows nothing...

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Page 19
The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe
Dr Robert Jastrow

HAHAHAHA!!
Or not.

Harris Wrote:
I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

Pocaracas Wrote:
And you expect to be taken seriously?
It is known that our intuition is ill-equipped for the most basic questions of reality, and yet you wish to make use of it to answer some even more complex questions?
Grow up.

Science is the product of human logic. Human logic is not the product of science. Science cannot answer questions that raised out of human intuitions unless people would not design logical structure for the search of those answer.

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only INTUITION, resting on sympathetic understanding of EXPERIENCE, can reach them.”

Page 22
The World As I See It
Albert Einstein

Yep, some axioms are necessary.
That is a given.... your point?